God himself couldbnt sink this ship


Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Robert Howe

Guest
Paul,

In drawing a distinction between theory and opinion, as you have done, you suggest that theories are based on evidence while opinions are not. In my case this is certainly untrue. There is precisely no evidence for the intervention of a supernatural entity in the sinking of Titanic. Therefore, in evaluating the available evidence, I come to the conclusion that there is no reason whatever to suggest such intervention. Call my opinion a theory if you like, but it is my opinion and it is based on evidence.

It is my opinion that my coffee will go cold if I do not drink it soon. As I fully intend to drink it while it's hot, it is probable that I will never know whether it would have gone cold or not if I had left it. Now most people would say, "Of course it will go cold, because all coffee behaves like that!" But that particular coffee cannot be tested after it has been drunk! Does predicting the possible behaviour of the now-absent coffee constitute faith, because the prediction can't be tested? Of course not. It is simple common sense.

If you make a hole in a ship below the water line, water will enter. If sufficient water enters, the ship will sink. That is common sense and no supernatural intervention is necessary. This sort of argument was first propounded by William of Ockham, centuries ago. Similar reasoning could be applied to the events that led up to the collision of the ship with the berg.

The onus is upon those who postulate supernatural intervention to provide evidence in support of their assertions. Until they do, I see no reason to take them seriously. I do not think we do one another any favours by accepting whatever someone says without question.

If I posted unsupported assertions on the internet, I would expect them to be challenged. I am sure others are realistic enough to expect the same.

I reassert that the suggestion of supernatural intervention is manifest nonsense. If someone would kindly provide evidence to the contrary, I will publicly retract that assertion.

Rob
 

Paul Rogers

Member
Jun 1, 2000
1,244
14
313
58
West Sussex, UK
Rob,

I agree with everything that you have posted, with one or two exceptions:

(1) I call your "theory" an "opinion" and not the other way around. The reasons why Titanic foundered after striking the iceberg are known. What made the people involved act in the way that they did prior to the accident is not. There were also many conditions which had to be satisfied for Titanic to have been in that situation in the first place. This is where a supernatural entity could have had a hand in the disaster. (I say this as someone who does NOT believe that anything supernatural had an impact - but I appreciate that I may be wrong.)

(2) I think my main bone of contention is with some of the language used in this thread. For example, the phrase "manifest nonsense" is judgemental in tone and demonstrates a lack of politeness, or a willingness to allow another side of an argument to exist. What is manifest to one is not necessarily so clear to others.

Anyway, to echo Dan's words, I'll look forward to the next thread, and try to ignore matters of religion next time!

Regards,

Paul.
 

Dan Cherry

Member
Dec 14, 1999
775
9
263
As long as there is more than one person on this
rock, there will always be different viewponts and
opinions. If everyone agreed on everything all the
time, life would be extremely boring!
I would say now Kat can make a decision based on
the threads to accept any, none or all of the
information presented. I believe all the facts
surrounding the sinking of the Titanic - put me
first in line for that. Ignore the ice warnings,
send a ship to sea with less than adequate
life-saving equipment, slow and turn, reduce the
effectiveness of the rudder, fill the bucket of
bolts with enough water and she will sink.
However, *I* also believe what I wrote originally
is for those who believe in a higher power. I
fully expected challenge. That's just the way
things are.
Everyone looks at the same thing differently - if
a side panel on a car gets dented in, I may say -
hammer it out. The second person acknowledges it's
dented, but suggests replacement of the panel. The
third person also says it's dented, but says
replace the whole vehicle - get a new car.
Everyone says, yes, the dent happened, but all
feel there's a different solution to the issue.
You'll find this everywhere - political groups,
social groups - As Paul says, 'what is manifest to
one is not necessarily so clear to others.'

Some may agree, including myself, that the
Encyclopedia Titanica is not intended to be the
place for theological debates. With that, I
offically close my thoughts on this thread.

Regards,
Dan
 
B

Bill DeSena

Guest
Naw your all wrong,...it was the mummy that caused the sinking!

