Stanley Lord guilty as charged


Status
Not open for further replies.

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,403
710
323
Funchal. Madeira
Och! Why not? My notes and kit are still in a container at Grangemouth due to Covid. However I have been using the "hailing frequency" on this borrowed laptop. I would hate to be the one to spoil any one's fun, so here we go again:

Sam cannot know whether Foweraker was wrong or near the mark, because Sam himself does not know what happened...he, like the rest of us , can only make an intelligent guess at best.
His entire case is founded on Titanic turning to the northward after impact with the iceberg. There is no evidence that this happened , but firm evidence to the contrary...that a second helm was not given as part of the berg avoiding action.
Additionally, for these vessels to have been in sight of each other at any time, both Watches ...on Titanic and Californian ...were not only short sighted, but in one case, entirely blind. For a very simple reason...if Californian's crew saw a ship approaching, then unless they were asleep... the crew on the approaching ship could not possibly have missed seeing the Californian. There is firm evidence from Titanic's lookouts showing that the only thing sighted before impact with the iceberg was the iceberg itself.
Apart from the foregoing, Sam's "sweet and sour" witness... the one whose evidence he used to show a northward -swinging Titanic...5th Officer Lowe...torpedoes the separation distance story. Because if, a he said, he saw a red side light with the naked eye from a lit boat deck at or near to 1 am that morning, then the vessel showing that light was no more than 5 or 6 miles away. In fact any one in a lifeboat who saw a red side light before the second last rocket was fired was for absolute certainty, not seeing the Californian
I earlier used he expression "short-sighted" and did so for one reason. How else could you describe no less than all the seamen on both vessels who reported seeing a light 5 to 7 miles away when according to Sam the true separation distance was 14 miles?

Even the panel of experts advising Lord Mersey agreed to these reported separation distances although the latter suggested it was a little more...at 8 or 9 miles.

I quote from yet another experienced source... the MAIB Report:

It is in my view inconceivable that CALIFORNIAN or any other ship was within the visible horizon of TITANIC during that period; it equally follows that TITANIC cannot have been within CALIFORNIAN'S horizon.
More probably, in my view, the ship seen by CALIFORNIAN was another, unidentified, vessel."


But heck! What did these morons know about "the price of herring"? (An old expression for lack of experience and knowledge)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 22, 2003
5,838
1,112
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
As Captain Kirk once so memorably quipped, "it's been... fun".
I have participated in this discussion long enough and now choose not to remain in a discussion that is obviously moving in endless circles. All my views, supportive evidence and detailed analyses have been documented in 556 pages of my book, StrangersOnTheHorizon, including an appendix (K) dealing with the icefields and theories of Albert Moulton Foweraker which Steven asked about. If others want to continue with the fun, have at it. If something new comes up, then I may rejoin the discussion. Who knows? But right now, I'm working on a something that doesn't involve Californian which has been brought up a number of times on this forum and in FB discussions. Hopefully, it will be completed soon barring some continuous distractions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
May 3, 2005
2,449
203
258
I have participated in this discussion long enough and now choose not to remain in a discussion that is obviously moving in endless circles. All my views, supportive evidence and detailed analyses have been documented in 556 pages of my book, StrangersOnTheHorizon, including an appendix (K) dealing with the icefields and theories of Albert Moulton Foweraker which Steven asked about. If others want to continue with the fun, have at it. If something new comes up, then I may rejoin the discussion. Who knows? But right now, I'm working on a something that doesn't involve Californian which has been brought up a number of times on this forum and in FB discussions. Hopefully, it will be completed soon barring some continuous distractions.
Sam-
This has gone on for 185 pages so far and who knows how much longer ?

Being much of one who knows even very little about nautical matters I have tried to stay out the discussions.
So I will go back to the sidelines as a spectator .

And leave with the following thoughts:

What I have learned in these 185 pages:
Stanley Lord could be guilty of doing nothing but he couldn't be guilty of not saving very many lives even if he had done something .

And also:
Not everyone who has ever served in any Navy of any Nation deserves to be called a "sailor."
Self included ! :)
 
May 3, 2005
2,449
203
258
I know a bit about the price of currants but I don't suppose that'll help. ;)
I don't know even more or even less than a bit about the price of currants but I do know the price of seedless red grapes at the local supermarket but I suppose that is even of less help ? ;)
I do have a lot of experience as far as the subject of seedless red grapes is concerned . ;)
And being a local amateur historian I know a little bit about Grapevine, Texas.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,403
710
323
Funchal. Madeira
"I think there can be no reasonable doubt that a current setting about south by west at something like knots existed in the area of the accident."

