Where were the icebergs in the Carpathia photographs


John O'Malley

Member
Oct 6, 2010
3
0
31
As most of you probably know, many survivors reported that over half a dozen icebergs were visible around the Carpathia the morning of the rescue. However, they do not appear in photographs of the lifeboats rowing towards the ship, and besides one photo showing the icefield from a distance (the survivors statements seem to imply that the icebergs were closer than that), no photos appear to have been taken of them. This seems odd considering how many survivors and Carpathia passengers reflected on hoe magnificent the bergs looked. I would think that if the Titanic was facing north when it sank, as is generally accepted, then the boats we see (6, 14 and D), which were all launched from the port side, should be coming from the west, the direction that the icefield was to the Carpathia, so the bergs should be visible, no? Is there any explanation for this discrepancy?
 

Adam Went

Member
Apr 28, 2003
1,194
7
168
Interesting question, John. Perhaps the Carpathia deliberately stayed away from the visible icebergs during the rescue efforts, as the boats rowed towards her. Photographs were taken of the icebergs, including the one with the suspicious red streak of paint on the waterline, but this was later on.

Cheers,
Adam.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,208
666
213
Funchal. Madeira
Hello John.

You wrote:

"I would think that if the Titanic was facing north when it sank, as is generally accepted,"

I'm afraid I am an exception to that popular concept.

Apart from the evidence that Titanic's helm was put hard right (hard-a- port) as some indeterminate time after she hit the iceberg; the only other evidence pointing to Titanic having swung north comes from Quarter Master Rowe.
He stated:

"17669. Was your vessel's head swinging at the time you saw this light of this other vessel?
- I put it down that her stern was swinging.
17670. Which way was her stern swinging?
- Practically dead south, I believe, then.[
17671. Do you mean her head was facing south?
- No, her head was facing north. She was coming round to starboard.
17672. The stern was swung to the south?
- Yes.
17673. And at that time you saw this white light?
17674. How was it bearing from you?
- When I first saw it it was half a point on the port bow, and roughly about two points when I left the bridge."


You may not be aware of it but Rowe was giving what is known as a 'relative bearing' of the light in question. That means he was giving it's position relative to Titanic's bow.
There are two reasons why the direction of that light would have changed relative to the bow. The first would be the one many people have pounced on.. i.e..the ship's head swinging to the right. The second would be due to the movement of the ship carrying the light.
Unless Rowe had either taken a bearing of the light in question or had noted the ship's head by the steering compass, he would have had no idea whether the ship's head was swinging or the ship showing the light was moving. There are at least two separate witnesses who declared the other ship was moving. The fact that the relative bearing of the light did not change more than 20 degrees between the time Rowe arrived on the bridge and the time he left it, does not sit easy with the idea of Titanic's bow swinging right all the time. If it was, why would it stop doing so when Rowe left the ship 20 minutes before she sank?

There is of course the claim that the position of Titanic's bow section as it lies on the sea-bed proves the point. That is pure conjecture in the absence of knowledge concerning the conditions prevailing on the sections of Titanic as she sank through 2 miles of water. Sure, test tank work has been done on the subject but such tests could not replicate the unknown.

The people who hold to the theory of a pointing north scenario, also believe there was a south-setting current running that morning. Anyone who has a reasonable knowledge of the action of a stopped ship (Not Under Command)in a current will tell you that if such a current was running, Titanic could never have turned her bow to the northward against such a current.

This brings me to your question:

"then the boats we see (6, 14 and D), which were all launched from the port side, should be coming from the west, the direction that the icefield was to the Carpathia, so the bergs should be visible, no? Is there any explanation for this discrepancy? ."

As Adam observed "a good question".

It was reported that the wind was from the north after 4am. Wind blows at more or less right angles to the wave crests. If you look at the following photograph then you will see that these boats in this first picture are coming from a north, northeasterly direction.

Lowe & Co..jpg

As for the direction of the ice: Take a look at this image taken from Carpathia that morning:

ifield001.jpg

However there is a problem with the wind direction in this second picture.

Captain Rostron of Carpathia said the ice was trending North-west..South east as far as the eye could see and was about 4 to 5 miles away. If the second picture was taken about 9am that morning, we can deduce from the sunlight on the face of the large iceberg together with Captain Rostron's remarks that the wind in that picture was blowing from about west-northwest.. not north.
If the wind in the first picture was blowing from the same direction in the second picture, the line of the pack ice with entrapped icebergs should have been seen in the back ground astern of 5th Officer Lowe's boat. We can only assume therefore that some time after daylight, the wind backed toward the westward.

If Lowe's boat came directly from the site of the wreckage then he was sailing southward. This would explain the absence of ice in the picture. On the other hand; if the original reported wind direction of north was incorrect and the wind was indeed WNW and blowing off the ice, then the ice would be trending away to the left and out of shot in the picture of Rowe's boat and his lifeboat would be pointing in the direction of about South East, parallel to the eastern edge of the pack ice. (I think!)

Jim C.

Lowe & Co..jpg


ifield001.jpg
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,322
626
183
Germany
As most of you probably know, many survivors reported that over half a dozen icebergs were visible around the Carpathia the morning of the rescue. However, they do not appear in photographs of the lifeboats rowing towards the ship, and besides one photo showing the icefield from a distance (the survivors statements seem to imply that the icebergs were closer than that), no photos appear to have been taken of them. This seems odd considering how many survivors and Carpathia passengers reflected on hoe magnificent the bergs looked. I would think that if the Titanic was facing north when it sank, as is generally accepted, then the boats we see (6, 14 and D), which were all launched from the port side, should be coming from the west, the direction that the icefield was to the Carpathia, so the bergs should be visible, no? Is there any explanation for this discrepancy?
The lifeboats were scattered about a large area and not all of them find themselves between the icebergs. It were more the early boats which had to avoid an iceberg but it was to dark for any camera to take any picture.
Lifeboats 6, 14 and D belonged to the later boats and were not among the ice.

There is of course the claim that the position of Titanic's bow section as it lies on the sea-bed proves the point. That is pure conjecture in the absence of knowledge concerning the conditions prevailing on the sections of Titanic as she sank through 2 miles of water. Sure, test tank work has been done on the subject but such tests could not replicate the unknown.

The people who hold to the theory of a pointing north scenario, also believe there was a south-setting current running that morning. Anyone who has a reasonable knowledge of the action of a stopped ship (Not Under Command)in a current will tell you that if such a current was running, Titanic could never have turned her bow to the northward against such a current.
Sorry Jim, but I think you did not understand the wreck/wreck side. And the tank test were done to show how the bow section sank and not why it faced NNW. As it is known that the bow did not turn but sank how it faced on the ocean surface it is clear that it was facing to the NNW direction. (The last order Hichens got was hard to port which would turn the ship to N.) The debris field also speak for a south current.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,322
626
183
Germany
If Lowe's boat came directly from the site of the wreckage then he was sailing southward. This would explain the absence of ice in the picture. On the other hand; if the original reported wind direction of north was incorrect and the wind was indeed WNW and blowing off the ice, then the ice would be trending away to the left and out of shot in the picture of Rowe's boat and his lifeboat would be pointing in the direction of about South East, parallel to the eastern edge of the pack ice. (I think!)
Lowe did not came directly from the wreck side. The above image was taken when he arrived at Carpathia and after leaving the wreckage, going over to boat D and then over to boat A (both in different directions) and then sail down to Carpathia. Regarding Rowe, not sure if you was going to say Lowe, however his boat was boat C and is not on the picture.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,620
424
283
Easley South Carolina
>>However, they do not appear in photographs of the lifeboats rowing towards the ship, and besides one photo showing the icefield from a distance <<

Beware temprocentrism. There was no such thing as high resolution photography in 1912, and the resolution of a lot of cameras and the film wasn't always that swift. There are some fairly decent photos out there where the ice field is apparent, but only if you look closely.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,322
626
183
Germany
It seems that there had been made a few photographs showing lifeboats avoiding a large flat iceberg. The images had not been published and I only saw them in a very low quality. Beside that, Carpathia also seemed to have moved a little in that area while lifeboats were still rowing towards her.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,208
666
213
Funchal. Madeira
Hello Ioannis.

As I pointed out; the attitude of the bow section on the sea-floor has been used by others to prove that Titanic sank while facing in a northerly direction.
I assure you, I really do fully understand the mechanics of a sinking ship and test tank trial procedures. I also know without fear of contradiction that when the last portion of Titanic sank beneath the surface, no one knows what, if anything, influenced her downward descent.
If there was a strong surface or sub-surface current running, it would act on the ship-part profile much like the wind and currents act on them when on and above the surface.
Additionally; there would possibly be many different layers of water with differing temperature and salinity values. These too would contribute to the behaviour of the descent of the wreck.

The only helm order Hichens got which was part of the emergency avoidance action before impact was in fact "hard-a-starboard". He was quite emphatic about this during his questioning at the US Senate Inquiry. I quote:

"Senator SMITH.
The officer gave you the necessary order?
Mr. HICHENS.
Gave me the order, "Hard a'starboard."
Senator SMITH.
Is that the only order you received before the collision, or impact?
Mr. HICHENS.
That is all, sir. Then the first officer told the other quartermaster standing by to take the time, and told one of the junior officers to make a note of that in the logbook. That was at 20 minutes of 12; sir."


The order "hard-a port" was given after the ship had struck the iceberg and when the latter was, according to QM Olliver "Way down stern". The engines were already stopped or stopping by that time and the ship swinging rapidly to the left.

If the second order was given while Titanic was swinging rapidly to the left and the engines were stopping or stopped, then there would not have been enough (or even any) rudder effectiveness available during that time to check the hard left turn and cause the bow to swing to the right. It is even less likely that there was any rudder effectiveness if Boxhall's report of engines turning full astern was true. In any case, for a reverse helm order to be effective, it must be given in good time...in this case immediately after the first helm order... and be given with engines turning Full Ahead. It takes a great deal of helm effort to stop a bow swinging one way and cause it to turn the opposite way.

As for 5th Officer Lowe: (Not Rowe.. I probably got the name mixed-up)

He left his gathered bunch of boats...10,12 etc and sailed toward Carpathia with Collapsible 'D' in tow. He left from a position which was about 150 yards (137m) off where Titanic's port side had recently been. He had started toward Carpathia with Collapsible D in tow when he spotted the distressed Collapsible 'A'. He then turned his boat's head through the wind.. 'went about'.. and headed straight for it. He took the people off 'A' then must have 'gone about' once again and resumed his course for Carpathia.
Collapsible 'A' must have been near to where Titanic's bridge disappeared below the surface and little more than 200 yards away from where Lowe initially started off with Collapsible 'D' under tow. This being the case. Lowe's course toward Carpathia must have been almost a direct line from the position of the main wreckage and bodies.

Lowe's boat was fitted with a 'Dipping Lug' sailing rig. His description of the sailing manoeuvres in boat 14 will tell any one familiar with this rig, a great deal about the situation.
A lifeboat fitted with such a rig is very difficult to sail and needs a fair bit of wind broad on the beam or from a stern-wise direction to get up any kind of speed. Like any vessel under sail, it cannot sail directly into the wind.
If Titanic had gone down heading north, collapsible 'A' would have been to the north of lifeboat 14 and Lowe would have had to tack back and forth across the wind with Collapsible 'D' in tow to get to 'A'. That's absurd to say the least. Not only that, he would have had to have been battling against an alleged 1.25 knot south-setting current as well. Totally impossible!

Let's examine what Lowe tells us.

With Collapsible 'D' in tow, he was sailing toward Carpathia at a brisk speed of 4 + knots when he spotted those on Collapsible 'D'. This being so, the wind had to have been abeam or abaft the beam. If Titanic had gone down heading north, Collapsible A would have been the northward of boat 14. Lowe could not have 'gone about' and sailed directly back with 'D' under tow in such conditions.
If the wind had been from a westerly direction then Lowe could have easily sailed northward or southward with the wind on either beam.
If Titanic had gone down heading westward and the wind was as originally reported as blowing from the north then 'A' would have been west of boat 14 and Lowe could easily have sailed back and forth at speed with a vessel under tow. Equally; if the wind had been from the west, then Lowe could not have performed his sailing manoeuvre.

It all boils down to the direction of the wind and rate of current (if any) at 4am that morning.

North heading Titanic with wind blowing from the north and a south-setting current? Forget it!
Westward heading Titanic with wind from the west and south-setting current? Forget it!

Westward heading Titanic with wind blowing from the north and a south-setting current is the only practical scenario but forget the current. Has anyone any idea how hard it is under sail to tow something across or against a current?.

Jim.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,322
626
183
Germany
Hi Jim,

you wrote;

Hello Ioannis.

As I pointed out; the attitude of the bow section on the sea-floor has been used by others to prove that Titanic sank while facing in a northerly direction.
I assure you, I really do fully understand the mechanics of a sinking ship and test tank trial procedures. I also know without fear of contradiction that when the last portion of Titanic sank beneath the surface, no one knows what, if anything, influenced her downward descent.
If there was a strong surface or sub-surface current running, it would act on the ship-part profile much like the wind and currents act on them when on and above the surface.
Additionally; there would possibly be many different layers of water with differing temperature and salinity values. These too would contribute to the behaviour of the descent of the wreck.
Sorry but you always denied that the ship was facing to the north. As you know the bow of the wreck show to NNE but you did not gave any reason as how it then ended on the seafloor showing in that position if it was not facing to the north before it went below the waterline. All the debris on the seafloor show that the bow did not turn as did the stern (which rotated while on her way to the bottom) and also show that there was a current to the south.


The only helm order Hichens got which was part of the emergency avoidance action before impact was in fact "hard-a-starboard". He was quite emphatic about this during his questioning at the US Senate Inquiry. I quote:

"Senator SMITH.
The officer gave you the necessary order?
Mr. HICHENS.
Gave me the order, "Hard a'starboard."
Senator SMITH.
Is that the only order you received before the collision, or impact?
Mr. HICHENS.
That is all, sir. Then the first officer told the other quartermaster standing by to take the time, and told one of the junior officers to make a note of that in the logbook. That was at 20 minutes of 12; sir."


The order "hard-a port" was given after the ship had struck the iceberg and when the latter was, according to QM Olliver "Way down stern". The engines were already stopped or stopping by that time and the ship swinging rapidly to the left.

If the second order was given while Titanic was swinging rapidly to the left and the engines were stopping or stopped, then there would not have been enough (or even any) rudder effectiveness available during that time to check the hard left turn and cause the bow to swing to the right. It is even less likely that there was any rudder effectiveness if Boxhall's report of engines turning full astern was true. In any case, for a reverse helm order to be effective, it must be given in good time...in this case immediately after the first helm order... and be given with engines turning Full Ahead. It takes a great deal of helm effort to stop a bow swinging one way and cause it to turn the opposite way.
Jim, as it was pointed already out to you, Hichens said on board Carpathia that he got first the order hard-a-starboard and then hard-to-port". QM Olliver said that he heard the order Hard-to-port and also saw that this was carried out. QM Rowe and AB Scarrott agree that she was reacting on a hard-to-port order when the iceberg passed aft. (As an aside note also Bruce Ismay said that both orders were given.) As known the engines stoped after the collision.



As for 5th Officer Lowe: (Not Rowe.. I probably got the name mixed-up)

He left his gathered bunch of boats...10,12 etc and sailed toward Carpathia with Collapsible 'D' in tow. He left from a position which was about 150 yards (137m) off where Titanic's port side had recently been. He had started toward Carpathia with Collapsible D in tow when he spotted the distressed Collapsible 'A'. He then turned his boat's head through the wind.. 'went about'.. and headed straight for it. He took the people off 'A' then must have 'gone about' once again and resumed his course for Carpathia.
Collapsible 'A' must have been near to where Titanic's bridge disappeared below the surface and little more than 200 yards away from where Lowe initially started off with Collapsible 'D' under tow. This being the case. Lowe's course toward Carpathia must have been almost a direct line from the position of the main wreckage and bodies.
I think you make it a little to easy. He collected 4 boats together and did not stay 150 yards away, but was more moving around. After the ship sunk he went back to the wreckage. Then he went towards Carpathia, saw boat D and go there and then to boat A both in different directions. If boat A had remained there were the bridge of the Titanic went down, she would have been close to wreckage and dead body's, but this was not the case. As boat B they got from the spot they were away. (As an aside note, boats A and B were drifting towards the stern during the sinking as they found themselves under the propellers.)
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,208
666
213
Funchal. Madeira
Hello Ioannis.

I don't deny that Titanic's bow was pointing in a northerly direction. I simply point out to you and other 'believers' that given the circumstances, it was a physical impossibilty for it to have done so. Even more so, if there was a 1.25 knot south-setting current running that night.

