Titanic Scandal: The Trial Of The Mount Temple

Discuss Titanic Books here.

Titanic Scandal: The Trial Of The Mount Temple

Postby frydawg » Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:04 pm

I was wondering if anyone else read Titanic Scandal: The Trial Of The Mount Temple by Senan Molony and what they thought. Personally, I like to read but had trouble trouble keeping interested in it. There appears to be alot of inconsistencies in Captain Moore's testimony to the U.S. and the British inquiries and a lack of entries into the ship's log but I was not convinced that the mystery ship seen by Titanic was the Mount Temple.
frydawg
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:55 pm
Location: Cabot, PA

Re: Titanic Scandal: The Trial Of The Mount Temple

Postby Achmet Pamba » Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:57 pm

Salaam, frydog.

Your opinion reflects that of the serious researchers with whom I am familiar.

Achmet
Achmet Pamba
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:27 pm

Re: Titanic Scandal: The Trial Of The Mount Temple

Postby Michael H. Standart » Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:58 am

>>...but I was not convinced that the mystery ship seen by Titanic was the Mount Temple.<<

Nor am I. Inconsistancies in testimony go with the territory and aren't always an indication of a smoking gun. Just people trying to make sense of things ex post facto to something big happening and not always getting it right.

There's really nothing remarkable about anything the Mount Temple did. They got the distress call, they responded to the distress call, then stopped short of the icefield per company regulations which expressly forbade them to go into one. A moot point since by the time they got there, the Titanic had already plunged to the bottom in a shower of broken steel.

In my own opinion, like a lot of so-called issues surrounding the Californian, it's simply misdirection. The Mount Temple is irrelevant because they were too late. The Almarian is irrelevant because they never got there, and the mystery ship is irrelevant because even if the ocean was swarming with them, it doesn't exculpate the Californian. Their accountability...if said ship even existed in the first place...would be a seperate matter which doesn't do anything for the mistakes made by the Californian.
Michael H. Standart
 
Posts: 2598
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:34 pm

Re: Titanic Scandal: The Trial Of The Mount Temple

Postby frydawg » Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:20 pm

As i was reading it just seemed like there was alot ot hearsay and passengers and crew saying I heard this person saw lights or rockets but no one that was supposed to have seen anything came forward.
frydawg
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:55 pm
Location: Cabot, PA

Re: Titanic Scandal: The Trial Of The Mount Temple

Postby samhalpern » Mon May 21, 2012 10:53 pm

As Michael said: "like a lot of so-called issues surrounding the Californian, it's simply misdirection." This is so true with Titanic Scandal and the fictional trial that is presented. It is far from being an unbiased, objective look at all the issues, where the reader is then left to judge. The truth is in the details and how they correlate with other known events and presented evidence. And if someone wants to talk about inconsistencies, then carefully read the testimonies of Lord, Stone, Groves, Boxhall, Lightoller, Hichens, and many others. Inconsistencies abound.
samhalpern
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2011 5:25 pm

Re: Titanic Scandal: The Trial Of The Mount Temple

Postby wruth03@aol.com » Sun May 27, 2012 6:08 pm

I read with great interest the article written by George Behe where he describes the Californian controversy as a manufactured mystery. Someone later said on here that that article was written a few years ago and claimed George Behe would now have changed his opinion. Having now read the Foreward to the book On a Sea of Glass provided by Behe it is very clear that he has not changed that opinion one iota. Behe mentions all these so called mystery ships put forward by Lordite writers with not a shred of evidence that they were even there. To me it is clear the officers and crew on the Californian were close enough to see the Titanic's rockets and some even said the ship looked queer and as though it was listing. I think after a hundred years it is now time these writers stopped looking to blame other ships and faced the reality. The truth is the Californian could and should have taken steps to investigate the matter further. They should have woken wireless operator Cyril Evans and asked him to listen in to wireless transmissions. In this respect the Californian's inactions were wrong.
Denise
wruth03@aol.com
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:00 pm

Re: Titanic Scandal: The Trial Of The Mount Temple

Postby Achmet Pamba » Sun May 27, 2012 6:32 pm

Salaam, Denise.

I can confirm with 100% certainty that George has not changed his mind about the Californian controversy.

Achmet
Achmet Pamba
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:27 pm

Re: Titanic Scandal: The Trial Of The Mount Temple

Postby samhalpern » Sun May 27, 2012 7:45 pm

Denise,

As one of the authors, along with George and 9 others, of the book Report Into the Loss of the SS Titanic - A Centennial Reappraisal, I too can confirm that George has not changed his mind about the so called Californian affair.
samhalpern
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2011 5:25 pm

Re: Titanic Scandal: The Trial Of The Mount Temple

Postby wruth03@aol.com » Sun May 27, 2012 8:39 pm

No Achmet and Sam I think that point came across very clearly from what George Behe wrote in his Foreward to On a Sea of Glass. Quite correctly too from all the evidence I have seen. I will be quite honest with you I have long been annoyed by the constant attempts to cover up for the Californian's actions or rather lack of them that night. The excuses and theories put forward by the Lordite writers have been little short of pathetic. It has gone from avoiding to mention all evidence that points away from their pet theory to downright dishonesty. Then these people have the gall to call themselves historians. How can they when they are really trying to change history? To be honest it baffles me.
Denise
wruth03@aol.com
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:00 pm

Re: Titanic Scandal: The Trial Of The Mount Temple

Postby Michael H. Standart » Mon May 28, 2012 2:48 am

>>The excuses and theories put forward by the Lordite writers have been little short of pathetic.<<

A few thoughts from this old sailor. Love 'em or lump 'em if you want.

I don't think in any really objective analysis that there's really a lot of wiggle room for the Californian. A fact which some pro-Lord friends of mine understand even if we just don't agree on it. Regardless of whether there were no mystery ships or mystery ships composed of a million Imperial Star Destroyers in between with the Evil Galactic Emperor himself aboard running around loose in this area, it just doesn't help the Californian. They saw something which should have raised red flags and for whatever reasons, failed to respond as they should have. Them's the plain bare bones facts.

What I'm not buying into from some of the partisans on either side is the reductive version which paints Captain Lord as the misunderstood saint or the E-Vile Fu Man Lord. Real history and real people is rarely that straightforward. While I would never paint Lord as a saint, I don't think what happened...and what failed to happen...on the bridge of that ship was due to malice.

I'm reasonably confident I can make a case for poor...extremely poor...communications between the skipper and his subordinates. If Stone and Gibson really thought there was something which bore closer examination, they did an incredibly poor job of getting it across. It helps to know that niether of these two men come across as candidates for admission into the Mensa Society! (Don't take my word for it. Read their testimony as well as Lord's and judge for yourself. It's been a matter of public record for a century.)

Beyond that, all bets are off. Parks Stephenson remarked years ago on ET that there was something here which we're missing and I think he's right. Something which explains why everything went so badly wrong. For my own money, I think it behooves us to forget the whole advocacy thing and focus instead on the why.

The real "why." since we already know the what.
Michael H. Standart
 
Posts: 2598
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:34 pm

Re: Titanic Scandal: The Trial Of The Mount Temple

Postby wruth03@aol.com » Mon May 28, 2012 3:50 pm

Michael my problem with the conduct of the Californian is this. Both Stone and Gibson stated that they saw rockets being fired and the ship sending up those rockets had and I quote "A big side out of the water" and she looked queer as though she was listing. That to me should have had alarm bells ringing. As Ernest Gill said at the US Inquiry that Second officer Evans remarked "Why the devil don't they wake the wireless man". Ernest Gill also said that many members of Californian's crew were afraid to speak up for fear of losing their jobs. Reports I have read suggest that Captain Lord was not a man to cross. So I do think that could be the problem and could be why Gibson and Stone did not do more. Simple fear of upsetting Captain Lord. Ernest Gill said at the same inquiry that he wanted the crew to complain about the Californian's actions but as I said they were afraid of losing their jobs.

I have read the testimony given at the US Inquiry and I have to say that Lord's Evidence does not stand up to too much scrutiny as he seems to contradict himself. Also the evidence given by crew members is rather different to Captain Lord's. That to me begs the question why and just what does he have to hide? I don't know about Lightoller's whitewash brush but there seems to have been a big whitewash brush used to cover up for Captain Lord and the Californian during the past century.
Denise
wruth03@aol.com
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:00 pm

Re: Titanic Scandal: The Trial Of The Mount Temple

Postby Michael H. Standart » Tue May 29, 2012 2:49 am

Denise, the problems you have with Lord & company are the same problems I have, and which a lot of researchers who are critical of him have to say nothing of a number of sailors who know how easy it is to die out there. You have plenty of company in that regard.

The problem I have with some of his critics (Note: SOME of his critics) is the demonization of the man at the expense of trying to figure out why an otherwise compatant mariner managed to really screw the pooch over this.

The "What" is not at issue with me. What I'm interested in is the "Why."
Michael H. Standart
 
Posts: 2598
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:34 pm

Re: Titanic Scandal: The Trial Of The Mount Temple

Postby Achmet Pamba » Tue May 29, 2012 6:32 am

Salaam, Michael.

>What I'm interested in is the "Why."

No mystery there -- it was simply a combination of human error, misinterpretation, rationalization and later denial on the part of experienced mariners who found themselves in a position they had never experienced before.

Achmet
Achmet Pamba
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 11:27 pm

Re: Titanic Scandal: The Trial Of The Mount Temple

Postby samhalpern » Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:34 pm

>>No mystery there -- it was simply a combination of human error, misinterpretation, rationalization and later denial on the part of experienced mariners who found themselves in a position they had never experienced before. <<

Very well put Achmet, and I fully agree with you. Unfortunately there are those today who still feel the strong need to come up with all sorts of reasons for the misinterpretations and rationalizations that took place. And this includes such misdirections as we see in books like Titanic Scandal.
samhalpern
 
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2011 5:25 pm

Re: Titanic Scandal: The Trial Of The Mount Temple

Postby Michael H. Standart » Sat Jun 02, 2012 3:26 am

>>Unfortunately there are those today who still feel the strong need to come up with all sorts of reasons for the misinterpretations and rationalizations that took place.<<

I don't think there's an especially strong reason for any of this beyond human fallibility. Where I'm critical is because if something goes horribly wrong, I would hope that somebody upon noticing something would check things out and come and get me and my shipmates.

Where I'm sympathetic...and I think you'll see a lot of this among sailors who count themselves as "Pro-Lord"....it because of "There but for the grace of God go I."

I know how easy it is to screw it up, and not from any motivation of malice.
Michael H. Standart
 
Posts: 2598
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:34 pm

Next

Return to Titanic and Maritime Books and Publications



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

eXTReMe Tracker