The Iceberg that Sank the Titanic?


Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,582
1,357
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
It cannot be possible that less than 2 hours after Titanic hit that iceberg - after 4-30 am that morning of April 15, 1912 - the culprit was not stll nearby in all its glory to be seen by everyone within a radius of 10 miles . It does not matter whether there was or was not a current in the immediate vicinity because everything in the immediate vicinity would have been carried along by that which was effecting it. Sp why wasn't such an obvious candidate mentioned by anyone?
The photograph 2 days earlier, purporting to be that of the berg that sank Titanic, cannot be true, it is the wrong shape as described by AB Joseph Scarrott. Not only that but it was about 7 miles NW of the wreck site and would have to have been almost stationary i.e...had only move that distance in 40 hours. - which is 1074 ft/hour.
Furthermore: the Photgraph was taken in Gale conditions. A Gale would have moved an iceberg of that shape a very great distance as long as it was blowing. and in the direction it was blowing.

And what about the iceberg located 2 miles south of the wreck site 8 hours before Titanic hit her iceberg-where did it go to?

Oh what a wonderous web!
 
Last edited:
Nov 14, 2005
2,235
1,127
308
It cannot be possible that less than 2 hours after Titanic hit that iceberg - after 4-30 am that morning of April 15, 1912 - the culprit was not stll nearby in all its glory to be seen by everyone within a radius of 10 miles . It does not matter whether there was or was not a current in the immediate vicinity because everything in the immediate vicinity would have been carried along by that which was effecting it. Sp why wasn't such an obvious candidate mentioned by anyone?
The photograph 2 days earlier, purporting to be that of the berg that sank Titanic, cannot be true, it is the wrong shape as described by AB Joseph Scarrott. Not only that but it was about 7 miles NW of the wreck site and would have to have been almost stationary i.e...had only move that distance in 40 hours. - which is 1074 ft/hour.
Furthermore: the Photgraph was taken in Gale conditions. A Gale would have moved an iceberg of that shape a very great distance as long as it was blowing. and in the direction it was blowing.

And what about the iceberg located 2 miles south of the wreck site 8 hours before Titanic hit her iceberg-where did it go to?

Oh what a wonderous web!
Yes agree. I've seen many pictures of different bergs that claim to the one. What I'm not clear on though is if that's the only picture of that berg or were pictures taken of it from different angles? Some pictures seem to be that way...same berg, different angles.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,582
1,357
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Yes agree. I've seen many pictures of different bergs that claim to the one. What I'm not clear on though is if that's the only picture of that berg or were pictures taken of it from different angles? Some pictures seem to be that way...same berg, different angles.
Steven, there is a verbal description of the berg given by AB Joseph Scarrott... he said "I went and looked over the rail there and I saw an iceberg that I took it we had struck. It would be abaft the beam then - abaft the starboard beam.... 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 shape as that, only much smaller.... As you approach Gibraltar - it seemed that shape. The highest point would be on my right, as it appeared to me.

The Captain Wood photograph was not taken in a Gale. A Gale in that part of the world would have had enormous breakers around the base of a berg and loads of spray. Besides which, the sea would have long white streaks on its surface. The berg in that picture is not the shape of Gibraltar as you approach it. In fact, this is what Barratt was talking about:
1613314419067.png

1613314820946.png
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,479
1,743
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Sp why wasn't such an obvious candidate mentioned by anyone?
Senator SMITH. Did you see icebergs the next morning?
Mr. STENGEL. I guess you could. They were all around. You could see them. As soon as we landed down into the water, as soon as we were afloat, you could see icebergs all around, because we thought they were sailing vessels at first, and began pulling this way, and then turning around and going the other way. They were in sight all along the horizon.
Senator SMITH. Were you menaced in any way, after you got into the water in this emergency boat, by ice?
Mr. STENGEL. No, sir.
Senator SMITH. How far away was it from you, apparently?
Mr. STENGEL. It was quite a ways, but you could see the outline in the dusk.
Senator SMITH. Describe these icebergs. How large were they?
Mr. STENGEL. There was one of them, particularly, that I noticed, a very large one, which looked something like the Rock of Gibraltar; it was high at one point, and another point came up at the other end, about the same shape as the rock of Gibraltar.
Senator SMITH. How did it compare with size of the Titanic?
Mr. STENGEL. I was a good ways off. It was not quite as large as the Titanic but it was an enormous, large iceberg.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,582
1,357
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Senator SMITH. Did you see icebergs the next morning?
Mr. STENGEL. I guess you could. They were all around. You could see them. As soon as we landed down into the water, as soon as we were afloat, you could see icebergs all around, because we thought they were sailing vessels at first, and began pulling this way, and then turning around and going the other way. They were in sight all along the horizon.
Senator SMITH. Were you menaced in any way, after you got into the water in this emergency boat, by ice?
Mr. STENGEL. No, sir.
Senator SMITH. How far away was it from you, apparently?
Mr. STENGEL. It was quite a ways, but you could see the outline in the dusk.
Senator SMITH. Describe these icebergs. How large were they?
Mr. STENGEL. There was one of them, particularly, that I noticed, a very large one, which looked something like the Rock of Gibraltar; it was high at one point, and another point came up at the other end, about the same shape as the rock of Gibraltar.
Senator SMITH. How did it compare with size of the Titanic?
Mr. STENGEL. I was a good ways off. It was not quite as large as the Titanic but it was an enormous, large iceberg.
Passenger Stengel left in Emergency boat 1 at or near to 1 am when it was pitch dark. yet he swore :
" As soon as we landed down into the water, as soon as we were afloat, you could see icebergs all around, because we thought they were sailing vessels at first, and began pulling this way, and then turning around and going the other way. They were in sight all along the horizon."
That for starters is rubbish Sam.
Then he compounds the felony by adding the bit you quoted:
"It was quite a ways, but you could see the outline in the dusk."
I presume he meant dawn, but that did not come for another 3.5 hours. Which brings us to your quote:
"There was one of them, particularly, that I noticed, a very large one, which looked something like the Rock of Gibraltar; it was high at one point, and another point came up at the other end, about the same shape as the rock of Gibraltar".

If they were on the horizon, one of them was not the one Titanic hit. It had to be about 2 miles away from the place where the boats were launched and one of them (when he did see thm) could very well have been the shape of a tourist picture post card view of Gibraltar.

However, Mr Stengel made an interesting obrvation when he stated:
"let us give it to her and let us steer in between the green light - where we saw the green light - and that boat," and that being a very light boat we left the other boats quite a way behind. I felt somewhat enthused to see the boat, and I began to jolly them along to pull. I said, "Keep pulling." We kept pulling, and I thought we were the first boat aboard; but I found that the boat that had the green lights burning was ahead of us. We were the second boat aboard."

If that bit of his story was true, then, I know you will not like this , but just after 4 am boat No.1 had to have been SW of Boxall in boat No.2., not NW . A bit like this:

Stengel's evidence.jpg

Not only that, but he would see to his right, on his eastern horizon, in th distance, the 5 bergs that Carpathia swerved to avoid'
It boils down to what part of this man's story do you want to believe?
Personally, my money is on a sailor who was describing a very familiar sight.
 
Nov 14, 2005
2,235
1,127
308
Steven, there is a verbal description of the berg given by AB Joseph Scarrott... he said "I went and looked over the rail there and I saw an iceberg that I took it we had struck. It would be abaft the beam then - abaft the starboard beam.... 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 shape as that, only much smaller.... As you approach Gibraltar - it seemed that shape. The highest point would be on my right, as it appeared to me.

The Captain Wood photograph was not taken in a Gale. A Gale in that part of the world would have had enormous breakers around the base of a berg and loads of spray. Besides which, the sea would have long white streaks on its surface. The berg in that picture is not the shape of Gibraltar as you approach it. In fact, this is what Barratt was talking about:
View attachment 75682
View attachment 75683
Ok. Thanks for the reply. I'll take your word for it as I have never seen an iceberg except from 35,000 ft up. Yes that picture in question certainly doesn't look a gale going on...looks pretty calm. I have been thru a typhoon so I know what a storm at sea is like. It beat the hell out of my ship but at least it wasn't cold.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads