Stanley Lord guilty as charged


Nov 14, 2005
929
326
133
Being a non mariner this thread is usually pretty hard to follow. I read thru it but most of time the dots don't connect. But it has at times caused me to go back and read some of the testimonies during the inquiries. So thats good. Like Samuel said its diversionary occupation of ones time. I've been reading posting a lot here lately on E.T. But for 2 different reasons...1. TV sucks..dont even watch the news hardley because of so much B.S. And 2. waiting on parts again for my latest project. Getting emails about parts delays. Understandable. My stuff I'm sure is pretty low on the priority list compared to grocieries for the herd. Stay well everybody.
 

Georges G.

Member
Feb 26, 2017
639
111
53
PS You should try loosing all power on a 6 leg self=propelled Semi Sub platform... no tugs .....about 2 miles north of Bollflessa leaving Bergen Fjiord and a 2 knot current running south outside the entrance...
Piece of cake Jim!

I took a of 781 feet long by 90 feet wide 12 decks cruise ship, carrying 1500 souls pushed at 20 knots by a 34,000hp diesel electric twin shafts. Just before calling the VTS for clearance at 5.00pm, the master advised me that only one shaft was operational. I offered him that I could call the Coast Guard to inquire if they would let us proceed. The master jumped off and told me; No! No! No! pilot, we’ll see what we can do otherwise! Then I had my 7 services dinner served on the bridge. Soon after, the master offered me an unrented first class cabin to lay down. After visiting the whole vessel, I watched a movie in my king size bed then fell asleep. At 7.00am the next morning, I was awaken by the AB saying that the master wanted to see me. I went on the bridge to be told that I was cancelled. I asked the master if I could have my breakfast before going. He said fine, no problem. I went down the veranda to have my eggs benedicts with fresh fruit waffles and espresso long coffee, while being fully remunerated. :D
 
Last edited:

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
456
21
18
Usa
I do believe the yellow funneled vessel to the south of Californian at about 5 am the morning of April 15 was Mount Temple. I believe Capt. Lord actually said:
"At daylight we saw a yellow-funnel steamer on the southwest of us, beyond where this man had left, about 8 miles away." This was before MT backed out of the ice to look for a passage southward. By the way for the area of the wreck:
Civil Twilight began 08:11 GMT = 05:01 Californian time
Sun rise was at 08:40 GMT = 05:30 Californian time
I wonder where that 5 am timing came from? Both men probably knew the word “twilight” but neither used it. In fact Mr. Stewart testified

No; I thought it was a yellow funnel boat when the sun was up.

”The sun was up” he said.

So it appears that they might have seen the color of the funnel later, when the sun was up. In any case I believe that a steamer seen from Californian at 4 am.was Carpathia because according to Mr. Stewart he saw many lights. There was no reason for Mount Temple to turn on the lights at 4 am. The Carpathia of course was picking up the survivors and could have been lit.
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
456
21
18
Usa
You have hit the nail on the head Alex. The navigation lights were all connected in a single waterproof circuit which, if Titanic was wired according to regulations, would operate from a switch board in the wheelhouse or bridge. It in turn would also be connected into the emergency circuits. Thus, if main power failed, there was still power to keep the nav lights lit. We know when the power failed:

"177. At that time were the lights still burning or had they gone out?
- No. As the stern stood up in the air so all the lights went out."


The foregoing is from the evidence of Lookout Archie Jewel.
There is also evidence elsewhere from a survivor who saw the coloured nav. light just above the surface. If I find it , I'll post.