But then again, what did these morons know about currents or the price of herring?
There you go again, Sam, avoiding evidence you do not like.

The question is... were these vessels in sight of one another from before the impact with the berg and and remained so throughout the sinking process?
The considered answer of the MAIB Deputy Director to that question was NO, not unless abnormal refraction existed.
He does not agree with you in any of your assumptions except for the matter of a south-setting current. Even then, he estimated that the effect of such a current was minimal.
He did not agree with you concerning the separation distance or the bearing between the 2 vessels. Nor did he agree with you concerning the orientation of the ice barrier.
Why don't you explain how all these experienced men on both vessel got the separation distance wrong by a factor of 3? or how it was possible for Californian's red sidelight to be seen so early in the sinking sequence?
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,403
710
323
Funchal. Madeira
I have participated in this discussion long enough and now choose not to remain in a discussion that is obviously moving in endless circles. All my views, supportive evidence and detailed analyses have been documented in 556 pages of my book, StrangersOnTheHorizon, including an appendix (K) dealing with the icefields and theories of Albert Moulton Foweraker which Steven asked about. If others want to continue with the fun, have at it. If something new comes up, then I may rejoin the discussion. Who knows? But right now, I'm working on a something that doesn't involve Californian which has been brought up a number of times on this forum and in FB discussions. Hopefully, it will be completed soon barring some continuous distractions.
Abject nonsense , Sam. Which one of the following 17 best fits your response? 17 Amazing Tricks for Dodging Unwanted Questions | Best Life
Now why should anyone buy your book, Sam when all you have to do is to give straight (not circular) answers to a few simple questions?
 

Rob Lawes

Member
Jun 13, 2012
1,169
687
208
England
When you think about it, if Californian could see a vessel 5 miles away and this vessel wasn't Titanic then why did they bother trying to Morse it?

If the rockets being fired, which according to Stone "appeared to come a good distance beyond" weren't coming from this mystery ship then Californian were clearly wasting their time contacting the wrong ship anyway.

If this mystery vessel was also firing rockets then how come no one on the Titanic mentions seeing them?

Finally, if the Titanic was looking at a vessel 4 to 7 Miles away and the Californian was looking at a vessel 5 miles away, and they were both looking at the same vessel then that would make the Californian between 9 and 12 miles from the Titanic and both within visual range of each other as well. That is of course unless by complete fluke, all three ships were on an exact line.
 
Nov 14, 2005
1,192
411
218
When you think about it, if Californian could see a vessel 5 miles away and this vessel wasn't Titanic then why did they bother trying to Morse it?

If the rockets being fired, which according to Stone "appeared to come a good distance beyond" weren't coming from this mystery ship then Californian were clearly wasting their time contacting the wrong ship anyway.

If this mystery vessel was also firing rockets then how come no one on the Titanic mentions seeing them?


Finally, if the Titanic was looking at a vessel 4 to 7 Miles away and the Californian was looking at a vessel 5 miles away, and they were both looking at the same vessel then that would make the Californian between 9 and 12 miles from the Titanic and both within visual range of each other as well. That is of course unless by complete fluke, all three ships were on an exact line.
Interesting points you brought up. Could have been this thread or another but I brought up if a mystery ship was firing rockets then she wasn't trying to hide and would have come foward later saying they did fire rockets. Thats one of the reasons I don't buy any mystery ship firing rockets that night. Thats why I still maintain if anyone saw rockets it was from Titanic.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,403
710
323
Funchal. Madeira
When you think about it, if Californian could see a vessel 5 miles away and this vessel wasn't Titanic then why did they bother trying to Morse it?

If the rockets being fired, which according to Stone "appeared to come a good distance beyond" weren't coming from this mystery ship then Californian were clearly wasting their time contacting the wrong ship anyway.

If this mystery vessel was also firing rockets then how come no one on the Titanic mentions seeing them?

Finally, if the Titanic was looking at a vessel 4 to 7 Miles away and the Californian was looking at a vessel 5 miles away, and they were both looking at the same vessel then that would make the Californian between 9 and 12 miles from the Titanic and both within visual range of each other as well. That is of course unless by complete fluke, all three ships were on an exact line.
Hello Rob. Hope you are well.

