- Joined
- Aug 18, 2002
- Messages
- 19,406
DPL said:
I'm unsure what the problem is here - did I not make myself clear earlier? Like when I said:
Emperor said:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Conspiracy
Storyman is correct in that there are some who claim to be experts and in fact are far from it, though they don't know it.
I am sure Mr. Gardiner is a nice man, but one thing he is not is any form of expert on the technical makeup of these ships. And that is where his story falls apart. One can make a conspiracy out of anything. One can dig up this and that or any bit of circumstantial evidence and attach a question mark to it. In fact there are some things that raise a red flag. However, the photos of the ships show no sign of a switch and that is it in a nut shell. Gardiner seems to answer this fact by simply stating that H&W was all powerful and would have been able to make these switches to the Olympic and then after the Titanic sank, return all of these switches to their original positions. And it is not as simple as a name plate or removing a 30 foot piece of steel to hide a porthole difference (if you want to call that simple).
I was interviewed for the Sky1 TV special also, and though I truly understand that the producer cut a lot of what we said out for reasons of time and story, Gardiner's responses to the 401 being found on raised items was completely lacking. The truth is in the photographs of the Olympic right after the Titanic sank, the Titanic before she sank, the Olympic during and after the 1912-13 refit, and finally the wreck footage itself. Just because the public has not been shown the interiors of the B Deck staterooms over and above the parlour suites (yes I know Gardiner has a false bulkhead theory for this to explain why the dive footage shows the private promenades) does not mean the footage of other B deck rooms does not exist.
There were so many other factors and differences in these ships. I would hope that Mr. Gardiner will take more time to properly date and identify the photographs in his next switch book. I have read the first two, and mis-dated and identified photos do not help his credibility.
Storyman, I know you have an allegiance to this theory, but when you put the red flags and the rest of the information whether accurate or otherwise, up against the photographs you will have to admit that as much as Mr. Gardiner would love to believe it (if he truly does), the switch just didn't happen. I have proven it in my book, and I am surprised that Gardiner would even bother with another book on this subject. However, I do understand the worth of money, and I wish him the best.
Bruce Beveridge
Storyman is correct in that there are some who claim to be experts and in fact are far from it, though they don't know it.
I am sure Mr. Gardiner is a nice man, but one thing he is not is any form of expert on the technical makeup of these ships. And that is where his story falls apart. One can make a conspiracy out of anything. One can dig up this and that or any bit of circumstantial evidence and attach a question mark to it. In fact there are some things that raise a red flag. However, the photos of the ships show no sign of a switch and that is it in a nut shell. Gardiner seems to answer this fact by simply stating that H&W was all powerful and would have been able to make these switches to the Olympic and then after the Titanic sank, return all of these switches to their original positions. And it is not as simple as a name plate or removing a 30 foot piece of steel to hide a porthole difference (if you want to call that simple).
I was interviewed for the Sky1 TV special also, and though I truly understand that the producer cut a lot of what we said out for reasons of time and story, Gardiner's responses to the 401 being found on raised items was completely lacking. The truth is in the photographs of the Olympic right after the Titanic sank, the Titanic before she sank, the Olympic during and after the 1912-13 refit, and finally the wreck footage itself. Just because the public has not been shown the interiors of the B Deck staterooms over and above the parlour suites (yes I know Gardiner has a false bulkhead theory for this to explain why the dive footage shows the private promenades) does not mean the footage of other B deck rooms does not exist.
There were so many other factors and differences in these ships. I would hope that Mr. Gardiner will take more time to properly date and identify the photographs in his next switch book. I have read the first two, and mis-dated and identified photos do not help his credibility.
Storyman, I know you have an allegiance to this theory, but when you put the red flags and the rest of the information whether accurate or otherwise, up against the photographs you will have to admit that as much as Mr. Gardiner would love to believe it (if he truly does), the switch just didn't happen. I have proven it in my book, and I am surprised that Gardiner would even bother with another book on this subject. However, I do understand the worth of money, and I wish him the best.
Bruce Beveridge
A
Anonymous
Guest
Also on the matter
I cannot believe that anyone who has even half a grain of knowledge about the White Star Line and their ship builder Harland & Wolff, would assume that H&W was so inept that they couldn't easily fix the Hawke damage.
Contrary to Mr. Gardiner's belief, the damage incurred by the Hawke did not damage the keel. The engines were not directley connected to the keel, and the old saying of a ship having a "broken back" did not apply with the age of iron and steel. These keels were riveted together from plates! They were not solid pieces of oak like a tall ship, and even some of those tall ships could be repaired without effecting their hull strength. H&W was masters of ship repair, in fact they were the best. They took on jobs that other companies wouldn't touch. Does anyone want to tell me that a company that reconstructed the bow end of the Suevic would not be able to fix the side of the Olympic? Even if the keel were damaged, the process of fixing it would not have been any worse then the Suevic.
Also, if the White Star Line was having financial trouble before the Olympic was damaged (which they weren't), you can bet that H&W would have floated the costs of the repairs. Pirrie was a board member of the White Star Line, had a financial interest in the company, and had done it before for other companies in financial trouble. If anyone wants to see how closley connected financially the White Star Line and H&W were just read "Harland & Wolff Shipbuilders to the Word" by Moss and Hume.
Bruce Beveridge
I cannot believe that anyone who has even half a grain of knowledge about the White Star Line and their ship builder Harland & Wolff, would assume that H&W was so inept that they couldn't easily fix the Hawke damage.
Contrary to Mr. Gardiner's belief, the damage incurred by the Hawke did not damage the keel. The engines were not directley connected to the keel, and the old saying of a ship having a "broken back" did not apply with the age of iron and steel. These keels were riveted together from plates! They were not solid pieces of oak like a tall ship, and even some of those tall ships could be repaired without effecting their hull strength. H&W was masters of ship repair, in fact they were the best. They took on jobs that other companies wouldn't touch. Does anyone want to tell me that a company that reconstructed the bow end of the Suevic would not be able to fix the side of the Olympic? Even if the keel were damaged, the process of fixing it would not have been any worse then the Suevic.
Also, if the White Star Line was having financial trouble before the Olympic was damaged (which they weren't), you can bet that H&W would have floated the costs of the repairs. Pirrie was a board member of the White Star Line, had a financial interest in the company, and had done it before for other companies in financial trouble. If anyone wants to see how closley connected financially the White Star Line and H&W were just read "Harland & Wolff Shipbuilders to the Word" by Moss and Hume.
Bruce Beveridge
A
Anonymous
Guest
Bruce, I cannot begin to tell you how glad I am to see you appear here- now all we need is for Gardiner himself to appear online, and there could be some serious debate, which of course, he would lose, badly...
Glad to see that idiot Storyman put in his place at last, too.
Glad to see that idiot Storyman put in his place at last, too.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2002
- Messages
- 36,905
- Location
- East of Suez
Slipway said:
Just drop it. I've been watching this thread - can't you people just disagree without the hostility. Trust me, neither side looks good.
Some of our regulars are hardly acquitting themselves with decorum either.
A
Anonymous
Guest
No names necessary
Obviously calling names shows bad debate protocol. I hope no one thinks I called any names in my two postings. I was just stating how taken aback I am by Gardiner's lack of faith in the well known and documented ability of H&W, and that he skipped the technical aspects of the ships when putting through his theory, probably because that is the solid evidence of no switch. No - I will not call Gardiner names. In fact my co-author Steve Hall is a friend of Robin's. When Gardiner's books do well, then I would think it safe to assume that my books would do well also, so I hope Gardiner will sell the books.
I have to wonder; if the Olympic was cosmetically refitted to look like Titanic, so that she could be sank as Titanic, then wouldn't the Titanic need to be outfitted to look like Olympic? Because the ship that was heavily photographed returning to Southampton right after April 15th 1912 had all of the Olympic's specifics as seen in photos. On top of that, most of the wood auctioned off from the supposed Olympic had 400 stamped or stenciled on the back. Yes I know of Gardiner's excuse for this one; he states that the wood that had 401 on it was switched for the 400 stamped wood after the W.W.I refit. Do you all see what extents one has to go through to qualify this switch?
If anyone wants to ask specific technical questions about these ships on this forum, please do. Because one can produce all of these circumstances that raise a red flag, but none can deny the hard evidence of the physical characteristics of these ships. You can't half research a subject, you have to cover it from all angles, and this again is the problem with "Titanic the Ship that Never Sank". As I tell people who are just starting in the Titanic technical research field; "first off - put your Titanic books in the closet and read the period books on the regulations and practices of turn of the century steel ship construction. One that is understood, then pull out the Titanic books."
"neither side looks good" - that is correct because name calling has taken the place of evidence (probably more form people's frustration especially when true technical historians are being minimalized to groupies) . But even through the name calling, the evidence remains, and the switch just didn't happen.
Bruce
Obviously calling names shows bad debate protocol. I hope no one thinks I called any names in my two postings. I was just stating how taken aback I am by Gardiner's lack of faith in the well known and documented ability of H&W, and that he skipped the technical aspects of the ships when putting through his theory, probably because that is the solid evidence of no switch. No - I will not call Gardiner names. In fact my co-author Steve Hall is a friend of Robin's. When Gardiner's books do well, then I would think it safe to assume that my books would do well also, so I hope Gardiner will sell the books.
I have to wonder; if the Olympic was cosmetically refitted to look like Titanic, so that she could be sank as Titanic, then wouldn't the Titanic need to be outfitted to look like Olympic? Because the ship that was heavily photographed returning to Southampton right after April 15th 1912 had all of the Olympic's specifics as seen in photos. On top of that, most of the wood auctioned off from the supposed Olympic had 400 stamped or stenciled on the back. Yes I know of Gardiner's excuse for this one; he states that the wood that had 401 on it was switched for the 400 stamped wood after the W.W.I refit. Do you all see what extents one has to go through to qualify this switch?
If anyone wants to ask specific technical questions about these ships on this forum, please do. Because one can produce all of these circumstances that raise a red flag, but none can deny the hard evidence of the physical characteristics of these ships. You can't half research a subject, you have to cover it from all angles, and this again is the problem with "Titanic the Ship that Never Sank". As I tell people who are just starting in the Titanic technical research field; "first off - put your Titanic books in the closet and read the period books on the regulations and practices of turn of the century steel ship construction. One that is understood, then pull out the Titanic books."
"neither side looks good" - that is correct because name calling has taken the place of evidence (probably more form people's frustration especially when true technical historians are being minimalized to groupies) . But even through the name calling, the evidence remains, and the switch just didn't happen.
Bruce
A
Anonymous
Guest
Interesting stuff, Bruce. Welcome!
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2002
- Messages
- 19,406
Re: No names necessary
Nope a constructive dismantling of someone else's arguement is just what we are looking for (amongst other things).
Beveridge said:
Nope a constructive dismantling of someone else's arguement is just what we are looking for (amongst other things).
A
Anonymous
Guest
Re: No names necessary
like the Ark of the Covenant....the Lost City of Atlantis....fat-free chocolate....
Are there any other conspiracy theories surrounding Titanic and her sisters?
Emperor said:
like the Ark of the Covenant....the Lost City of Atlantis....fat-free chocolate....
Are there any other conspiracy theories surrounding Titanic and her sisters?
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2002
- Messages
- 19,406
Re: No names necessary
Just not necessarily in that order
Ravenstone said:Emperor said:
like the Ark of the Covenant....the Lost City of Atlantis....fat-free chocolate....
Just not necessarily in that order
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2004
- Messages
- 383
Re: No names necessary
aah the Grand Unifing Theory
The Yithian said:Ravenstone said:
I like to think big and unify. Search for the fat-free chocolates in the Ark, on Atlantis.
aah the Grand Unifing Theory
A
Anonymous
Guest
Maybe that's why the gods punished Atlantis by sinking - they'd discovered the secret of fat-free chocolate, and lo! there was much praline and truffles and gnashing of pearly white, cavity-free teeth.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2002
- Messages
- 19,406
DPL said:
I always am.
I spent many years debating Creationists and nutjobs on Usenet and in the end, when you have reduced their 'evidence' to dust and their 'theories' to tissue paper blowing in the wind and they just start back at square one again, you just learn to shake your head and walk away (ultimately you have to settle for the fact that no matter how flawed their arguement there are some people you can't convince - faith is a more powerful thing than rationality).
A
Anonymous
Guest
Well there you go, a break for Crimbo and then I discover the following in the guestbook of my wife's sewing website-
'Storyman, Yorkshire 21/12/2004 22:34
Stop delighting in my demise at Fortean Times. You people are so up yourselves aren't you? Your drivel spreads everywhere.'
Speaks for itself really, doesn't it? You'd think he would have something better to do over Christmas really...and remember, this is Robin Gardiner's AGENT!!!
Needless to say, his bile has been deleted and his IP address has been logged, as have the details of his ISP, and any further abuse will be reported to the same.
'Storyman, Yorkshire 21/12/2004 22:34
Stop delighting in my demise at Fortean Times. You people are so up yourselves aren't you? Your drivel spreads everywhere.'
Speaks for itself really, doesn't it? You'd think he would have something better to do over Christmas really...and remember, this is Robin Gardiner's AGENT!!!
Needless to say, his bile has been deleted and his IP address has been logged, as have the details of his ISP, and any further abuse will be reported to the same.
A
Anonymous
Guest
The current edition of (the still and ever excellent) National Geographic includes an interesting article concerning the gradual decay of the wreck site which is being accelerated by attention.
[There is no doubt, incidentally, that the wreck is the Titanic. Nobody serious has ever suggested otherwise.]
I can understand entirely why this story remains so fascinating. It immediately pre dates the modern era. And it is such a story. It takes us back to another time and yet is almost modern. And the 'deep' is ghostly and fascinating and frightening.
I don't understand why people write these lunatic revisionist tales. My only guess is that the authors are mad and under occupied --- and / or else there is money to be made by writing such nonsense when it is connected to a popular theme. How many media interview fees would cover the costs of a cheap print run (over night in Hong Kong on cheap paper)? How many more interviews to turn a profit? If I was a lousy agent then I'd be looking for people writing up idiotic theories about all popular historical events.
And, if I was a lousy agent, then I'd be looking to draw attention to the story. It wouldn't matter whether it was true or stupid ultimately. Any attention might result in a TV programme or a talk - radio fee.
[There is no doubt, incidentally, that the wreck is the Titanic. Nobody serious has ever suggested otherwise.]
I can understand entirely why this story remains so fascinating. It immediately pre dates the modern era. And it is such a story. It takes us back to another time and yet is almost modern. And the 'deep' is ghostly and fascinating and frightening.
I don't understand why people write these lunatic revisionist tales. My only guess is that the authors are mad and under occupied --- and / or else there is money to be made by writing such nonsense when it is connected to a popular theme. How many media interview fees would cover the costs of a cheap print run (over night in Hong Kong on cheap paper)? How many more interviews to turn a profit? If I was a lousy agent then I'd be looking for people writing up idiotic theories about all popular historical events.
And, if I was a lousy agent, then I'd be looking to draw attention to the story. It wouldn't matter whether it was true or stupid ultimately. Any attention might result in a TV programme or a talk - radio fee.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2002
- Messages
- 13,719
Trolling a sewing website? That's one tough hombre!Slipway said:
Back OT, it would be interesting to see how many of these theorising books sprang up soon after the film "Titanic" won a load of Oscars and took $1 billion at the box office (or come to that, if any appeared post "A Night To Remember").
There was certainly a surge of UFO books after Close Encounters came out, and after ET.. let something grab the public attention, and then exploit it. Sod the facts, there's MONEY in that thar coral!
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 1,139
I'm sorry if someone has already mentioned this, but I am sure I heard a theory once that the Titanic was cursed by a mummy (the mummy might have supposedly been on board).
Stormkhan
Disturbingly familiar
- Joined
- May 28, 2003
- Messages
- 8,718
The 'Mummys Curse' theory was reasonably de-bunked in many forums - including an issue of the FT if I recall correctly.
So to was the 'Titanic was carrying Uranium weapons' theory ... which was better as a lousy screenplay.
One nice Fortean point on the sinking was the synchronicity of the Titan short story coinciding with the Titanic reality.
So to was the 'Titanic was carrying Uranium weapons' theory ... which was better as a lousy screenplay.
One nice Fortean point on the sinking was the synchronicity of the Titan short story coinciding with the Titanic reality.
I remember the story of the Mummy, was it Priestess/Princess, anyway, it was a good story and when i first read it I thought: ' ooooh, ' as you do, then it was debunked, and I thought ' aaaaaah, ' . Still, it was nicely creepy, but too much really, to swallow. I do know about the ' Titan ' whih remains...very interesting.
Stormkhan
Disturbingly familiar
- Joined
- May 28, 2003
- Messages
- 8,718
Quoting Storyman is publicity for an untenable theory, book etc. etc. Their behaviour on this thead has been silly to the point of damaging to the author they claim to act as agent. Storyman isn't a 'source' nor an author.
If Storyman still believes in various conspiracy theories surrounding the sinking of the Titanic then leave him/her be! Their participation will not advance any discussion on discrepancies or incidents since he/she isn't either able to advance their own opinion or even take part in this thread.
Which is a bummer.
If Storyman still believes in various conspiracy theories surrounding the sinking of the Titanic then leave him/her be! Their participation will not advance any discussion on discrepancies or incidents since he/she isn't either able to advance their own opinion or even take part in this thread.
Which is a bummer.
A
Anonymous
Guest
The thing is, before he was booted from here, (and decided that being insulting on an innocent woman's sewing website guestbook was his order of business!) Storyman had ample opportunity to answer points I raised, namely, examples of known, irrefutable facts that blatantly contradicted his pet author's laughable claims, and yet, he chose to ignore that opportunity and become insulting, instead.
So, he's proven himself beyond any doubt to not be even remotely interested in the truth, or indeed, in any kind of professional courtesy in his behaviour. One can only imagine that as a supposed literery agent, he is little more than a money-grabbing opportunist.
Perhaps 'Storyman'- and any of you good folk here- would like to go and read 'Titanic & Olympic' by Steve Hall and Bruce Beveridge; a book that calmly and absolutely puts this switch theory crap to bed once and for all.
So, he's proven himself beyond any doubt to not be even remotely interested in the truth, or indeed, in any kind of professional courtesy in his behaviour. One can only imagine that as a supposed literery agent, he is little more than a money-grabbing opportunist.
Perhaps 'Storyman'- and any of you good folk here- would like to go and read 'Titanic & Olympic' by Steve Hall and Bruce Beveridge; a book that calmly and absolutely puts this switch theory crap to bed once and for all.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2002
- Messages
- 13,719
Right, that's enough about storyman himself now - he's gone, and he isn't going to be back, so can't answer for himself. Talk about his theory-once-removed, by all means, but no more of the personal stuff, OK?
Let's please stick to the conspiracy.
Let's please stick to the conspiracy.
A
Anonymous
Guest
'Let's please stick to the conspiracy'
That'll be difficult, as there wasn't one.
That'll be difficult, as there wasn't one.
A
Anonymous
Guest
So is there any more info on that supposed coal bunker fire?
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2002
- Messages
- 13,719
Slipway said:'Let's please stick to the conspiracy'
That'll be difficult, as there wasn't one.
Alright then, let's stick to the conspiracy angles that keep getting thrown up, only to be shot down again.Otherwise I'll just move it out of conspiracy altogether, knock out the word "conspiracy" from the title, and put it in Notes and Queries or something...