Excuse me, Sam Halpern, your characterisation is a grave misrepresentation of my book
The book is not a 'fictionalisation.' The sub-title "The Trial of the Mount Temple" is a format used to present ALL the evidence, factual and inferred, about this vessel. No point in Captain Moore's favour is left out because he has his own 'counsel' making them on his behalf. Above all, it is fair.
It contains an immense amount of new material, both in terms of images of the ship and other ship, internal pictures, records of the Mount Temple, and the identification - with photographs - of actual members of her crew on that voyage, and actual passengers aboard here.
There are the first pictures of Dr F. C. Quitrau, who submitted an affidavit of allegations to the US Inquiry. His story is told for the first time.
Officer W. H. Baker is proven for the first time to have been aboard - he later in 1912 contacted
Captain Lord to tell him what he had learned on the homeward voyage. Baker's photograph/s are shown. This was a man decorated for gallantry who took a lifeboat to the assistance of the burning 'Volturno' in 1913.
With pictures of a crewman who went to the newspapers, plus other authentic passengers who did so, it is shown where these allegations are *supported,* as well as where points can be made gainsaying them.
Your attitude I find deplorable - especially since this book contains well over 100 new photographs never published anywhere before, of real people associated with this disaster. All the actual hard evidence about the Mount Temple is there.
You may remember I recommended you actually read it when we breakfasted in Boston following that debate between us at the Titanic International Society, even if you understandably might not care to remember that encounter when you failed to convince delegates of your point of view.
I note your own so-called "re-appraisal" fails to carry out any independent research with a view to breaking new ground. There are no new photographs, just the use of low-res images obtained and produced by others long before.
Furthermore, for someone who purports to consider all the evidence, I would point to your failure to address the fact that Titanic saw sidelights on her mystery ship, and that Boxhall (who was unshakeable also in seeing a *moving* ship, equally ignored and omitted) found the idea of sidelights being seen at 14 miles to be completely risible.
We know also that the mystery ship was displaying a red light when
the Californian - the only vessel you ever want to address - was showing a green light to any ship to the southward. There are scores of further arguments that defeat your tired contentions.
Closing your mind to all other evidence, even the consideration of other vessels and evidence, and determination to force a round peg into a square peg - this is the real 'fictionalization.'
My book "Titanic Scandal: The Trial of the Mount Temple" has a hundred times more original research and demonstrated discoveries than anything I might cite from the whinging corner of wilful self-deceivers.