Talk:Stanley Lord

Main article - section 6. - Stanley Lord's reputation. New evidence in 1985

Suggest that the following could be added to section 6 of the main article….

The discovery of the remains of the Titanic on the sea bed, in 1985, provided evidence which dispelled some of the prejudiced assessments of Captain Lord's culpability. The position of the wreck makes it indisputable that the S.O.S position given by the Titanic's officers, after the collision, was very inaccurate. (The error in position amounted to about 13 miles.)

At both of the Titanic enquiries, in 1912, there was a conflict of evidence about the true position of the Titanic when it sank. The conclusions of the 1912 enquiries discounted the evidence of uncertainty about the Titanic's position. It was incorrectly assumed that the position which Captain Lord had given, for his ship, was incorrect and that he was actually much closer to the Titanic than he claimed to be. The true location of the Titanic wreck confirms that those enquiry conclusions were wrong and the balance of probability is that Stanley Lord gave a genuine account of the circumstances. J.Fowler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.100.120 (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As the article currently reads it appears to suggest that Lord and the Californian are culpable because the current could have moved the wreck while the ship was sinking. In fact it seems to me from reading this that the author wants the reader to believe this is the case. From my underdtaning though this is physically impossible. Surface drift in 2 hours of 13 miles is not possible, and there was a large well documented icefield between the wreck location and the Sos location. Additionally, subsurface drift of the distance could not have occurred. The heavier non-dynamic debris from the ships breakup is an excellent indicator of foundering location. Boilers for example would drift no more than a few yards from where they became free of the ship as it broke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.211.133.115 (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Main article - section 6. Stanley Lord's reputation

It was indeed given in evidence that the 'scrap log' entries for the 'Californian'had been destroyed. (n.b. the 'scrap' log was the 'original' daily record in which navigational details or events were noted as the sea watches progressed. It was often written up using a chart pencil. It was then the custom aboard the 'Californian', as well as on many other ships, to copy those rough pencil entries into the ship's official log, in ink, as the permanent record. After the 'fair' copy was written up, it was a common practice to destroy the 'scrap' log pages. That is why it was called a 'scrap' log, the pages were 'scrapped' after the permanent record was written, legibly, in ink. The 1912 Enquiries did impute Captain Lord for allowing the scrap log entries to be destroyed and they apparently considered that to be a suspicious act, though it was never made clear what those suspicions entailed. For example, it would have been pointless for Captain Lord to have destroyed the scrap log as a means of concealing the ship's true position because he had already broadcast his position, by radio, earlier in the evening. For a detailed account of the positions of the Titanic and the Californian, at the relevant times, see Encyclopedia Titanica article 'Ice, clear and absent danger, by S.Molony signed J. Fowler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.45.91 (talk) 11:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is excellent that the finding of the wreck of the Titanic and its position has recovered the reputation of this fine officer. The incompetence and arrogance of many of the people on Titanic is now clear for all to see. They were all too full of their own importance - that is clear! Wallie (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly it is also clear that Stanley Lord failed in his duty to at least attempt to go to the rescue of a ship in distress. White rockets were distress rockets, not 'company signals'. The sight of these rockets should have made him realise that lives were in danger. JonestheDragon (talk) 09:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The situation was nothing like so clear as JonestheDragon suggests. Rockets at sea did not ( and still do not ) invariably mean a signal of distress. In 1912, the regulation rocket signal for distress was a series of rockets, of any colour, fired one after the other at short intervals. There was also a regulation sound signal for distress which specified a detonation or explosive signal to be fired at intervals of about one minute. It was given in evidence that the rockets used on the Titanic were combined, detonating, starburst, rockets - these exploded at height in a bright starburst. Such rockets should therefore have been fired at intervals of about a minute (or less). To make a clear and identifiable distress signal a ship should fire a series of perhaps four or five rockets, one after the other, at consistent intervals of no more than one minute. The ship should then allow a waiting period of maybe five minutes, then repeat the distress signal of four or five rockets - fired one minute apart. That sequence of signals and intervals should be continued for as long as the circumstances permit. Distress signals sent in this manner can be more readily identified as such, by distant ships. The signals are not so likely to be mistaken for shooting stars or distant flashes of lightning. That sequence of firing also makes it much easier for ships in the vicinity to take a precise compass bearing of the distress signal so that they can proceed directly towards the distress.

