The Ship That Never Sank

This particular tome is not well thought of if only because of the utter impossibility of such a scenerio. Curiously, Gardiner ends up admitting in this book that the switch never happened. If he had left it at that, I don't think anybody would have given it a second thought, however, he's been persisting with this theme as well as general muckraking at White Star's expence ever since.

Personally, I don't have a problem with people trying to turn a buck by writing on this subject, but I do take exception at those who do it at the expence of history as it really happened.
 
The world of books is a strange one. An eminent Australian businessman once lamented that if he advertised products he didn't have, or that didn't do the things that he claimed they did, he could be prosecuted. However, anybody can publish a book of twaddle dressed up as fact and get away with it, often getting rich in the process. Notorious examples include books by Velikovsky, Berlitz and Von Daniken.
 
This thread has been moved from General Titanica to the Titanic Books forum. To pre-empt any confusion / concern / conspiracies (how apt!), from the Board's Rules & Netiquette:
quote:

When starting a new discussion...

- Always choose the right topic for your message. Let the editor know if there is no suitable topic or use "General Titanica".

- Choose a distinctive, appropriate and concise subject. Titles of the form: "Titanic", "About Me", "Please answer my questions" should be avoided at all costs!

- Check to make sure that you are not duplicating an existing discussion.
We now return you to our regular, scheduled program...

=================================

Damon, for earlier discussion of this particular book, check out the 'Golden Turkey' thread in ths forum. There's several other threads that discuss it too, and I think you'll find most in agreement with you, Mike S and Dave.
quote:

Curiously, Gardiner ends up admitting in this book that the switch never happened.
Mike - what makes this worse is that the above admission is in the *first* book ('The Riddle of the Titanic'/'The Titanic Conspiracy', 1995). 'The Ship That Never Sank?' (1998) is the *second* conspiracy book in Gardiner's catalogue of WSL cover ups and catastrophes. Those of us who are gluttons for punishment (or completionist bibliophiles
sad.gif
) are now up to book four...​
 
I think Gardiner's books sell as well as they do (which apparently is very well indeed) for the same reasons that people gobble up rags like the National Enquirer. both are full of nonsense, and most people reading them know it, but they love it anyway.

Gardiner has the ultimate conspiracy theory angle. the Titanic never sank at all. there was collusion and corruption, and a dastardly plot to swindle the insurance companies. there was incredible incompetence and bungling by those responsible for pulling off the fake sinking, finally there was a huge coverup involving (apparently) just about everyone in 1912.

like that book published, I believe, in France which claims that the World Trade Center attack was an American conspiracy. pure nonsense, yet the book sold a gazillion copies. people, despite their better judgement, just can't keep away from gossip and conspiracy stories.

it is one of those quirks of humanity that I find very bizarre. and very unsettling.

all the best, Michael (TheManInBlack)
 
Before I begin with this "controversial" thread, i'd just like to say that I am quite aware that there are many factors which can disprove it, but there are also many others which contribute to make ruling out such a switch, foolish.

When I first purchased Gardiner's follow up book from Riddle of the Titanic, i too was quick to laugh off the idea, but then i read it, and the man makes valid points which fit into place better than what we all currently believe happened on that night 92 years ago.

Such Points Include:

1)The well known (to some of you) James A Fenton, alias "Paddy the Pig", who in the early 1970s, hinted how the loss of the Titanic was not entirely accidental.

2)J.P. Morgan had the power to influence governments, not least the British Government due to aid in the Crimean War.

3) The turbine engine was not used during Olympic's voyage from Southampton to Belfast following the Hawke incident, telling us that the engine was damaged in some way, and inoperative. Also the damage inflicted on the liner extended far deeper than the 8 feet usually accepted.

4) By the time Olympic had made the voyage from Southampton to Belfast, the after compartment had filled with water despite 2 weeks of emergency repairs that had been intended to prevent such an occurrence.

5) The White Star Line was quite capable of keeping large secrets, for large periods of time, even to the extent of stopping witnesses spreading word of what had happened.

6) Not only was Titanic on fire when she reached Southampton, but instead of putting that fire out her officers allowed more coal to be put into the bunker, stoking it up.

7) There were still civillian workmen aboard and there was so much work to do to complete the ship that she could not be opened to the public.

8)While Olympic underwent two full days of trials before being handed over to her new owners, Titanic's trials only lasted several hours, most of which was just cruising.

9) J.P. Morgan cancelled his passage on Titanic, his ill health excuse has since been disproved.

10) A lack of ceremony for the completed Titanic, unlike her sister.

11)The ship had a persistent list to port throughout the voyage.

12)Contrary to company standing orders, Titanic was on the Autumn Southern track, to the north of the usual one.

13)Despite many ice warnings, the ship increased in speed daily.

14) Incredible as it seems, although the forces involved are similar to the vessel being struck by a broadside from a battleship, the collision passes unnoticed by most aboard.

15) During the collision, the watertight integrity of the fireman's passage, deep within the ship, is breached, arguing that something harder than ice had penetrated the hull.

16) Although it was immediately obvious, it was 45mins before the passengers were given any warning of danger.

17) QM Rowe reported seeing boats in the water, before any were even swung out!

18) Titanic sent up red, white and blue signals, instead of recognised white ones.

19) Only white rockets were seen by the Californian.

20)Captain Lord frequently asked his crew for signs of red or blue signals.

21)At least one of Titanic's lifeboats had more than one number on it.

22)Lowe picked up many survivors from life rafts, Titanic did not carry such equipment. This goes with the fact that many crew members who registered on Carpathia, did not register with Titanic .

23) several reports of mysterious vessels nearby.

All in All i've only touched the tip of the iceberg, there are many more points, but in summary Gardiner's version of events include the fact that Olympic was so damaged, it would be un economical to repair her. Two ships were put on stand by awaiting the arrival of Titanic. One of these was the Californian.

I will include more info as replies to any queries you will most probably have, but as "homework" i suggest you look at Olumpic pics post-Titanic, pre 1914. Compare these pics with pre-Titanic Olympic pics. Look at the forecastle deck porthole arrangement on the starboard side. Compare it with Titanic in the same position. The results left me amazed.

Before any of you say it, the 401 evidence is not as concrete as previously thought. It does however show that the switch was planned 5 months prior to the 10th April. Enough time for H&W workers to do what they had to do. Also the layouts of B Deck on both ships were different, with full promenades on both sides on the Olympic, but cabins on Titanic. Yet as she sank, many passengers report being able to see the lifeboats on B-Deck from the Promenade. The workers converted olympic to Titanic, and Titanic to Olympic accept that they overlooked the c-deck forecastle portholes.

JB
 
Oh, PLEASE; with the best and kindest will in the world Jamie, this subject has been done to the absolute death on here; every point Gardiner made has been disproved and laughed away time and time again. In the opinions of many, that ridiculous book is schlock sensationalism of the cheapest, worst kind; complete and utter rubbish, trading on a disaster that took 1,500 lives.

I wonder just how much Gardiner has made from it so far?

Sorry if I sound a little cross, but I hate to see more and more people still being suckered by that 'theory'.
 
<font color="#000066">Before any of you say it, the 401 evidence is not as concrete as previously thought.

Since you wrote this, then I will say that you couldn't be more wrong. You are overlooking or neglecting the most concrete evidence of all -- the forensic evidence from the wreck. If Gardiner insinuated or said this, then he, too, is providing only circumstantial evidence while omitting concrete forensic evidence. He took a risk in doing so, and lost. Assuming, of course, that his goal was to provide a reasonable alternative theory to the Titanic sinking and not just to make money on a book that he knew was more fiction than fact.

I wish that people would do their homework and/or follow through in their studies before they present half-developed claims/theories to this forum. But maybe there are other members that are entertained by the cyclical appearance of these claims and the inevitable -- but ultimately unsatisfying -- debate that ensues.

If you have no idea of what I'm talking about, then I can't help you. I respond with the assumption that people are familiar with at least a good majority of the evidence regarding their claim before they post. I'll help anyone who has done as much of their own work on a subject as possible, but I do not want to waste time continually showing the faults behind a half-baked theory when evidence that clearly disproves that theory is available to anyone who wishes to follow through the rules of good historical research. I get paid to install combat systems aboard ships, not to do peoples' Titanic research for them.

And if you think that I haven't responded properly to your question, then you have neglected to check previous forum threads on this same subject. Please check there first, so that I don't have to keep saying the same thing, over and over.

Parks
 
Don't forget Parks, that people do write these atrocious books to top up their pension funds.

At least Mr.Gardiner hasn't been on their forums to beg us to read his book etc.

Paul

 
>>but there are also many others which contribute to make ruling out such a switch, foolish.<<

No there are not. The ground has been well covered by Parks and also in numerous other threads where this has been discussed. More to the point, in the original edition of their book, Gardiner and Van Der Tat admit that a switch never happened.
 
Maybe it was, but Gardiner's name was on that book too, so he should stand by what was in it.

To set the theory up and then shoot it down in the same few pages is one thing, but what Gardiner did in '...Never Sank?' was, in my opinion, the lowest form of tabloid, make it up to make a buck writing.

It's a pity the man hasn't had the nerve to back himself up publicly on forums such as this; has anyone ever read ANYTHING said by him on the subject since? I'd love to know what the man has got to say for himself!
 
There are books I would pay any price for.

There are books for which MSRP is fair value.

There are books that I might buy for a dollar from the "overs" counter.

And there are Titanic Conspiracy books.
 
Back
Top