• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Titanic Conspiracy

Slipway said:
Gardiner states in his book, among a very many other things, that when the name on the bow of the Titanic wreck was cleared of rust in 1987, the raised letters 'M, P & Y' were visible. However, he does not show a picture of this in his book, nor does he offer any source for this assertition at all.

I have seen the source video footage of the name being revealed on the wreck, and in fact I have some stills of the same stored on my hard drive.

Nowhere visible are any raised letters. What ARE visible though are the letters T I T A N, visible clearly as outlines incised into the hull plating.

So why does Gardiner claim otherwise?

Now look, I am anti-Gardiner and his switch theory- I think it is absolutely ludicrous, to be hoinest with you- BUT, I am prepared to listen to the man and see/hear his evidence. However, just as with the wreck name issue, he makes a very many claims that do NOT have any actual solid evidence to back them up, or about which he gives no source for the info. Also, he states a lot of things as fact that are just plain wrong- again, like the wreck name. He uses a lot of the Harland & Wolff photos in his evidence of the appearance of the two ships at any one time, though in many cases, what he thinks he's seeing just isn't there, or, the photos were dated wrongly originally (this happened a lot).

I don't think it's very fair to dismiss a whole website full of Titanic enthusiasts out of hand; these people DO know what they are talking about, often literally down the last rivet of the ship. Really, THAT much is known about the construction/details of the ship!

What is also known is that there were HUNDREDS of structural/detail/fitting differences between the two ships; Titanic very much was not just a plain second copy of the Olympic. There are hundreds of small, but visible, detailed differences between them. Gardiner ignores this fact, however.

Lastly, on this forum here we have the man that is actually Gardiner's agent, coming on here to stir you all up and to tout Gardiner's forthcoming third book on the subject. Well, his second really- the 'switch theory' was only a small part of his first book, written with Van Der Vatt, who it should be remembered dissmissed the theory entirely and has kept away from it ever since.

Lastly, Gardiner himself has also admitted ON RECORD that the theory idea was just that, an idea.

Time to give this one up, people.
Click to expand...

I did not come here to stir anyone up.
Dan Van Der Vaat now agrees with Robin Gardiner.
Your last claim that Gardiner (he does have a Christian name) admits on RECORD that the theory was just that, an idea, is straight out of the realms of the fantasy of the purists you defend.
Every claim that Robin makes can be backed up by documentary evidence. That is why I am his agent.
He is a man of sincerity and integrity.
I'm not touting the book, if you can write one discounting it, feel free.
 
In considering the huge loss of life and, let's face it, construction costs .. I've yet to find convincing proof that the Titanic disaster was something more than what it was - a sad loss of life. Plenty of coincidences, one or two premonitions and a notable "copycat" fiction ... but this is what Fortean stuff is made of!

While I can easily admit there are a huge number of incredibly knowledgeable "enthusiasts" who've written books, produced articles and so on, the backs their own theories, this de facto doesn't give them credibility.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar ... and sometimes an accident is just an accident. If you want to sell a book on how the Titanic was, in fact (in the authors interpretation), destroyed by an alien craft disguised as an iceberg and were comissioned by the US government then fine. Wonderful. But just because the theory is published, it isn't given credence.
 
'I did not come here to stir anyone up.'

Well, that's precisely what you did at Encyclopedia Titanica. Perhaps those here do not realise, but there you swiftly resorted to personal attacks, got thrown out for it, and then you immediately registered again under a different name and did the same again. Some professional agent!

'Every claim that Robin makes can be backed up by documentary evidence.'

No, it can't. Why was he wrong about the name as revealed on the wreck? Do you not understand the simple fact that the name, as clearly revealed on the wreck, was that of the Titanic? And that NO other lettering of any kind was seen? Gardiner claims otherwise, yet gives no evidence for his claims whatsoever, just expecting us to believe what he says. Do you accept that in this case, he was outright WRONG? Perhaps you would like to see the real footage, that clearly shows the lettering 'T I T A N' and the fact that your author was outright wrong? How much of his 'evidence' have YOU actually seen?

'I'm not touting the book'

Yes you are, you have mentioned it several times in this thread already!

'if you can write one discounting it, feel free'

A book HAS been written, that takes Gardiner's 'theory' apart piece by piece, using nothing more than long-known established facts, particularly about the technical aspects of the two ships and the fact that in detail, the Olympic and the Titanic were actually quite, quite different. The theory has been utterly proven to be absolute nonsense, time and time again.

Lastly, for those that wonder how the real Olympic managed to survive for such a long career at sea if it was so badly damaged, the answer is simple, and once again, well documented; the Olympic was in fact not THAT badly damaged. Certainly, her back was not broken, and the damage has long been known to not be as extensive as Gardiner suddenly decided it was- again, with NO real evidence to support his claims.

PLEASE people, this really is all just a lot of poorly-written rubbish, with each 'fact' in the book presented with either plain wrong 'evidence', or even worse, none at all.

More would be thought of Gardiner if he dared to come and speak to REAL Titanic enthusiasts, to talk through some of his 'findings'. Instead, he throws a book out there full of absolute rubbish, makes a nice buck off it, and causes no end of trouble in the meantime.

And given the actions of his agent, how can we even consider trusting the author? Surely there are some kind of professional ethics involved with being an agent? Storyman doesn't seem to think so, if his online behaviour is anything to go by.

Who do you report dodgy agents to these days, anyway?
 
Oh, you're one of those are you?
The truth of the matter is that the people at Titanica were extremely insulting as you are being now. Full of their own importance and no respect for any alternative opinions.
Now Mr Clever One, go back to the beginning of this thread and see what the subject was. A Sky documentary which Robin took part in. He will happily talk to people.
The previous programme he took part in was for Japanese television about how readers were literally fighting in the shops for his second book.
These, I would have thought, were interesting things to people on here until you came along with your nastiness.
I see you've made a couple of posts. Same name on Titanica is it? :lol:
You won't bully me off here so either be civil or go away.
 
Storyman...

Look it was fairly obvious you had an agenda from your site, so I don't see why people shouldn't challenge you on it.
 
No agenda. I don't need to "tout" books. I thought some people may be genuinely interested. No? Fine, I'll just leave you to pull the man's, and probably my, reputation to pieces.
I don't have time for this.
 
Now, now! Calm down and play nicely, both of you! I'm sure other non-Titanica (or whatever) enthusiasts on the FTMB are interested in hearing about different theories and examining their credibility. However, if it comes down to sniping at each other, stamping of feet and pouting it's not discussing theories but having a minor spat.
 
Well, I take exception to the "REAL Titanic enthusiasts" comment actually. As though we're nothing more than mere cardboard cutout pale imitations.

Never mind.

Like Stormkhan, I believe Titanic was no more or less than what it appears; and that's a tragic enough story for anyone's taste. We don't actually know what Storyman believes, because, as he's said more than once, the book is a work in progress and we'll all have to wait and see.

I'll save you the time. I already have Gardiner's Riddle of the Titanic. That's quite enough for me. I have no intention of buying another one. So if you want to tell the Big Secret, you can; it certainly won't spoil things for me.

And if the replies to Slipway are in any way representative of the argument in the books, I'm absolutely positive I won't be missing anything.

Three books on the same conspiracy by the same author seems rather excessive.
 
As I said I have no time for this type of blinkered attitude. I shan't post again, I prefer constructive debate, not destructive back stabbing.
 
I'm not blinkered. I asked what the conspiracy was, and was basically told to wait for the book.

Constructive debate does not mean agreeing with everything you say. Asking questions is not to be confused with destructive back-stabbing (although I'd be quite interested to know what constitutes constructive back-stabbing).

Throwing toys out of prams and stomping off in a sulk is not conducive to constructive debate in any event.
 
storyman said:
As I said I have no time for this type of blinkered attitude. I shan't post again, I prefer constructive debate, not destructive back stabbing.
Click to expand...

Bye, bye! Sorry to see you go but if that's the way you feel then it's up to you to cease posting.

However, I would like to point out that I've never back-stabbed on a message board or even in real life.

I like to see the fear in the eyes of my victims, thankyouverymuch!
 
Stormkhan said:
However, I would like to point out that I've never back-stabbed on a message board or even in real life.

I like to see the fear in the eyes of my victims, thankyouverymuch!
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure how one backstabs on a message board, to be perfectly honest. And I'm still intrigued as to the difference between destructive and constructive backstabbing. Maybe someone whose job involves grammar, such as an editor for example, can comment. :roll:

Personally, I've never said anything about anyone that I wouldn't say to their face, even a virtual face.

Still, it seems that's it for now.

So - anyone for constructive debate?
 
Slipway said:
Well, that's precisely what you did at Encyclopedia Titanica. Perhaps those here do not realise, but there you swiftly resorted to personal attacks, got thrown out for it, and then you immediately registered again under a different name and did the same again. Some professional agent!
Click to expand...

storyman said:
Oh, you're one of those are you?
The truth of the matter is that the people at Titanica were extremely insulting as you are being now. Full of their own importance and no respect for any alternative opinions.
Now Mr Clever One, go back to the beginning of this thread and see what the subject was. A Sky documentary which Robin took part in. He will happily talk to people.
The previous programme he took part in was for Japanese television about how readers were literally fighting in the shops for his second book.
These, I would have thought, were interesting things to people on here until you came along with your nastiness.
I see you've made a couple of posts. Same name on Titanica is it? :lol:
You won't bully me off here so either be civil or go away.
Click to expand...

We aren't interested in people taking persoanl digs at each other based on what did or didn't happen on another message board. Its a clean slate at the FTMB - we are all certianly interested hearing the differnt takes on this but all personal baggae needs to be left at the other forum. As SK says:

Stormkhan said:
Now, now! Calm down and play nicely, both of you! I'm sure other non-Titanica (or whatever) enthusiasts on the FTMB are interested in hearing about different theories and examining their credibility. However, if it comes down to sniping at each other, stamping of feet and pouting it's not discussing theories but having a minor spat.
Click to expand...

Exactly - take that kind of thing to PM or email just don't play it out on the forum.

So back to the conspiracy and I don't think anyone has yet addressed Ravenstone's question: If it was an insurane job how does the costing work out as surely the compensation for all the deaths, etc. would have swallowed up the insurance money and the tragedy ruined the White Star's reputation. Surely the pros would have had to outweigh the cons for this to work as an explanation?
 
Storyman continues to ignore the fact that something clearly stated in Gardiner's second book is proven wrong by actual wreck photographs/footage of the event he refers to. It's far from the only example of Gardiner having something wrong, but it's a good, clear, concise and absolute example of something he blatantly misled people about, on the record, in print. The man was WRONG.

Yet Gardiner's now-agent Storyman ignores this fact?

If an agent knows the material he is dealing with is possibly untrue, where does he morally stand on the matter? Debate on a subject is one thing. But the agent of an author appearing on a conspiracy website, to get people talking about it? Tut.

This is most certainly not a case of one message board versus another, or anything silly like that. ET is only one example of the online Titanic community, though it does happen to be one of the very largest and very best; several of it's contributors are world-known and respected authors/experts on the subject in their own right. So calling people 'blinkered' really is no argument at all.

I'm all for a juicy conspiracy, my own favourite being who shot JFK! However, please, this Titanic nonsense is just that- nonsense. A good yarn that one bloke is now writing yet another book on.

If Gardiner had any shred of respect for the subject matter at hand, he'd either publicly apologise, or just plain be quiet from now on.

If anybody would like to check out Gardiner's claims about the name visible on the Titanic wreck, please go check out his second (and worst) book 'The Ship That Never Sank'. Then, for a photograph of the actual item he is referring to, there are several people available online- one of them being me- who can show you that what he says there is 100% WRONG.

AS Gardiner once helpfully said in print, 'there is no M, P or Y in 'Titanic'.

No Robin. Likewise, there is no 'T I T A N' in 'Olympic', either.
 
Slipway said:
This is most certainly not a case of one message board versus another, or anything silly like that.
Click to expand...

And I'm unsure anyone is suggesting that.

Slipway said:
If anybody would like to check out Gardiner's claims about the name visible on the Titanic wreck, please go check out his second (and worst) book 'The Ship That Never Sank'. Then, for a photograph of the actual item he is referring to, there are several people available online- one of them being me- who can show you that what he says there is 100% WRONG.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't have a link to an online source?

I'm assuming from what I've read that Gardiner's claims aren't backed up with any actual evidence?
 
Slipway - I may be stating the obvious, and for that I apologise, but just because we're discussing it, doesn't mean we're buying it.

The conspiracy that is. I can't speak for other people about the book.

I asked what the conspiracy was, and what would be the point of it, and about the only answer I received was that I had to wait until the book came out. :roll:

To my mind, the purpose of the book would be to support the theory, so I don't see why discussing the theory on here is somehow sub judice.
 
Ravenstone said:
Slipway - I may be stating the obvious, and for that I apologise, but just because we're discussing it, doesn't mean we're buying it.
Click to expand...

The major mistake a lot of people make about Forteans ;)
 
I dunno. You get the hint of a juicy conspiracy ... then they bugger off without letting us in on the Big Secret!

I think someone is silencing conspiracy theorists. Or do White Star have an active "MiB" cell?

As far as insurance is concerned, surely if White Star (the line) claimed - and were believed - to have an unsinkable ship then the insurance premium would be low. When the bloody thing hit the berg, the insurers (Eagle Star IIRC) would've been livid - and bankrupt hundreds of names. They wouldn't suddenly get all cozy with the line and cook the books to make sure the Insurers paid out the maximum loot to the Line as well as minimising the losses to the names.

Anyhow ... I can't see the head of Eagle Star shrugging his shoulders and saying "Hey, an unsinkable ship whacking into an iceberg and going down. Happens all the time, folks!"
 
Ravenstone said:
Emperor said:
The major mistake a lot of people make about Forteans ;)
Click to expand...

Very true. Also the most annoying.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I think because we are prepared to listen to what someone has to say (as long as they are preapre to listen to what we have to say ;) ) we don't shout people down which is why we tend to get the reputation for being fluffy woowoos.

For the record I am neither fluffy* or a woowoo** ;)

* although when it rains I sometimes can't do anything with my hair ;)

** techncially I may be as I'm never quite worked out what it meant ;)***

*** OK I went to UrbanDictionary and looked up woowoo and woo woo and I'm certainly none of them!!!
 
Too much winking ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ will make me go blind* :(

* At least in one eye - perhaps I should alternate? I might try a few anti-blinking exercises :shock:
 
'The major mistake a lot of people make about Forteans...'

Point happily taken! You can imagine what it's like though- you KNOW as an absolute that you had eggs for breakfast. Someone then comes along and says that you had cereal, and publishes books about it, claiming it to be the 'real' story etc etc. That's about where we're at in this case!

The photo of the name on the wreck is not generally available online, being that it's usually part of private collections. I have the image on my hard drive, though not up on any webspace. Am I able to email it to people from here? I would be happy to do so, to show some absolute proof that at least one major point made by Gardiner is incorrect.
 
Slipway said:
Point happily taken! You can imagine what it's like though- you KNOW as an absolute that you had eggs for breakfast. Someone then comes along and says that you had cereal, and publishes books about it, claiming it to be the 'real' story etc etc. That's about where we're at in this case!
Click to expand...

Speaking in general terms:

Of course in a post-modern world one could shrug such things off as there is really a right and a wrong but......

One of the fascinating things is why some people actually think in such a manner when there are facts which falsify their position. Such things can be at least as interesting ;)
 
I feel absolutely, positively certain that anyone using the terms "fluffy" and "woo-woo" in describing me are either a) suffering temporary insanity; or b) suicidal. Or c) don't know me at all.

Unless, of course, the sentence is along the lines of : "Ravenstone could never be described as a fluffy woo-woo; at least not more than once without loss of blood and possibly limbs." ;)

I don't believe White Star ever actually described Titanic as unsinkable; neither did they correct the press etc who did, however.

See, I could buy a conspiracy with Cunard and Marconi, seeing as they're the only ones who actually profitted from the tragedy. Well, not buy but at least comprehend.

I still say the tin opener weilding midgets are the best suggestion yet... :D

Seriously - three books, same author, same conspiracy? How complicated can it be???

How in the hell does it get published???
 
I've got a question. How did the shipbuilders put the names on the hull? Was it painted, etched or cast?

How easy would it be to change the names? Could, as has been suggested, the ships have been swapped during the week or so that the Olympic was having a new propeller fitted? Could a few people have made certain changes under the noses of those fitting the ship out? They say that the best way to hide is to be out in the open so maybe the Olympic and the Titanic could have been swapped.

I really enjoy some conspiracy theories and like testing the water on some ideas. ;)
 
[/quote]I've got a question. How did the shipbuilders put the names on the hull? Was it painted, etched or cast?

How easy would it be to change the names? Could, as has been suggested, the ships have been swapped during the week or so that the Olympic was having a new propeller fitted? Could a few people have made certain changes under the noses of those fitting the ship out? They say that the best way to hide is to be out in the open so maybe the Olympic and the Titanic could have been swapped.

I really enjoy some conspiracy theories and like testing the water on some ideas.
That's more like it, a nice honest question, to which I can give a nice honest answer!

The three Olympic class ships did not have any kind of separate, attached nameplate, nor any separate attached name lettering. Instead, the outline of each letter was incised into the hull, and then painted in with a golden/yellow shade. This was standard White Star Line practice; the outlines of the letters are, as I say, visible in part on the wreck, and the surviving passenger tender Nomadic, in France, shows the same thing.

There were no plates or anything that could be swapped over- the name was literally engraved into the ship, then filled in with paint.

Regarding how easily the two ships really could have been swapped over, the simple answer is, not at all. Despite a common held belief to the contrary, the two ships were not identical at all, and did not differ visually by only some external windows. They had hundreds of known, detailed, built-in technical, structural and decorative differences.

Titanic was yard No. 401, and Olympic was 400. The number 401 is easily visible on a propeller down at the Titanic wreck, though Gardiner says this is because the damaged Olympic was fitted with a prop intended for Titanic!

Hmm.

Well, recently, a ton of previously thought-lost wooden decorative fittings that were removed from the Olympic when it was broken up in the 1930s- and I mean, hundreds of individual lots- were auctioned off. The backs of all these fittings- which were once nailed, glued, screwed etc into/onto the Olympic- all had pencil markings left by the original craftsmen that made them. The number on them ALL?

400.

And that was one lot of a few hundred items; hundreds more bits of Olympic are known of, adorning pub walls, on museum display, in private collections, fitting out entire hotels in some cases- and they ALL had the same number '400' on them, too.

Olympic's number.

The ship built as the Titanic sank. The ship built as the Olympic lived. It really is as simple as that!
Click to expand...
 
Nasty, nasty people. Methinks you do protest too much. Goodbye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top