Unlike the 'believers', I am not in the least interested in how the ship's bow lies on the sea-bed since I do not believe that it has any relevance to how she was on the surface.

On Carpathia, Hichens merely confirmed that he received two helm orders. I believe he did, but as you well know, I also believe that the two were unconnected.

How on earth could QM Rowe believe that the ship was acting under reverse helm when he could almost touch the iceberg as it passed him and at that time, the berg was nearer the ship's centerloine than it was when it broke contact whith the ship's side?
Equally: How could Scarrott see the ice berg 'off the starboard beam' before it passed Rowe?
You need to eamine the evidence of these two men a little more closely.

Boat 'A' was close to where the bridge had been. Since the people all moved toward the stern, the bodies would have been at leat 500 feet away from boat 'A'.

How could boat 'A' be under the propellers when the ship broke its back before it was washed off the deck?

Ard.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,322
626
183
Germany
Hi Jim,

Hello Ioannis.

I don't deny that Titanic's bow was pointing in a northerly direction. I simply point out to you and other 'believers' that given the circumstances, it was a physical impossibilty for it to have done so. Even more so, if there was a 1.25 knot south-setting current running that night.

Unlike the 'believers', I am not in the least interested in how the ship's bow lies on the sea-bed since I do not believe that it has any relevance to how she was on the surface.
Looking only at the wreck and the different items on the bottom I only see that she was facing to the north while at the surface. Around the bow there is very little debris and all of that is what landed there when she hit the bottom. Other debris is in the way towards the south. If she had turned like the stern, there would had been debris all around her.


Boat 'A' was close to where the bridge had been. Since the people all moved toward the stern, the bodies would have been at leat 500 feet away from boat 'A'.

How could boat 'A' be under the propellers when the ship broke its back before it was washed off the deck?
Same as boat B. There are people who think that they were drifting aft. I on the other side think the stern was turning (after the break). However survivors on both boats report that the propellers were above their heads and were afraid that the stern would fall back on top of them.
Both boats partly rowed and most likely drifted away.
If boat A would have been there were the bridge was they would have been surrounded by bodies and wreckage. There were several people who were washed off the ship when the bridge went under and a wave washed the people off from the boat deck at about the high of the 2nd funnel. Also about 30 people made it onto boat A but only 12 survived. Some fell back into the sea and some were thrown into the sea to lightened the boat. If boat A would have been at the same spot she was washed off the ship she would have been among those bodies. But this was not the case. Boat A was floating free and the only bodies were 3 in the boat which Lowe left there and were found nearly 1 month later by the Oceanic.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,208
666
213
Funchal. Madeira
Hello Ioannis.



I must again point out to you again that the attitude of Titanic on the surface before she sank can have no connection with how the wreckage is seen on the sea bed today. Not unless we can know exactly what affected the two main section on their way downward through 2.5 miles of sea water.

As a matter of interest: the light debris is scattered over a large area. There's coal ahead and astern of the main bow and stern sections. However there is a boiler near the stern section. If this is one of the Boiler room 1 units. and the ship split ahead of the main engine room then that boiler must have fallen out of the back end of the bow section when the double bottom pealed downward. Otherwise the bow must have been pointing upward toward the surface at some time for the boiler to have fallen out of there.


The evidence of Olaus Abseth, a survivor in Collapsible 'A' tells us a great deal about where 'A' was when the ship went down and what they did on 'A' until they were rescued by Lowe.

"We went up. We went over to the port side of the ship, and there were just one or two boats on the port side that were lost. Anyway, there was one. We were standing there looking at them lowering this boat. We could see them, some of the crew helping take the ladies in their arms and throwing them into the lifeboats. We saw them lower this boat, and there were no more boats on the port side. So we walked over to the starboard side of the ship, and just as we were standing there, one of the officers came up and he said just as he walked by, "Are there any sailors here?"

Olaus went up to the boat deck from the aft well deck area. He eventually left the ship from the aft end of the boat deck.

"we hung onto a rope in one of the davits. We were pretty far back at the top deck.....
My brother-in-law took my hand just as we jumped off;.....
I came on top again, and I was trying to swim, and there was a man - lots of them were floating around ....
Then I swam; I could not say, but it must have been about 15 or 20 minutes......
I swam toward that, and it was one of those collapsible boats.['A]....
We were standing on the deck. In this little boat the canvas was not raised up. We tried to raise the canvas up but we could not get it up. We stood all night in about 12 or 14 inches of water on this thing and our feet were in the water all the time."


