Icebergs from Carpathia & Lifeboats


Steven Hall

Member
Dec 17, 2008
648
11
113
ICEBERGS FROM CARPATHIA & LIFEBOATS
Lifeboat 1., C. E. H. Stengel, 1st Class. “There was one of the icebergs particularly that I noticed — a very large one which look something like the Rock of Gibraltar.” Am. Inq., p. 971.
(SH) Roughly the same description given by Hugh Woolner in Engelhardt Boat D.

Lifeboat 2., J. G. Boxhall, 4th Officer. “When within two or three ship lengths of the Carpathia, it was just breaking daylight, and I saw her engines were stopped. She had of stopped within half a mile or a quarter a mile of an iceberg. There were several other bergs, and I could see field ice as far as I could see. The bergs looked white in the sun, though when I first saw them at daylight they looked black.” Am. Inq., p. 240, and Br. Inq.
F. Osman, Able Seaman. “Not until morning did we see an iceberg about 100 feet out of the water with on big point sticking on one side of it, apparently dark, like dirty ice, 100 yards away. I knew that was the one we struck. It looked as if there was a piece broken off.” Am. Inq., p. 538.
(SH) Boxhall says at first light, while still aboard the lifeboat he sees an iceberg between a quarter, to half a mile away. Osman comments on another iceberg he seen 100 yards away from the lifeboat, it was 100 feet in height. He also observes a piece broken of it. There appears to be two icebergs, one witnessed by Osman being 100 feet in height — while Boxhall describes an iceberg close to Carpathia — the one Rostron and Bisset say was 25 to 30 foot high.

Lifeboat 3., Elizabeth Shutes, Ist Class. She describes how both the ‘dawn’ and the ‘Carpathia’ fortuitously arrived together. She stated: “…..as we drew nearer and nearer that good ship [Carpathia] we drew nearer to those mountains of ice.”
(SH) Like L. Beesley in lifeboat 13, she notes that the approach to Carpathia brought them in proximity of icebergs.

Lifeboat 4., Emily B. Ryerson - 1st Class, Day 16. Then, when the sun rose we saw the Carpathia standing up about 5 miles away, and for the first time saw the icebergs all around us. The Carpathia steamed toward us until it was full daylight; then she stopped and began picking up boats, and we got on board about 8 o'clock.

Lifeboat 5., H. J. Pitman, 3rd Officer. “Monday morning we saw a very large floe of flat ice and three or four bergs between in different places, and on the other bow there were two large bergs in the distance. The field ice was about three-quarters of a mile at least from us between four and five o’clock in the morning.” Am. Inq., p. 277, & Br. Inq.
(SH) Pitman describes two large icebergs in the distance.

Lifeboat 7., W. T. Sloper, 1st Class. He stated he sighted “a large ship pass within a few hundred feet of his lifeboat” during darkness. (SH) The same experience during darkness was similarly experience by others — only at dawn did they realize it was an iceberg.
Helen W. Bishop, 1st Class. “We were out there until just before daylight, I think it was, when we saw the lights of the Carpathia and rowed as hard as we could and arrived at the Carpathia 5 or 10 minutes after 5 o'clock in the morning.”
Sen. Smith. “I suppose your experience was the same as that of the others as to the presence of ice and your proximity to icebergs ?”
H. Bishop. “Yes; we saw a number of icebergs.”
Am. Inq — day 11.

Lifeboat 9., W. Wynne, Quarter Master. “There was quite a big lot of field ice and several large icebergs in amongst the field; also two or three separated from the main body of the field.” Br. Inq.
(SH) Like L. Beesley, E. Buley, F. Crowe & others, at least 3 icebergs clearly separated away from the ice-field — and in proximity to lifeboats, not on the horizon !

Lifeboat 10., Edward J. Buley, Able Seaman.
E. Buley. “No, sir. I never saw any ice until morning. We thought it was a full-rigged ship. We were right in amongst the wreckage, and we thought it was a sailing ship, until the light came on and we saw it was an iceberg.”
Sen. Fletcher. “Did you get very far away from where the Titanic went down before the Carpathia was in sight ?”
E. Buley. “No, sir. When the Carpathia came and hove to, we were still amongst the wreckage looking for bodies.”
Am. Inq — day 7.

Lifeboat 13., L. Beesley, 2nd Class. “As the dawn crept towards us there lay another [iceberg] almost directly in the line between our boat and the Carpathia, and a few minutes later, another on her port quarter, and more again on the southern and western horizons, [which Capt. Rostron & 2nd officer Bisset noted] as far as the eye could reach: all differing in shape and size and tones of colour according as the sun shone through them or was reflected directly or obliquely from them.”
(SH) L. Beesley clearly identifies two icebergs, one directly inline between their lifeboat and Carpathia, and one on Carpathia’s port quarter. This indicates both icebergs in close proximity to each other.
Source — L. Beesley’s book - The Loss of the S. S. Titanic

Lifeboat 14., E. J. Buley, Able Seaman. (after his transfer from lifeboat 10) “We saw five or 6 icebergs [before they reached Carpathia] — some of them tremendous, about the height of the Titanic — and [seen] field ice. After we got on the Carpathia we saw, at a rough estimate, a twenty-five mile floe, sir, flat like the floor.” Am. Inq., p. 605.
F. Crowe, Steward. “When it come daylight and we could see, there were two or three bergs around, and one man pointed out that that must have been the berg, and another man pointed out another berg.” Am. Inq., p. 615
(SH) Buley estimated he seen five or six icebergs (obviously during daylight) and believed some within the same height of Titanic. Crowe describes two or three icebergs, with some commenting which was the one that Titanic struck.

Engelhardt A., Olaus Abelseth, 3rd Class.
O. Abelseth. “Yes; when the Carpathia came she was picked up. There were several boats there then. It was broad daylight and you could see the Carpathia. Then this boat sailed down to us and took us aboard, and took us in to the Carpathia. I helped row in to the Carpathia.”
Sen. Smith. “Did you see any icebergs on that morning ?”
O. Abelseth. “We saw three big ones. They were quite a ways off.” Am. Inq — day 13.
(SH) Again, three icebergs. Like L. Beesley, E. Buley, F. Crowe.

Engelhardt D., Hugh Woolner, 1st Class. “At daylight we saw a great many iceberg of different colours, as the sun struck them. Some looked white, some looked blue, some looked mauve and others were dark grey. There was one double-toothed one that looked to be of good size; it must have been about one hundred feet high.” Am. Inq., p. 887.
J. Hardy, Chief 2nd Class Steward. [icebergs he seen after daylight] “I should think there was, in my judgment, 5 or 6 miles of field ice, and any number of bergs. I could see them from the Carpathia. The berg we had struck was plainly visible.”
(SH) He stated he didn’t see it (US, Sen. Inquiry) He therein must have seen it from the lifeboat — suggesting the berg was visible. He said his lifeboat was not more than half a mile from Titanic when she sank.
Woolner is obviously describing the same 100 foot berg that Osman had — though from Osman’s angle in the lifeboat, he sees a piece broken off.

A. Rostron, Capt. Carpathia. “By the time we had cleared first boat [4.15 am] it was breaking day, and we could distinguish the other boats all within an area of four miles. We also saw that we were surrounded by icebergs, large and small, and three miles to the N.W. of us a huge field of drift ice with large and small bergs in it, the ice field trending from N.W. round by W. and S. to S.E., as far as we could see either way.”
J. Bisset, 2nd Officer Carpathia. By 4.00am they had stopped. He states; “A large iceberg was ahead of us, ……”. At the same time he observed; “dozens of icebergs within our horizon. Among them were four or five big bergs, towering up two hundred feet above water level.”
(SH) The last iceberg that 2nd officer Bisset referred to, the one at 4:00 AM, was specifically mentioned by Capt. Rostron also, as being about 25-30 ft high - and ‘not spotted’ until it was only a 1/4 mile off.

CONCLUSIONS
The iceberg described a ‘something like the ‘Rock of Gibraltar’ - being the one that struck Titanic was noted by C. E. H. Stengel in lifeboat 1. Also, Hugh Woolner in Engelhardt D idenfied “one double-toothed one that looked to be of good size; it must have been about one hundred feet high”, while F. Osman in lifeboat 2 describes, “Not until morning did we see an iceberg about 100 feet out of the water with on big point sticking on one side of it, apparently dark, like dirty ice, 100 yards away. I knew that was the one we struck. It looked as if there was a piece broken off.”
L. Beesley, E. Buley, F. Crowe & others, witness at daylight at least 3 icebergs clearly separated away from the ice-field — and in proximity to lifeboats. One of those was the one that looked like,’ the Rock of Gibraltar’.
One of these (3) icebergs witnessed by both J. Bisset, 2nd Officer Carpathia and Capt. Rostron as 25-30 ft high (at 4.00am), similar in description (in size) that Boxhall & Shiers witnessed off the Titanic’s starboard quarter following the collision.
Bisset stated: “a mile away was a mass of wreckage, like an island.” as he seen it from Carpathia. The same wreckage and debris many of Titanic’s lifeboats found themselves either “close to” or ‘moving through’ between the time Titanic sank and recovery by Carpathia.
When analyzed — with the Southerly drift, and the time it took most lifeboats to make their way to Carpathia, the ‘a mile away figure’ given by Bisset is clearly accurate.
Beesley’s recollection from the morning is telling: . “As the dawn crept towards us there lay another [iceberg] almost directly in the line between our boat and the Carpathia, and a few minutes later, another on her port quarter, and more again on the southern and western horizons, ………
One berg approximately 100 foot tall like the ‘Rock of Gibraltar’, with a piece broken off the side. Another 25 to 30 foot high, like Boxhall and Sheirs witnessed. And both in close proximity to each other as described so clearly by Beesley.
Two icebergs — I WONDER !
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,133
1,489
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
The question, I believe, is not how many icebergs were around that night. The question is how many were spotted at the time of the accident and exactly when. Notice that it was 1st getting light when everyone started to realize that there were icebergs all around them. If it were that easy to spot icebergs within a 2 mile radius as was expected, then why weren't all these bergs seen by all these people until it first started to get light?

The fatal iceberg was spotted according to Lee at about 1/2 mile off, maybe less. That's under 80 seconds. That berg had to have a height of about 70 ft for it to have been seen by Olliver as it went abaft the bridge during the collision. Certainly it could not have been one that was only 25 to 30 ft in height. Also, there were people in the 2nd class smoke room way up on B deck who also saw the berg tower by. Rowe, who saw the berg during the collision looking up from the poop deck, thought it was about 100 ft high.

Maybe the issue of multiple bergs comes in with regard to why Capt. Smith restarted the engines some time after the ship initially drifted to a stop. Was it to move the ship away from some nearby ice so they can safely launch the boats?
 
Dec 4, 2000
3,242
535
278
Sam's comments about restarting the engines are, in my opinion, right on target. However, I'm not sure we will ever have enough information to prove Captain Smith's motives.

Also, I would put the spotting of the fatal berg at half the 80 seconds proposed by Sam. However, I believe there is evidence that ice was spotted six to eight minutes prior to impact (see Scarrott).

Photos from Carpathia of both icebergs and an unbroken field of ice beyond are well known. That ice did not "pop" up from nowhere. It had to have been there all along--even from before Titanic met its fate.

There was a lot of ice out there that night.

-- David G. Brown
 

Steven Hall

Member
Dec 17, 2008
648
11
113
97413.jpg

Fig 1. Taken early Monday morning makes ‘X’ look like a single iceberg. It fits nicely with more than one description of the berg Titanic tried to avoid.


97414.jpg

Fig 2. Taken (by J. & M. Fenwick's aboard Carpathia) reveals, 'because of the angle' what now appears to represent not a single iceberg, but two (X & Y)
A 'flat-topped iceberg', with two slight extreme pointed elevations' seen left ( Z ) approx 400 yards away - fits the description of Boxhall & Sheir's iceberg as seen on Titanic's starboard quarter in shape and size. Notice how it fits the description of the iceberg Stephan Rehorek captured on 20 April, 1912, six days after the disaster.
Notice how ‘Z’ is not visible in the earlier photograph (Fig 1).
The ice-field was running North Easterly, and if these icebergs (X & Y) are those observed from various lifeboats, they would have been seen from Carpathia’s starboard side.
I showed these images to a friend with experience in distances at sea, he estimated their proximity to Carpathia at 600 yards (X). He is also qualified in celestial navigation — but that’s for later.
The floating wreckage (as seen from Carpathia) was well to the left — therein the ship had to have passed ‘X’ before it sank.
These images have been applied with an ‘Ultra-sharp photo edit program, enhanced and later colour inverted.
Am I right about all this — perhaps not, but I’m giving it a real good shake.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
693
483
Easley South Carolina
>>Was it to move the ship away from some nearby ice so they can safely launch the boats?<<

I don't know but it seem reasonable to me. Moving a ship with a potentially busted nose isn't one of the smartest things in the world to do. Not befor a survey of the hull had been completed to determine what the damage was if any and it's extant. The sort of back and forth engine orders described by one of the survivors from the engine room look to me like slow manuevers that were intended to work the ship out of some sort of tight spot.
 
Aug 10, 2002
266
1
173
In the British Inquires Reginald Robinson Lee, Lookout, was asked about objects sighted that night. In question 2419 he is asked if they had reported anything to the bridge before 7 bells.He states"There was nothing to be reported"
Regards,
Charlie Weeks
 

Steven Hall

Member
Dec 17, 2008
648
11
113
"There's evidence that, while still on board the Carpathia, Titanic's lookouts discussed having seen three 'early' icebergs pass near the Titanic during the half-hour preceding Titanic's collision with the *fatal* berg. (A number of Titanic survivors reported hearing such conversations.)"
The above posted by George Behe, August, 2000.
Information which I have also heard from 2 different sources.
Wasn't it the very same Mr. R. Lee, the man that said there was a 'haze' ahead of the ship, also - telling the porkie-pie about having his eyes tested at Southampton.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,133
1,489
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
I hate doing this Steve, but your friend has absolutely no reference from which to judge distance in these photographs. If that is the ice field that we see along the horizon in these photos then the bergs you are looking at have nothing to do with the berg that the Titanic ran into. Those bergs appear to be some of the many that were seen in the ice field and on its edge. The Titanic sank about 2-3 miles east of the ice field according to Rostron's report of the wreckage location. In addition, the ice field did not run north easterly but approximately NW to SE, consistent with what Capt. Moore reported from the Mount Temple. (Moore had to steam SSE true parallel to the western edge of the field in attempt to find an opening.)

25500. (The Commissioner.) I understand you to say those boats were spread over an area of five miles? - Four to five miles, yes.
25501. (The Attorney-General.) In the morning, when it was full daylight, did you see many icebergs? - Yes, I sent a Junior Officer to the top of the wheelhouse, and told him to count the icebergs 150 to 200 feet high; I sampled out one or two and told him to count the icebergs of about that size. He counted 25 large ones, 150 to 200 feet high, and stopped counting the smaller ones; there were dozens and dozens all over the place; and about two or three miles from the position of the “Titanic’s” wreckage we saw a huge ice-field extending as far as we could see, N.W. to S.E.
25502. About two to three miles from the “Titanic’s” wreckage? - Yes.

25503. Had you seen anything at all of that ice-field before it became daylight? - Oh, no, nothing; it was quite daylight before we saw the ice-field.
25504. You must have been close to it? - We were then about four or five miles from it when we first saw it.
25505. In the full daylight? - In full daylight, yes. We saw the bergs in the ice-field, but we did not see the field itself. There were numerous bergs among the ice-field.
25506. You had not seen those till daylight? - No, we had not seen those till daylight; they were too far away.



And one more thing, the difference between the two photos you post was not only a difference in angle but also a difference in distance. Your iceberg Z does show up in Fig 1 if you look closely. It just looks flatter, not as narrow, and further away, deeper into the field ice.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,133
1,489
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Passing icebergs on 3 separate occasions. Hmmmm.

And some of the same people said they heard that from the lookouts while they were in the lifeboats. Yet when you dig a little deeper you find that they were in different boats. What is presented is an expanded case of rumor and hearsay. Much no doubt started from the way Fleet described what happened. He said he rang the bell 3 times and did not receive a reply. Those not familiar with lookout bell signals took this to mean that the lookouts spotted icebergs on 3 separate occasions and those on the bridge ignored those warnings. George wrote the case up in his book "Titanic Safety, Speed, and Sacrifice." Its a good read and very well researched. But I'm afraid I cannot agree with the conclusion.
 

Steven Hall

Member
Dec 17, 2008
648
11
113
Sam,
I had given up on doing anymore on all of this a few days ago. The check & correction posts from you all along the way has been excellent, because I have altered what I believe as I went along. The debate in the few threads have been excellent, because I have never really looked into certain aspects of the Titanic story and I was a bit of a raw recruit when it came to all this.
My posts have been like thinking aloud, listening to others, considering what’s said and than reappraising all the information.

As a general comment, it’s somewhat like what was said in the movie ‘Planet Of The Apes’ don’t look — you won’t like what you find.
Someone else can now pick up where I have left off.
 

Steven Hall

Member
Dec 17, 2008
648
11
113
Sam
“And one more thing, the difference between the two photos you post was not only a difference in angle but also a difference in distance. Your iceberg Z does show up in Fig 1 if you look closely. It just looks flatter, not as narrow, and further away, deeper into the field ice.”

Before I posted up those images of the icebergs, I checked to see if ‘Z’ was the same berg as seen in the different photograph. I didn’t think it was the same than, and I still don’t believe it was the same now.

97483.jpg



The iceberg seen to the right is the same berg seen from Carpathia — taken by Fenwick’s. The same berg also described by Bisset and Rostron as being between 25 and 30 foot tall.
It was estimated to have been a quarter of a mile away (440 yards)

“I hate doing this Steve, but your friend has absolutely no reference from which to judge distance in these photographs.”

That maybe correct — but without telling him that it was the iceberg seen a quarter mile off from Carpathia (440 yards), he’s estimate at 600 yards was pretty jolly close.


97484.jpg

Artist's impression of the same iceberg.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,133
1,489
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Hi Steve: Thanks for posting all this. It certainly gets one to think, doesn't it. At this point I think we are loosing sight of the issue here. What are you trying to suggest? That iceberg(s) X-Y was seen first by the lookouts and Titanic crashed into iceberg Z? Or that iceberg(s) X-Y is the iceberg that Carpathia saw 1/4 mile away in the morning? If it is the latter, then it may have nothing to do with the berg that Titanic crashed into.

As far as Z is concerned, we disagree on what we see in these photos. And that is OK. I took Fig 1 and expanded it by 127% so that the height of X-Y shows up the same as in Fig 2. As it turned out, what I outlined as Z in Fig 1 also gets to be the same height as Z in Fig 2, but the one Fig 2 is much more to the right and narrower which i believed is caused by the angle from which it was taken. Notice also how the left side of what is labeled as X appears more narrow in Fig 2 because of the change of angle from where photo 2 was taken. Of course I could be mistaken, but if I am, then where did your Z in Fig 2 come from, and why isn't it seen in Fig 1?
97491.jpg


I also believe that what is labeled as X and Y may not be separate bergs but the same berg with two peaks of about equal height. It is impossible to judge the height since there is no reference about. Could be 30 ft; could be 100 ft or more. If I had to guess, this berg or bergs is much higher than 30 ft. I base this on two points. One, that the photo was taken from a height of about 35 ft or more above waterline on the Carpathia. (Carpathia's forecastle was 30 ft above waterline.) As Rostron described it, "It was low." From the height of the bridge the peak of a 30 ft berg only 1/4 nautical mile away (500 yards) would appear below the level of the horizon. It is clear that this is not the case with what is seen in these photos. The ice field is seen behind these, and I believe the Titanic was not too near the berg it crashed into when it finally took the plunge, having moved forward again after its initial stopping point. That berg may have been a mile or two to the SSE of the wreck site when the ship went down. And the wreck site would be about 2 to 3 miles east of the icefield if Rostron's estimate was accurate. With the Carpathia coming up from SE and spotting Boxhall's flairs about 15° off their port bow when about 6 miles away, the fatal berg should have been passed off their port side and ended up well off their port quarter when they reaching the wreckage.

What I think would help in all of this is to try and map out positions of the bergs in the vicinity of the wreckage if that is at all possible. Maybe expand the chart below.

Cheers my friend.

97492.gif
 

Steven Hall

Member
Dec 17, 2008
648
11
113
Sam, that map really helps.
I'm just off to bed - but here is a little more I did several days ago and didn't post.
The grammer is a little ordinary I'm afraid.

Icebergs seen from Carpathia and lifeboat 2.
Bisset, 2nd officer Carpathia. “To the northwards was a field of pack ice extending westwards for many miles.
On all sides we could see lifeboats making laboriously toward us, some dangerously overcrowded, some half empty. A mile away was a mass of wreckage, like an island, marking the spot where the Titanic had gone down. The water had a sinister greenish crystal tinge.”
“Captain Rostron ordered the engines to be stopped. It was 4.00 am.” 1st Officer Dean was relieved on the bridge by Chief Officer Hankinson. At the moment, in the dim gray light of dawn, we sighted a lifeboat a quarter of a mile away. (Boxhall, Titanic’s 4th officer — lifeboat No 2)”
Rostron. At 4:10 I got the first boat alongside. Previous to getting the first boat alongside, however, I saw an iceberg close to me, right ahead, and I had to starboard to get out of the way. And I picked him up on the weather side of the ship. I had to clear this ice.
By the time we had the first boat's people it was breaking day, and then I could see the remaining boats all around within an area of about 4 miles. I also saw icebergs all around me. There were about 20 icebergs that would be anywhere from about 150 to 200 feet high and numerous smaller bergs; also numerous what we call "growlers." You would not call them bergs. They were anywhere from 10 to 12 feet high and 10 to 15 feet long above the water.”
Later asked, proximity of the closest 150 to 200 feet high icebergs you could clearly see at daylight (excluding the one ¼ mile away). “Somewhere about three or four miles.”
Also at dawn he notices a large lump of ice some twenty foot long by 10 foot high, 200 yards off the Carpathia’s port quarter.
“By the time we had cleared first boat [4.15 am] it was breaking day, and we could distinguish the other boats all within an area of four miles. We also saw that we were surrounded by icebergs, large and small, and three miles to the N.W. of us a huge field of drift ice with large and small bergs in it, the ice field trending from N.W. round by W. and S. to S.E., as far as we could see either way.”
The iceberg sighted ahead (Rostron, British Inq.), “Now this iceberg was about 30 feet high and the sides were rather precipitous.” He also described it as only 25 to 30 foot high !
Osman, A. B. states at dawn, ‘prior to being picked up by Carpathia’ - an iceberg 100 foot high, and 100 yards away was visible from ‘Boat 2’.
How is it that he sees it (a 100 foot berg), and yet Rostron or Bisset mention only a 25 to 30 foot berg. Now is there ‘one’ or ‘two’ ? There is, after all - a substantial difference between a 30 foot berg and one standing 100 foot tall.
Question. “Then I want to know how close it was - you had an iceberg within your range of vision then - you went to the iceberg when you starboarded ?”
Rostron. “This was the boat over here. (Describing.) I did not know the distance off. Here was the iceberg right ahead. I was coming along there; I saw the iceberg right ahead here, and I saw the light was on my port bow. Of course, I could not see the boat itself, but only the light when he showed the flare. I came along here and starboarded, and brought her here. Then I saw the light on my starboard side. I saw the light showing. It was getting close. I went full speed astern. I went a little bit past the boat before I could get the way off the ship, and I came back again, because they sang out from the boat that they had only one seaman, and could not handle her. I brought the ship back to the boat. When the boat was alongside of me daylight broke, and I found the berg was about a quarter of a mile off.”
Question. “Had you been any closer to the berg than that ?”
Rostron. “No, that was the closest I had been.”
Carpathia had not moved position, apart from drift - until after the recovery of lifeboat 13 at 4.45 am. Like boat 2, 13 had approached from approximately the same direction. Like Osman in ‘Boat 2’, Beesley in ‘Boat 13’ described thus; “As the dawn crept towards us there lay another [iceberg] almost directly in the line between our boat and the Carpathia, and a few minutes later, another on her port quarter, and more again on the southern and western horizons, as far as the eye could reach: all differing in shape and size and tones of colour according as the sun shone through them or was reflected directly or obliquely from them.”
The question, where is the 100 foot iceberg, and the second one Beesley clearly mentions (which I have no doubt are one in the same). One is obviously the 25 to 30 foot iceberg described as seen 440 yards from Carpathia — and also stated by Boxhall, himself in ‘Boat 2’.
In general.

Bisset took over the watch on the bridge at 8 a.m. from Chief Officer Hankinson. At this time he sees the Californian a little more than a mile away. She steamed up to within half a mile of the Carpathia and stopped.
The last of the lifeboats had been unloaded by 8.30 am.
By 8.30 am, he stated that the last lifeboat was alongside and the people taken aboard. At that time he believed he was close to where Titanic went down, “as there was a lot of hardly wreckage but small pieces of broken-up stuff nothing in the way of anything large.”
Bisset later mentions that sleep later that afternoon for him was impossible. “At 4.00 pm, I went up on deck, and talked to some of the survivors, including the three rescued officers, who were also finding sleep impossible. From them I learned how and why the “unsinkable” ship had sunk.”
“According to what I was told that day, by men who knew the facts, while their impressions and mine were only too vivid, it appeared that the odds against any repetition of such a calamity at sea were so great that we could only feel awed at the magnitude of the mischance.”
“Murdoch immediately rang the engines to stop, and then Full Astern, until the liner came to a standstill half a mile past the berg.”
 

Steven Hall

Member
Dec 17, 2008
648
11
113
Sam,
X & Y is without doubt higher than 30 foot.
In height - it fits in with what Osman seen.
Osman, A. B. states at dawn, ‘prior to being picked up by Carpathia’ - an iceberg 100 foot high, and 100 yards away was visible from ‘Boat 2’.
Looking at it from this point (and your post) - it cannot be Rostron's 30 foot berg.
I agree Sam.

97498.jpg


ABOVE
Sketched by Hake Campbell Cooper, passenger aboard Carpathia. Cooper had a good eye for detail; it fits well with the photographs. But were is ‘W’.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
693
483
Easley South Carolina
>>But were is ‘W’.<<

Perhaps a memory of one berg trasposed on another. Human memory, however good it may be, is not photograph perfect and it's not unusual for people to get one thing confused for another. I wouldn't read to much into adding an iceberg to the drawing that wasn't there in real life.

Another possibility is that it may just be there but hte photo doesn't really pick it up. 1912 photo quality wasn't always what it is today.
 

Steven Hall

Member
Dec 17, 2008
648
11
113
Mike,
it's there - I found it in the exact place as seen in Coopers sketch.
I used a friends pro editing program. The image he created was 20 meg's in size. Run throw 4 filters and gamma correction.
This now fits in nicely with Beesley & Osman.

Steve
 
Dec 31, 2003
274
5
183
Hampstead, London
Steve: Campbell Cooper's sketch was so accurate for 'Y', 'X', 'Z', and even further to the left, that it seemed likely his 'W' would be accurate also - if only we could make comparisons with any photograph running far enough to the right. So, it's Congratulations to you; for your hunches and your researches - and your perseverance!
 

Similar threads

Similar threads