Titanic's Name On The Wreck

[Michael H. Standart]

Ale, if you go to the <FONT COLOR="ff0000">Collision/Sinking Theories folder and down to the BELIEVE IT OR NOT thread, you'll see that we discussed Gardiner's silly theory at length and came to the same conclusions you did. The insurance scam proposition floats about as well as a lead brick when you find out that the $7,500,000 Titanic was underinsured by $2,500,000. In 1912, that was hardly chump change.

Great that Gardiner and Van der Vaat got the particulars right at least. Considering that this data is a matter of very public record, there's no excuse not to.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Ale Del Gobbo]

Whoops, I hadn't read that thread, sorry for the repetition of something well known.

Bye

Ale

 

[Ale Del Gobbo]

Whoa I've just finished to read the whole thread... And now, I'm totally sure that this 'theory' is absurd and incredible...
I didn't know there were a so strong debate about this book...

Bye

Ale

 

[Michael H. Standart]

G'Day Ale. I'm not so sure there would be much of a debate at all if some conspiracy theorists were not so enamoured with the thing. Otherwise, most of us would be too busy trying to hold back our laughter at the absurdity of the whole proposition.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart

 

[Robert Forrest Howie]

If it's of any interest to anyone I used ideas from the two Gardiner books with my class of 11 year olds. I wanted them to see that history isn't just a set of written records - it also involves common sense and a healthy touch of scepticism. The result ? Lots of comments such as 'wow I never knew that' ' I believe it' and by the end 'yeah - I don't think so...'.

I must admit I was proud that most of them were really interested in finding out more (you do have to leave them just 1% of uncertainty to get them going back to it in their own time after all). The overall opinion was that the conspiracy was highly unlikely.

BTW while we are on the subject of huge claims made in the book which are unsubstantiated, does anyone have the source for Gardiner's claim that Fleet was on the phone to the bridge for around 25 mins (The Ship that Never Sank) ? I looked at the bibliography but there must be a typo as no source is named...

Cheers

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>I looked at the bibliography but there must be a typo as no source is named...<<

FWIW, I understand that this is one of the most common failings of the book and everything that came after that. Long on claims, but bloody short on mentioning sources to back any of them up.

 

[Michael Cundiff]

RMSTI, finally, was so kind to release video from 1987 in which NAUTILE gently scraped away rust to reveal T I T A N I C on the portside bow. However the video is much clearer than the 1987 imaging, albeit you cannot see the wire brush in NAUTILE's left manipulator arm (as seen in the 1987 video). I recall back in 1987 fellow Titanic enthusisasts pleading with me to loan them the, somewhat frail 1987 video I recorded on TV. As a result I was able to print a color mosaic from the video feed which dicerns all seven letters and brush remains in blue. I know that some of my colleagues here and there have waited two decades for this! Remembering that Charlie Haas, as an Nautile observer, attempted to find the letters again in 1996, to no avail.

SEE: ExpeditionTitanic.com, then click and drag to the left of the screen to photo and video and see Titanic's name revealed.

Michael Cundiff
NV, USA