I never intended to become a Lordite, and still do not know exactly where I fall on the Stanley Lord/Californian debate.
-
nelliebell-1 — 14 years ago(December 17, 2011 08:31 AM)
This area of interest,that is the area of interest whereby the Californian should of responded is full of what not to do.There was so much information that placed the Californian as a legitmate problem rather than the source of a possible rescue that one dares not to wonder.One of those contentious areas was when the one of the ships crewmembers entered the cabin of the wireless operator and litterally connect the reciever to the broadcasting with the wires coming alive.There was so much noise and even crackling as it were that if the noise did not wake the wireless operator the electricity would of as the very environment echoes its presence.Iam unable to accept this premise as it certainly feels as if this was a wilful denial as much as it may very well have been a unmistakable ability to deny its presence.Iam not able at this point to excuse the conduct of the Californian,It the Californian should of most definetly been noted as willful in its neglect and equally as it were upsetting deliberate in its attempt upon the travelers of the sea.
-
jaybird7-2 — 17 years ago(July 04, 2008 01:30 PM)
There's been a lot of argument that the Californian wasn't really as close to the Titanic as the film made out. Firstly, the captain gave his position as nearly 20 miles away in which case he could have seen the Titanic or her rockets. That was disputed at first but then the Titanic was found to be off course. Second, lets say the Titanic was 20 miles away, unless the officers woke the captain up immediately they saw the other ship stop there still wouldn't have been time to reach her before she sunk. oh and survivors reported seeing another ship in the area that sailed away from them. Its often been proposed that there was another ship between the Titanic and Californian, remember the captain and senior officers said the ship they saw couldn't be the Titanic because it wasn't a liner. It was only at the investigation that the junior officers said it was. So the whole titanic story isn't as simple as it seems.
-
rwsmith29456 — 17 years ago(September 19, 2008 10:51 PM)
I've read some stuff too and though his actions were not criminal, it does seem that he did everything he could to avoid going out of his way to help another vessel. The official board of inquiry concluded that Californian should have investigated.
-
Willie12345678 — 17 years ago(January 18, 2009 07:58 AM)
I thought those two men on the bridge of the Californian were possibly two of the biggest dumbasses in history. There's a ship in sight, that appears to have stopped, is firing rockets and at a weird angle.
How could the penny not have dropped? -
deeveed — 16 years ago(October 13, 2009 10:14 AM)
I'm sure after the Titanic hearings that Lord was vilified. Now I'd think if he wanted to clear his name wouldn't he have tried to right himself and put his version of the story out?? To my knowledge, he didn't write anything after the disaster. Perhaps he knew in his heart that he didn't do the 'right" thing during those fateful hours and couldn't back up a defense? Anyway,I can see when people go over his 'actions" all they see is a sailor snoozing soundly in his bunk while a ship goes down into the depths. That's a powerful image in the court of public opinion for sure.
-
chimaera1249 — 16 years ago(October 14, 2009 04:48 PM)
Who said that the rockets were other colors? I've only ever heard of them refered to as white, and definitely not red. Boxhall even made point of emphasisizing that they weren't red at the US Inquiry. Stone and Lord of the
Californian
also said they were white and the BOT Inquiry. -
Traianus — 16 years ago(November 01, 2009 01:30 PM)
"Now I'd think if he wanted to clear his name wouldn't he have tried to right himself and put his version of the story out?? To my knowledge, he didn't write anything after the disaster."<<<
Seriously? The guy was haunted the last 50 years of his life by what had happened. As the other poster mentioned, he spent the last 4 years of his life - after this film came out - trying desperately to set the record straight as he saw it.
If he didn't do more before then, I can think of a couple reasons. For one, there was no internet during the early 20th century; radio was not the force it is now, there was no TV. It's not like TMZ and other gossip websites were all after him. If anything, he was trying to forget what had happened, and it was common for most people of that time and culture to not talk about their troubles. He wasn't going to go complaining about what was bothering him.
Late in his life, he felt obligated to say something, it's clear. He tried to clear his name with the Mercantile Marine Service Association and petitioned the Board of Trade (which rejected his request).
Personally, I can't imagine the kind of hell that his life was and the kind of guilt that he felt for the last 50 years of his life. I doubt any of us on here can. -
wwkentucky — 16 years ago(March 21, 2010 02:43 PM)
Some who enjoy the benefit of hindsight will claim that Capt. Lord was negligent.
Let's use that same hindsight to answer another question: On whose vessel would you rather have been travelling that night Smith's or Lord's? -
wwkentucky — 16 years ago(March 22, 2010 01:49 PM)
My meaning is that while Capt. Lord is often labelled "incompetent" (on this board and elsewhere) by people with the benefit of hindsight, he proved on the night of April 14, 1912, to be anything but.
He stopped his ship when he encountered ice flows and sent wireless messages to approaching ships warning them of the danger. All of Capt. Lord's crew and passengers reached their destination safely. To me, this does not equal incompetence, but the exact opposite.
He misinterpreted the rockets. That is all. Using the exact same hindsight used by the anti-Lord folks, I would much rather have sailed with Lord than Smith. -
karl-lambley — 15 years ago(May 22, 2010 10:10 AM)
I don't think the rockets were "miss-interpreted", emergency rockets or flares should be sent up at one minute intervals.
The rockets from the Titanic were sent up in a wily-nily fashion over the space of an hour or so, more like a small informal fireworks party than a request for help.
Also the Titanic carried 36 rockets, why did they only send 8 up, and those wrongly?
Perhaps if the chaps with the matches had done THEIR jobs properly Lord may have done his?
To screw ECHELON please add "heroin, kiddy porn, terrorist, bomb, president, allah" to every email -
paul-393 — 15 years ago(June 02, 2010 09:11 AM)
This is wrong. The regulations, adopted by the UK, the US, Canada and dozens of other seafaring nation called for rockets of any colour or description fired one at a time, at intervals. There is no mention anywhere of the interval between rockets. If QM Rowe is right, the interval was about 5 minutes. The men on the Titanic did their jobs right. Lord, and his men on the Californian, didn't.