Titanic’s Evasive Maneuvers

[Samuel Halpern]

If you believe QM Rowe, QM Olliver and Leading Fireman Barratt, then you have to discard the evidence o Spencer Silverthorn.

Spencer Silverthorne? Really? In a pre-1955 handwritten account, Silverthorne wrote: "... I picked up my overcoat and cap walked out through the palm garden onto the rear promenade deck and walked over to the starboard side, where I saw two passengers who had been sitting in the palm room. I reached the side just in time to see the immense grayish-white iceberg scraping by the side of the vessel. The promenade deck was over 65 feet from the water line and the iceberg was some little distance above this ..."

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I remind you of Boxhall's evidence regarding seeing the berg:

As you yourself posted, the words used by Boxhall were: "I was not very sure of seeing it. - I could not judge the size of it - Probably about 30 feet." Yet you seem that we should all ignore the evidence of other eye witnesses, including Reginald Lee, and accept Boxhall's "probably about 30 feet" as being the size of the berg that Titanic struck, and not only that, but it was also the same berg that Rostron had to avoid. IMO, you have no case.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

I can offer an explanation for that too if you wish.

Instead of claiming that you can, why don't you explain how the Titanic could have lifted up an iceberg with a total mass that was 8 times greater than what was visible above the surface?

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

As for Titanic 'holding -up a small iceberg? That As you know was offered as an answer to that last question... and by the way - is not as far-fetched as you might think. I can offer an explanation for that too if you wish.

If you can explain how this defines the laws of physics, then by all means.

If you believe QM Rowe, QM Olliver and Leading Fireman Barratt, then you have to discard the evidence o Spencer Silverthorn.

QM Rowe stated that he thought the iceberg was '100 feet high'. QM Olliver said it 'was about the height of the boat deck, if anything just a little higher'. While Frederick Barrett never said anything about the iceberg, other than the damage he witnessed. So give me one good reason why I should disregard a first hand account by a survivor.

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

Senator BURTON.
Where was the iceberg, do you think, when the helm was shifted?

Mr. OLLIVER.
The iceberg was away up stern.

That doesn't sound anything remotely close to Titanic holding up the iceberg. In fact, quite the opposite.

You do realize Jim, that 90% of an iceberg's volume (and mass) is underwater. Let's not forget that.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

If you believe QM Rowe, QM Olliver and Leading Fireman Barratt, then you have to discard the evidence o Spencer Silverthorne.

Most accounts I have read quote Silverthorne claiming to have seen a "giant" iceberg.
QM Rowe thought that the iceberg that drifted past the after-bridge was about 100 feet high.
QM Olliver, who saw the iceberg drift past the starboard bridge wing, testified that it was a but higher than the boat deck.

Allowing for differences in perspective, I thought that those 3 descriptions tallied. Not sure why Silverthorne has to be disregarded to accept the other two.

As for Leading Fireman Barrett, he was talking to Hesketh deep down in Boiler Room 6 when the impact with the iceberg occurred. Unless he was wearing see-through glasses of some kind, how could Barrett give evidence about the height of the iceberg?

I reached the side just in time to see the immense grayish-white iceberg scraping by the side of the vessel. The promenade deck was over 65 feet from the water line and the iceberg was some little distance above this ..."

Thanks Sam. Now we know who is disregarding the evidence of Spencer Silverthorne!

Instead of claiming that you can, why don't you explain how the Titanic could have lifted up an iceberg with a total mass that was 8 times greater than what was visible above the surface?

That claim is something I cannot understand despite trying. Defies every known law of physics. And contrary to his claim, Jim has not explained the supposed mechanism behind it, including how the Titanic was still supporting the iceberg when the latter drifted past QM Rowe's position, by which it had long lost contact with the ship.

 

[Jim Currie]

Spencer Silverthorne? Really? In a pre-1955 handwritten account, Silverthorne wrote: "... I picked up my overcoat and cap walked out through the palm garden onto the rear promenade deck and walked over to the starboard side, where I saw two passengers who had been sitting in the palm room. I reached the side just in time to see the immense grayish-white iceberg scraping by the side of the vessel. The promenade deck was over 65 feet from the water line and the iceberg was some little distance above this ..."

So how was it possible for this wonder-witness to see an iceberg SCRAPING alongside the ship when witness QM Rowe, saw that it was not touching any part of the ship? That according to witness QM Olliver, the scraping noise ended at the time it passed the bridge - 300 feet forward of the 1st Class Smoke room?
Anyway, the foregoing is totally irrelevant,
In case you and others have forgotten - this is about two witnesses - never mind their names, - seeing an iceberg and using the height of 30 feet in association with an iceberg
They both saw it after Titanic had passed it - not before or during, but after.
You and others dismiss the evidence of one witness because it suits you to do so. However, we still have the other witness.He said he saw a 30' berg....not a 70' or 90' one. Are yu saying he lied?

 

[Jim Currie]

As you yourself posted, the words used by Boxhall were: "I was not very sure of seeing it. - I could not judge the size of it - Probably about 30 feet." Yet you seem that we should all ignore the evidence of other eye witnesses, including Reginald Lee, and accept Boxhall's "probably about 30 feet" as being the size of the berg that Titanic struck, and not only that, but it was also the same berg that Rostron had to avoid. IMO, you have no case.

Then explain how you arrive at your opinion instead of just stating it.

 

[Jim Currie]

Instead of claiming that you can, why don't you explain how the Titanic could have lifted up an iceberg with a total mass that was 8 times greater than what was visible above the surface?

I never stated such a thing, nor do I even suggest such a thing happened. Once again you are talking about an event before the berg lost contact, not after Titanic passed it.

Think about this. If you don't know about it - I suggest you Google it.:
I have pointed this out before, but in case you missed (or ignored) it:
When an iceberg has been traveling for up to 2 years or more, it loses mass above and below the surface. By the time it reaches temperate latitudes, the mass loss is normally more from the lower part.
Eventually, that beg will be in neutral equilibrium. Then, its stability depends a lot on its shape as well as its draft.
If the berg was described by Fleet, then it had a high peak at one end. Now add to that to a uniform draft of 30 feet. You have studied Stabilty and I assume you have knowledge of the phenomenon of quayside attraction. Work t out for yourself.

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

I never stated such a thing, nor do I even suggest such a thing happened.

Yes you did; in post #220:

Did it ever occur to you that Titanic might just have been holding the 'old 'iceberg up at that time?

So explain to us how this possibly could have occurred?

 

[Jim Currie]

If you can explain how this defines the laws of physics, then by all means.


QM Rowe stated that he thought the iceberg was '100 feet high'. QM Olliver said it 'was about the height of the boat deck, if anything just a little higher'. While Frederick Barrett never said anything about the iceberg, other than the damage he witnessed. So give me one good reason why I should disregard a first hand account by a survivor.

See my answer to Sam

 

[Jim Currie]

Yes you did; in post #220:


So explain to us how this possibly could have occurred?

Please reproduce the part of that post you are referring to.
As to how it might have occurred - ask Sam

 

[Jim Currie]

Senator BURTON.
Where was the iceberg, do you think, when the helm was shifted?

Mr. OLLIVER.
The iceberg was away up stern.

That doesn't sound anything remotely close to Titanic holding up the iceberg. In fact, quite the opposite.

You do realize Jim, that 90% of an iceberg's volume (and mass) is underwater. Let's not forget that.

Oh Inrealise quite a lot of things about icebergs, Jason. How many have you seen?

 

[Samuel Halpern]

So how was it possible for this wonder-witness to see an iceberg SCRAPING alongside the ship

I think if you could ask him he would probably say that it looked like it was scraping the side. After all, we know from Rowe that it was less than 10 ft from the rail when it passed the poop.

Anyway, the foregoing is totally irrelevant,

You brought up Silverthorne. Nobody else did. So now it becomes irrelevant because he said it was higher than the promenade deck?

However, we still have the other witness. He said he saw a 30' berg.

Yes he did. But you are the one who is trying to connect the berg that Rostron managed to avoid as the same berg that Titanic struck. Nobody else is doing that. As a marine accident investigator, I would think that you should look at ALL the evidence available regarding the size of the berg that Titanic struck.

Then explain how you arrive at your opinion instead of just stating it.

I'm not sure what opinion your talking about? My opinion about the bergs being talked about here is simple. The berg Titanic struck is not the berg that Rostron dodged. One was about as high as Titanic's boat deck; the other was about as high as Carpathia's forecastle. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

I never stated such a thing, nor do I even suggest such a thing happened.

You never did? Then who wrote: "As for Titanic 'holding -up a small iceberg? That As you know was offered as an answer to that last question... and by the way - is not as far-fetched as you might think. I can offer an explanation for that too if you wish."?

And back in post #220 you wrote: "Did it ever occur to you that Titanic might just have been holding the 'old 'iceberg up at that time?"

So some of us are anxiously awaiting your professional explanation as to how Titanic might just have been holding the old iceberg up at that time.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

QM Rowe saw it approaching from ahead and thought it was 100 feet high, which is understandable. it was still being supported by the ship but it certainly was not 100 ft high.

This part is even more difficult to understand than the claim that the Titanic was holding-up the iceberg. By the time QM Rowe saw the iceberg from his position on the poop deck, it had long lost contact with the ship. So, how could the Titanic still be "supporting" it?

In case you and others have forgotten - this is about two witnesses - never mind their names, - seeing an iceberg and using the height of 30 feet in association with an iceberg

AFAIK, the only two witnesses who said that they saw a 30 foot iceberg were Boxhall and Rostron. Boxhall "thought" that he saw it from the starboard bridge wing but was not really sure; I do not believe he saw anything. Rostron saw it a few hours later in a different part of the Ocean from the bridge of the Carpathia and it could NOT have been the one that the Titanic had struck. Considering that daylight revealed quite a few icebergs of all shapes and sizes in the general area, I cannot understand why Jim talks about one 30-foot berg all the time.

The berg Titanic struck is not the berg that Rostron dodged. One was about as high as Titanic's boat deck; the other was about as high as Carpathia's forecastle. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Exactly.

Jim's argument points sometimes remind me of the awful book A Titanic Myth by Leslie Harrison. Throughout that book the learned Master Mariner meanders about irrelevant issues, sometimes trivia, to expound points that did not exist. In the book and on a TV interview that I saw in the 1990s, he goes on and on about the elevated coal basket on the mainmast of the Californian onto which AB Benjamin Kirk was hoisted, ostensibly to look for wreckage or survivors (Kirk, 1968).