Unfortunately, that does not appear to have happened aboard the Titanic. Fourth Officer Boxhall's testimony was rather vague but he indicated that single rockets were maybe fired at at intervals of five or six minutes. For unknown reasons, the British Inquiry failed to investigate this aspect in detail. In 1912, rockets were occasionally used as 'company signals' and they were (and sometimes still are) also

My understanding is that there is mixed accounts from Titanic herself. It is clear that Boxhall was not the only one firing rockets from Titanic. Boxhall claims to have only fired white rockets at longer intervals, while many others (like col. Gracie) report condtant firing--every 30 seconds or so. There sre also multiple reports that green, red, and nlue rockefs were fired. Even lightoller says during the us inquiry that the rockets eere inly "principly white." iintervals used as an alerting signal - to warn approaching ships that there are reasons to keep clear - to give a wide berth - because the signalling ship is constrained in some way and unable to manoever. These rocket signals are different from distress signals. If Titanic did indeed fire their rockets - in the way that was stated at the Inquiry - then it was a recipe for confusion. Norloch (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There is discrepency between this article and the Titanic article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic#SS_Californian_inquiry. The conclusion there is that Stanley Lord has been cleared. Since both are using the same sources (1988-1992 inquiry) this should be verified.--OCedHrt (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Reputation section of the Article. - Too much unreferenced speculation ?

The most recent edit of the article contains a number of speculative claims which lack citations or references. The general slant of the edit gives the impression that the authorities considered it expedient not to charge Lord with any of the offences mentioned, perhaps because - (a) they believed Stanley Lord, himself, was innocent of any offence - or (b) that he had specific information which the authorities did not want to have revealed. ( i.e something which Lord could possibly have said if he was charged to answer at a formal public hearing.) However, there are no references in the article to verify either (a) or (b). - Neither are there references for the speculative 13 mile undersea voyage of the Titanic, after the ship sank ! Norloch (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Quoted from the article - "Another conclusion stated that had Lord rushed towards the distress signals that fateful night, the ship would have arrived in time to perhaps save another 200 passengers". This is a very speculative claim. "Rushing" through an icefield, in darkness, is one way of incurring propellor and rudder damage and that wouldn't have aided any rescue attempt. (Read Captain Rostron's testimony to the Titanic inquiry - regarding the ice conditions which he saw at dawn. Rostron himself was wise enough to wait for daylight before he attempted any rescue.) A few moment's thought on the matter will show the obvious risks to any people, floundering in the water, if a ship was to go blundering around the vicinity in pitch darkness. The fact that the area contained a substanti

al amount of small ice would also have made it extremely difficult to identify bodies in the water, during darkness. Norloch (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly it was dangerous to attempt a rescue the ship at night, but there are times, morally and ethically, when a person has to take a chance for the benefit of others. At least Captain Rostron took the chance.John Paul Parks (talk) 16:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Article section "During the night." unreferenced claim

The following sentence is confused and unreferenced - " However, the only person aboard the Californian, with a good understanding of morse was asleep."

For clarification, navigating officers are trained and qualified in the transmission and reception of morse code as visual signals (i.e. using a signal lamp.) Radio officers are trained and qualified in the transmission and reception of morse code as aural signals. (i.e. using radio telegraphy.) Second Officer Stone, aboard the Californian, was a qualified officer.If it is being claimed that he did not have a good understanding of morse code, by visual signalling, this should be verified by references.Norloch (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

When did Lord petition the Board of Trade

It would have been difficult for Lord to petition the Board of Trade in 1965 much less 1968 given that he died in 1962.

When did this petition occur if at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.208.152 (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This sentence doesn't make sense

"Among its conclusions were that although the Californian was probably out of visual sight of the Titanic's rockets had been sighted by the Californians crew."71.230.201.203 (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Titanic's true position

Since the Titanic's true position was established in 1985, it has been stated that the Californian could not have reached the scene ahead of the Carpathia, as previously assumed. Does this mean that the Californian was not the nearest ship to the Titanic after all? Valetude (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Lord’s mental health

The paragraph about the speculations by Daniel Allen Butler about Lord’s mental health (or possible sociopathy!) is very jarring to find in a Wikipedia article. Although it’s countered within the text, does it really have enough merit to be included? Does Butler have any expertise in psychiatry? Tobelia (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)