Stanley Lord guilty as charged


Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,207
666
213
Funchal. Madeira
I din’t understand, what you meant, Jim. It appears he did not hear any communications between the two of them because there were none. It appears that he heard the very first communication between the Titanic and the Carpathia:

9459. What was it you heard then?
- I have got down here, "'Titanic' still calling C.Q.D. is answered by the 'Carpathia' and says 'struck iceberg come to our assistance.' Sends the position."

9460. Does that mean that you could overhear the "Carpathia" answering the "Titanic"?
- Yes.
[/QUOTE
Read the evidence in full, Alex.

Captain Moore received the first distress signal verbally form his W/O... it was not a communication but an overheard signal so was not logged.
However, at 10-25 pm EST...3-25 am GMT. the following wireless message was officially noted in the Wireless Log.
"Titanic sending C.Q.D. Answer him, but he replies: "Can not read you, old man, but here my position, 41.46 N., 50.14 W. Come at once. Have struck berg." Informed captain."

Not until 10 minutes later. at 10-35 pm EST...3-35 am GMT...and well into the distress... was the name of Carpathia mentioned:
"Carpathia answers M.G.Y. M.G.Y. says: "Struck iceberg; come to our assistance at once." Sends position.

In his evidence, the Operator on Carpathia stated that he became aware of the distress when he called up the Titanic. This means that although Titanic's Operator had been continuously belting out his CQD - SOS wireless call for help between contacts for about 20 minutes, the Carpathia man never heard him... despite claiming to have been listening for a call :
"Senator SMITH.:How did you happen to catch this communication from the Titanic?
Mr. COTTAM.: I was looking out for the Parisian, to confirm a previous communication with the Parisian"
Jim, what evidence?
Mila often films mirages of miraged ships that are located more than 20 - 25 miles away.
What on earth are you talking about?
Have you ever seen a mirage?

Unless Mila has radar or is in communication with the ships in question, she has no idea how far off the day-time distorted images are. At night, she would not know that she was experiencing unusual refraction unless she had radar or was able to time the passage of the image with reference to her own position. Otherwise, she could guess it in the way we always did... by reference to the barometer and wet and dry thermometers.

Apart from all this mirage rubbish, you and everyone else who promotes the Californian on Titanic port bow during the sinking story, should also be able to provide feasible answers to the following questions:

1: If those on Titanic could see Californian (for any reason- including a mirage) why was it that despite the use of three pairs of eyes and a pair of binoculars, and all this magical refraction, Californian was not seen right ahead before impact?
and
2: if Californian was North West of...and those on board her could clearly see... Titanic at the moment of impact , then at that time, she would have been 4 points on Titanic's starboard bow at. Why was she not seen in that direction at that time?

If you and/ or others cannot provide such answers , then you and they, must accept that Titanic never did swing to the northward and therefore there is no need for continuing to manipulate the evidence to fit a pre-conceived notion which was physically impossible in the first place.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
456
21
18
Usa
What on earth are you talking about?
Have you ever seen a mirage?

Unless Mila has radar or is in communication with the ships in question, she has no idea how far off the day-time distorted images are. At night, she would not know that she was experiencing unusual refraction unless she had radar or was able to time the passage of the image with reference to her own position. Otherwise, she could guess it in the way we always did... by reference to the barometer and wet and dry thermometers.

Apart from all this mirage rubbish, you and everyone else who promotes the Californian on Titanic port bow during the sinking story, should also be able to provide feasible answers to the following questions:

1: If those on Titanic could see Californian (for any reason- including a mirage) why was it that despite the use of three pairs of eyes and a pair of binoculars, and all this magical refraction, Californian was not seen right ahead before impact?
and
2: if Californian was North West of...and those on board her could clearly see... Titanic at the moment of impact , then at that time, she would have been 4 points on Titanic's starboard bow at. Why was she not seen in that direction at that time?

If you and/ or others cannot provide such answers , then you and they, must accept that Titanic never did swing to the northward and therefore there is no need for continuing to manipulate the evidence to fit a pre-conceived notion which was physically impossible in the first place.
Jim, Of course Mila knows the approximate and sometimes the exact distance of mirages she sees.
Here's Google map that shows the distance between San Francisco and Farallon Islands lighthouse. As you see it is 27 miles (23.5 nautical miles)
1581193829036.png

And here is Mila's video of the miraged Islands and the light of the lighthouse


Notice that the whole Island is visible and notice how high the light is above the horizon.

Also see here Superior Mirage of Farallon Islands - EPOD - a service of USRA

Under Super refraction conditions one could see objects that are located 50-60 miles away.

To respond your question. Mila believes and I agree with her that Californian's navigational lights were not as bright as the Titanic's lights were. They became visible as the ships approached each other while drifting in different sets of currents.
 
Last edited:

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,086
490
93
South Wales UK
Hi AlexP,

That was a most interesting article by Lawrence M Wyner, which I am grateful for you posting on here, and which I read with great interest.

Really, for such an assessment to be valuable and informed, Captain Lord's GP records (in the UK our 'family Doctor' under the NHS, and in Captain Lord's case, also prior to the existence of the NHS in 1946/7) ought to be considered and assessed - rather than what is stated on his death certificate.

Given Captain Lord's old age when he died (84 years of age), renal failure is not uncommon, and to suggest that this was a pre-existing condition 50 years beforehand in 1912, requires a degree of questioning and further examination.

You might like to consider the Edward Kamuda correspondence with Captain Lord's son which describes Captain Lord's medical problems in his last years and his decline in health after his wife died - and with lots of wonderful pics of Captain Lord at his home in Wallasey in his home and with his dogs.

On the face of it, from surviving correspondence, (and Captain Lord's 1959 Affidavit), Captain Lord retired early from Lawther Latta & Co due to problems with his eyesight after 14 years in March 1927. I have always found this a bit odd. This early retirement. (Except that Captain Lord was sufficiently financially secure to not seek any other employment for the rest of his 'working life').

And Leslie Harrison was strictly forbidden by his son to include any personal details of his father's character directly, in his books, which also seems a bit of an odd condition imposed by Captain Lord's son on Harrison...

(Harrison got round this by various means in a later book, though somewhat inadequately), but the 1961 taped recorded transcripts are the best impression we can get of Captain Lord in old age - and are well worth studying. They are on here...


Captain Lord's 1959 Affidavit was written by Leslie Harrison, and Captain Lord prevaricated over attesting to it (or to be more precise 'swearing on a bible' and reciting an oath and signing in the presence of a Solicitor - who was a 'Commissioner for oaths'), as described by Harrison. When you read it in conjunction with the extensive 1961 taped recorded interview transcripts you might form a view as to Captain Lord's character and what he really thought, as was then his recall, of the events nearly 50 years beforehand.

Cheers,

Julian
 
Last edited:

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
456
21
18
Usa
And Leslie Harrison was strictly forbidden by his son to include any personal details of his father's character directly, in his books, which also seems a bit of an odd condition imposed by Captain Lord's son on Harrison...

(Harrison got round this by various means in a later book, though somewhat inadequately), but the 1961 taped recorded transcripts are the best impression we can get of Captain Lord in old age - and are well worth studying. They are on here...


Captain Lord's 1959 Affidavit was written by Leslie Harrison, and Captain Lord prevaricated over attesting to it (or to be more precise 'swearing on a bible' and reciting an oath and signing in the presence of a Solicitor - who was a 'Commissioner for oaths'), as described by Harrison. When you read it in conjunction with the extensive 1961 taped recorded interview transcripts you might form a view as to Captain Lord's character and what he really thought, as was then his recall, of the events nearly 50 years beforehand.

Cheers,

Julian
Thanks for the info, Julian.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,207
666
213
Funchal. Madeira
When Durrant wrote up his log he put in the coordinates of the corrected position which came in 10 minutes after. The PV is not written in real time. It was written up from a number of chits that were recorded in real time.
Strange! This is what Mount Temple's Operator, Durrant, told the UK Inquiry:
"9450. Now let us take the story in order of time, as you recorded it with the help of your Marconi apparatus. I am going to add 1 hour and 46 minutes to your time, so as to keep your ship's time all the way through? A: - In this copy I have New York time and ship's time both together.
9451. That is very convenient. Now tell us the ship's time when you first got a message as to the "Titanic" being in distress? A: - 12.11 a.m.(10-25 am EST)
9452. Just read your account, as you have it there, of that message.
- "Titanic" sending C.Q.D. Answer him, but he says, "Cannot read you, old man. Here my position, 41º 46' N. 50º 14' W. Come at once, have struck berg." I advised my captain."


I suspect you, as many others, are going by the Nova Scotia account.
The actual Marconi logs at Cape Race were lost to fire or were accidentally thrown out, according to differing historical accounts. The data you use is at the very least, suspect, since it comes from a log later replicated from those notes by one of Gray's assistants, Robert Hunston,

As I have pointed out to you previously, the evidence given by the Press Association and by the White Star US Director quote a time of 10-25 pm EST combined with the revised distress position

If, as claimed, the revised CQD was sent at 10-35 pm EST then it was transmitted from Titanic at (according to you) 12-33 am on Titanic. That is at least 33 minutes after Captain Smith arrived in the wireless room and long after the boats were ready for loading. However, we know from Boxhall that he sent the revised CQD long before the boats were ready. How do you explain that?
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,657
928
273
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
>>
10.28pm hore CQD von SS Titanic MGY gibt CQD here Position 41 44 N 50 24 W require assistance (ca 10 mal)
10.34 MGY with MKL
10.36 MGY sagt CQD here corrected position 41 46 N 50 14 W require immediate assistance, we have collision with iceberg sinking. Can nothing hear for noise of steam. (Position ca 15-20 mal.)
<<
At 10:28 NYT MGY was still transmitting Smith's coordinates.
By 10:36 NTY MGY was transmitting Boxhall's coordinates and informing stations that this was a "corrected" position.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,207
666
213
Funchal. Madeira
That indeed suggests a later sequence, and it may be true. However, it contradicts
evidence from, W/O Bride, the man who was actually in Titanic's wireless room when all this was happening and from 4th Officer Boxhall who calculated the amendment to the first distress position.

Consider the time sequence indicated by the evidence from these two. The following is in ship time.
11-40 pm., impact with the iceberg.
11-50 pm. First inspection completed.. Carpenter reports to the bridge.
11-58 pm(C).. Officers and deck crew called. Captain takes first distress position to the Wireless Room.
Midnight: Crew on the way to the boat deck to make ready the boats.
Midnight +5? Boxhall, having reported to the captain, is making his way around the boat deck loosening boat cover laces then goes to the chart room and calculates position update.
12- 08 am(C) Boxhall takes amended position to the wireless room and returns to the bridge
12-20 am . lifeboats ready for loading.

Now apply the unaltered time difference of 2 hours 2 minutes between ship time and EST New York to the above and add the SS Frankfurt record you quote and you get:

11-40 pm ship = 9-38 pm EST New York.
11-50 pm ship = 9-48 pm EST New York.
11-58 pm ship = 9-56 pm EST New York.
Midnight ship = 9-58 pm EST New York.
12-05 am ship = 10-03 pm EST New York.
12-08 am ship = 10-06 pm EST New York.
12-20 am ship = 10-18 pm EST New York
12-30 am ship = 10-28 pm EST New York...First distress signal sent.
12-38 am ship = 10-36 pm EST New York...amended distress signal sent.


Something is very wrong here. The Frankfurt evidence suggests that the first distress signal was not transmitted for over half an hour after it had been delivered to the Wireless Room. The time of transmitting the second, amended, call for help was sent almost an hour after the ship had started to sink.

However, if you add
1 hour 38 minutes instead of 2 hours 2 minutes to the Frankfurt evidence you get
10.28pm -
12-06 am ship (hore CQD von SS Titanic MGY gibt CQD here Position 41 44 N 50 24 W require assistance (ca 10 mal)
10.36 MGY - 12-14 am ship sagt CQD here corrected position 41 46 N 50 14 W.

In other words... if there had been a partial clock change before impact then the evidence would make much m,ore sense.

Incidentally: why is the evidence part in German and part in English?







"
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,086
490
93
South Wales UK
I might add one thing, in that Captain Moore read off Durrant's marconigram chits or copies thereof, or Durrant's copies of same on pieces of paper, at the USA Inquiry, which Captain Moore had kept in his pocket. He also had Durrant's PV and an additional annotated copy by Durrant giving NYT and ship's time.

When you analyse all this, you can add a lot to Durrant's PV. When you consider other PVs and Marconigrams, you cannot help but arrive at the conclusion that Durrant was most meticulous in his records.

Like Ernest Moore and Alec Bagot on 'Olympic'; the Marconi crew on 'Olympic', Durrant produced a 'special' annotated version of his PV for the Inquiries, that as per that retained by Alec Bagot and that which became an exhibit in the USA Inquiry via Ernest Moore, was far more detailed than the actual PVs, and record details of messages in far more detail.

It is worth bearing this in mind, as it does not seem to be generally appreciated.

Every one is fallible - even Durrant - and at no time that I have found did he explain why he wrote down the later CQD position in his first CQD position for Titanic. It probably never occurred to him at the time as of any significance.

The surrounding PVs that Sam has quoted in one instance show otherwise.

Some have questioned whether Durrant's PV is 'doctored'. (Paul Lee held this view in respect of one later entry). I don't agree that the Mount Temple PV as recorded by Durrant was 'doctored'. And it is one of very few detailed PVs of that night and morning, plus Captain Moore had stuffed in his pocket either the original Marconigrams from Durrant or copies, that were read into the USA Inquiry, and he had the original PV with him as well plus Durrant's annoted copy!

Cheers,

Julian
 
Last edited:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,207
666
213
Funchal. Madeira
Here is something else for you all to ponder,

As I have repeated ad nausem, there was no way Titanic could have turned north and had the Californian right ahead at any point during the sinking process. Here is why.

In the following sketch by Sam Halpern, we see what he imagined the Titanic iceberg - avoidance manouvre was. I understand he later amended it. However. it serves the purpose of pointing out a huge anomaly.
iceberg 2080.jpg


In the Sketch, we see the ship turning and coming to a halt pointing North West... allegedly in the direction of the stopped Californian.
The interpretation of the evidence of QM Rowe and of 5th Officer Lowe is that the ship continued swinging to the right throughout the sinking process.

However, if we time evidence to the sketch, it seems that the light seen ahead of the Titanic was first reported right ahead shortly after the amended distress signal was first heard. According to Sam, that was 10-35 pm EST New York or 12-27 am ship time.
If the helm was put hard left (hard-a-starboard) at say 11-40 pm and then put hard right (hard a port) less than a minute later, then it took from about 11-41 pm until 12-37 am for the ship to turn from heading WSW to NW...6 points of the compass. Yet we know from experiment that it took 37 seconds to turn 2 points.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,207
666
213
Funchal. Madeira
I might add one thing, in that Captain Moore read off Durrant's marconigram chits or copies thereof, or Durrant's copies of same on pieces of paper, at the USA Inquiry, which Captain Moore had kept in his pocket. He also had Durrant's PV and an additional annotated copy by Durrant giving NYT and ship's time.

When you analyse all this, you can add a lot to Durrant's PV. When you consider other PVs and Marconigrams, you cannot help but arrive at the conclusion that Durrant was most meticulous in his records.

Like Ernest Moore and Alec Bagot on 'Olympic'; the Marconi crew on 'Olympic', Durrant produced a 'special' annotated version of his PV for the Inquiries, that as per that retained by Alec Bagot and that which became an exhibit in the USA Inquiry via Ernest Moore, was far more detailed than the actual PVs, and record details of messages in far more detail.

It is worth bearing this in mind, as it does not seem to be generally appreciated.

Every one is fallible - even Durrant - and at no time that I have found did he explain why he wrote down the later CQD position in his first CQD position for Titanic. It probably never occurred to him at the time as of any significance.

The surrounding PVs that Sam has quoted in one instance show otherwise.

Some have questioned whether Durrant's PV is 'doctored'. (Paul Lee held this view in respect of one later entry). I don't agree that the Mount Temple PV as recorded by Durrant was 'doctored'. And it is one of very few detailed PVs of that night and morning, plus Captain Moore had stuffed in his pocket either the original Marconigrams from Durrant or copies, that were read into the USA Inquiry, and he had the original PV with him as well plus Durrant's annoted copy!

Cheers,

Julian
Normally, a Wireless Operator only copied official messages into his PV before signing off at the end of his Watch. This was compiled from his work pad which was on the operators desk in front of him at all times.... a bit like a Lawyer's yellow note pad. If he overheard chatter which might be of interest to the Master, he would jot the main details down on a bit of scrap paper and pass it to the bridge or to the Master direct. At least that was the way in my day
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,657
928
273
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
However, if we time evidence to the sketch, it seems that the light seen ahead of the Titanic was first reported right ahead shortly after the amended distress signal was first heard. According to Sam, that was 10-35 pm EST New York or 12-27 am ship time.
If the helm was put hard left (hard-a-starboard) at say 11-40 pm and then put hard right (hard a port) less than a minute later, then it took from about 11-41 pm until 12-37 am for the ship to turn from heading WSW to NW...6 points of the compass. Yet we know from experiment that it took 37 seconds to turn 2 points.
Your faulty interpretation of my sketch leads to faulty conclusions. The light seen ahead came before the amended CQD was worked out. Boxhall was engaged in uncovering the boats soon after calling upon the off duty officers. When someone reported a light ahead, the crew had already started to swing out the after port-side boats according to Boxhall, so many of the boats had already had their covers removed by time this light was reported. It was the reporting of that light which led Boxhall to go to the bridge to have a closer look. It was at that time when he encountered Smith who asked him how things were progressing, and Boxhall asked Smith if he thought it was serious. Smith then told him what Andrews had said, and Boxhall asked if a distress message was sent. That is when Boxhall told Smith about the ship being ahead of the DR and was told to go and work it up from the 7:30 fix, which he then did.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,657
928
273
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
One more point. From a number of eyewitnesses, the ship's engines did not come to a stop until about 2 minutes after the collision event despite the stop order being sent down to the engine room before the collision event. Furthermore, the sighting of that light ahead came well after the ship had stopped, and had nothing to do with the way the ship was pointing.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,086
490
93
South Wales UK
Hi Jim,

There is a lot to debate here, and all highly relevant.

John Durrant explained at the British Inquiry how he kept a 'running' PV ie contemporaneous at the time, due to the exceptional circumstances. Captain Moore's USA testimony corroborates this.

As to why The Californian's lights were not seen for awhile from Titanic, proving a negative is quite a hard starting point to argue from!

I approach this somewhat differently from Sam's analysis in his new book which is eminently 'clinical'. Sam argues (and I apologise to Sam if I misquote him in his new book) that The Californian was heading away from Titanic initially when Titanic stopped, and so The Californian's stern light would have been quite indistinct and low down, and her starboard light (green) hidden as would be her masthead lights. (pages 218-219).

Later, The Californian had swung round to starboard and opened up her masthead lights and green starboard light (though the latter was pretty much 'hull down' at around 13 miles distance).

Sam proposes that at around 12.15am on the 15th April, there were 3 corroborating eye witnesses on The Californian (Groves, Stone, and Gibson) who confirm the ship showing her lights to them was on a course from them of SE true (this is from memory, so apologies again to Sam if I am misquoting him). I don't think I have done so, as it is on pages 178 and 179 of Sam's new book. This proposition of Sam's is very compelling. Corroborating evidence of such magnitude is rare in 'The Californian Incident'!

The implication of all this is that at around 12.15am, The Californian was 'broadside' to the ship under observation, as at that time it was seen in the direction of the starboard beam on The Californian ie at 90 degrees from the way The Californian was then heading ie NE true.

Ergo, at 12.15am one might suppose that The Californian's starboard side light might just have been seen, and certainly the masthead light, and not the stern light which would have been closed.

I will leave you, Jim, to pick through all this.

For myself, I approach the matter somewhat differently. The Californian witnesses were on a stationary ship with not much to do, apart from Stone and Gibson drink their coffee that Gibson had brought up, and Groves had not a lot to do before the change of Watch and stayed awhile to let Stone get his eyes accustomed to the dark, before going below to wake up Evans on the way to his cabin.

However, on Titanic high drama was taking place, and those that survived were subjected to considerable trauma over the next few hours.

Boxhall claims Titanic was heading westwards when it stopped, and implicated The Californian as the source of the ship's lights he saw off the port bow. Either he was very very stupid, as what he claimed he saw would place The Californian in an ice field or beyond an ice field (that he saw for himself at daylight and afterwards on the 15th April), and could not possibly be on the same or similar latitude as Titanic, or he was deluded, mistaken, or ill!

(Incidentally, if Boxhall wasn't ill, which I think he was, then he ought to have heard about The Californian coming down the western side of the ice field, then crossing across it to meet the Carpathia, and so the whole notion of him implicating The Californian with Titanic heading westwards some 4 hours earlier ought to have occurred to him as nonsense, and he had made yet another mistake in his recollection).

Be very careful about quoting Boxhall! He was the first "Anti Lordite"!

Cheers,

Julian
 
Last edited:

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,102
621
143
England
Just to go back a little and reference the discussion regarding the strength of received radio signals.

The Titanic's sets transmitted at either 500Khz or 1Mhz depending on the setting.

In radio wave propagation this consists of a ground wave transmission.

The ground wave is made up of three components. The direct wave which is line of sight from aerial to aerial, reflected waves from objects or the surface of the earth and finally the surface wave.

If a the two aerials are in sight of each other the strength of the received signal is made up of all three components.

Over the horizon and at further distances the direct wave and reflected waves disappear and all that remains is the surface wave.

The surface wave can travel huge distances depending on the power of transmission, the atmospheric conditions, the type of surface the signal passes over and the polarisation of the aerial.

On the night in question, the sea surface conditions were flat calm, the weather was clear and Titanic had a 5Kw transmitter. All of this was ideal for achieving long ranges.

There are also reports of various atmospheric effects which were causing signals to be attenuated. I don't know what the electromagnetic activity was at the time but this could have had an effect for example if their were sunspots.

The other factor in terms of reception would have been the sensitivity of the receiving equipment. At the time this would have been awful with very little in the way of filtering and the understanding of the effects of harmonics and other reception factors. The bandwidth of the transmission would have been huge and interference a common problem.

I hope that explains some of the questions regarding reception.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,657
928
273
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
The implication of all this is that at around 12.15am, The Californian was 'broadside' to the ship under observation, as at that time it was seen in the direction of the starboard beam on The Californian ie at 90 degrees from the way The Californian was then heading ie NE true.
That was Californian time. Time on Titanic was 12 minutes ahead, or about 12:27.
 

Similar threads