Sketches of the Iceberg

[Dave Gittins]

A little research shows another detail. Prinz Adalbert was aware of the sinking, having been informed of it by Californian not later than 11-00 a.m. New York time on April 15th. That would have been about 1-00 p.m. ship's time. It's recorded in the PV of Baltic.

 

[L. Marmaduke Collins]

Obviously there are no absolute certainties here, but, it seems to me that a very large berg seen in very close proximity to the sinking's location JUST HOURS AFTERWARDS, AND HAVING THE APPEARANCE OF RED PAID HAVING BEEN SCRAPED ALONGSIDE AS IN A COLLISION WITH A SHIP, all this attested to by several crewmen on the S.S. ADALBERT, is a far likelier candidate.

In the days following the accident, the media added to the hype surrounding it by publishing photographs of icebergs purporting to be the one that Titanic collided with. One in particular, taken from the deck of the German ship Prinz Aldbert on April 15, 1912, showed what appeared to be a strip of red paint along the berg's base. The suggestion that the Titanic collided with this iceberg (or any iceberg for that matter) is absurd. Quite simply, paint does not adhere for any length of time to ice. If indeed there was a red discolouration on the surface of that iceberg, most likely it was blood, picked up as a result of the iceberg transitting the seal harvesting area of Newfoundland's east coast,which,a scant month before, had been the scene of the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of seals.

 

[Jeremy Lee]

Like the possibility of blood as mentioned above, icebergs frequently incorporate sediments that result in colours other than white hues. Moreover, would paint really stick onto ice like the case in the Adalbert berg? Try taking a piece of ice and scratching it against a painted surface. And like Collins pointed out above, ice does not adhere for any length of time to ice.

 

[David G. Brown]

Good to see Captain Collins posting again. I tend to agree with the unliklihood of a paint stain on the guilty iceberg. The bloodstain is possible, but I question whether blood would stay red for a month in the atmosphere. To me, what we have are a couple of bergs that people thought had unusual marks following the Titanic sinking. Maybe one of them was "The Berg" but we can never know. Time has erased all evidence.

-- David G. Brown

 

[Jesse D O'Neill]

Thayer Made a sketch of the iceberg along w/ some other sketches he made or directed someone to make of titanic sinking. the sketch shows titanic striking the berg and can be found in most titanic books

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Unfortunately, Jack Theyer didn't actually see the berg. See his Biography for more of his story.

 

[Henning Pfeifer]

Geoffrey, please let me first say that I am far away to affront anyone who is debating against the Rehorek iceberg. But I can't accept if someone weeps away a theory without knowing the basic indications. Ok, it's a while ago that I have posted the list of indications. I do not say "proofs", I say "Indications".

Before I list them again, another point concerning any paint on an iceberg. I don't call the Adalbert witnesses ”žlyers“. They saw something what they discribed as red paint. We also know of dark brownish layers in otherwise blue icebergs. But I can't believe that the Titanic only left some paint at the berg while the steel was cut and chunks of ice were thrown onto the deck. The collision probably caused a certain damage at the berg as well.

And here are my indications:

- The Rehorek shows a damaged edge. The upper breakline looks sharp, what normally means that the break must be fresh.
— This would mean that this damage coincidentally happened around the same time when the Titanic collided with an iceberg.
- This damage coincidentally happened exactly at the same edge where the Titanic has struck an iceberg.
- The shape of this Rehorek iceberg coincidentally matches exactly the description of the Titanic iceberg as given by seaman Scarrott. As far as I know many witnesses were asked for the size, but only Scarrott was asked for the shape. If anyone has different informations, please let me know.
- The officers of the steamer Bremen pointed out this iceberg. Why not any of the others they passed by?

If the Rehorek iceberg is not the ”žone“ this would mean that this iceberg shows the same shape and the same damage in the same area like the collision berg. I cannot believe that there was a second iceberg showing scars of damage at the same edge at the same time in the same area like the collision iceberg.

I repeat: only the sum (!) of all these indications have convinced me, that the Titanic had collided with this iceberg. This is my personal opinion and I know that many people share it. I don't have any problems with it, if someone has a different favorite berg or a very different theory like Capt. Collins, and he has good arguments as well! What I demand is a fair treatment. It is very easy to discredit every single indication I have listed. But only the sum of them counts.

Geoffrey, if you felt affronted by my posting, please excuse. Looking back I must confess that some questions had a provoking touch. But this was not my intention.

Best regards
Henning

 

[Henning Pfeifer]

By the way Geoffrey: my former posting that seemed to have enraged you, was 100% free from any personal attacks. But your's was not:

"...hardly disinterested" (I'm sorry, you're wrong)

"...that more than anything else betrays the patent prejudice of the owner of the Rehorek photo" (oooh, this one was really ugly!)

If you should post again, may I ask you to leave out personal attacks as well?

Thanks and regards again
Henning