Where were the icebergs in the Carpathia photographs

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,807
566
183
Funchal. Madeira
Hello Ioannis.

I have the same information about the wreck site as everyone else.

I remind you of what I wrote:

"I have my own theory on that one [how the boiler got out of the hull] but berhaps you have an idea?."

I don't think the boilers fell out of a downward facing exposed end of boiler room 1. In fact, my own theory about the boilers is that the double bottom fractured vertically at the forward end of the main engine room where the height of the DBs was reduced. It was a weak point directly below a massive hull void which constituted the main engine room. I think the hull fractured in that area and the bow section bent forward and downward, separating the top of boiler rooms 1 & 2 from the upper part of the ship. The sudden inundation of sea water caused a lurch to port which in turn cause a twist. This final twist separated the double bottoms section, boiler floor plates and lower bunkers in boiler rooms 1 & 2 and the boilers were displaced sideways, eventually breaking loose from the lower structure and falling to the sea bed. The forward intact section would twist to the right as it sank.

However I remind you of what else I wrote:

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

What I mean by that is; we can discuss the pros and cons of how the wreck looks now but it has nothing to do with how she was on the surface a hundred years ago

I know you personally did not say that Lowe sailed against the wind Ioannis. Again we can discuss the finer points of boat loadings but again that is academic since it would have been impossible for Titanic to be heading north when she sank if there had been a south-setting current at the time.


As for where Boat 'A' was relative to boat 'D'... read the evidence again.

You will find that boat 'D' went no further that 100 yards from Titanic's port side, rowed round about until they located the other three boats..4, 10 & 12 ? then stopped there about 150 yards off the port side on Lowe's instructions.
It was after that when boat 'A' left the port from the boat deck near the bridge and was paddled a short distance clear of any people and debris in the water. It stopped thereafter. How far apart these two boats were at that time is less important than the direction one was from the other.

Logically, 'A' would have been nearer the last position of Titanic's bow than 'D' and boat 14.
Since boat 14 could not sail north because the wind was north, 'A' must have been west of boat 14. Therefore Titanic's bow was also west of boat 14. Do you agree?

Jim.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,807
566
183
Funchal. Madeira
Hello Ioannis.

A great pity I can't convince you. I completely understand. Obviously you do not understand the mechanics of sailing a ship's lifeboat. That too is understandable. Most people on these pages do not. I'm sure there are many things in your profession and that of most of the other people on this site that I know absolutely nothing about. However I do know a great deal about sailing a ship's lifeboat fitted with a standing lug sailing rig.

The basic fact of all of this is that Titanic's 5th Officer Lowe could never have saved the people on sinking Collapsible 'A' and sailed his lifeboat in tbe manner he described unless for some yet -to-be explained reason, he found himself and lifeboat number 14 to the northward, eastward or westward of Collapsible 'A'. That fact is not open to any argument. I suggest you run what I have been suggesting in front of an independent marine professional.

Regards,

Jim.

PS, Here's what Lowe's boat would have looked like:

img006.jpg

img006.jpg
 

John O'Malley

Member
Oct 6, 2010
3
0
31
Thank you for your replies. I didn't mean to start a debate about which way the ship was facing when it sank, or what direction the lifeboats were coming from, but I hope you'll agree that such discussions are good for sorting out facts and details even if not everyone comes to the same conclusions. In any case, I think I have a good idea now about how the icebergs/lifeboats/Carpathia were positioned the following morning, and why the icebergs are not visible in the lifeboat photos. It's just odd that there were not more pictures taken of the icebergs.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,807
566
183
Funchal. Madeira
John, I owe you an appology. It was me who deviated from your main curiosity.

As you probably know, 4th officer Boxhall's boat 2 was the first one rescued by Carpathia. Boxhall's evidence is crucial to this subject.

Of all of the people who saw icebergs that morning in the vicinity of the wreckage between 4-30am and 8-30am' some saw them from lifeboats,some on Carpathia and some on Californian.

The people in the lifeboats said they saw them 'all round the horizon'. Their particular horizon would be about 7 miles away from them.
Captain Rostron of Carpathia saw them on his way to the rescue. In fact he had to swerve to avoid one just before he reached 4th Officer Boxhall in Titanic's Emergency boat 2. Rostrons' bergs were east, south east and south of the location. He also said the pack ice was about 4 or 5 miles to the westward of where he found Boxhall and that it was trending to the northwestward-southeastward.
Captain Lord of the Californian more or less agreed with Rostron's description but the former also said the larger icebergs were to the south east of the location.

As a matter of interest, the iceberg which sank Titanic must have been within a mile or so of where she finally sank.

Boxhall said he rowed round the stern of Titanic from the port side to the starboard side. He then said that he rowed away from the ship's side in a north-easterly direction. As a navigator, he would know which direction he was steering his boat by using the stars as a guide. He gave instructions for his boat crew to follow a particular star. After about a mile. he stopped rowing and waited in the darkness. While he waited, he could hear the sea lapping agianst ice nearby although he could not see it.
When dawn came, the nearest iceberg was in the direction of Carpathia. Possibly this was the iceberg which Titanic hit. Why?.. because we know that before the accident, Titanic was heading almost west. It follows that the iceberg she hit would be to the east of her when she came to a halt. It would still be there when she sank. If Boxhall was about a mile north east of the sinking position and the iceberg in question was in the direction of Carpathia then we know where that iceberg was relative to where Titanic sank. It must have been just over a mile east-north-east of the wreckage site... exactly where the deadly one should have been.

Jim
 
Mar 18, 2008
2,235
539
183
Germany
As a matter of interest, the iceberg which sank Titanic must have been within a mile or so of where she finally sank.

Boxhall said he rowed round the stern of Titanic from the port side to the starboard side. He then said that he rowed away from the ship's side in a north-easterly direction. As a navigator, he would know which direction he was steering his boat by using the stars as a guide. He gave instructions for his boat crew to follow a particular star. After about a mile. he stopped rowing and waited in the darkness. While he waited, he could hear the sea lapping agianst ice nearby although he could not see it.
When dawn came, the nearest iceberg was in the direction of Carpathia. Possibly this was the iceberg which Titanic hit. Why?.. because we know that before the accident, Titanic was heading almost west. It follows that the iceberg she hit would be to the east of her when she came to a halt. It would still be there when she sank. If Boxhall was about a mile north east of the sinking position and the iceberg in question was in the direction of Carpathia then we know where that iceberg was relative to where Titanic sank. It must have been just over a mile east-north-east of the wreckage site... exactly where the deadly one should have been.
Which was not the case as that iceberg was seen somewhere else and the one Boxhall saw was a different one. (Bestide the unpublished photos which seemed to show icebergs and lifeboats.) Only some of the early boats had to avoid ice and not the later ones.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
4,807
566
183
Funchal. Madeira
Hello Ioannis.


"Which was not the case as that iceberg was seen somewhere else and the one Boxhall saw was a different one."

Are you telling us that there is proof that the iceberg in question was not within a mile of Titanic's wreckage? If so, that is an illogical claim which needs proof. That proof has to show that the iceberg in question somehow got away from the vicinity of the wreckage. Since an iceberg does not have any means of propulsion and any wind and/or current would effect it and wreckage alike; how was that possible?

Forget about the speculation of others long after the event. Concentrate on the physics of the question. Keep in mind that the iceberg that sunk Titanic could only be to the eastward of the wreck site. Also remember that witness evidence suggests that Titanic could not have progressed much further west than about a mile, to a mile and a half after she hit the iceberg.


Jim