In fact, they began using the morse lamp before any vessel stopped. Groves was ordered to do so by Lord.
The use of the morse lamp on a merchant ship was very frequent..right up until the advent of VHF in the late 60s..70s. the lamp was ship- specific...wireless was only so if they used a particular call sign.

The use of the lamp by Stone and Gibson was by order of the Master. Obviously, the nearby vessel was closer to the source of the signals. It is therefore reasonable to assume that since she was, her Master's curiosity would also be aroused by them and might know more about the situation. You will note that Groves was confused concerning the source of
but one of these signals.

As with the fact that Californian was not seen from Titanic before impact, your point concerning what was seen (or not seen) from Titanic concerning rockets is significant.

If the nearby vessel was as, as Lord claimed, 4 miles from Californian and if his declared stopped position was correct, then that nearby vessel was 18 miles from the sinking Titanic and would also have been invisible to observers on board the latter. At best, it was no nearer than about 17 miles.

t would have been a shear fluke if there had not been several vessels in the immediate area , all heading westward.. After all, the location was mere 133 miles from The Corner, the point where very many vessel converged on before heading westward, and there was a lot of traffic in the area at the time....much of which would not be equipped with wireless. In fact, if I remember correctly, the MAIB Report drew attention to this.
The following rough sketch is how I see h situation:
relative positions.jpg

Ships stopped by the barrier would be on a sight line. Earlier that morning, the SS Trautenfels was stopped by exactly the same barrier 2 or 3 miles to the SSE from where we see the Californian stopped.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,403
710
323
Funchal. Madeira
Interesting points you brought up. Could have been this thread or another but I brought up if a mystery ship was firing rockets then she wasn't trying to hide and would have come foward later saying they did fire rockets. Thats one of the reasons I don't buy any mystery ship firing rockets that night. Thats why I still maintain if anyone saw rockets it was from Titanic.
Hello Steven

I don't think anyone believes that the rockets seen from Californian were from any vessel other than Titanic. However, I do believe that Stone was deceived and somewhat confused by the situation.
Back then, in an era when the young were "seen and not heard"- I often wonder how we, as individuals would have reacted under the relentless, intense barrage of questions which Stone - a young, unsophisticated sailorman - was subjected to
 
Nov 14, 2005
1,192
411
218
Hello Steven

I don't think anyone believes that the rockets seen from Californian were from any vessel other than Titanic. However, I do believe that Stone was deceived and somewhat confused by the situation.
Back then, in an era when the young were "seen and not heard"- I often wonder how we, as individuals would have reacted under the relentless, intense barrage of questions which Stone - a young, unsophisticated sailorman - was subjected to
I don't believe anyone here actually believes that either. But I have see that brought up before and not just on E.T. Logically it just doesn't make sense. As for Stone I totally get what your saying. I could try to explain it more but would probably muff it up. I'll just say that one of the unpleasant duties I had was taking sailors to their court-martials and sitting thru them. It was an eye-opener.
 

Arun Vajpey

Member
Apr 21, 2009
1,403
325
218
64
Perhaps, but for my part I have run out of questions. The outside wall of our apartment block has been freshly painted. I think I'll go out and watch it dry.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,403
710
323
Funchal. Madeira
As you probably gather, I am referring to the questions in my post #3688.

i hope your apartment is at least furnished. My worldly goods are still in a sea container somewhere. At present, I sleep and sit on charity and have done so for the past 4 weeks. Just thought I'd share that with you
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Arun Vajpey

Member
Apr 21, 2009
1,403
325
218
64
Must be tough for an err...senior senior citizen like you. You have my sympathies.

Yes, our current apartment is well furnished but a lot of our worldly goods including almost all of my Titanic books are sitting in a storage warehouse in London waiting to be shipped to our second apartment (the winter home) in India. Costing us £612 per month :(
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
1,194
573
188
South Wales UK
Well done , Rob!

I have been reluctant to comment on Jim's recent posts, but you will find much of interest in Sam's new book that for one debunks Jim's recent posting that there is "no" evidence that Titanic ended up heading Northwards after the ice berg collision. Sam also considers, inter alia, the hypothesis Jim propounds, in his (Sam's) new book that Titanic ended up westwards.

Of late, we have considered much else of relevance thanks to Arun's medical expertise that is fundamental to issues that remain partly unresolved.

Cheers,

Julian
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads