Originally Posted by chef2sail
So lets looks at this intelligently vs hysterically. Almost to a man or woman everybody including me, his crew, people who have sailed with him before, a few people on here (SN) who met him like wingnwing....NONE, not one of us say what you said above or had that first hand impression of him..
Then you say, others have said my friendhips clouds my opinions. It doesnt actually it may make me emotional about his reputation, but my opinions are based on factual evidence.
And after all that is the point isnt it really. Not just me...many others have talked about him with respect and say he was a quality man this is where I have fault on this thread. People who do not know him making judgements and building cases on only snippets of information on what they read or make up in their own minds. Bringing in facts which only support their positions or posting facts which are not entirely accurate or complete.
Then when the people who knew the Captain in person state a diffferent story, they are dismissed as having a personal relationship with him or they were cult members following him blindly. Give us more credit than that.
So then I ask you who is probably right here and who really has more credibility...the internet social media writers who have never met him and only have to go on what they make up in their own minds ( because they arent reading this from first hand survivors) or the people who met him in person, knew him sailed with him, the choice of who is more accurate to acccesss the Captain is an obvious choice. In person knowledge of the Captain superceeds secondhand knowledge or thoeries fabricated in individuals minds.
There is a reason that first hand knowledge ( direct testimony) trumps heresay or speculation all the time in places like a court of law.
What the Captain friends and aquaintences cannot undertsand or reconcile, just like the rest of social media writers on here and other sites, is what drove an experienced captain who loved his crew, had a wealth of experience to sail off into a hurricane. Simple as that.
This conspiracy that he rushed everyone onto the boat in an hour so they would think or complain, so he could subject them to what turned out to be a tragic journey on purpose does not make sense to the people who really knew this man and how he acted and treated people.
I for 1 person who knew him still do not understand what drove the man I knew to a decision of poor safety and endangering other people in his steed, especuially how I noticed FIRST HAND how he felt about survivasl gear and emergency procedures. This decision was so out of character to the man we knew.
None of this abbrogates him from the repsonsibility he had in the tragedy.
This are not about impressions Dave. I am quite sure the man was a very agreeable person. Neither it is about "snippets of information" neither about hysterically people making unfounded judgments, but about facts.
The Captain took his ship to the pass of an hurricane when he knew he was there and could avoid it, staying in port, diverting to a safer port or sailing in the opposite direction of the Hurricane path.
He made absurd statements to convince the crew to follow him in this adventure(the Bounty would be more safe at sea than in a port).
He knew that the boat made water, that the bilges where not clean and that obviously could lead to clogging of the pumps in the event of flooding and even so sailed way to unnecessarily face terrible weather.
It is known (by the several statements from the crew, the wife and the organization) that this was not an isolated incident and that he had sailed several times the ship near or on hurricanes.
That ship is not a boat that could be sailed safely through or near an hurricanes.
He could be a very nice man, a quality but all these facts tell us, without doubt, that he was a reckless captain. This are facts Dave, not snippets of information neither hysterical assumptions.