Layout of the Icefield


Status
Not open for further replies.

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I'm not disputing what these people saw - just that it is not proof of what Titanic hit.


If you read carefully what Sam wrote; he was describing the experiences of three people who saw ice well after the event. Additionally, only two of these compare their berg to Gibraltar. So I'm not sure where you're coming from.

Sam was arguing with me as to the size of the berg that caused the damage. His argument was that it was very big while I suggested it was not. The common link between our arguments is Gibraltar. I proposed the evidence of the first survivor after the Lookouts to see the berg - AB Scarrot. Sam offered the evidence you mis-read.

In any case I instigated this particular discussion by suggesting the berg was not big but small. I used personal experience to further my argument

Jeremy: Surely 'basic' comments are the foundation of discussion? If we confine the discussion to basics then there can never be progress.
 
Scarrot described it as looking like Gibraltar. That makes three discussed on this thread.

> he was describing the experiences of three
> people who saw ice well after the event

Right. But it's not like the berg disappeared. It was still in the area. There's no reason to believe that it wasn't still hanging around at dawn.

> Sam offered the evidence you mis-read.

I didn't misread.

> Surely 'basic' comments are the foundation of discussion?

Exactly. But if you pick apart basic comments by arguing point of view when describing a landmark, it's futile.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,527
1,811
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
>>However I note that you quote two dimensions to be met for them to be considered 'Medium' by the IIP. <<

Only two dimensions can be described, the height above water and the width on the waterline.

Jim, believe what you want to believe about the berg that Titanic hit, and feel free to pick apart what people said they saw even though three of them independently used the same iconic figure to describe the berg. You seem to have convinced yourself that you know better than those who were there as to what Titanic struck. You said "Believe me, if Titanic had hit the monsters you're talking about I'm sure we would not be arguing over description today." Why should we?
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I'll answer Jeremy first:

You are right: only three who used Gibraltar have been discussed on this thread. Mr. Stengel, Ms. Hart and AB Scarrot. The first two described the classic, tourist picture of the Rock and saw a berg which looked like that in daylight the following morning. I have never nor would I dispute what they saw.
The third, described the Rock as he remembered it as a seaman and from an entirely different angle. He is ,I suggest, by far the best witness since he saw it almost immediately after it was in contact with Titanic. Additionally, at the BOT enquiry, his description was picked-up by the Commissioner and re-inforced by the use of comparison to an entirely different reference - a Lion-Couchant. Both descriptions tally!

Actually, if you re-read what Sam wrote, you will see he names Mesrs.Stengel, Hart and Osman - As I pointed-out to you in the last post, the third does not use Gibraltar as a reference.

Are you seriously suggesting that arguing about point of view when describing the same object is futile! I would totally agree if we were discussing a ball! The point of argument is to enforce a personal opinion based on offered evidence. I am offering that evidence.


Good morning Sam!

I did notice that you completely ignored Scarrot's version also all the other pointers which suggest the berg was small.

As for the IIP Ice Classification: I've no problem with these but where I do have problems is when you quote drawings from newspaper and add your own criteria of 250 -350K tons for the berg. On what criteria do you base that?

Where am I 'picking-apart' what people said?

I have never claimed they didn't see an iceberg very like Gibraltar as they either remembered it or remembered a picture of it.
You are absolutely correct that three independent individuals used the same iconic figure to describe the berg but one of them used a specific reference point on The Rock - Scarrot; and thereby lies the crucial difference in the stories.
I have the added advantage that I have actually seen what Scarrot was referring to - many times. If you care to send me your email address, I'll send you a photograph of 'almost' what Scarrot actually saw. I've tried uploading it but the site rejects it.

You say 'you seem to have convinced yourself that you know better than those who were actually there when 'Titanic' struck'. Where does that come from?
I'm the one who is arguing my point based on the one 'player'- Scarrot who we know for certain was actually "there" and by 'there' I mean at the time when ice contacted metal.
In contrast, you seem to be rejecting my point on the basis of the evidence of people who saw an ice berg 'like Gibraltar', in daylight, from a small boat, at a distance and in states of mind that only they could imagine.

I suppose I could direct the same suggestion of self-rightousness in your direction if your final remark is anything to go by but I'm far too kind to do that!
All I would ask you to do would be to view our exchanges in the light of the non-confrontational meanings of the word 'argument'. As a mathematician you will be well used to these meanings.
Meantime; if you can present me with a well structured argument to prove points about berg size,(as you have often done on other subjects throughout this site) then 'feel free' to do so. I have always been among the first to applaud that which can not be disputed.

Cheers!

Jim.
 
> Actually, if you re-read what Sam wrote,
> you will see he names Mesrs.Stengel, Hart
> and Osman - As I pointed-out to you in the
> last post, the third does not use Gibraltar
> as a reference.

Dude...I'm going to say this one more time. I never said that the three people that Sam quoted said that they saw a berg that looked like Gibraltar. Not once. Two did and a third that was discussed on the thread.

> The third, described the Rock as he
> remembered it as a seaman and from
> an entirely different angle.

And did he say that specifically? I don't think he did. He said that it looked like the Rock of Gibraltar.

> his description was picked-up by the
> Commissioner and re-inforced by the
> use of comparison to an entirely different
> reference - a Lion-Couchant

Which is the same outline as the iconic view of Gibraltar.

> Where am I 'picking-apart' what people said?

You analyzed Scarrot and you analyzed Stengel and Hart by trying to put words in their mouths and decide which view they had of the Rock.

I'll say it again. When someone references something, they are trying to illustrate. Scarrot would never compare to the berg to Gibraltar if he was referring to a unique view.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,527
1,811
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
First, the sketch drawn by Scarrott shown on p.141 of the Eaton and Hass book looks like the one below (which I tried to reproduce as best I can since I don't want to violate copyright laws by posting a scan from the book.)
134626.gif

It seems very clear what he was talking about when he described the berg before the commission.

Next how big was this berg. Scarrott thought it was as high as the boat deck. Olliver saw the peak pass aft of the bridge as he entered the bridge when the collision happened. Lee at the Ryan trial said "It was higher than the fo'c'sle. It was as high as the boat deck." Rowe thought it was 100 ft high.

Let's take the height of the peak at 70 ft based on the observations above. Using the Rehorek berg as a model, let's take the base of this berg at 100 ft by 200 ft. as seen in the sketch below.
134627.jpg

If this was a rectangular solid it would have an above water volume of 70x200x100 = 1,400,000 cu.ft. But it was a pinnacle shaped category iceberg, not a rectangular solid. So let's cut the rectangular volume by a factor of two giving us an above water volume of 700,000 cu.ft. But this represents 10% of the total volume of the berg. So divide 700,000 by 0.1 = 7,000,000 cu.ft. for the total volume of ice. The density of ice is 57.1 lbs/cu.ft., or 39.2 cu.ft. per long ton. Total weight of berg 7,000,000/39.2 = 178,600 tons rounding to the nearest 100 tons, or about 3.7 times the ship's displacement weight on the night of 4/14.

Time to get back to more productive things.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
We must be talking at cross-purposes.

Sam's post 2235 mentions the three people you seem to be talking about. However in listing them he specifically mentions Gibraltar and a slope.

In your post 225 you state "how many bergs in the vicinity are going to have the slope at the top like Gibraltar. Sam's post makes it at least three people that describe the berg as such"

OK!you did not categorically state that all of these three people specifically uttered the word'Gibraltar' but you most certainly did state " Sam's post makes it at least three people who describe the berg as such". I interpreted the 'as such' bit as Gibraltar and the post in question to be 2235.
How else was it to be interpreted? Perhaps I'm not the only one guilty of indulging in 'minutiae'?

You ask: "and did he say that specifically?" - he certainly did!

If you check-out Day2 of the BOT enquiry:

Q362 (Mr. Butler Aspinall)"What shape was this
ice beg?".

(Scarrot) -" well it struck me at the time that it resembled the Rock of Gibraltar looking at it from Europa Point. It looked very much the same as that but much smaller".

Europa point my friend is the southern-most tip of the rock and is at the end of a long, low ridge which had a very steep slope leading up to a peak at it's other end.

And next:

Q362: (The Commissioner) like a lion couchant?

Scarrot) - "As you approach Gibraltar it seemed that shape. The highest point would be on my right, as it appeared to me".
Scarrot, I believe, was continuing his answer to Q261 - not, as it would seem, agreeing with the Commissioner's question 262.
I suspect the Commissioner may have been in the British Navy or visited the Rock by sea at some time previously.
The bit of the 'couchant' would be the Europa ridge suggested by the lion's outstretched fore-legs.
After all, Scarrot was a simple sailorman - not given to the use of French phraseology and probably wouldn't recognise a lion couchant if it bit him on his rear end.

All ships calling at the port of Gibraltar are required to approach it from the south. The reason for this is Spanish territorial waters.

A vessel entering the Mediterranean and intending to visit Gibraltar heads on an easterly course at first until it is clear of the eastern border of Spanish territorial waters which run north south up the centre of Gibraltar bay and parallel to the Rock itself. When clear it then heads about north, north east towards its' destination.
Vessels approaching from the west can pass Gibraltar and Europa Point Light close to before turning north to their destination. These two approaches would would most likely be what Scarrot was referring to. In the classic view of Gibraltar Europa point is almost invisible.

In my book, the key to this is Europa Point. It has little or no significance to a non-seafarer therefore such as these can be forgiven for ignoring it in preference to the classic view.
Your postings suggest that I too should ignore it and 'go with the flow'.

Not much chance of that!

Cheers!

Jim.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Sam,
Like the work! Pleased you had time to do it.

I am in the process of answering Jeremy's last. In it I have tried to illustrate my thoughts based on what Scarrot actually said at the BOT enquiry. I've seen that illustration before and it most certainly does not look like "Gibraltar from Europa Point" take my word for it!

Interpreting what Scarrot seemed to be describing at Qs 262 and 262. Europa point would be to the right of your sketch and would run very low for about 60 feet further to the right on the scale you seem to be using.
The high point you show would be the one Scarrot referred to as being on his right - presumably the one that reached almost to the boat deck. Placing Scarrot in the picture, he would be just off the point facing us.

Cheers!

Jim
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Sam,

I suggest you visit

http://www.gibraltar.com/europa_Point.aspx and 'click' on Europa Point.

if you page from top to bottom you will see photographic examples of both views.

Again, if you go to:

http://www.cruiserlog.com/wiki/index.php?title=Image:Gibraltar1.jpg
you will see almost exactly what Scarrot was describing to the BOT enquiry. Actually I suspect he meant from the RHS of the Lighthouse - this pic is from the LHS.

It also occurred to me that when Scarrot was in the Navy he was probably based at Gibralter. The Rock in these days was densely populated by Army and Navy personnel. They were not allowed into Spain so had to take their R&R on the Rock itself. The place this picture was taken from is a 15 minute walk from the then Naval Base and would be a popular walk for guys off duty. The rest of the Rock is virtually vertical.

Cheers,

Jim.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Exactly! and it looks nothing like the one at the top of the same page page. That was my point (if you'll excuse the pun).
However, don't you think the fore-legs and paws of a 'lion-couchant' would be more like the eastern than western side? i.e the 'bit' extending to the right.

The object in the foreground is a Mosque. A person standing to the east(right) of that would see a steep sided peak on his left and a low ridge extending from the base to that person's right.

Scarrot suggested that-contrary to his remembered view - the high point of the berg he saw was to his right. The high side of that berg had to be to the right. It had to descend almost vertically into the water - otherwise the loose ice could not have been deposited on the decks.
From a configuration like the one in the picture with the 'peak' at say 65 -70 feet. The promontory on the right would have to have been under water.
However, the main purpose of my last posting was to point out that the berg Scarrot saw was not - according to him, the classic view of Gibraltar imprinted on people's minds. I can only think that the guy who did the sketch thought Scarrot was a terrible artist and re-drew the sketch according to classic opinion. I did not make that up - 'Eoropa Point' proves it!

I expect you're going to suggest 'ah! but the one in this new picture might also be as equally enormous as the ones in my last post'. Absolutely but then; I say again; this picture was merely to prove what Scarrot was describing in general. It was not meant to offer a definitive alternative. Even then it would be much smaller than your last suggestion.

The further I delve into this the more I am now inclined to think Scarrot was describing the view he got of the Rock out at Lighthouse point when he was there on his days off and that his remembered view was from the right of the Mosque with the high peak on his left. But then, as you have already pointed-out; I am entitled to my own opinion.

Cheers!

Jim.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Hi Sam!


Comparing the pictures:

Your lion-couchant seems to be growing a tail! when it becomes the Rehorek Berg
Additionally, it has lost its reason for being described as 'couchant - no extended 'fore-legs.

Consider what Scarrot said:

"The highest point would be on my right, as it appeared to me".

"As it appeared to me". When was he referring to?- when he saw the berg? or when he saw Gibraltar from Europa Point?

The 'Gibraltar from Europa Point' picture ,almost
misses-out the bit that makes the 'Lion' couchant.

Additionally, that picture was taken from the sea,from the SSW.

Obviously you have 'zoomed' in to try and emulate what Scarrot seemed to be saying.
You've even managed to put a right hand bias into the picture - admirable, but you still haven't managed to fit in the 'couchant' bit.
Actually if you pan a bit further right and move your point of view with it so that your looking NNW, you will come up with something very like the top picture with the face removed and the back end chopped-of from from the center of the ear to leave sharply downward slope.

Scarrot refers to the likeness in two ways: in Q 361 he say "looking at it from Europa Point" However later in Q 362 he says " As you approach Gibraltar".

I have stated from memory what I think he meant in Q361.
I'm pretty sure when he said 'approaching' in Q363, he meant when returning to Gibraltar by sea after being on naval patrol in the Mediterranean. That would be prominent in his mind as It is highly unlikely he would ever see that particular view of the rock when approaching from the opposite direction.
Because then it would be when coming out from the UK to join the fleet.
At that time his ship would approach The Rock from the WSW or SW.

He might just have meant when 'passing' Europa Point but I don't think so.

There is a picture of a small berg very much like what I'm trying to suggest somewhere on the site but I can't find it.

I posted these pictures to show that Gibraltar side-on is entirely different to it viewed end-on. The former is long, broad and high - the latter very narrow and also high. I think I succeeded.

Incidentally;do you have problems with jig-saws?

Cheers!

Jim.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,527
1,811
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
I think I've said all there needs to be said on this. The images above speak for themselves as far as I'm concerned. It's time for others to decide what Scarrott saw from what he said, and also taking into consideration that two other independent witnesses happened to use Gibraltar in their descriptions.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,661
1,395
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
They certainly do Sam. But to me they are speaking a different language. However, I'm glad you qualified your opening remark by inviting other comment. I would only add one caveat: those accepting this invitation should make sure they are comparing like-for-like. By this, I mean they should confine their arguments to the evidence of those who were there at the time when 'Titanic' actually hit the ice.
I would suggest that evidence offered arising from descriptions of bergs which stood out in the cold light of day, four and a half hours after the event can only be 'anyone's guess'.
On more than one occasion; survivors have used the term 'surrounded by bergs'of varying sizes.
The tenuous connection between the two sets of evidence is the name 'Gibraltar'. However on one occasion that name was coupled with the name of Europa Point. None of the daylight witnesses use this added bit of information. Therefore,a good detective would narrow his or her search down when it's realised there is a significant difference between the descriptions. It might be something like comparing 'It reminded me of an upright piano side-on' with 'it looked like an upright piano'. In this case we are not describing a piano but the shape of the instrument as seen from different angles.
I wonder if we would be talking about this if Scarrot had used the former 'landsmans' description of what he saw?

I'm still working on the subject. If I find you to be right, I will be the first to admit it.

Cheers,

Jim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads