"The iceberg risk in the Titanic year of 1912: Was it exceptional?"

[Adam Went]

Hi Sam,

How do you reach the conclusion that the CQD position was correct? It's been well documented that it probably wasn't. Carpathia wasn't at that position when she picked up the survivors, and the initial expeditions that sought to find the wreck didn't find her there - unless you count the "propeller blade".

Anyway, that subject isn't particularly on topic. We're playing with a matter of degrees here, and I wouldn't be so willing to blindly accept such positioning down to a tee.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Adam, you misunderstood what I meant when I said there was nothing inaccurate about the CQD coordinates. Those were valid coordinates that vessels steered for on their way to the rescue. But those coordinates are not anywhere near where the iceberg was. They are 13 miles westward of the wreck site which proves that an error was made when the distress position coordinates were derived and transmitted by wireless. Carpathia was simply lucky in that they came up from the SE and stumbled upon the boats by accident. In fact, if it wasn't for the green flares fired off by 4/O Boxhall in boat #2, Carpathia could very well have run into a field of pack ice that lay ahead on her way to the CQD position. The problem with all of this is that Rostron testified that he reached the CQD coordinates sent out by Titanic, and until the discovery of the wreck in 1985, that was considered to be the actual place of the accident. An iceberg seen near that position two days after the accident could not have been the berg that Titanic ran into. And that is the point that I and Ioanis are trying to get across.

 

[Adam Went]

Hi Sam,

Apologies for any confusion, what you are saying now makes much more sense. Yes indeed the Titanic's coordinates were out and yes indeed it was simply through luck and the flares from Boxhall's lifeboat that Carpathia came across the survivors. The failure of Jack Grimm's search can partially be attributed to relying on these original coordinates, it was actually lucky the Titanic was found by Robert Ballard as time was running out in that expedition as well. But that's all a side point to this topic.

As i've stated repeatedly, I have no intention of saying that this iceberg or that iceberg must have been the one the Titanic struck - in a known ice field, that would be ridiculous. My point throughout this conversation is, and remains, that if an object the size of the Titanic struck an iceberg with enough brute force for it to sink, then there must have been some physical evidence left behind on the iceberg - be they scrape marks, paint on the waterline, objects off the ship, whatever. My argument is as simple as that, nothing complicated here.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

[Jim Currie]

Hello Sam.

Have time now to comment on your reply.

Regardless of what you, I, or anyone else thinks, the basic facts cannot be disputed. Please forgive me for desecrating your splendid map to illustrate what cannot be denied.



First, let me make it clear that I do not agree that there was a south-setting current present. However current or no current, when Titanic finally came to rest and subsequently sank, the offending iceberg would be, according to your sketch, about 3600 feet to the eastward of the sinking position. I totally agree with you on that!
However. do you agree that subsequent to the sinking and until Carpathia was sighted by Boxhall; emergency boat number 2 could not have been situated much more than 2000 feet to the north and west ward of the offending berg?
If so, how on earth was it possible for the 70 '+ berg to suddenly disappear? Did it melt or turn over? It certainly didn't steam away.
If it melted and turned over, believe me, everyone within 2 miles of it would have been very much aware of the fact. Apart from the sound of it doing so, it would have caused a considerable temporary swell which would have radiated in all directions. Anyone who has ever seen such a phenomenon will back this up.
Bottom line Sam. Can here be any doubt that no matter the reported size of the berg, the berg between Carpathia and Boxhall HAD to be the offending one?
If you agree with my suggestion then all the nonsense about a giant Gibraltar-shaped berg and/or paint smears is just that.. nonsense.

Jim C.

[Moderator's note: Four messages posted on 19 and 20 December, two of them spam and the other two unhelpful responses to the spam, have been removed from this thread. MAB]