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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

MGY--We had a similar discussion months ago. I completely agree with what you said. I don't see him as a heroic figure at all.

And truly, I don't blame Ismay for getting in a lifeboat. I don't see him as a bad man for doing that.

Anyways, back to Andrews, I do not see him as a hero. I do have to commend him for trying to help people, closing port holes, etc. He meant well, as I'm sure a lot of people did that night. I guess I just have respect that he made a decision to go down with the ship and not try at all to survive. Maybe he felt guilty? Who knows....And about the lifeboats, I don't know who's career was placed on the managing of the number of lifeboats. However, I see J.P. Morgan and other big businessmen as guilty more than just the ship builder. Anyways, the ship can't sink right? Also, remember the times, people could loose everything and be reprimanded for challenging a higher authority in England at that time. Perhaps, he could have pursued it more, but I don't see him as the full blame.

I do think Chief Engineer Joseph Bell and his 4/5 other men with him are hero's. Staying down there, knowing no chance of escape, remaining at their posts to keep the energy going to send telegraphs. It shows more character than I can express.

like they say about carlise and the lifeboats thowhe order the wellon davit company to make a system in whcih could hold 4 lifeboats at the time of the construction of the titanic and olympic

the down side was white star line agreed to 48 lifeboats at the start but when carlise left harland and wolff he put a new law into pklace in which he said he didnt mean to sign in which made it even more easyer for white satr line to only had 20 or so lifeboatds and as well andrews failed to tell the officers on deck that the lifeboats were testsred for 65 heavy men in belfast.

andrews is seen as a hiroic figue i have to say the person in which i think was heroic is the belfast clad that workd with the wsl employs to keep the lights going long as possible in whcih these were employes of harland and wolff belfast.

furthermore i have to say this but ive read all about bruce ismay and that night and he did do bad by getting in the lifeboat but the offercier murdock allowed him in as he asked the officer to go in and murdock nodded becase they was no woman and children to be seen if murdock woudnt allow bruce i think he would off gone down with the ship like a gentelmen.

ismay had ordered speed trials the nexts day as they were hoping to be out of ice fields by day break. captin smith was only doing what was right that day as he was graduley speeding the titanic up althought that night her final 5 boilers were lit but would take all night to get to the correct pressure.

the titNIC WOULD OFF BETTEN THE SPEED OF THE OLYMPIC IFF IT DIDNT NOT HIT THE ICEBERG AND THINGS TO THIS DAY WOULD BE TOTAL DIFFRENT CAPTIAN SMITH PROB GO AND WORK FOR THE ANMY IN 1914 FOR THE GREAT WAR AND BRUCE WOULD OF STAYED AS THE MAGING DIRECTOR OFF IMM soz about caps lock.