The position of Stone's first "Flash" relative to the nearby vessel.

Bob_Read

Member
May 9, 2019
301
110
43
USA
Steve: You say Californian’s position is known without doubt. Then why was Titanic’s reported position Incorrect? Are you saying that it was impossible for Californian’s position to be correct but not Titanic’s. What’s wrong with this picture?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samuel Halpern

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
246
14
18
Usa
If it was Californian seen from Titanic, why did lookouts Fred Fleet and Reginald Lee not see her lying motionless in the water throughout the night? Californian may have swung somewhat over the course of time in the drift... but not THAT fast as to appear to be approaching
There is a very good possibility the Titanic and the Californian were drifting in the different set of currents. The Californian could have been really approaching and later leaving the Titanic.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,985
614
183
Funchal. Madeira
Hi Jim,

You are really going over old ground here as all this was discussed 'ad nauseam' on the 'Captain Lord Guilty as charged' thread.

Lowe only 'glanced'. He also provided an affidavit subsequently adding more details and the Titanic was pointing north, contradicting Boxhall.

All this is expertly explained and commented upon in Sam's new book, that deals with ALL the evidence.

Incidentally, and much to my surprise, Sam does a bit of a 'hatchet job' on Boxhall's evidence over many years in his new book, with precise textual analysis and much else besides that is compelling.

(I have always been of the view Boxhall was a 'dodgy' witness, and may have been ill at the time subsequently developing a form of pleurisy. He was only interested in securing his own employment with White Star, and his Company pension, and had a penny pinching 'parsimonious' approach to his own expenses for the British Inquiry that extended into old age when arguing with correspondents over the cost of his postage when replying to them. He directly implicated Captain Lord and The Californian in 1959 and 1962).

Cheers,

Julian
Hello Julian.
I have to say it. This last post of your does you no credit whatsoever. An "Expert" in any field does not take 16 years to assess technical evidence.
As for your opinion of Boxhall? By voicing that, you exhibit your lack of expertise. In much the same way as would any other "expert" who uses the relative movement between 2 vessel to determine a heading without reference to a compass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexP

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,985
614
183
Funchal. Madeira
There is a very good possibility the Titanic and the Californian were drifting in the different set of currents. The Californian could have been really approaching and later leaving the Titanic.
Rubbish! The ship seen from the Titanic was moving. It was seen at a distance using binoculars and finally 5 to 7 miles away with the naked eye. Multiple witnesses saw this. Three witnesses saw a red light when Californian was still showing a green one. If, as the evidence indicates, that vessel was on an easterly course and approaching the west side of the ice barrier, then her captain would have been doing as did the Captain of the Mount Temple - altering courses right and left to avoid ice. That is why Boxhall saw both the coloured sidelights of the vessel approaching the sinking Titanic. The nonsense being perpetuated on these pages is the idea that a man with an Extra Master's Certificate was unable to differentiate between a moving ship and a stopped one and unable to make a reasonably accurate determination of separation between his ship and another

I suggest that you and all the self-styled "Experts" on these pages, read the regulations and the following pages. In doing so, you and they will learn that even a First Year Apprentice or Cadet has more knowledge about "How Is She Heading" than most of the contributors to this argument.
I suggest that you and others read the following, inwardly digest then apply your newfound knowledge to the evidence. That is what a Professional Expert has done then gone on to perfect the knowledge by practice. When you have done so, then you have enough knowledge to argue the point instead or resorting to imaginary currents and/or disregarding that which does not fit a pre-conceived notion..
HSH1 2019-12-01 001.jpg

HSH2 2019-12-01 001.jpg


" Range lights plural : two white lights in the same vertical plane as the keel with one at least fifteen feet higher than and horizontally distant from the other that may be carried by a steamer under way to indicate her course."
 

AlexP

Member
May 23, 2019
246
14
18
Usa
Rubbish! The ship seen from the Titanic was moving. It was seen at a distance using binoculars and finally 5 to 7 miles away with the naked eye. Multiple witnesses saw this. Three witnesses saw a red light when Californian was still showing a green one. If, as the evidence indicates, that vessel was on an easterly course and approaching the west side of the ice barrier, then her captain would have been doing as did the Captain of the Mount Temple - altering courses right and left to avoid ice. That is why Boxhall saw both the coloured sidelights of the vessel approaching the sinking Titanic. The nonsense being perpetuated on these pages is the idea that a man with an Extra Master's Certificate was unable to differentiate between a moving ship and a stopped one and unable to make a reasonably accurate determination of separation between his ship and another
It is not rubbish. There is multiple evidence that prove that there were unusual eddy currents during the disaster, and yes, thanks to Mila I am almost an expert in regards to the currents and to common sense. Eddies explain almost everything that is hard to impossible to explain otherwise.

Are you alleging that the survivors saw the Mount Temple approaching? Then why Mr. Gibson and Mr. Stone saw the rockets, and both were sure they were fiered from the steamer they watched and the navigational lines but nobody from the Mount Temple did?
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
978
452
73
South Wales UK
With the greatest of respect (and I mean that sincerely), I don't get the seeming disconnect between where Titanic foundered and where Californian stopped engines that previous night... both are known beyond any reasonable doubt - Titanic foundered at 41° 43N, 49° 56W whilst Californian stopped at 42° 05N, 50° 07W - and the distance between the two is approximately 19.25 nautical miles (22 statute miles)... what's the issue?
Hello Steven,

Boxhall got his CQD position wrong, as did Captain Smith. Captain Rostron on Carpathia got his dead reckoning wrong (plus his speed and distance wrong) that luckily meant he was not on a course to Boxhall's CQD, and ended up on his wrong course to get to where Boxhall's lifeboat was. Captain Moore on the Mount Temple is a little more complicated. The idea that NO dead reckoning mistakes were made or NO mistakes made as to positions just doesn't hold water.

The idea that Captain Lord's 42 05 latitude should be sacrosanct is pure nonsense. He had only taken a sighting at noon on the 14th April. His affidavit of 1959 mentions Stone taking a sighting around 5pm that Captain Young of the Board of Trade described in the early 1960s as very unreliable, as did Captain Lord himself. At 6.30pm Californian time, a Marconi message was sent to The Antillian that they were at 42 03 latitude, and the following day The Californian sent to Olympic a Marconi message that they were at 42 03 latitude that night and the evening of the 14th April.

Some 2 miles less ie 17 miles from Boxhall's CQD position.

The Virginian via Captain Gambell on 22nd April 1912 gave a report to The Times in the UK when he arrived in Liverpool that The Californian had reported it's position around 6 am as being 17 miles away from Titanic (Boxhall's CQD), not taking into account any drift for some 7 hours 30 minutes or so whilst stopped. (Captain Lord himself quoted in his letter to the Board of Trade 10th August 1912 that he was 17 miles away as reported to The Virginian).

These niceties were missed on both Inquiries.

Note that just before 7am on the 15th Captain Moore took a prime sight to fix his longitude. Captain Lord did not. Captain Lord took no sightings to fix his position until Noon on the 15th April.

The obvious evidence is that Captain Lord merely took Noon LAN sightings steaming pretty much due west on a course to Boston that both The Californian had never done before neither Captain Lord. (I think myself they might just have followed The Parisian in daylight, some 14 miles ahead around 5.11pm on the 14th). Captain Lord was used to going down to New Orleans and the Southern states of the USA and The Caribbean. HE HAD NEVER GONE TO BOSTON BEFORE!

There is a BIG question mark over Stewart's pole star sighting at 7.30pm on the 14th April of a 42 05 latitude:-

1. It was not the latitude sent to The Antillian at 6.30pm, which anyway was a dead reckoning position from Noon on the 14th April.

2. It was NOT the latitude sent the next day to Olympic by The Californian.

3. The 17 miles (that accords with a 42 03 latitude) that Captain Lord sent to Captain Gambell of The Virginian shortly after 6am on the 15th April, which Captain Lord corroborated in his letter of 10th August 1912 to the Board of Trade, is not Stewart's alleged 'Pole Star' sighting at 7.30pm of a 42 05 latitude entered LATER into the ships log. We know Stewart wrote up the ships log 'after the event' ie after it was known Titanic had sunk and The Californian had done it's search of the wreckage site, and after, as per Evans at the USA Inquiry, there had been much discussion amongst the crew of the previous night's events that morning.

4. Captain Lord's letter to the USA Inquiry after he had given evidence quoted the water temperatures the afternoon and evening of the 14th, and it is clear that The Californian became under the influence of The Labrador current by 4pm, and sometime after Noon

5. Stewart can be conclusively proved to have lied/ been 'economical with the truth' to The British Inquiry on a number of matters.

If it was Californian seen from Titanic, why did lookouts Fred Fleet and Reginald Lee not see her lying motionless in the water throughout the night? Californian may have swung somewhat over the course of time in the drift... but not THAT fast as to appear to be approaching the stricken White Star Liner, stop, turn around, and sail off into the distance (as described by Joseph Boxhall)... that dog just don't hunt, as the Americans would say!
Steven, simply because at the time of the collision The Californian was pointing NE true to the Titanic and had 'shut in' her side lights and masthead lights, and her stern light would have been very indistinct at that distance, and being 'hull down' on the horizon. (Also The Californian had no passengers that particular voyage so no deck lights at all, though again these would have been very indistinct had they been on that late due to the angle of The Californian to Titanic, and due to being 'hull down' on the horizon, same as her stern light).

When Groves reported to Stone when Stone took over the watch around 12.10am on the 15th, and Gibson got to the bridge around 12.15am with the coffee, all 3 corroborated each other as to the direction this other steamer was that they were observing was vis a vis The Californian ie ENE by compass or NE true. Captain Lord had also spoken with Stone at 12.08am on the boat deck alongside the outside of the chart room/unused wheelhouse on the starboard side and pointed out this other steamer on their starboard beam before Stone climbed up the short flight of steps to the flying bridge. All agreed that at that time the other steamer was ESE by compass or SE true

It was only later on that The Californian continued to swing round and thence started to open up her mast head lights and side lights to Titanic.

All of this is made simplistically clear in Sam's new book "Strangers on The Horizon".

Cheers,

Julian
 
Last edited:

Steven

Member
Sep 24, 2016
47
33
28
Steve: You say Californian’s position is known without doubt. Then why was Titanic’s reported position Incorrect? Are you saying that it was impossible for Californian’s position to be correct but not Titanic’s. What’s wrong with this picture?
No, I'm not saying that... but the fact is that Captain Lord was (more or less) correct from the outset in his estimation of the distance between his vessel and the Titanic... it only took 73 years to prove it. And even if the Californian's position was wrong, it would have had to be wrong to a wholly drastic and amateurish degree for the two vessels to be ANYWHERE near in sight of each other... and I don't think Lord would have made Captain at 29 years of age if he was that incompetent; his history of service before and after April 14th/15th, 1912 shows he was anything but.

Hello Steven,

Boxhall got his CQD position wrong, as did Captain Smith. Captain Rostron on Carpathia got his dead reckoning wrong (plus his speed and distance wrong) that luckily meant he was not on a course to Boxhall's CQD, and ended up on his wrong course to get to where Boxhall's lifeboat was. Captain Moore on the Mount Temple is a little more complicated. The idea that NO dead reckoning mistakes were made or NO mistakes made as to positions just doesn't hold water.

The idea that Captain Lord's 42 05 latitude should be sacrosanct is pure nonsense. He had only taken a sighting at noon on the 14th April. His affidavit of 1959 mentions Stone taking a sighting around 5pm that Captain Young of the Board of Trade described in the early 1960s as very unreliable, as did Captain Lord himself. At 6.30pm Californian time, a Marconi message was sent to The Antillian that they were at 42 03 latitude, and the following day The Californian sent to Olympic a Marconi message that they were at 42 03 latitude that night and the evening of the 14th April.

Some 2 miles less ie 17 miles from Boxhall's CQD position.

The Virginian via Captain Gambell on 22nd April 1912 gave a report to The Times in the UK when he arrived in Liverpool that The Californian had reported it's position around 6 am as being 17 miles away from Titanic (Boxhall's CQD), not taking into account any drift for some 7 hours 30 minutes or so whilst stopped. (Captain Lord himself quoted in his letter to the Board of Trade 10th August 1912 that he was 17 miles away as reported to The Virginian).

These niceties were missed on both Inquiries.

Note that just before 7am on the 15th Captain Moore took a prime sight to fix his longitude. Captain Lord did not. Captain Lord took no sightings to fix his position until Noon on the 15th April.

The obvious evidence is that Captain Lord merely took Noon LAN sightings steaming pretty much due west on a course to Boston that both The Californian had never done before neither Captain Lord. (I think myself they might just have followed The Parisian in daylight, some 14 miles ahead around 5.11pm on the 14th). Captain Lord was used to going down to New Orleans and the Southern states of the USA and The Caribbean. HE HAD NEVER GONE TO BOSTON BEFORE!

