Samuel Halpern
Member
>>any berg seen from this view-point would have had to have been above the level of the emergency boat - almost as high or higher than the bridge wing cab - just as I have been saying. <<
I agree. So what's the problem? He did say, "The iceberg was about the height of the boat deck; if anything, just a little higher. It was almost alongside of the boat, sir. The top did not touch the side of the boat, but it was almost alongside of the boat." The only part of the berg visible to him was the peak. The berg certainly was not 100 ft high. And as Lee testified at the Ryan trial, he thought it was as high as the boat deck. Obviously, he would be looking down on it from the height of the nest.
As far as the questioning goes, there were statements made before and after the official testimony was taken down by some. In the case of Hichens, a statement about the speed of the ship made after was later put into the official record. At the British Inquiry there were depositions taken before the witnesses appeared. Too bad these are nowhere to be found these days.
I agree. So what's the problem? He did say, "The iceberg was about the height of the boat deck; if anything, just a little higher. It was almost alongside of the boat, sir. The top did not touch the side of the boat, but it was almost alongside of the boat." The only part of the berg visible to him was the peak. The berg certainly was not 100 ft high. And as Lee testified at the Ryan trial, he thought it was as high as the boat deck. Obviously, he would be looking down on it from the height of the nest.
As far as the questioning goes, there were statements made before and after the official testimony was taken down by some. In the case of Hichens, a statement about the speed of the ship made after was later put into the official record. At the British Inquiry there were depositions taken before the witnesses appeared. Too bad these are nowhere to be found these days.