Arun Vajpey
Member
Same here. I think there are times where the less said the better. To quote Lee Falk, 'this is one of those times'.
Last edited:
D
Dave McCann
Member
Best to begin at the beginning then Seumas or just accept some of the facts.!
Seumas
Member
The facts are that Leslie Harrison was notorious for leaving out or else greatly distorting information that was detrimental to his "client".
You need to read Paul Lee and Sam Halpern's books which are (unless new evidence emerges - and that's highly unlikely) probably the final word on the subject.
Paul Lee has also boiled down his findings into very basic (and graphic orientated) formats here:
and here:
Californian was beyond any doubt the ship seen from the decks of the Titanic that night.
You need to read Paul Lee and Sam Halpern's books which are (unless new evidence emerges - and that's highly unlikely) probably the final word on the subject.
Paul Lee has also boiled down his findings into very basic (and graphic orientated) formats here:
and here:
Californian was beyond any doubt the ship seen from the decks of the Titanic that night.
Last edited:
Arun Vajpey
Member
And the Titanic was undoubtedly the ship seen buy the crew of the Californian and described as "big side out of the water", "going away" "lights look queer" etc; and of course, the Titanic was the ship from which the rockets were coming from. There was no other vessel of any kind between them.
Some people just cannot accept straightforward, evidence based explanations and prefer cockeyed conspiracy theories. No point in allowing them to rankle us just to elicit a reponse. If they want to believe that the Samson was in-between, let them; perhaps there was Delialah in tow.
D
Dave McCann
Member
Like your sense of humour Arun.!
But sadly you are under an illusion if you think there was no other ship in the vicinity that night. you only need to read Boxhalls comments regarding the ship he saw from the Titanic.
But sadly you are under an illusion if you think there was no other ship in the vicinity that night. you only need to read Boxhalls comments regarding the ship he saw from the Titanic.
D
Dave McCann
Member
Hello Seamus,
Do you have any info on the transcript of the letter Harrison wrote to Boxhall please.
Your opinions on Harrison are im afraid not fact - but I am supposing you have read entirely Harrisons
2 books A TITANIC MYTH Parts 1 and 2 to come to your conclusions?
Michael H. Standart
Member
First, you have to be able to show that they are facts.
Don't make assumptions. (The first three letters in the word will wreck you every time.)
Nobody on either side of this ever-rancorous debate seriously claims that the Californian and the Titanic were unable to see each other.
They just don't.
Whether by direct line of sight or refraction it's what's kicked around now, but they did see each other.
From where I stand, the issue is how Stone and Gibson understood what they saw and how they communicated it to the captain. If they thought it was as important or as significant as they later implied in their testimony to the Mersey Wreck Commission, they did a truly awful job of communicating that to Captain Lord.
Arun Vajpey
Member
Perfect post Sir. Captain Lord himself alluded to that lack of communication between his crew and himself when he said that there had been "a certain amount of laxity" on board the Californian that night. Stone testified a very whitewashed version of his interpretation of the lights and rockets from the other ship as well as the manner in which he informed Lord about them. Captain Lord almost certainly realized this early on during the inquiry but being a proud man, did not want the proceedings to be seen as a face-off between himself and his own crew.
If Harrison had analyzed the evidence more thoroughly and impartially (like Sam Halpern and Paul Lee did) and then dissected this lack of communication between the Captain & crew on board the Californian, he mght actually have succeeded in what he set out to do in the first place - presenting Captain Lord not as the arch-villain that many were considering him as at the time but at least partly an unfortunate victim of poor information. But in writing the counter-productive The Titanic Myth the way he did, Harrison actually did his client a disservice.
Last edited:
Steven Christian
Member
I'm going to have go and read thru the inquieries again and see what the bridge crew said about why nobody decided to wake the sparks to have a listen if something was going on. Like Arun And Michael S. said, the bridge crew was just as if not more responsible than Captain Lord. Anybody on the bridge could have gave or suggested to the O.O.W. to have him check the wireless. I haven't a clue why nobody did. They knew something was going on and discussed it but nobody thought of the radio.
Arun Vajpey
Member
I might be wrong but as the OOW, Stone had the authority to wake-up Cyril Evans and order him to check what was going on. But Stone either genuinely did not realize the significance of the "unusual" appearance of the other ship's lights and rockets (which would make him very stupid) or as is more likely, wanted his Captain to make that decision. But if the latter was the case, then Stone failed to convey the urgency of the situation and when Captain Lord gave him no order to wake-up the 'sparks', Stone left it there. Therefore, while officialdom might have considered Captain Lord, as the Master of the ship, ultimately responsible, IMO the moral responsibility for the lack of action by the Californian falls on Herbert Stone.
I think where Captain Lord's position went pear-shaped was when he ordered Stone to try and contact the other ship by More Lamp. He could just as easily have ordered the Second Officer to wake-up Cyril Evans and get him to check.
Michael H. Standart
Member
That's a fair point but the problem was that radio was seen at that "New fangled wireless thingy" which was regarded with some disdain, mistrust, and even a bit of suspicion. You would think it's value would have been understood in the wake of the loss of the Republic...where radio was literally the lifesaver...but that doesn't appear to be the case.
It wasn't on every ship and there was no special rush to do so either. Where it existed, the wireless was a for profit business. I really don't think it occurred to anybody to give Cyril a shake and have him check things out.
Regarding "If you just read this" as if "This will change eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeverything!" appeal:
C'mon, seriously? Really?
I'm afraid what Dave McCann above doesn't understand is that most of us HAVE read Leslie Harrison's book...and Dr. Lee's, and Sam Halpern's, and Senan Molony's and so on. We all know what's in it. We also have read the primary sources such as the inquiry transcripts, so we all know what the witnesses ACTUALLY said and in context, without any of the cherry picking each side accuses the other one of.
Arun Vajpey
Member
I wonder why? It could not have been the Morse Code per se because that had been in widespread use for over 50 years by 1912. So it must have been the fact that the apparatus used was wireless as opposed to the old fashioned "wire" or signal lamp.
Michael H. Standart
Member
Very likely for no better reason than it was new and not well understood.
It's just there. {shrug}
Steven Christian
Member
I had thought that might be a possible reason. It was kind of new and not all ships had wireless in 1912. But I didn't mention it because it had been around and had been used for rescue attempts already. But I get it. They could have been old school and didn't consider it as important. Just a toy to them. And I understand if thats the case.. A lot of tech stuff that comes out today I don't have any interest in it and dismiss it as a fad. But in a decade or 2 that stuff might be the new reality and run the world. But the Californian had it and the bridge crew knew it. Not that I think it would have made a differance to Titanic. But the optics of the situation would have looked better if they made a run toward her. Captain Lord wouldn't gotten fired and could have ended up higher in the Leyland Line. People came to his defense later and got him hired by other lines because they felt he was a capable skipper. Cheers.
Last edited:
Arun Vajpey
Member
Yes, I think you guys are right.
Same here. At 66 I find this excessive reliance on "Apps" extremely annoying and unnecessary. It is particularly bad in India where there are Apps to book a taxi, to order food on-line etc. I told people there that they will soon have an App to go to the toilet.
