Jamie, I don't think it's advisable to set 'homework' for the members of this board, some of whom are very familiar with these arguments and have seen them addressed years ago. And before suggesting it is 'foolish' to dismiss Gardiner, it might be worth considering that we do so on excellent grounds.
quote:
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.
Please provide your specific source and the exact wording of this claim, and why he is a credible witness.
Against this, we have the fact that, as far as is known, no one - any where, at any time - involved in this purported cover-up can be demonstrated to have said that these ships were switched. This includes all the Harland & Wolff employees who were supposedly involved.
quote:
2)J.P. Morgan had the power to influence governments, not least the British Government due to aid in the Crimean War.
Provide specific evidence that Morgan influenced any government in this instance, and to what extent. Then try to demonstrate that he was engaged in this specific conspiracy.
quote:
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.
Gardiner's allegations on the extend of the damage have been discussed and debunked elsewhere, by folks who have made extensive use of the original source materials.
quote:
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.
Primary source beyond Gardiner's questionable use of evidence? The failure of a repair job does not provide evidence for more extensive, overly expensive damage.
quote:
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.
Where, precisely, is your (or Gardiner's) evidence for this claim? Where is the evidence that it did so in relation to the switch theory? Specific cites, please.
quote:
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.
The evidence is that the coal fire was managed according to common practice at the time. Why would they be 'stoking it up' and yet later attempted to combat it? How does this tie into the conspiracy theory?
quote:
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.
How is this relevant to your argument? This is entirely explicable - it was well known that the Titanic's fitting out was behind schedule. Her officers wrote freely from Southampton about it to their families. What exactly is being alleged here, and why? How does this support the conspiracy theory?
quote:
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.
Again - entirely explicable, and not untoward. Stephen Cameron is a good source on this.
quote:
9) J.P. Morgan cancelled his passage on Titanic, his ill health excuse has since been disproved.
Again - explicable. One of my father's old cronies goes sailing with a Morgan descendant on Chesapeake Bay - and according to what he has said, Morgan was indeed with his mistress. Obviously Morgan had his mind on other things at the time.
quote:
10) A lack of ceremony for the completed Titanic, unlike her sister.
What form of 'ceremony', and where was the lack? This was the second ship in her class - can you, or Gardiner, demonstrate that this was unusual? And - again - why does this fit into the theory? If the WSL was trying to cover something up, they'd be keen on following keeping appearances as normal as possible.
quote:
11)The ship had a persistent list to port throughout the voyage.
Discussed elsewhere on this board at some length, and various explanations not involving dire conspiracy have been put forward.
quote:
12)Contrary to company standing orders, Titanic was on the Autumn Southern track, to the north of the usual one.
The Titanic's track has been discussed at great length, and no such discrepency has been flagged - whatever Gardiner might say.
quote:
13)Despite many ice warnings, the ship increased in speed daily.
Gardiner doesn't seem overly aware of the practices at the time.
quote:
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.
This statement ignores both the eyewitness evidence and the nature of the collision. Many on board noticed the collision - Nellie Walcroft, for example, said she was nearly thrown from her bunk. It is absurd to say that it was like being struck by a broadside - this analogy for the nature of the impact is very misleading.
quote:
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.
Is this going into Gardiner's theory that there was another ship that caused the impact damage?
quote:
16) Although it was immediately obvious, it was 45mins before the passengers were given any warning of danger.
Can you please provide the evidence for this timeline? I would dispute the 'immediately obvious' to start with (presumably you mean it was 'immediately obvious' that the ship was damaged) - Boxhall's initial investigation, for example, did not reveal the damage.
quote:
17) QM Rowe reported seeing boats in the water, before any were even swung out!
Anomolous eyewitness testimony is what conspiracy theories thrive on, disregarding the fact that it is often confused and innacurate. For an extraordinary claim such as this, I'd expect to see corroboration. Where is it?
quote:
18) Titanic sent up red, white and blue signals, instead of recognised white ones.
Gardiner needs to do his research into what were regulation distress rockets (and what rockets the Titanic fired).
quote:
19) Only white rockets were seen by the Californian.
Which is what the Titanic fired.
quote:
20)Captain Lord frequently asked his crew for signs of red or blue signals.
Where is the evidence that he 'frequently' asked his crew for signs of red or blue signals? There was a query as to what colour the rockets were, but to suggest that Lord was conducting an ongoing series of questions on this point is a distortion of the evidence.
quote:
21)At least one of Titanic's lifeboats had more than one number on it.
Please provide a cite for this.
quote:
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 .
I've read this claim by Gardiner before, and I consider it the most absolute pile of rubbish I've ever read. Gardiner has taken Scarrott's description of collapsible A as a 'raft' and added a whole new boat to the equation. Again, an anomolous piece of evidence (in this case a descriptive term) twisted to suit a new purpose. Where are the people who were allegedly on this raft? Can you name a single individual? Why did Lowe, in all his accounts (and I have two that were never published) only refer to the rescue of the occupants of A? Why do the other crewman only refer to the rescue of the people on the collapsible? Where is the evidence for Gardiner's claim about the 'raft'?
quote:
23) several reports of mysterious vessels nearby.
Which particular vessel does Gardiner find inexplicable? And why? There were many ships out there that night.
quote:
there are also many others which contribute to make ruling out such a switch, foolish.
I think it would be 'foolish' in the extreme to take any of Gardiner's points on face value, and I think it would be foolish in the extreme to credit a man who so blatantly distorts history and peddles half-truths and misleading 'evidence' to support a re-writing of the evidence.
quote:
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.
As "homework' I suggest you critically reappraise the 'evidence' given by Gardiner, and familiarise yourself with the extent of the differences between the two ships, which go far deeper than the fairly cosmetic discrepencies Gardiner describes.
Then look at Gardiner's misuse and distortion of evidence - his claims about the crew taking the ship from Belfast, his use of Wilde's letter to his sister, and his complete failure to address obvious problems with his theory. To suggest that the many crewmen and women who had served on the Olympic would not have noticed they were back on the Olympic is the height of absurdity ('Look! Isn't it odd that there's a stain there on the wall that's exactly the same as on the Olympic!). That no one later breathed spilled the beans - either crew or workman - makes it laughable on a grand scale.
quote:
Before any of you say it, the 401 evidence is not as concrete as previously thought.
Talk to Parks - or Bill Sauder - about how concrete this evidence is. Recent expeditions to the wreck have revealed that it is far more extensive than merely a prop blade.
Now, perhaps, you'd like to answer a few points raised by researchers who specialise in the technical field? These include (and I paraphrase):
The wing cabs on both sides of the forward superstructure are different. The Olympic's were flush with the sides. The Titanic's extended over the sides by two feet. The Olympic's were not upgraded until her 1912 - 1913 refit.
The Olympic's grand staircase dome cover, forward of the seocnd funnel, had a series of portholes or sidelights installed on all four sides of the structure. Along with the sidelights were devices to enclose the windows to protect them from weather. The Titanic never had these sidelights and retractable devices - her dome cover was plain with only two sidelights.
The Olympic's docking bridge did not extend over the sides of the hull, but ended at the supports on each side. The Titanic's docking bridge exteded over the sides of the hull.
Look at the sides of the hull on C deck. There were both large and a number of small portals, where the lavatories were located. On the Olympic there are only single small portholes situated in the line of large portholes. On the Titanic, wherever there is one small porthole, there is also a second. This was never changed on the Olympic. A set of these small portholes is on the 'big piece'.
The gangway entrance doors to first class on D deck are different - the Olympic's doors had round portals, the Titanic's had rectangular ones. These are visible on the wreck today.
quote:
The doublers surrounding the side anchors of the Olympic and Titanic were different. The Olympic had an overlapping strake just forward of the anchor hawse pipe, while the Titanic had a smooth transition to the strakes. This difference in doublers remained consistent throughout the Olympic's career.
From both a human angle (Gardiner is accusing men like Andrews, Lowe, Moody, Murdoch etc of being deeply involved in this conspiracy, not to mention many unnamed crewen and H&W employees)
and a technical angle (the differences between the ships that remained consistant, the 401 evidence) this theory is so implausible as to be absurd. It can very safely be dismissed - and deplored - as a pollution of the historical record.
So long as any further discussion remains civil, I'll leave it alone. I'd comment on how much I agree with Alicia's putting Titanic Conspiracy books at the bottom of the list (And better yet, the birdcage!) but then "THEY" might come for me in those "Black Helicoptors."