There is a BIG question mark over Stewart's pole star sighting at 7.30pm on the 14th April of a 42 05 latitude:-

1. It was not the latitude sent to The Antillian at 6.30pm, which anyway was a dead reckoning position from Noon on the 14th April.

2. It was NOT the latitude sent the next day to Olympic by The Californian.

3. The 17 miles (that accords with a 42 03 latitude) that Captain Lord sent to Captain Gambell of The Virginian shortly after 6am on the 15th April, which Captain Lord corroborated in his letter of 10th August 1912 to the Board of Trade, is not Stewart's alleged 'Pole Star' sighting at 7.30pm of a 42 05 latitude entered LATER into the ships log. We know Stewart wrote up the ships log 'after the event' ie after it was known Titanic had sunk and The Californian had done it's search of the wreckage site, and after, as per Evans at the USA Inquiry, there had been much discussion amongst the crew of the previous night's events that morning.

4. Captain Lord's letter to the USA Inquiry after he had given evidence quoted the water temperatures the afternoon and evening of the 14th, and it is clear that The Californian became under the influence of The Labrador current by 4pm, and sometime after Noon

5. Stewart can be conclusively proved to have lied/ been 'economical with the truth' to The British Inquiry on a number of matters.



Steven, simply because at the time of the collision The Californian was pointing NE true to the Titanic and had 'shut in' her side lights and masthead lights, and her stern light would have been very indistinct at that distance, and being 'hull down' on the horizon. (Also The Californian had no passengers that particular voyage so no deck lights at all, though again these would have been very indistinct had they been on that late due to the angle of The Californian to Titanic, and due to being 'hull down' on the horizon, same as her stern light).

When Groves reported to Stone when Stone took over the watch around 12.10am on the 15th, and Gibson got to the bridge around 12.15am with the coffee, all 3 corroborated each other as to the direction this other steamer was that they were observing was vis a vis The Californian ie ENE by compass or NE true. Captain Lord had also spoken with Stone at 12.08am on the boat deck alongside the outside of the chart room/unused wheelhouse on the starboard side and pointed out this other steamer on their starboard beam before Stone climbed up the short flight of steps to the flying bridge. All agreed that at that time the other steamer was ESE by compass or SE true

It was only later on that The Californian continued to swing round and thence started to open up her mast head lights and side lights to Titanic.

All of this is made simplistically clear in Sam's new book "Strangers on The Horizon".

Cheers,

Julian
So, in your considered estimation, how far apart were the two vessels that night? Just to be clear...
 
Last edited:
Mar 22, 2003
5,379
751
273
Chicago, IL, USA
“I approached the position of the 'Titanic' 41.46 N. L., 50.14 W. L. on a course substantially N. 52 W. (true), reaching the first boat shortly after 4 a.m. ... The ‘Carpathia’ was then in substantially the position of the ‘Titanic’ at the time of the disaster as given to us by wireless. I consider the position of the ‘Titanic,’ as given to us by her Officers, to be correct.” - AH Rostron, Captain, RMS Carpathia.

"I know our position, because I worked the position out, and I know that it is correct. One of the first things that Capt. Rostron said after I met him was 'What a splendid position that was you gave us.'" - JG Boxhall, Fourth Officer, RMS Titanic.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,985
614
183
Funchal. Madeira
This recent exchanged illustrate the need for understanding regarding how a ship is navigated.

For a start off, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the navigation of the Californian. Those who claim there was. are simply trying to bend her progress to fit preconceived notions and place her within sight of the sinking Titanic. To do so , they must conjure up factors for which there is absolutely no evidence. And incidentally, like Captain Knapp USN, bend the pack ice as well.

A calculated latitude was obtained 20 minutes before Captain Lord took over the bridge of the Californian. If anyone doubts whether Lord did not consult concerning that latitude at the time he took over the 8 to Midnight Watch from his Chief Officer, then they illustrate a deficit of knowledge. That Latitude was calculated by Polaris. If anyone questions the accuracy of that then they too exhibit ignorance of how a 3 mate ship is navigated. and more to the point, the value placed by Navigators on a Polaris sight (The Mate's Heavenly Friend)... during evening and morning sights.... particularly in a ship which is on a westerly or easterly course. To suggest that Stewart got it so fundamentally wrong is totally absurd. The Pole Star sight is possibly the easiest and quickest way to obtain a position line (latitude) of all navigation calculations. In fact, a competent Navigator is able to reconstruct the sight taken by Stewart that evening. Here is something else which some of you may find of interest. It may even explain why this sight is so preferred.

polaris 2019-12-02 001.jpg



By the same token, when the evening sights were completed on Titanic, her captain also discussed them with his officers. If there had been anything amiss with the position found, Smith would have questioned the sights. There is no evidence of that.

It follows that both vessels had a fixed position obtain around the same time from which any subsequent DR position could be determined. Both ships were operating in exactly the same conditions and in the same area. Consequently, any external influences should have affected them in the same way. However, we know that in fact, Titanic's estimated positions were too far to the west but she was more or less exactly on her course. While Californian's position, according to the armchair experts, was too far west and more to the point , too far to the south. Then we bring in the Carpathia.
Carpathia's position was too far east and north of where she should have been. Not only that, but she got there despite the mysterious south setting current of which there was no declared evidence by any vessel in the area. However, there was another player... the SS Mesaba. She found herself to be too far north and east of where she expected to be.

In fact, if anyone cares to plot the positions of these 4 vessels, it will be found that three of them have one thing in common...they were not as far west as they thought they were and 2 of them were set northward. The forth one did not have a means of determining exact longitude, but she knew her latitude. Additionally, her captain was burning coal for 11 knots. Perhaps she was a little father west than her captain thought she was...about 2 miles farther west? After all, Boxhall thought the perfect conditions would produce 22 knots but they produced half a knot faster.

By the way, Titanic never did point North, she was physically incapable of doing so very soon after the turbine was disengaged.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,985
614
183
Funchal. Madeira
[
“I approached the position of the 'Titanic' 41.46 N. L., 50.14 W. L. on a course substantially N. 52 W. (true), reaching the first boat shortly after 4 a.m. ... The ‘Carpathia’ was then in substantially the position of the ‘Titanic’ at the time of the disaster as given to us by wireless. I consider the position of the ‘Titanic,’ as given to us by her Officers, to be correct.” - AH Rostron, Captain, RMS Carpathia.

"I know our position, because I worked the position out, and I know that it is correct. One of the first things that Capt. Rostron said after I met him was 'What a splendid position that was you gave us.'" - JG Boxhall, Fourth Officer, RMS Titanic.
The "Hero" lied in his teeth. Just as Lord obtained a Noon position that day, so would have Rostron.
Carpathia would have traveled a distance of about 39 miles from where she left Californian until Noon that day. If she had been where Rostron said she was and the ice had been the shape shown by Captain Knapp, USN, then her Noon Longitude should have been close to 50-55.5'W. If she had gone due south from where she left Californian and then turned westward when clear of the ice, then she could not have been farther west than 50-25'West at Noon sights on April 15.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,379
751
273
Chicago, IL, USA
>>The "Hero" lied in his teeth. <<

25 April 1912:
“In the first place, don’t you think that if any signals were seen by this man (if he was on deck) they would not have been seen by the officers and men on the bridge.
“Every officer and man of this crew is an Englishman and a white man, and no Englishman will stand by and see anybody or anything in distress without trying to lend assistance.
“Mr. Stewart, the first officer, was on the bridge during the times that the signals were supposed to have been seen, and he can tell you himself that nothing of the kind was seen by him, or any of the men who were on watch with him…
“Everything had been quiet during the night and no signals of distress or anything else had been seen, and about 5 o’clock in the morning, which is my regular time for getting up, I told Mr. Stewart to wake up ‘Wireless’ and have him get in touch with some ship and get an idea of what kind of an ice field we had gotten into…”
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
978
452
73
South Wales UK
It is quite an interesting contrast, isn't it? Jim considers the 'Hero' Captain Rostron lied through his teeth, which to a certain extent, with certain caveats, I can go along with to the extent that Captain Rostron made lots of mistakes that night...

Sam's post above is the clearest indication that Captain Lord deliberately lied to the Boston Press, namely the Boston Journal on 26th May 1912.

Who lied through his teeth? Who's lying or mistakes were inconsequential, and who's lying was deliberate falsehood?

If we take the view that Captain Lord deliberately lied to the Boston Press, (and I would submit there is substantial evidence of this, and not just 'journalese'), then what else of Captain Lord's evidence was a lie and concocted?!

And what of Captain Lord keeping secret the 18th April statements of Stone and Gibson from both Inquiries, and Stone and Gibson making no mention or reference to these statements in the British Inquiry? Something was going on!

