Fact check: Captain Lord ignored Titanic's distress signal.

1. Summary of the results

The analyses strongly support the claim that Captain Stanley Lord ignored Titanic's distress signal. Multiple sources confirm that the SS Californian, under Captain Lord's command, was in close proximity to the Titanic on the night of April 14-15, 1912, and failed to respond to distress rockets and signals ^{[1] [2]}.

The evidence shows that Captain Lord's inaction was documented in subsequent official inquiries following the disaster ^[2]. The crew of the Californian observed distress rockets but failed to take appropriate action, which could have potentially saved lives given their proximity to the sinking vessel ^{[2] [3]}. This inaction has been characterized as a significant failure that contributed to the loss of life during the Titanic disaster ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement lacks important nuance about the ongoing controversy and debate surrounding Captain Lord's actions. While the evidence supports the claim of ignoring distress signals, there are defenders of Captain Lord's actions who argue alternative perspectives on the events ^[4].

The statement also omits crucial context about:

• The specific circumstances and conditions that night that may have affected decision-making
• The subsequent official inquiries that investigated the incident and their findings ^[2]
• The potential consequences of the inaction, specifically that lives could have been saved if the Californian had responded appropriately ^{[2] [3]}
• The historical significance of this incident as part of the broader Titanic tragedy and maritime safety discussions

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement, while factually supported by the evidence, presents the information in an overly simplified manner that doesn't acknowledge the complexity of the historical debate. The statement treats the matter as definitively settled when there remains some ongoing discussion and controversy about Captain Lord's actions and motivations ^[4].

However, the core claim appears to be historically accurate based on the available evidence from official inquiries and historical documentation. The potential bias lies not in factual inaccuracy but in the lack of contextual complexity that characterizes historical maritime disasters and the decisions made under emergency conditions.

*Note: Three sources ^{[5] [6] [7]} were unrelated to the Titanic-Californian incident and focused instead on the recent Titan submersible disaster, providing no relevant information for this assessment.*