Californian Exonerated? Explain This Then....

Californian Exonerated? Explain This Then....

Postby Arlene Blundell on Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:23 am

Commutator Declares Californian Exonerated -

The plain physics of Stanley Lords case are impossible.

A ship of Californian's hieght from the water, would be physically unable to see anything at all on the horizon at a distance of 15 plus miles in daylight.

Over twenty miles, and the earth's curvature intervenes.

Try it for yourself. We have. Even on a clear day its just not possible.

Lord was much closer than he was telling us.

Officers, crew, and passengers could clearly see the lights. When they got into a lifeboat, they could see a sillouette as well.

Facts like these seem to have been glossed over by this latest attempt to whitewash the responsibility of Captain Lord for failing to take personal command of Californian. Lord at NO TIME got out of bed to ascertain the situation for himself. Any competent master would have done just that, rather than field multiple sightings of a vessel even his officers were telling him "looks to have her big end out of the water."

Remeber, Lord is not guilty of sinking "Titanic", only failing to act personally when he should have.

Responsibility for sinking Titanic lays squarley with the shuips officers and Smith. Ismay was clearly not at fault. Thomas Andrews had more to answer for than he did as a company representative. Calling compartments on the ship 'watertight' when they were no such thing. Sacrificing internal compartments for interior fitting space.

Once again, plain assertions from the public are ignored in favour of the urge to get something published that puts Stanley Lord on a pedestal. Typical of this site.

Arlene

A word from Chris....(Agreed. Refute our claims or back down.)
Arlene Blundell
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Californian Exonerated? Explain This Then....

Postby Arlene Blundell on Thu Aug 27, 2015 10:29 am

Just to add....

Hubs and I have been out on a vessel from the oil fleet that operates in our harbour. We tested the above assumptions, and interviewed variuos crew members who take watch, (day and night).

All laughed at the concept of a vessel supposedly over twenty miles away that could see anything on a moonless night, with the rising stars merging into the horizon.

They thought we were making it up, until we told them the ship that this yarn was spun for. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Arlene Blundell
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Californian Exonerated? Explain This Then....

Postby Arlene Blundell on Thu Aug 27, 2015 8:35 pm

We also wonder if we had written this research 'up' in a more formal manner, and then submitted it to THS for inclusion in the Commutator, we believe we would be knocked back for one reason or another.

Does THS REALLY have a balanced assessment of the disaster? Not by our reckoning. Article after article of "Lordite" silliness, and total ignorance of plain assertions from more informed people who are not part of the "club".

Time to scrap THS. Get rid of the Kamuda Dynasty, (too much bias).
No reply, eh Karen? :P
Arlene Blundell
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 7:59 am

Re: Californian Exonerated? Explain This Then....

Postby Jim Buchanan on Tue Jul 05, 2016 1:29 pm

It has been some time since I contributed here but on reading the previous posts on this thread, I felt I just had to say something.

If I am classed as a member of any CLUB then it has to be the one that includes members with over 50 years experience at sea. I make no apologies for knowing what I'm talking about so expression like ' Know-all and Lordite will be lost on me.

First, let me say categorically that the vessel seen from the bridge of Titanic that early morning was most certainly not and could never have been, the SS Californian. There are several facts which back this up. Principal among these are:

1. The vessel seen by Boxhall et al was approaching Titanic and did so for at least half an hour before it turned away.... Californian was stopped throughout the time Titanic was sinking.

2. The vessel seen from Californian was viewed entirely from Californian's starboard side except for when those on the bridge of Californian saw the last pyrotechnic 2 points...22.5 degrees on Californian's port bow. This means that right up until just before the last signal was seen from Californian, she was showing the other vessel her green side-light and two white masthead lights. When that last signal was seen, Californian was showing the other vessel her red sidelight and two white masthead lights. At no time did Californian show the other vessel a single, bright white light. Yet, there is overwhelming evidence to prove that the vessel seen from Titanic showed a single, bright white light from the time Boxhall embarked on Lifeboat number 4 until until that vessel finally disappeared.

"A ship of Californian's hieght from the water, would be physically unable to see anything at all on the horizon at a distance of 15 plus miles in daylight.".

Only true if the anything had no height, shape or colour. With a pair of good binoculars, an object with height, shape and a highly reflective surface or dark colour would easily have been seen at a much greater distance than 15 miles. The only limiting factors would have been the height, degree of reflectivity and/or colour of the object and the quality of the intervening atmosphere. i.e. was it dusty or unpolluted - humid or dry?
For example, on a clear, sunny, dry day, sharp eyes on the bridge of the Californian would have been able to see a 100 ft high iceberg at the extreme distance of very close to 20 miles.

Jim.
Jim Buchanan
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:45 pm


Return to Californian

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron