>>How many will put their mouths where their micky taking was six years ago?<<
We already have, and starting right here. The conspiracy theory was nonsense six years ago and it's still nonsense now. Just because somebody has built a website about it to hawk a book doesn't make it valid.
Your question is irrelevant. What's at issue is what Gardiner wrote. His premise was nonsense when it was contrived and it's nonsense now. You don't need fancy conspiracies to pull off insurance fraud. All it takes is the constructive total loss of the ship and that's easy enough to arrange without ever leaving port.
That's the fatal flaw of the ship-switch premise: It's excessively complex.
If we count up the sum total of words written by Mike in this forum alone about every aspect of the Titanic story, then there's enough to fill several books. But I place as much value in his fair-minded objectivity and his personal and professional experience of ships and the sea. Altogether, I'd say Mike is very well qualified to offer an informed (and disinterested) opinion of Robin Gardiner's works. Can you offer the same level of experience, William? And (key question) the same level of objectivity?
Mr Standart, you note I do not dismiss him by derogatory surname address as he does Mr Gardiner, is obviously disinterested and clairvoyant, for he passes opinion on a book which he has not read, and in view of his vast self professed knowledge does not seem to need to. How does he know it all?
The offer is there to challenge and question Mr Gardiner, not here, but on his own web site. It seems Mr S and others have a problem with that. Might they hear something that offends their take on the moral high ground?
For Mr S's reference Mr Gardiner is not "hawking" a book. It has been commissioned and published by a leading UK publisher. Show a little respect in your imperiousness please.
>>The offer is there to challenge and question Mr Gardiner, not here, but on his own web site. It seems Mr S and others have a problem with that. Might they hear something that offends their take on the moral high ground?<<
For that case I need to buy his new book (as there seemed to be new claims) which has no priority for me as it is still fiction. Also the gallery on the web side is speaking for itself about the so called proofs that Olympic was Titanic. http://www.greattitanicconspiracy.co.uk/titanic-gallery
I still love the part with the "vertical joint in the hull plating just forward of the portside hawsehole."
What's derogatory about making reference to a writer/director/composer or whatever by use of his or her surname without title? Is that not the norm? We've surely moved on from the Victorian formality of making conversational remarks about Mr Shakespeare, Mr Dickens, Mr Shaw or Mr Kipling (except in reference to exceedingly good cakes).
>>The offer is there to challenge and question Mr Gardiner, not here, but on his own web site.<<
Mr. Gardiner's work and theories have been discussed many times, and formal research presented on this forum and on others as well. I see no particular need to go over it any further.
>>For Mr S's reference Mr Gardiner is not "hawking" a book.<<
Uhhhh...yes he is. Nothing wrong with that in an of itself. He writes, he publishes and a number of other authors have done much the same. I have no problem with that in and of itself. What I have an issue with is a premise contrived out of absolutely nothing which is being confused for history.
>>Show a little respect in your imperiousness please.<<
Respect sir, is earned! It is not a birthright! And in terms of "imperiousness" you would do well to check yours at the door since you do your cause and your man no favours when copping a superior attitude like this towards a targeted customer base.
>> The offer is there to challenge and question Mr Gardiner, not here, but on his own web site. <<
The offer has long been extended to Mr. Gardiner to present his views on this forum, as well as other Titanic-related forums. A true historian is one who earnestly desires to know the real truth, and is not reluctant to have his ideas tested by those who are familiar with the subject. Other authors with alternate theories have posted on this forum, but in doing so, they present their ideas to some of the most knowledgeable nautical historians anywhere, who will proceed to dissect the theories and expose them as fact or fiction. The fact that Mr. Gardiner has chosen instead to create his own forum with his agent acting as the lone moderator says much about his lack of desire for open public analysis of his theory.
And if Michael Standart ever writes a book, I for one am interested in reading it!
All stick together boys eh?
So you are "the most knowledgeable nautical historians anywhere"? But how can you "expose" something you are not prepared to read?
You are totally prejudiced and jaundiced and obviously totally unprepared to look at the new evidence. Of course Mr S will know it is wrong anyway!
Let's stop playing games and put our cards on the table. What we're talking about here is a series of books about a fantasy 'what-if?' scenario with the ever-popular conspiracy angle thrown in. Written by a maritime historian who can come up with sufficiently convincing background detail to sell the idea to the average punter, the casual reader who has explored no other version of events and is therefore more likely to take this one at face value. And if (s)he doesn't buy it it's an entertaining read anyway and there's always the escape clause: "Is it true or is it fiction? Only the reader can decide."
The writer won't get the historians and mariners onboard his wagon but no matter - they're a minority and nobody ever retired on sales to that market. But they can still be useful. Send out the foot soldiers to stir them up and put them on the defensive (mild abuse works wonders) and you get two dividends. First, the very fact that the defenders of the paradigm have come to the debating table gives the scenario some credibility - if there's nothing in it why would these people even bother to talk about it? Second, you can claim that the writer is the underdog, the champion of truth and they can't shut him up. Bingo! - another conspiracy.
So, sticky boys, do you want to go along with the plan and help William (or whomever) to get his job done? If you do, go right ahead and argue with him. I've served my time in publishing and promo and I'm not getting paid for it any more, so I'm going out for a pint instead.
>>So you are "the most knowledgeable nautical historians anywhere"? But how can you "expose" something you are not prepared to read?<<
Because the whole premise has already been exposed and not just once but several times. Not only have we had numerous discussions about it on this forum, two of our members (Bruce Beveridge and Steve Hall) wrote a book which took a very hard look at every assertion Mr. Gardiner ever made and refuted the lot.
Keep in mind that if you want to take on these guys, you're going to be going up against the varsity team of Titanic techies. They know the Titanic and the Olympic class better then anybody...and I do mean anybody...on the face of the planet.
Modesty has nothing to do with it. Real history trumps silly conspiracy theories every time, and the links I offered are to articles written by people who have actually done the homework on the matter and who know what they're talking about.
Well Tom, Robin's new book is now available.
It is called, The Great Titanic Conspiracy.
I, like you–look forward to seeing the new conclusive evidence.
After 3 books, I expect we'll finally get the answer.