Jan 29, 2001
1,282
16
221
ATTN: Sam & Jim C., I understand that you guys are discussing the eyewitness testimony in regards to the iceberg on a seperate topic. I too am intrigued by the "white monstor". A photograph, as the caption notes, bearing better pedigree than most (red paint along base), taken by the Chief Steward of the German ship Prinz Adelbert, could act as a reference image. So Sam, with your paint shop skills, is there enough detail in the photograph (See: ANTR & ill. ANTR) to perhaps render the TITANIC as she was encountering the berg, allowing a view of the center pinnacle, coupled with eyewitness accounts?

Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
 
Jan 29, 2001
1,282
16
221
POSTSCRIPT: I failed to mention the iceberg photograph is from our late beloved Walter Lord's collection.
(As my Father instilled..."Give credit where credit is due").

Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
 
Jan 29, 2001
1,282
16
221
Jeremy, as the caption noted..."Observers noted a scar of red paint along the berg's base".
Coupled with additional photographs of the same berg taken from diffrent angles, do you feel that a misidentifaction of the *red* substance could be mistaken? And, if you consider that the berg only bore a red scar on the broadside image (ANTR). Personally, I have not seen the other angle images which became known to myself
some eight yrs. ago here on the ET site.

Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
 
Jan 29, 2001
1,282
16
221
Thanks Jason for the link to our past...;-)
Are you also aware of additional images of the same berg taken from the S.S. Prinz Adalbert?
I believe Mr. Pfiefer mentioned them in ET forum discusssions regarding the topic, from 2001.
BTW, I also recall the original, ANTR Aldalbert iceberg photo surfacing for auction. Any idea who owns it today?

Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Dec 3, 2000
8,243
22
308
Niagara Falls, Ontario
You're welcome, Michael.

quote:

Are you also aware of additional images of the same berg taken from the S.S. Prinz Adalbert?

I have not seen those images, but I vaguely recall that discussion on here.

quote:

I also recall the original, ANTR Aldalbert iceberg photo surfacing for auction. Any idea who owns it today?

No, I don't have any information on it.​
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,860
1,024
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Michael:

The problem with 'eyewitness accounts' is that all except one such witness, refer to it being rather small. Only - Scarrot - gives an idea of profile and height. Olliver saw only one peak. as for the life boat survivors? - they saw many icebergs after the event so have as much chance as we have of identifying the right one.
I still think the 'red herring' is: 'Big ship therefore big berg'.
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
5,045
315
353
I have serious reservations about the Prinz Adalbert Berg.

On 29 June 1912, the Hamburg — Amerika line provided the Board of Trade with a report from her captain.

Prinz Adalbert first met with an iceberg at 3-30am on 16 April, when in 42° 03’N, 48° 47’W. (Presumably ship’s time is given). Speed was briefly reduced.

(Note that Walter Lord in ANTR gives the date as 15 April.)

At dawn, a vast icefield, obviously the one seen west of the disaster scene, was sighted. By 8-00am, it was seen that it extended for many miles both north and south. Prinz Adalbert’s master elected to take various courses that would take him as quickly to the west as possible, given the constraints posed by the icefield. He covered 28 miles, making around WSW.

At 8-40am, he found a gap in the field and slowly steamed through it, reaching clear water at 9-55am. He was then in 41° 37’N, 50° 14W.

It is possible that in her zig-zag course Prinz Adalbert passed the area of Titanic’s sinking, but she arrived more than 24 hours after Titanic struck the berg. By then, the berg could have been anywhere and in any attitude. The report mentions neither the berg in the photo, or any signs of Titanic’s wreck. We must ask what the chance of passing the fatal berg quite closely was.

Henning Pfeifer has cast doubt on claims that by 16 April those on Prinz Adalbert were unaware of the Titanic disaster. The ship was equipped with radio and can hardly have missed the messages about Titanic that had filled the airwaves since the night of 14 April.

Leaving aside the question of where anti-fouling paint would stick to ice, I see no sign of the alleged red paint in the photo. There is a dark line along its waterline, but this is merely a small overhang that follows the contours of the berg. There is a diagonal dark line on the berg, but this is sediment commonly found in bergs from Greenland. On TV, they appear a brown/orange colour.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,860
1,024
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I thought about this one Dave. as I see it, the only way this could have been the culprit would be if the centre peak was about 75 feet high and the boot-topping paint was seen on the opposite side from the photographer's view. I say this because to quote Scarrot: "The highest point would be to my right as it appeared to me". His right being toward the ship's side.

However, the position of the route taken by Prinz Adalbert through the pack ice is very significant. To me it suggest I may be right in that there was little or no current in that particular vicinity.
Prinz Adalbert seems to have found the way through in almost the same place as all previous vessel had done during the previous 48 t0 72 hours.

Hope you are well and you got the eye problem sorted.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,860
1,024
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Hi Paul!

The wind! It rose at dawn. it must have been 'brisk' since Lowe was able to sail around in that heavy lifeboat with a dipping lugsail which is not the most efficient of sails.
I presume you are using the position Californian gave?

Hope your well,

Jim.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,860
1,024
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Sorry to hear that Paul. I'm absolutely sure you are the only person on this wide world that considers you even a tiny bit worthless.
I really do think I know what you mean - I'm not just saying that. I just wish I had half your brains and all of your youth.

However, let's not dwell on the fact that we're all a bunch of worthless plonkers! (just kidding). I would like your views as to the effect of say a 1 knot current and or 18 knot wind on low profile debris with a draft of say 1 foot floating on the surface of a flat-calm sea. Also the effect these influences would have on a pan-cake ice pack showing; say- 3 feet above sea-levelwith a draft of 6 feet.
I base the last on Lord's evidence that he was turning ice floes over as he headed south at full speed.

My new-formed current theory was based on conflicting evidence. Rostron said he arrived amidst the debris. Boxhall said he was to the NE of the sinking position and did not move much until dawn. Lord stated he left the debris in the position you referred to. None of that 'computes' as they say.
The most convincing bit for me was that most of the vessels in the story passed through what seems to be the same 'hole' during an extended period. What do you think?

Regards,

Jim
 
Jan 29, 2001
1,282
16
221
Thanks Mr. Gittins for taking the time to give a *very* explanatory summary...perhaps I will have to cancel my reservations of the Prinz Adalbert photo. However, the photograph has such a haunting appeal...as seen in a limited spectrum...all alone on a calm sea...so spooky in my eyes!

Michael Cundiff
NV, USA
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,860
1,024
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Michael, I understand what you mean

That's the thing about ice bergs - they give off this timeless, haunting aura - surrealistic even. Almost like watching tropical fish in a tank and you don't know what draws you to watch them. Very spooky indeed.
 
P

Phil Fazzini

Guest
Iceberg photo in Walter Lord Book A Night to Remember. Did this collide with Titanic?
 

Similar threads

Similar threads