Here Here Mac G! Good to hear from you. Yes! I do remember that debate we had! Over the Marconi operators or something?

I started this controvercial question for basically two reasons.

1. To spur some great debate and get away from all the spamming.


2. I feel that Ismay has no defense, that his actions are oversimplified by the media and cinema, and, since he is now unable to defend himself, he needs a little from some of us Titanic enthusiests (or at least, get away from just labeling him a "jerk"). I mean, the guy was not Stalin or Manson. He simply made a bad judgement, (like countless other people in Titanic's story). But, he is forever stigmatized by history far worse than anyone else.

I feel for the people who are blamed in this epic story such as Ismay and Stanley Lord. They are victims too. Ismay, whether it was a cowardly decision, or simply instict, knew what he did as soon as he rowed away from Titanic.

He turned away and could not watch that ship go beneath the waves. Can you imagine what type of guilt he had at that very moment? (I think of that scene where he turns away and breaks down in ANTR).

And to be shunned the rest of his life by many of his friends and to basically become a recluse until he died. That is a tragedy in itself that anyone has to live like that.


I think that when people judge Ismay and have something bad to say about him, that they need to take a moment and remember that everyone in their lives makes mistakes and bad judgement. Every single one of us.

We have all acted during one time or another in a way that we wish we could take back.

Well said my friend. I think we were talking a Phillips as well too!

Anyways, Ismay shares no relevance to a "bad guy" to myself. He just happened to own the White Star Line. Furthermore, why is he, or any other man labeled a coward for surviving? Life is a precise thing, if he could get in a boat with more spots for people, why not take it? Makes sense to me. If he was knocking people out of the way, held people at gun point to let him in, etc then I could see a true coward.


Lastly, thank you for bringing up Stanley Lord's name. I've been a "Lordist" (if that's what they call people who defend him) since I read up on it when I was 12-13 years old. The whole involvement with the Californian is complete and full of BS. Both Sen. Smith and Lord Mersy do not look into the full details of what actually happened. Their conclusions were very wrong as well. Mercy claims that the "Californian could have said most, if not all the lives." WOW. No way in the world a dinky vessel like the Californian would have been able to 1. Get there in time. 2. Have enough room for 2,220 souls + their crew. 3. No one on the Californian had any idea the ship was in distress, Stone himself said he didn't think the vessel was in danger. So it's not like they heard SOS and sat their. I also want everyone to know "The Californian had a capacity of 47 passengers and 55 crew members."

Lord and his crew(Groves, Stone, Evans, Gibson, Stewart, etc) were wrongfully accused and made a scapegoat of this whole disaster.

MGY, how great would it have been to be working on the bridge of the Californian on the middle watch? I would love to just go watch and observe what was seen and said between Groves, Stone, and Gibson. Little did these men know was they were witnessing the greatest maritime disaster of all-time.

I thing that interests me most about the Californian was that at the testimonies, several crew members stories didn't match. Also, Groves said that the vessel approaching put out some deck lights at 11:40pm. He died knowing he saw this, yet no lights on the Titanic were turned off on the decks, only the lights in the stokeholds in #6 went out, then back on.

Mac G, was it not either Stone or Gibson who stated that he saw a mastheadlight and a green light (starbord running light).

Pretty amazing, since Titanic would look, even at 10 miles away, (as some have put it) "time square after dark".

As for the Californian's crew having different stories, wasn't there a sailor (I cannot remember a name) that claimed that he saw the numerous lights of a "huge" liner that fired rockets? And he tried to recruit some other crew to pressure the bridge to take action?

If I remember, this sailor was interview by a newspaper reporter who payed him for an exclusive story, and that some have speculated that he embelished the tale a bit.

MGY, Yes that would have been I believe Lord, Stone, Gibson and Groves. Both Lord and Groves observed the Titanic coming along around 11:10-11:15pm. Lord and Groves stated they observed her "red" light. And I believe Stone claimed the same, which would imply Gibson saw the same seeing as they were both on the middle watch. I believe the Titanic crew saw the "Mystery ships" green light. Boxhall claimed to see her green light first, then she blew around and showed their red light. This makes sense because the Californian was spinning.

I believe the crewman on the Californian you are referring to is Ernest Gill. He was a donkeyman in the engine room. He was on the deck for a smoke and observed what he thought was a large vessel, fire a rocket and then another. He also was one to desire to testify in court. He didn't mention it to the bridge because "How could they not see it?"

As for seeing it so well lit. I saw on a website what the Titanic would have looked like as observed from the Californian. It was difficult to see IMO. Also, I firmly believe that the Californian and the Titanic were 12 - 12 1/2 miles apart during the night at the most. The reason being Smith actually was 7 miles off on his calculations. Lord, being right on his was correct. He was 19 1/2 miles away from 41 46 N, 50 14 W.

Lord, as a matter of fact was quite a skilled sailor for his time. 34 and had served as a captain for a few years. I want to say he went to sea as a captain in 1909. He began at 13 1/2 years. And passed all his qualifications "Most brillantly" said those who knew him. I don't doubt his expertise. The man was just in the worst possible place that night, and just about all that could have gone wrong that night for him. went wrong sadly.

MGY, check out this site for some more info. I may have given it to you before though.


http://home.earthlink.net/~dnitzer/Frameset.html


We should all get a Titanic group chat going on AIM sometime....that would be awesome. haha.

wow u two sure do write a lot. lol...

Well personally I don't see either Andrews or Ismay as being guilty. I mean honestly no one knows how they will react when you're in a desperate situation. Yes they both made mistakes but nobody's perfect.

I think the reason Ismay was seen as a coward all goes back to the media. At the time it probably didn't look too good for Ismay to have lived. The captain went down as did Andrews and many others. So it doesn't look to great to the media when Ismay comes back alive. The media is very manipulative. We see that still today. I don't see either of them as guilty for anything. Ismay did what would be considered natural human instinct, to live.

good point.

makes sense...media exaggerates claims, etc.