Sounds like someone's latched on to the hard-a-port v. hard-a-starboard debate again, which was more than amply covered during the enquiries that followed the disaster.

The need was to prevent damage to the props, reduce the vessel's way, and turn to port (i.e. away from the iceberg).

The engines were ordered stopped (to prevent damage), then reversed (to reduce the ship's way). The helm was ordered hard-a-starboard (towards the iceberg). The effect of reversing engines is to reverse the effect of the rudder, therefore hard-a-starboard with the engines reversed will produce the effect of full port rudder (away from the iceberg). Good seamanship.

Whether someone in 2010 (by which time the witnesses at the enquiries are all long-dead) thinks Lightoller lied is completely inconsequential. The evidence, indicating good seamanship once the hazard was sighted, was given and accepted at the enquiries.

End of, IMHO.

What some people will resort to in order to try to sell a book is beyond belief.