Cheers,
Julian
 
Last edited:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,985
614
183
Funchal. Madeira
>>The "Hero" lied in his teeth. <<

25 April 1912:
“In the first place, don’t you think that if any signals were seen by this man (if he was on deck) they would not have been seen by the officers and men on the bridge.
“Every officer and man of this crew is an Englishman and a white man, and no Englishman will stand by and see anybody or anything in distress without trying to lend assistance.
“Mr. Stewart, the first officer, was on the bridge during the times that the signals were supposed to have been seen, and he can tell you himself that nothing of the kind was seen by him, or any of the men who were on watch with him…
“Everything had been quiet during the night and no signals of distress or anything else had been seen, and about 5 o’clock in the morning, which is my regular time for getting up, I told Mr. Stewart to wake up ‘Wireless’ and have him get in touch with some ship and get an idea of what kind of an ice field we had gotten into…”
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Newspaper report. So you take for gospel, everything the Boston Newspapers reported?

Not exactly what I would expect the response to be from one who would like to be considered a forensic analyst.

I showed you how Rostron lied. You reply by quoting a newspaper report which was the result of follow- up on a story appearing previously in another newspaper. The original story was given to the press by an crew member of the Californian. who, in turn, had it from Assistant Donkyman Gill who has been shown to be an outright liar. This report appeared the day before Lord and Gill gave evidence to the US Inquiry

But let'splay your game. I question and observe as follows:

Paragraph 1: The "man" in question was Assistant Donkeyman Gill. However, what question was put to Lord by the Reporter on 25th April...the day after Gill signed his affidavit and the day before Lord and GIll gave evidence at the US Inquiry? Was that question based on the story give by the relative of the ship's Carpenter to the Clinton Newspaper? Did it suggest Gill saw his "Rocket" at Midnight when he went to call the Watch? If so, then Lord was speaking the truth.
Paragraph 2: Mostly true. However nobility of spirit was not and is still not, confined to Englishmen. Were all of the crew born in England?
Paragraph 3: Lord would not have said that his Chief Officer was on the bridge during the rocket sightings. He was many things but do you, or anyone else seriously believe that he would intentionally tell such such a lie then potentially give the game away by referring the questioner to the Chief Officer who would immediately have denied such a thing? Seriously?
Paragraph 4: For a start of, a British Captain would never have used the term "gotten into". That is pure Americanism.
Lord had previously referred his questioners to his Chief Officer. Had they followed Lord's advice (and he could not have known they would not do so), not only would they have learned that Stewart was not on the bridge during the sighting of the rockets, but they would also have learned that Stewart had been advised of the sighting by Stone and that he, Stewart had night orders to call the Captain at first light.
As for wireless messages? The press already had loads of sources for these, Evans included.
In fact, a lot of the "meat" in the story you put forward as proof of Lord lying was probably given to the Press by Gill who told Wirless Operator Evans on April 24 " "I think we will make about $500 out of it."

Moderator's note: Edited to correct formatting error. MAB
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,985
614
183
Funchal. Madeira
It is quite an interesting contrast, isn't it? Jim considers the 'Hero' Captain Rostron lied through his teeth, which to a certain extent, with certain caveats, I can go along with to the extent that Captain Rostron made lots of mistakes that night...

Sam's post above is the clearest indication that Captain Lord deliberately lied to the Boston Press, namely the Boston Journal on 26th May 1912.

Who lied through his teeth? Who's lying or mistakes were inconsequential, and who's lying was deliberate falsehood?

If we take the view that Captain Lord deliberately lied to the Boston Press, (and I would submit there is substantial evidence of this, and not just 'journalese'), then what else of Captain Lord's evidence was a lie and concocted?!

And what of Captain Lord keeping secret the 18th April statements of Stone and Gibson from both Inquiries, and Stone and Gibson making no mention or reference to these statements in the British Inquiry? Something was going on!

Cheers,
Julian
Sam's quote is dated April 25,1912, not May 25th. The Boston newspaper report appeared the day after Gill was bribed with $500

Think very carefully about these statements by Stone and Gibson. In fact, they could have been effectively used by Lord to distance his ship from the sinking Titanic. He did not use them for that purpose or any purpose.

First: Statement content from Gibson contradicting association with Titanic:
"
I then went over to the Second Officer and remarked she looked like a tramp steamer. He said that most probably she was, and was burning oil lights. This ship was then right abeam".
"the Second Officer told me that the other ship, which was then about 3 ½ points on the Starboard bow, had fired five rockets and he also remarked that after seeing the second one to make sure that he was not mistaken, he had told the Captain, through the speaking tube, and that the Captain had told him to watch her and keep calling her up on the Morse light"
"I observed that her sidelight had disappeared, but her masthead light was just visible, and the Second Officer remarked after taking another bearing of her, that she was slowly steering away towards the S.W."
"When about one point on the Port bow she fired another rocket which like the others burst into white stars."
"the Second Officer remarked after taking another bearing of her, that she was slowly steering away towards the S.W."


Second: Statement content from Stone corroborating the evidence of Gibson and contradicting association with Titanic
"
I saw this was correct and observed the other steamer S.S.E dead abeam"
" I judged her to be a small tramp steamer and about five miles distant".
" At 12:35 you whistled up the speaking tube and asked if the other steamer had moved. I replied ‘No’ and that she was on the same bearing"
"at 1:50 were heading about W.S.W. and the other steamer bearing S. W. x W."

After he had arrived at the CQD position, and having pushed his way through pack ice to get there, Lord knew for certain that Titanic's CQD position was wrong. So did Captain Moore of the Mount Temple. However, everyone else publicly believed Rostron and Boxhall.
Lord would have been painfully aware of that. Consequently, given the content of these statements, it would have been east for him to emphasise the difference between what his men reported seeing and what they should have seen had they been witnessing the end of Titanic. He did not do so. In fact he suppressed these reports which, he rightly guessed would in any case be dismissed as fallacy and even perhaps, a poor attempt to deceive., as well as evidence of incompetence of his junior officers.
 
Mar 22, 2003
5,379
751
273
Chicago, IL, USA
May the truth be told. We all know that Stanley Lord would never lie, and newspaper reporters always write about fake news. It was all part of a massive media witch hunt to find a living scapegoat.
 

Julian Atkins

Member
Sep 23, 2017
978
452
73
South Wales UK
Sam's quote is dated April 25,1912, not May 25th.
Hi Jim,

Yes, sorry for that typo error.

I think anyone who has read Stone and Gibson's 18th April statements, kept secret by Captain Lord from both Inquiries (and he was under a clear legal obligation to disclose all relevant statements to the British inquiry) can make up their own minds.

And anyone who has read the Boston Press reports in Reade's book 'The Ship That Stood Still', plus the letter of Gerard Jensen which is the first document in the Board of Trade file concerning 'The Californian Incident', will also make up their own mind. Sam has helpfully provided all the Boston Press reports in Chapter 16 of his new book, and is very useful for those who don't have access to Reade's book - which has been out of print for many years. (Sam doesn't make any mention of Gerard Jensen and his letter in his new book).

We know for sure that Captain Lord and Groves withheld some highly relevant evidence from the British Inquiry... Captain Lord in old age provides a vivid description of what went on in Marine Superintendant Fry's office when they got back to Liverpool, in his 1961 taped recorded interviews - which matches exactly what Groves told Walter Lord a few years before. They corroborate each other, and show that on one vital piece of evidence Groves kept quiet in 1912, and that Captain Lord lied about what Groves told him at the British Inquiry.

As to the Boston Press in April 1912, Jim, you have admitted on the 'Captain Lord Guilty as Charged' thread you have not read or been aware of this substantial evidence. Leslie Harrison was also unaware of it, it seems, as he does not quote any of the damning reports quoted by Reade.

Incidentally, there is a reference in Sam's new book page 411 to the Boston reporters being Captain Lord's first encounter with The Press... this is not correct as Aaron and Harland have shown, and Captain Lord had dealings with The Press on a previous voyage, and Aaron posted on here the relevant press articles that he had researched, with press interviews with Captain Lord (about the young girl who had been trafficked for immoral purposes to the USA, and whom Captain Lord brought safely home on The Californian).

Cheers,
Julian
 
Last edited:

Steven

Member
Sep 24, 2016
47
33
28
May the truth be told. We all know that Stanley Lord would never lie, and newspaper reporters always write about fake news. It was all part of a massive media witch hunt to find a living scapegoat.
You obviously meant that as sarcasm, but every jest has a kernel of truth, and in this case your's is no exception... there WAS a massive media witch hunt to find a scapegoat; just ask J. Bruce Ismay about that! But was ever thus after a major tragedy... then and now...

As Captain Lord's good friend Frank Strachan said to him, "they wanted a scapegoat and you were the bloody goat".

What a pity Captain Moore of the Mount Temple was never subjected to the level of interrogation and scrutiny that Lord was... or the fact that both the press and subsequent inquiries both paid attention to and believed a paid liar like Gill over the multiple accounts of passengers of the aforementioned Mount Temple (the latter of which was all but ignored for some reason). Had the press and inquiries done their job objectively, the official historical account of that tragic night might have read rather differently in some aspects, alas...
 

Andrew

Member
Oct 25, 2016
30
9
18
42
But Steven, you need to acknowledge why Lord & his officers were subjected to such scrutiny.
It wasn't as if the media picked on a random ship that was in the vicinity.

There's no smoke without fire, and in the case of the Californian it was fairly billowing out of its funnel.

Why would Captain Moore be subjected to the same level of scrutiny? No-one on his ship saw anything resembling what was seen from the Californian, and thanks to the wreck being thirteen miles east of the CQD position it's virtually certain that Mount Temple could not have been in visual range of the sinking Titanic.

I realise yourself & Jim are obsessed with the idea that 'opponents' of Lord are simply blinkered by a misguided preconception of events.
But that simply isn't true.
And if you could get past that mindset, you might yourselves be capable of a truly objective analysis of events.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,985
614
183
Funchal. Madeira
Hi Jim,

Yes, sorry for that typo error.

I think anyone who has read Stone and Gibson's 18th April statements, kept secret by Captain Lord from both Inquiries (and he was under a clear legal obligation to disclose all relevant statements to the British inquiry) can make up their own minds.

And anyone who has read the Boston Press reports in Reade's book 'The Ship That Stood Still', plus the letter of Gerard Jensen which is the first document in the Board of Trade file concerning 'The Californian Incident', will also make up their own mind. Sam has helpfully provided all the Boston Press reports in Chapter 16 of his new book, and is very useful for those who don't have access to Reade's book - which has been out of print for many years. (Sam doesn't make any mention of Gerard Jensen and his letter in his new book).

We know for sure that Captain Lord and Groves withheld some highly relevant evidence from the British Inquiry... Captain Lord in old age provides a vivid description of what went on in Marine Superintendant Fry's office when they got back to Liverpool, in his 1961 taped recorded interviews - which matches exactly what Groves told Walter Lord a few years before. They corroborate each other, and show that on one vital piece of evidence Groves kept quiet in 1912, and that Captain Lord lied about what Groves told him at the British Inquiry.

As to the Boston Press in April 1912, Jim, you have admitted on the 'Captain Lord Guilty as Charged' thread you have not read or been aware of this substantial evidence. Leslie Harrison was also unaware of it, it seems, as he does not quote any of the damning reports quoted by Reade.

Incidentally, there is a reference in Sam's new book page 411 to the Boston reporters being Captain Lord's first encounter with The Press... this is not correct as Aaron and Harland have shown, and Captain Lord had dealings with The Press on a previous voyage, and Aaron posted on here the relevant press articles that he had researched, with press interviews with Captain Lord (about the young girl who had been trafficked for immoral purposes to the USA, and whom Captain Lord brought safely home on The Californian).

Cheers,
Julian
Let's set the record strait, Julian. Captain Lord was never charged with anything. In fact, the question of the SS Californian was only included in the British Inquiry as an afterthought and due to pressure from the popular Press encouraged by the US Inquiry. It snow balled from there into the monster it has become today. Most of this due to the inability or reluctance of individuals to refrain from bending some evidence, ignoring other evidence and mixing it in with a lack of understanding of the subject matter.
If Lord was the monster that is portrayed by some, why on earth do you and others think that his Certificate of Competency and those of the officers belittled in the fiasco were not cancelled by the BoT?
Why would any seaman sail with a captain who apparently had such disregard fro hum,an life and more to the point, those under his command?

However, the bottom line is this: Why would Underwriters, underwrite the value of a ship and cargo commanded by Lord or for that matter, would any decent shipowner ever hire him?

As for he and Groves withholding evidence...have you any idea how difficult it is to withhold anything from the crew of a ship? As you can see from the evidence of Assistant Donkeyman Gill, to some ship's crew members (or for that matter, some SS Californian researchers ) a small detail like truth is only incidental to a juicy tale.