It follows that if the red side light dipped below the horizon, the white mast head light which was about 75 feet above it, would still be burning brightly... even brighter than the red one.
Not only that, because Titanic was down by the head, there would have been a distinct, large, concentrated glow of illumination to the right of, and slightly above , the position where the red light was last seen. This was not the case with the vessel seen bt Gibson. In fact Gibson described his vessel as having a list in the opposite direction...a starboard list.
Be assured, it is impossible to determine a list at night at any distance on a ship showing a single coloured light unless the vessel in question is head on to you or you have other lights to the left or right of the coloured one.
Gibson initially described seeing a red light with a glow of white ones to the right of it.. For him to afterward get the illusion of a list, that whit "glow" would need to be seen above or below the red light. However, if the white glow was actually a little lower... say 10 feet lower than the red light, that when the other vessel turned away, the vertical separation would become more obvious and the illusion of a starboard list would be created...... Think about it. Meanwhile try and make sense of my dreadful sketch.
View attachment 48226
The more I think about this the more relevant it appears. Both Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stone lost the sight of the red sidelight. Both testified that the masthead light was seen only as a glare of it. Mr. Stone testified he saw a stern light, while Mr. Gibson said he did not. But Mr. Stone only said that he saw a few lights and decided that the brightest one ought to be the stern light. Mr. Gibson saw the same lights. However, in his judgement he saw no stern light. Anyway, forget about the stern light, forget about the red sidelight that in his first book Sam alleges disappeared because of the list. But what happened with the Titanic masthead light? Why it suddenly was seen just as a glare.
I do not believe any author who dismisses this fact as a lie, or simply ignores it could be considered a serious researcher.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,207
666
213
Funchal. Madeira
The more I think about this the more relevant it appears. Both Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stone lost the sight of the red sidelight. Both testified that the masthead light was seen only as a glare of it. Mr. Stone testified he saw a stern light, while Mr. Gibson said he did not. But Mr. Stone only said that he saw a few lights and decided that the brightest one ought to be the stern light. Mr. Gibson saw the same lights. However, in his judgement he saw no stern light. Anyway, forget about the stern light, forget about the red sidelight that in his first book Sam alleges disappeared because of the list. But what happened with the Titanic masthead light? Why it suddenly was seen just as a glare.
I do not believe any author who dismisses this fact as a lie, or simply ignores it could be considered a serious researcher.
As I said... a glimmer of realisation light is starting to show it's "loom".

The classic approaching description given by Boxhall as seen from the sinking Titanic is also another complete dismissal of crucial evidence. In fact Boxhall used the verb "approaching" and it too was dismissed out of hand.
Let me tell you: if Boxhall could not tell the difference between a stopped and moving ship... specially one which he first needed binoculars to see then, with his naked eye, saw very clearly (including her red(for most of the time)..not green... light, then Boxhall was about as savvy as a first trip Deck Boy. (Don't bother with the current movement excuse...it does not work because both vessels were Red to Green for most of the time under discussion.
Ask the simple question...if all these lights could be seen from Califronian, right up until the red light disappeared, why was it, that although the red light was clearly visible from Californian until it did... those on Californian never saw The persistent use of Titanic's morse light which was mounted about 12 feet above the red one?
Titanics-bridge-361x271-web.jpg

Now is the chance for a rebuttal, but I suspect all we might get id a verbal wave of dismissal...accompanied by "We've been through all this before"
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
456
21
18
Usa
As I said... a glimmer of realisation light is starting to show it's "loom".

The classic approaching description given by Boxhall as seen from the sinking Titanic is also another complete dismissal of crucial evidence. In fact Boxhall used the verb "approaching" and it too was dismissed out of hand.
Let me tell you: if Boxhall could not tell the difference between a stopped and moving ship... specially one which he first needed binoculars to see then, with his naked eye, saw very clearly (including her red(for most of the time)..not green... light, then Boxhall was about as savvy as a first trip Deck Boy. (Don't bother with the current movement excuse...it does not work because both vessels were Red to Green for most of the time under discussion.
Ask the simple question...if all these lights could be seen from Califronian, right up until the red light disappeared, why was it, that although the red light was clearly visible from Californian until it did... those on Californian never saw The persistent use of Titanic's morse light which was mounted about 12 feet above the red one?
View attachment 48346
Now is the chance for a rebuttal, but I suspect all we might get id a verbal wave of dismissal...accompanied by "We've been through all this before"
Jim, I agree with you about “approaching” controversy also. IMO Mr. Boxhall was one of most reliable witnesses at least in regards of the description of the steamer he observed approaching. He was a professional Mariner and he has been watching the steamer for some time more or less continuously. I do not believe that he could have mistook a steamer swinging In place with an approaching steamer. Maltin tried to explain this with a mirage, but no, Mr. Boxhall did not describe a mirage. He described a steamer approaching under standard atmosphere with the lights gradually getting brighter.
However, Jim, I still believe the Californian’s officers were watching the Titanic, and no other mystery steamer. I am only saying that the disappearance of Titanic masthead light, the approaching Californian, the invisibility of the Californian for the first 40 minutes or so after the collision and another controversies should be dealt with, and should not be simply dismissed as lies or ignored.
The authors who ignore them count on readers who do not ask question.
The authors as Maltin who is trying to explain it with a little known and little understood (by the vast majority of readers) phenomena count on the ignorance of the readers.

About Morse lamps. I believe they were undistinguished due to the terrestrial scintillation.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads