Jesse D O'Neill
Member
For anyone reading this thread I recomend Borrowing Gardiners books from the Library if you plan on reading them it as it's nothing in his books to make them worth purchasing.
The Ship That Never Sank
- Thread starter Ben Dover
- Start date
Mindy Deckard
Member
It is good fiction, though. Just don't buy into it.
John Knight
Member
"It is good fiction, though. Just don't buy into it."
Exactly, hence the way the thread went before.
There is as much chance of Titanic being switched with the Olympic as there is anything 'silly' that has been posted, being true.
You can write a book about any subject you like, and claim you are right, you can point to certain things to back you up, that's easy.
Anyone who actually believes the ships were switched, answer me this;
Why not just arrange an accident to the Olympic? Why go through trying to swap her with the Titanic with ALL the risks, ALL those changes, that you'd have to deal with?
That's just for starters.
How about a couple of thoughts to finish with; One person tried to tell me that insurance had been refused on the Olympic because of the Hawke incident.But they forgot that both ships were at sea, with passengers, on the night of the sinking.
What about the yard number 401 on the propeller of the ship lying at the bottom of the Atlantic? Don't tell me that was changed too. If you want to say it was, then answer me this; Why bother changing it? after all the ship was going to have an accident and sink in thousands of feet of water. It was a long, long time before mankind could venture that deep to take photos.
Too many holes, too many variables. I rather think aliens etc being involved hold just as much water as the switch theory.
Regards.
Exactly, hence the way the thread went before.
There is as much chance of Titanic being switched with the Olympic as there is anything 'silly' that has been posted, being true.
You can write a book about any subject you like, and claim you are right, you can point to certain things to back you up, that's easy.
Anyone who actually believes the ships were switched, answer me this;
Why not just arrange an accident to the Olympic? Why go through trying to swap her with the Titanic with ALL the risks, ALL those changes, that you'd have to deal with?
That's just for starters.
How about a couple of thoughts to finish with; One person tried to tell me that insurance had been refused on the Olympic because of the Hawke incident.But they forgot that both ships were at sea, with passengers, on the night of the sinking.
What about the yard number 401 on the propeller of the ship lying at the bottom of the Atlantic? Don't tell me that was changed too. If you want to say it was, then answer me this; Why bother changing it? after all the ship was going to have an accident and sink in thousands of feet of water. It was a long, long time before mankind could venture that deep to take photos.
Too many holes, too many variables. I rather think aliens etc being involved hold just as much water as the switch theory.
Regards.
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>Why not just arrange an accident to the Olympic?<<
In one fashion or another, that's a point I've been making for years. For insurance fraud, all you need is the constructive total loss of the vessel. No switches needed.
In one fashion or another, that's a point I've been making for years. For insurance fraud, all you need is the constructive total loss of the vessel. No switches needed.
Kyrila Scully
Member
What? He's written ANOTHER book on this topic?!?!?!? Stop the madness!
Kyrila
Kyrila
Michael Tennaro
Member
Kyrila, he hasn't written another book yet, but about two years ago there was a press release that he was working on a third book on his conspiracy theory where: "the world is going to be astonished when Robin backs up his theories with hard evidence and facts which will quite simply rewrite the history of this epic disaster."
There has been little news since then, but I wouldn't be surprised to see another book come out. Stop the madness? As long as people buy into conspiracy theories, blindly accepting whatever they are told, such books will be written. If there is a demand, it will be filled.
And we seem to be in a renaissance of conspiracy theory subjects. Look at the incredible success of The DaVinci Code, a book that is a work of fiction, yet it is probably the most successful book publishing phenomenon in the history of publishing.
all the best, Michael (TheManInBlack) T
There has been little news since then, but I wouldn't be surprised to see another book come out. Stop the madness? As long as people buy into conspiracy theories, blindly accepting whatever they are told, such books will be written. If there is a demand, it will be filled.
And we seem to be in a renaissance of conspiracy theory subjects. Look at the incredible success of The DaVinci Code, a book that is a work of fiction, yet it is probably the most successful book publishing phenomenon in the history of publishing.
all the best, Michael (TheManInBlack) T
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>Look at the incredible success of The DaVinci Code, a book that is a work of fiction, yet it is probably the most successful book publishing phenomenon in the history of publishing.<<
Indeed it is and the grabber is that a lot of people who have read this earnestly believe that this book was based on real history backed up be valid historical research using credible source materials.
It's not!
But that hasn't prevented the whole thing from taking on a life of it's own.
I don't like dabbling in religion in a public forum...it's too easy to step on somebody's toes...but I've been interested in critical/historical studies of the Bible for over 20 years now, and I have a good understanding of the historical problems that trained Biblical Scholars have to address. They have to work by the same criteria and rules of historical research that we do if they want to be able to demonstrate that their findings are in fact valid. Their work is made a lot more difficult in that a lot of written source material dating back to this particular era has long since gone to dust.
For the record, a Biblical scholar is an individual who has the necessary training in the history, archaeology, languages, cultures, and religions of the Ancient Near East and who participates in the usual round of academic activities which includes publishing and sharing their research in peer reviewed academic journals and fora.
Say what you want about Dan Brown, but a Biblical scholar he ain't, and his work has been sliced, diced, panned, bent, folded, spindled, mutilated, and skewered by scholars of every patch and persuasion, and for good reason. For one very devastating critique of the book and it's claims, go to http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v11n4_da_vinci_code.php
The same situation applies to Gardiner's work. It has a very broad appeal to those who have no background...even as a talented amature...into historical maritime research and who are rarely inclined to check the facts. (After all, if it's written, it's just...just...just got to be true! Right? Oh yeah. Suuuuurrrrrrreee it is!)
However, it doesn't hold up so well among maritime professionals such as sailors and naval architects or marine historians or even those extraordinarily well studied and talented amatures who have the training, experience, and body of knowledge to actually know what they're talking about.
Unfortunately, in any contest between the sensational and reality, guess which one gets all the good publicity?
Indeed it is and the grabber is that a lot of people who have read this earnestly believe that this book was based on real history backed up be valid historical research using credible source materials.
It's not!
But that hasn't prevented the whole thing from taking on a life of it's own.
I don't like dabbling in religion in a public forum...it's too easy to step on somebody's toes...but I've been interested in critical/historical studies of the Bible for over 20 years now, and I have a good understanding of the historical problems that trained Biblical Scholars have to address. They have to work by the same criteria and rules of historical research that we do if they want to be able to demonstrate that their findings are in fact valid. Their work is made a lot more difficult in that a lot of written source material dating back to this particular era has long since gone to dust.
For the record, a Biblical scholar is an individual who has the necessary training in the history, archaeology, languages, cultures, and religions of the Ancient Near East and who participates in the usual round of academic activities which includes publishing and sharing their research in peer reviewed academic journals and fora.
Say what you want about Dan Brown, but a Biblical scholar he ain't, and his work has been sliced, diced, panned, bent, folded, spindled, mutilated, and skewered by scholars of every patch and persuasion, and for good reason. For one very devastating critique of the book and it's claims, go to http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v11n4_da_vinci_code.php
The same situation applies to Gardiner's work. It has a very broad appeal to those who have no background...even as a talented amature...into historical maritime research and who are rarely inclined to check the facts. (After all, if it's written, it's just...just...just got to be true! Right? Oh yeah. Suuuuurrrrrrreee it is!)
However, it doesn't hold up so well among maritime professionals such as sailors and naval architects or marine historians or even those extraordinarily well studied and talented amatures who have the training, experience, and body of knowledge to actually know what they're talking about.
Unfortunately, in any contest between the sensational and reality, guess which one gets all the good publicity?
Michael Tennaro
Member
Right you are, Mike. I have to give Dan Brown credit for some slick marketing, though. He states emphatically that his book is a work of fiction, and if he had left it at that, he would still have had a bestseller on his hands.
But he went a step further by stating in the introduction that "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." The implication is that although it is a novel, all the claims he makes in the work are historically accurate. That this is his fictional recreation of something that really happened. That little bit of sleight of hand is what has rocketed this book into the publishing stratosphere, made it into an international bestseller, grabbed the imagination of conspiracy advocates everywhere, riled historians, set off a whole slew of Da Vinci Code band wagon books, both for and against, and made him a whole, whole lot of money.
But I think we digress.
all the best, Michael (TheManInBlack) T
But he went a step further by stating in the introduction that "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." The implication is that although it is a novel, all the claims he makes in the work are historically accurate. That this is his fictional recreation of something that really happened. That little bit of sleight of hand is what has rocketed this book into the publishing stratosphere, made it into an international bestseller, grabbed the imagination of conspiracy advocates everywhere, riled historians, set off a whole slew of Da Vinci Code band wagon books, both for and against, and made him a whole, whole lot of money.
But I think we digress.
all the best, Michael (TheManInBlack) T
Michael H. Standart
Member
>>But I think we digress. <<
Perhaps not. Robin Gardiner made much the same claims and with the same results, and he wasn't claiming it was fiction.
<< Perhaps not. Robin Gardiner made much the same claims and with the same results, and he wasn't claiming it was fiction.
Mindy Deckard
Member
Exactly...fiction designed as fact.
Jorge Gutierrez
Member
I would say to have the time to go room by room, deck by deck, well whats left of the decks, and check the middle propeller to have a look to finally crack this mystery. Titanic's design was to have all of her three propellers three bladed, take a look at this...http://www.abratis.de/ship/construct/pic/prop1.jpg
Jorge Gutierrez
Member
now take a look at the fourth picture in this website...
https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/mystery-titanic-central-propeller.html
https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/mystery-titanic-central-propeller.html
Aye vey...
Jorge, if you would take the time to read that article, you'll note that it has nothing to do with the silly ship switch theory. The author has even debunked that theory himself, along with many other experts!
Please don't leap frog into something, without getting all the facts straight first.
Jorge, if you would take the time to read that article, you'll note that it has nothing to do with the silly ship switch theory. The author has even debunked that theory himself, along with many other experts!
Please don't leap frog into something, without getting all the facts straight first.
Jorge Gutierrez
Member
Then if you would take time to see the video...why would they have 2 ships docked switching it occasionally when the Olympic only needed a propeller switch that would only take 2 days yet it took a whole week to do so? Now that is kind of strange if you were to ask me...to someone in charge of that they would say just change the darn thing and get it back to sea...yet it took a whole week maybe 2 to get it fixed when it should've taken 2 days to fix...
James Smith
Member
Jorge, I'm not as familiar with Titanic's fitting-out timeline as others here are, but consider the following:
1) Researchers HAVE gone through much of the bow section, room by room, and deck by deck. They've documented, among other things, the existence of cabins on B-deck where the Olympic had only an open promenade. They've documented the presence of ventilators, windows, and numerous other structures that the Olympic did not have. The outline of the wheelhouse (with its squared front--contrast with the curved front of Olympic's wheelhouse) is still plainly visible on the wreck. The number "401" is visible on various components of the ship, some of which have been recovered--and switching all of those components with their counterparts on the Olympic would have taken far, far longer than a week.
2) The photo you link to from Wolfgang Abratis' site, I believe, is mislabeled--it's actually the Olympic. Mark Chirnside's evidence in favor of a three-bladed central propeller for Titanic is an important development in Titanic research and is highly persuasive--but it is not definitive, as I'm sure he himself would be the first to admit. So raising Titanic's stern section (or merely excavating her central propeller) and counting the prop blades would ultimately "prove" nothing.
3) There was no "insurance reason" to sink either Olympic or Titanic. Whatever the ship was that sank on April 14-15, 1912--it was definitely under-insured. And that's not even considering all the liability claims that arose from individual passengers. If White Star were trying to limit its losses from Olympic's "mortal wound", its efforts were a rather spectacular (and altogether foreseeable) failure.
Bruce Beveridge and Steve Hall--two of the foremost experts on the structure of the Olympic-class ships--have written an excellent book (Olympic & Titanic: The Truth Behind the Conspiracy) explaining why the theory is impossible. If you are unable to obtain that book for the moment, you might look at Mark Chirnside's website at http://www.markchirnside.co.uk/Titanic_Index.html. You will find there a very well-written paper debunking major elements of the switch theory as well as notes he prepared for a television interview he gave on the subject.
--Jim
1) Researchers HAVE gone through much of the bow section, room by room, and deck by deck. They've documented, among other things, the existence of cabins on B-deck where the Olympic had only an open promenade. They've documented the presence of ventilators, windows, and numerous other structures that the Olympic did not have. The outline of the wheelhouse (with its squared front--contrast with the curved front of Olympic's wheelhouse) is still plainly visible on the wreck. The number "401" is visible on various components of the ship, some of which have been recovered--and switching all of those components with their counterparts on the Olympic would have taken far, far longer than a week.
2) The photo you link to from Wolfgang Abratis' site, I believe, is mislabeled--it's actually the Olympic. Mark Chirnside's evidence in favor of a three-bladed central propeller for Titanic is an important development in Titanic research and is highly persuasive--but it is not definitive, as I'm sure he himself would be the first to admit. So raising Titanic's stern section (or merely excavating her central propeller) and counting the prop blades would ultimately "prove" nothing.
3) There was no "insurance reason" to sink either Olympic or Titanic. Whatever the ship was that sank on April 14-15, 1912--it was definitely under-insured. And that's not even considering all the liability claims that arose from individual passengers. If White Star were trying to limit its losses from Olympic's "mortal wound", its efforts were a rather spectacular (and altogether foreseeable) failure.
Bruce Beveridge and Steve Hall--two of the foremost experts on the structure of the Olympic-class ships--have written an excellent book (Olympic & Titanic: The Truth Behind the Conspiracy) explaining why the theory is impossible. If you are unable to obtain that book for the moment, you might look at Mark Chirnside's website at http://www.markchirnside.co.uk/Titanic_Index.html. You will find there a very well-written paper debunking major elements of the switch theory as well as notes he prepared for a television interview he gave on the subject.
--Jim
Similar threads