If Olaus was swiming with a lifejacket on for 20 minutes, he could not have gone much further than 3 or 4 hundred feet. Since he eventually found 'A', he must have been swimming toward it. The distance from the aft end of the boat deck to the bridge could not have been much more than 350 feet.
George Rheims who was also on 'A' said he too had to swim through people and wreckage to get to 'A' and that they used pits of wood to paddle clear of any survivors in the water. None of these people could have seen the ship's propellers because the ship had sunk by the time they reached 'A'. Additionally; 'A' could not have been far from her original float-off position.
Lowe said he left his little flotilla about 150 yards off the place where Titanic had been and took lifeboat 14 among the floating bodies, deck chairs and wreckage. These had to be the same stuff and people Olaus and George swam away from. Here's a little sketch of how I see it:

Suggested path of Lowe in 14.JPG

For Lowe to have been able to sail to 'D' , she would have to have been west of him. Since he said he sailed 'down' to her. she must have been down wind from him, not up wind otherwise he would have had the wind forward of his beam and he would have had to sail 'up' to her. Don't know if you are familiar with sailing terms?

Jim

Suggested path of Lowe in 14.JPG
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,208
666
213
Funchal. Madeira
PS.

The main area of people and light wreckage in the water would have been to the north of Lowe in the LH sketch and to the east of him in the RH one.
For Lowe to have sailed as shown in the RH sketch, he would have to have sailed right through the wreckage and bodies to get to Collapsible boat 'A'. To 'go about', he would have turned north through the wind then sailed across it back and forth to reach the position of 'D' much like the red track in this amended sketch

Suggested path of Lowe in 14.JPG

I have shown one tack left and right but since he was towing another vessel, it would have taken at least two such tacks. If you add a 1.25 knot current pushing boat 14 and her tow southward then forget the entire exercise. If anyone tells you otherwise then they haven't a clue what they're talking about.

Jim.

Suggested path of Lowe in 14.JPG
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,322
626
183
Germany
Hi Jim,

Hello Ioannis.

I must again point out to you again that the attitude of Titanic on the surface before she sank can have no connection with how the wreckage is seen on the sea bed today. Not unless we can know exactly what affected the two main section on their way downward through 2.5 miles of sea water.
But it is meanwhile known how they went down. The only way the bow would end in a NNE position would have been if she went down in a spiral. But she did not. It was more a falling down while the stem and the break area aft try to stabilise itself. Or give another explanation for it.



As a matter of interest: the light debris is scattered over a large area. There's coal ahead and astern of the main bow and stern sections. However there is a boiler near the stern section. If this is one of the Boiler room 1 units. and the ship split ahead of the main engine room then that boiler must have fallen out of the back end of the bow section when the double bottom pealed downward. Otherwise the bow must have been pointing upward toward the surface at some time for the boiler to have fallen out of there.
No Jim. The ship break in front of BR No. 1. All 5 single ended boilers fell off from the stern when it started to go down and turn. All 5 single ended boilers are now east of the stern.


The evidence of Olaus Abseth, a survivor in Collapsible 'A' tells us a great deal about where 'A' was when the ship went down and what they did on 'A' until they were rescued by Lowe.

"We went up. We went over to the port side of the ship, and there were just one or two boats on the port side that were lost. Anyway, there was one. We were standing there looking at them lowering this boat. We could see them, some of the crew helping take the ladies in their arms and throwing them into the lifeboats. We saw them lower this boat, and there were no more boats on the port side. So we walked over to the starboard side of the ship, and just as we were standing there, one of the officers came up and he said just as he walked by, "Are there any sailors here?"

Olaus went up to the boat deck from the aft well deck area. He eventually left the ship from the aft end of the boat deck.

"we hung onto a rope in one of the davits. We were pretty far back at the top deck.....
My brother-in-law took my hand just as we jumped off;.....
I came on top again, and I was trying to swim, and there was a man - lots of them were floating around ....
Then I swam; I could not say, but it must have been about 15 or 20 minutes......
I swam toward that, and it was one of those collapsible boats.['A]....
We were standing on the deck. In this little boat the canvas was not raised up. We tried to raise the canvas up but we could not get it up. We stood all night in about 12 or 14 inches of water on this thing and our feet were in the water all the time."


If Olaus was swiming with a lifejacket on for 20 minutes, he could not have gone much further than 3 or 4 hundred feet. Since he eventually found 'A', he must have been swimming toward it. The distance from the aft end of the boat deck to the bridge could not have been much more than 350 feet.
George Rheims who was also on 'A' said he too had to swim through people and wreckage to get to 'A' and that they used pits of wood to paddle clear of any survivors in the water. None of these people could have seen the ship's propellers because the ship had sunk by the time they reached 'A'. Additionally; 'A' could not have been far from her original float-off position.
Then you possibly would like to read other survivor accounts, like Brown, Wennerström, Williams etc. who mentioned that boat A drifted between the funnels (from starboard to port) and how they were able to see the 3 propellers and rudder out of the water. (Like Thayer Jr in boat B said the stern was most likely rotating and turning.)
And if boat A did not move then where are the nearly 20 dead which partly fall back into the water or were thrown back into the sea to lightened the boat?



Lowe said he left his little flotilla about 150 yards off the place where Titanic had been and took lifeboat 14 among the floating bodies, deck chairs and wreckage. These had to be the same stuff and people Olaus and George swam away from. Here's a little sketch of how I see it:

View attachment 872

For Lowe to have been able to sail to 'D' , she would have to have been west of him. Since he said he sailed 'down' to her. she must have been down wind from him, not up wind otherwise he would have had the wind forward of his beam and he would have had to sail 'up' to her. Don't know if you are familiar with sailing terms?

Jim
But Jim, the boats Lowe left behind (Nos. D, 4, 10 & 12) did not remained there. They cut loose and each of them started to row away. Also boat D but it was slower then the others.

However, have a nice day!
 

TimTurner

Member
Dec 11, 2012
336
18
48
I must again point out to you again that the attitude of Titanic on the surface before she sank can have no connection with how the wreckage is seen on the sea bed today. Not unless we can know exactly what affected the two main section on their way downward through 2.5 miles of sea water.
A matter of scientific process... Newton's First Law of Motion: An object in motion will stay in motion until acted upon by an outside force.

Occam's Razor - All thinks being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
Until you do present actual known forces acting on the Titanic after she sunk, it should generally be assumed that it behaved according to known laws of physics with the simplest interpretation.

Therefore the Titanic should be expected to be in exactly the same position and heading it was on the surface unless outside forces acted on it. We don't know what these forces are, and you haven't listed any. If we get in the business of making up imaginary forces, then we might as well assume the Titanic went all the way down, came back up, and circled the globe 3 times before laying down on the sea floor.

This does not mean you are wrong, just that it weakens the credibility of your argument unless you can demonstrate that there was a prevailing underwater current acting rotationally on the Titanic the night she sank. To this point, nobody here has presented any record or simulation that shows the Titanic doing anything other than proceeding downward without any yaw.
 
Jan 4, 2007
47
0
76
Jim:

Most interesting, this bsiness about the boilers . . . you mentioned that the bow must've been pointed upward, at least at some point, for that boiler to have fallen out . . . if true, the accuracy of the teenaged Jack Thayer's famed drawing, or his depiction of the sinking, actually drawn by another, would confrim its accuracy . . . that the bow was pointing upward, at least at some point . . . most intriguing, I must say! For that to happen, of course, the stern section must've, at least briefly, pressed downward . . . of course, none of this is answering the crucial mystery question of why are no icebergs ever seen in the photos taken of the lifeboats--seems as the sea is clear of any ice . . . of course we must all remember we ae dealing with those photos that were allowed to be published . . . there may be countless others unused, as such unseen, one would think that icebergs would be the "main" attraction for any camera clicker, and yet, none have ever been scene . . . yes, most intriguing . . .

Regards,
Tom
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,322
626
183
Germany
Jim:

Most interesting, this bsiness about the boilers . . . you mentioned that the bow must've been pointed upward, at least at some point, for that boiler to have fallen out . . . if true, the accuracy of the teenaged Jack Thayer's famed drawing, or his depiction of the sinking, actually drawn by another, would confrim its accuracy . . . that the bow was pointing upward, at least at some point . . . most intriguing, I must say! For that to happen, of course, the stern section must've, at least briefly, pressed downward . . .
That did not happened. Also Jack Thayer Jr. never said that the bow come up to the surface again. The boiler fell out from the stern break area.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
5,208
666
213
Funchal. Madeira
Hello Tim.

Point taken about Newton's first observation.

However, any Oceanographer will tell you that the ocean is not a motionless vertical column of sea water at a constant temperature and with a constant specific gravity.
Any Submariner will also tell you that the boat has to be steered in exactly the same way below the surface as when on it. i.e. it is subject to external influences which tend to push it off course. Additionally, they will tell you that due to 'layers', a submarine is subjected to vertical influences.

Drop a solid steel sphere into a deep, motionless pool of pure fresh water and it will descent more or less vertically. Take that same sphere, alter it's shape in the form of a 'V' and you will discover that it will also fall almost, but not quite, vertically.
Now stretch the imagination a bit further and melt that 'V' into a very thin steel plate and then re-shape it in the form of half a ship. Additionally, fit a few protrussions on the flat surface representing th deck of that ship. Now you have a dreadfully uneven, not the least bit stream-lined object. How do you imagine such an object might descend to the sea bed?
Remember also, that at The surface, Titanic lurched over violently to port and was subjected to almost unimaginable forces which tore her apart, It was not a gentle death. She must have lurched, twisted and bent. Such forces must have had an effect on her attitude near the surface.

Notwithstanding the little bit of previous use of imagination: As with the popular idea of the ship heading north on the surface; there is also the popular idea that there was a cold current (The Labrador Current) setting the ship southward at the time. That second idea makes a mockery of the first one in that a stopped ship could not maintain her heading if there was a current acting directly on her bow. Not unless she was steered into the current. That current, if it was The Labrador Current, would not have stopped at the surface but would have been felt to a very great depth since a column of cold water tends to sink. That being the case, then the underwater parts of Titanic would also have been effected by the current as when at the surface.

There is also evidence of sea-bed currents running at the wreck site. Scour marks can be seen on the sonar images.

Ioannis:

Like the boilers on all ships, the ones on Titanic were mounted on very heavly reinforced and strengthened 'boiler stools'. If the bow section did not point upward at some time during the descent to the sea bed; how do you imagine these number 1 boiler room units were either torn from or fell from their mountings and exited the inside of the hull? I have my own theory on that one but berhaps you have an idea?

However, the foregoing is academic and a bit like the blind leading the blind.

More to the point: I do not see any explanations here, or anywhere else for that matter, as to how 5th Officer Lowe, using possibly the worst kind of sailing rig on a heavily laded lifeboat, was able to tow an equally heavily laden Collapsible lifeboat northward against the wind and a south-setting current.

Explain that and I will willing change my ideas about how Titanic was heading at the moment she sank.

Jim
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,322
626
183
Germany
Ioannis:

Like the boilers on all ships, the ones on Titanic were mounted on very heavly reinforced and strengthened 'boiler stools'. If the bow section did not point upward at some time during the descent to the sea bed; how do you imagine these number 1 boiler room units were either torn from or fell from their mountings and exited the inside of the hull? I have my own theory on that one but berhaps you have an idea?

However, the foregoing is academic and a bit like the blind leading the blind.
Sorry Jim, but from what I see here you did not know the wreck and wreck side. If you want to believe that the boilers in No. 1 were still attached on the bow section, thats fine with me.

More to the point: I do not see any explanations here, or anywhere else for that matter, as to how 5th Officer Lowe, using possibly the worst kind of sailing rig on a heavily laded lifeboat, was able to tow an equally heavily laden Collapsible lifeboat northward against the wind and a south-setting current.

Explain that and I will willing change my ideas about how Titanic was heading at the moment she sank.

Jim
Possibly I missed here something? I did not say that Lowe sailed against the wind. It is more you who try to keep the lifeboats at the same position were Lowe left them or in case of boat A where it was washed of the ship. This was not the case. And boat No. 14 was not heavy loaded as it was not boat D.
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,322
626
183
Germany
Jim, you possibly should look at the 2 double bottom pieces which belonged to BR1 & aft end of BR2 (double bottom piece 1) and forward end of main engine room (double bottom piece 2). Clearly the ship did not break in a "V" shape as you described it. (Also other debris did not match, like the tower of the 3rd funnel.)
 

Similar threads