Stanley Lord guilty as charged

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
283
14
18
Usa
But that is of little consequence because his first attempt ... his written affidavit to Lord, given before he ever expected to be grilled in public, almost matches that of Apprentice Gibson.
Actually Mr. Gibson’s relative bearings match perfectly with Mr. Stone’s compass bearings except there is a problem.
Mr. Gibson testified he came back to the bridge at 12:55 a.m. At that time Mr. Stone told him that he observed some
rockets and contacted the Master at 1:15 a.m. This means that Mr. Gibson came to the bridge at least 20 minutes later
than he said he did.

It appears that Mr. Stone and Mr. Gibson worked on their affidavits together and this is the reason
for the perfect match of the bearings they took.
In any case, IMO Mr. Gibson’s observations in regards of the bearings do not appear to be reliable
because his timing was wrong.
I’d like to hear your opinion, Jim.
 
May 3, 2005
2,232
170
133
Just checking back and noting that this discussion has been going on for nearly six years now.
Probably some others might or might not be of the same opinion , but IMO it all boils down to " If any thing , Lord is guilty of not informing his officers to use other means of trying to contact the ship that was firing the rockets, such as the wireless.
Or the Californian's Officer was guilty of not thinking of that by himself.
Or of course I am guilty of looking at this from a 21st Century view point and of course " You weren't there !"
And here we are with seemingly no end in sight.:rolleyes:
 

Mike Spooner

Member
Jan 31, 2018
727
113
53
Bob, Thanks for the: 1992 the British Marine Accident Investigation Board report.
Makes interesting reading. As I can some of the points 80 years later on still leaves un answers questions?
However before I put my foot into I would like some opinion from the experience seamen or others who have been with ET longer than me, what do they think of the 1992 Investigation report to?
The one thing that is difficult to follow for a non seamen. Is when longitude and latitude positions are mention with no shown map.
There may be a general map shown at the end of the report. But I think it would make it more clearer if show when under discussion.
The one thing I have notice how very different inquiry where conducted in 1912 as today transport disasters. Where months if not years of investigation will take place before the start of an inquiry. Perhaps that was the major down fall of Titanic inquires the lack of investigation that took beforehand, where the inquires landed up been nothing more than an half baked tempt for the real truth.
So not only the Board of Trade, Rules of the Road and ship safety issues were years out of date. But it would appear in the way a disaster inquire was conducted in 1912, were also years out of date to!
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,007
619
213
Funchal. Madeira
Actually Mr. Gibson’s relative bearings match perfectly with Mr. Stone’s compass bearings except there is a problem.
Mr. Gibson testified he came back to the bridge at 12:55 a.m. At that time Mr. Stone told him that he observed some
rockets and contacted the Master at 1:15 a.m. This means that Mr. Gibson came to the bridge at least 20 minutes later
than he said he did.

It appears that Mr. Stone and Mr. Gibson worked on their affidavits together and this is the reason
for the perfect match of the bearings they took.
In any case, IMO Mr. Gibson’s observations in regards of the bearings do not appear to be reliable
because his timing was wrong.
I’d like to hear your opinion, Jim.
Hello Alex.

In fact, Gibson's report to Captain lord differs in one very important way. It concerns the timing of Stone's first rocket sighting report to captain Lord.
Stone said he made his first report after the 4th positive sighting. Whereas, Gibson reported that Stone told him he reports to Lord immediately after the first positive sighting. This is important in that it corroborates Lord's claim that he was told about a single rocket and knew nothing about the rest until it was all over and the nearby ship had sailed away.

Stone was doing what every Officer was and still is supposed to do...obeying orders from his Captain. He was taking continuous bearing od the nearby vessel. Gibson noted relative bearings of the vessel. None of them took bearings of the rockets per se.
As for Gibson's watch times?
Before going to bed, Watch Keepers usually altered their personal timepieces so that they would match the ship's clocks when they went on duty. Gibson went to bed in all innocence, never guessing for a moment that the ship would stop before Midnight when he was next on duty. If Californian had not stopped, then at Midnight, her clocks would have been set back by half the planned amount and when Stone went on Watch at that time, he would have set them back the remaining part of the planned set-back.
It seems that the normal practice on Californian was for the Apprentice to bring coffee up onto the bridge hen he turned-to. if so, before he went on the bridge, he would have set his watch back by the full or part of the planned change. In the case of Californian, this would have been 23 minutes. If Gibson had adjusted his watch then it would have been slow of ship's time by as little as 11 minutes or as much as 23 minutes.
However, there is a part of the times evidence which has been glossed over by many. 3/O Groves said he heard 1 bell being sounded at 11-40 pm. One bell is sounded to inform Watchkeepers that the Watches will change in 15 minutes it is not an indication of quarter-to a specific time. in this instance, it meant that Stone was due on the bridge when the watch of Groves showed 11-55 pm.

I am inclined to think that captainLord ordered the ship's clock to be set to the longitude of where they were stopped. To do that, the clocks would have had to have been set back 10 minutes.
 
May 3, 2005
2,232
170
133
This discussion about ship's time has been most interesting to me.

I don't know how it was with other Ratings in other Divisions on other Ships in other Navies , but all this setting of our personal watches back or forth as we crossed we crossed the ocean was something that never occurred to us. As I best remember the only time we used for reporting was from the clock on the wall (Oooops ! ....Bulkhead !) which always remains on GMT. We rarely kept logs and just passed notes or memos at the time we might have had a problem or incident and/or just made note of it verbally .

I think these discussions , especially those between Jim Currie and Samuel Halpern, must show just how '' non- reg '' our little gang must seem to them ! LOL

Thanks from this avid reader.
Keep up the good work !

The only thing I remember was about crossing the Date Line. You missed a week-day going one way and worked the same week-day twice going the other way. The rumor was that you always missed Sundays going one way and you always worked two Fridays in a row going the other way. LOL
 
Last edited:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,007
619
213
Funchal. Madeira
Bob, Thanks for the: 1992 the British Marine Accident Investigation Board report.
Makes interesting reading. As I can some of the points 80 years later on still leaves un answers questions?
However before I put my foot into I would like some opinion from the experience seamen or others who have been with ET longer than me, what do they think of the 1992 Investigation report to?
The one thing that is difficult to follow for a non seamen. Is when longitude and latitude positions are mention with no shown map.
There may be a general map shown at the end of the report. But I think it would make it more clearer if show when under discussion.
The one thing I have notice how very different inquiry where conducted in 1912 as today transport disasters. Where months if not years of investigation will take place before the start of an inquiry. Perhaps that was the major down fall of Titanic inquires the lack of investigation that took beforehand, where the inquires landed up been nothing more than an half baked tempt for the real truth.
So not only the Board of Trade, Rules of the Road and ship safety issues were years out of date. But it would appear in the way a disaster inquire was conducted in 1912, were also years out of date to!
Hello Mike.

As you probably know, there were 2 attempts at this. Both reports were politically motivated.

The MAIB in 1992 was its infancy and not very good at what it was supposed to do. The first report was farmed-out and was simply a re-hash of the findings of the original Inquiry.
The second report was a much better effort. It concluded that there was probably a third vessel between Californian and the Titanic. Where It fell short was in comparing what was seen from Titanic to what was seen from the Californian. i.e Boxhall's moving ship evidence.
It also completely missed the evidence of rocket sightings to the southward at 3-30am that morning. If that had been propperly considered using the facilities available to the authors at the time, I am positive they would have found that Californian was exactly where her master said she was when she stopped.
It is not popular in that it buries some of the sacred cows punted on this site...the Titanic turning north nonsense, for instance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Robert T. Paige

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
283
14
18
Usa
I have to say, the more I think about it, the more I'm having trouble with the "swinging" of the Californian's hull.

I can't get my head around what sustained that circular motion.

If Californian went from her normal cruising speed and stopped her engines, without backing them, then she would eventually drift to a halt until she would move in what ever direction the prevailing current took her.

We know from testimony that, at around 22:30 Californian time, Lord backed the engines and put the helm hard over. The ship turned and eventually came to a stop. At this point I understand she began to swing around on her axis at a rate of a degree a minute, which would complete a 360' turn in 6 hours.

I accept that there would be some momentum carried in the hull from the turn that would cause the ship carry on turning for a while however, any current acting on the hull would do so uniformly which would eventually null the swing in exactly the same way it would null the forward motion of a ship drifting to a stop.

Considering the laws of motion, conservation of energy and friction, I find the concept of the hull of the Californian swinging at a uniform rate for at least 4 hours from 22:30, quite difficult to accept and understand.
Not the Californian, but


The rate of the swinging was changing of course but no evidence suggests the Californian was swinging in retrograde.
I am not sure about “at least 4 hours”. At some point, she might have exited the eddy, in which she was drifting. Were there any testimonies about her heading for 4 a.m.?

Otherwise it is obvious what could have made the Californian to swing around. Not only the swinging but many other testimonies could be easily explained if one is to assume the Californian was drifting in an eddy.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,419
765
273
Chicago, IL, USA
What would have been the size of the eddy that Californian was caught swinging in? What was the direction of rotation? What could have caused the bearing to Titanic to shift from SSE to SW1/2W while causing Californian's head to swing around to starboard in a clockwise direction? How could Carpathia's rockets be seen in the SSW at 3:20am when she was coming up from the SE and about 10 miles from where Titanic foundered?

I think we all know what an eddy looks like. Just pull the plug of a sink filled with water and you set up an eddy flow around the drain as the water drains out. No big deal.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
283
14
18
Usa
What would have been the size of the eddy that Californian was caught swinging in? What was the direction of rotation? What could have caused the bearing to Titanic to shift from SSE to SW1/2W while causing Californian's head to swing around to starboard in a clockwise direction? How could Carpathia's rockets be seen in the SSW at 3:20am when she was coming up from the SE and about 10 miles from where Titanic foundered?

I think we all know what an eddy looks like. Just pull the plug of a sink filled with water and you set up an eddy flow around the drain as the water drains out. No big deal.
The size of the eddy could have been a few miles in diameter. It doesn’t really matter because the Californian could have entered and exited it at any point and there is no evidence that indicates she had completed the circle. The direction of the rotation was probably counter clockwise. As the Californian was drifting she eventually moved to the right of the Titanic. The bearing had changed. Of course bearing probably did not change for as much as Mr. Stone testified it did yet he should have noticed that the steamer he was watching moved to another side in regards to the Californian. This also explains why Carpathia’s rockers were seen SSW. By the time Mr. Stone saw them the Carpathia just passed the Californian. The swinging is the hardest part. There could have been some vortices inside the eddy, there could have been some sideway currents that could have made the Californian to swing the way she did. It is possible that the eddy that formed around the ice field was affected by tidal currents.

The video demonstrates how a leaf that is drifting in an eddy is changing it heading.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,007
619
213
Funchal. Madeira
Not the Californian, but


The rate of the swinging was changing of course but no evidence suggests the Californian was swinging in retrograde.
I am not sure about “at least 4 hours”. At some point, she might have exited the eddy, in which she was drifting. Were there any testimonies about her heading for 4 a.m.?

Otherwise it is obvious what could have made the Californian to swing around. Not only the swinging but many other testimonies could be easily explained if one is to assume the Californian was drifting in an eddy
A ship turns due to ship-benerated currents, not her rudder. If you don't believe me, have a look at www.marineinsight.com/naval-architecture/rudder-ship-turning/
For example, if the bow swings to the right, it displaces water as it does so. This displaced water has to go somewhere. In fact, it in-fills the hole in the sea behind the bow as it moves through it. As it does so, it creates a mini following current which acts on the bow and pushes it in the direction of swing... augmenting it. If there had been any edy current, this would have distorted the rate and direction of swing...it did not. If you haven't read the evidence before here it is:
"we were swinging all the time because when we stopped the order was given for the helm to be put hard-a-port, and we were swinging, but very, very slowly."
When a ship drifts or swings in flat calm conditions, and in still water, it is not only the bit under the water that is affected. The bit above it is also moving in the air. Because of this and because of the distribution of the superstructure on each side of the ship's center of Gravity, the ship will, in the case whereby the superstructure is located evenly on both sides of the C of G swing steadily in one direction. In any other set of conditions, it may swing eratically in any direction and at varying rates. If there had been a wind blowing or a current running in any direction that night, Californian's bow would not have been swinging as described above by her Third Officer.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
283
14
18
Usa
A ship turns due to ship-benerated currents, not her rudder. If you don't believe me, have a look at www.marineinsight.com/naval-architecture/rudder-ship-turning/
For example, if the bow swings to the right, it displaces water as it does so. This displaced water has to go somewhere. In fact, it in-fills the hole in the sea behind the bow as it moves through it. As it does so, it creates a mini following current which acts on the bow and pushes it in the direction of swing... augmenting it. If there had been any edy current, this would have distorted the rate and direction of swing...it did not. If you haven't read the evidence before here it is:
"we were swinging all the time because when we stopped the order was given for the helm to be put hard-a-port, and we were swinging, but very, very slowly."
When a ship drifts or swings in flat calm conditions, and in still water, it is not only the bit under the water that is affected. The bit above it is also moving in the air. Because of this and because of the distribution of the superstructure on each side of the ship's center of Gravity, the ship will, in the case whereby the superstructure is located evenly on both sides of the C of G swing steadily in one direction. In any other set of conditions, it may swing eratically in any direction and at varying rates. If there had been a wind blowing or a current running in any direction that night, Californian's bow would not have been swinging as described above by her Third Officer.
Have you just invented perpetual motion machine? I believe you but the objects in the video are changing their heading while they are rotating in an eddy and never go backward. I do not see why Californian could not have drifted in a similar way. Even according to the testimonies of Mr. Stone and Mr. Gibson the rate of the swinging was changing.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,419
765
273
Chicago, IL, USA
The video demonstrates how a leaf that is drifting in an eddy is changing it heading.
Precisely Alex. And if the eddy was rotating counter-clockwise to cause a shift in the bearings of Titanic and her rockets toward the SW, then Californian should have been swinging in the same direction like the leaf, but in the direction of the eddy rotation, opposite of what Californian witnesses stated.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
283
14
18
Usa
Precisely Alex. And if the eddy was rotating counter-clockwise to cause a shift in the bearings of Titanic and her rockets toward the SW, then Californian should have been swinging in the same direction like the leaf, but in the direction of the eddy rotation, opposite of what Californian witnesses stated.
I agree it isn’t easy to explain. However, take a look at this article


Real eddies have sideways currents. They could have caused the Californian to rotate clockwise.