I agree with the idea that evryone is entitled to their own opinions and theories are best based on some kind of factual evidence ask Gallileo about that and he would agree. As for the wreck, I do think it should be opened to further examination of the contents and yes profit is as good a motive as any for doing anything human. after all the Titanic wasn't built as a charitable altruistic venture, JP Morgan had other enterprises for his money in those areas, so why all the heat over the plundering of the wreck for profit?

I can see the Arizona being a shrine to our war dead being left undisturbed, at least while there remains living survivors anyway, but not the Titanic. Yes, I do think that men killed in their bunks by a sneak attack merit alot more respect than millionares and maids do. Sorry but that's my opinion and not a theory. As for the divine intervention, I think God allows us to have freedom to make our own mistakes and doesn't drown innocent people just to prove a point to a bunch of over confident captains of industry. If the reverse was true god might have made sure that JP Morgan was on board and fighting Ismay for the seat in the boat. That would at least seem like "divine intervention." ;-)
Bill
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
880
563
Easley South Carolina
Bill De Sena said;"after all, the Titanic wasen't built as a charitable altruistic venture..."

Bill, why is this an arguement? Or are you just trying to annoy people?

I'm not flaming you, I'd really like to know what your game is.

Curiously,
Michael H. Standart
 
K

Karen Rock

Guest
Bill
I think you are trying to annoy people. People died on this ship. Not just millionaires, not just famous poeple. Just people - making their way home from a holiday, starting a new life for themselves and their children: their lives cut short by a tragedy they would never have dreamed of. Anything you find down there by tearing apart their grave will be just what's left of ordinary people. Nothing more and nothing less. Let them rest in peace. And that's my opinion.
 
B

Bill DeSena

Guest
Sorry if anyone is annoyed with my opinions and no, I have no game to play here either. Perhaps a life of tragic loss has made me a bit less sensitive to it than the good folks here and more practical in dealing with the realities of the world. Death and tragedy are inescapbale parts of life most of us are blessed and highly favored when events that engulfed the victims of Titanic pass them by and allow you to become an empathetic bystander.
I don't wish to mediatize the events or the pain of loss, but I also don't think that now that technology has permitted the Titanic to reveal itself to our eyes again that we should shut our eyes and turn away from it as a gravesite that cannot also yield the fruits of knowledge of how these people lived and died. Yes, commerce is a cold thing without feelings but it can be manipulated to the purpose of financing discovery, research, education and awareness of the Titanic and what occurred on her. If my opinions disturb any restless souls perhaps it should sometimes spirits need be aroused.
Bill
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
880
563
Easley South Carolina
Bill, I have no problem with scientific forensic research in and of itself. Lord knows there are always going to be additional questions and mysteries begging for answers.(I'd jump for joy if the logbook could be found and recovered.) However, haphazardly tearing into the wreck...as you suggested on a different strand...is a certain sure way to destroy crucial evidence, not recover or conserve it. Forensic investigation has to be persued with great care. Besides which, hacking ones way into an old wreck is a dicey game to play. One wrong cut and you risk having it collapse on top of you. Do this at 12,000 ft where the water pressure is three tons per sguare inch, and you'll be dead befor you realise you had an accident.

That would ruin your day. ;-)

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
B

Bill DeSena

Guest
Quite a dicey proposition indeed old boy! Yes, and it seems that the point has been muted by the federal court ruling no invasions of the interior and no sale of artifacts can take place anyway so the gold and diamonds and other precious artifacts will have to wait there awhile longer for "rescue."

Thanks
Bill
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
880
563
Easley South Carolina
Hi Bill, the question is what gold and diamonds? The $300 million in diamonds seems to be coming from the press, and god only knows where they got that! I have a copy of the cargo manifest in the appendix of one of my books and it's pretty mundane stuff. No fantastic treasures in sight.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
B

Bill DeSena

Guest
Drat! Oh well let it sleep in peace then. Glad I didn't buy any stock I think the price is going in the tub soon.

Bill
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
339
433
A valuable shipment of diamonds from Antwerp was mentioned in the contemporary press. I read somewhere that McElroy was seen with a bag, possibly containing ship's papers or valuables. (I think Lightoller was the witness). Put the two together and you have something to build a fantasy on.

Then again, the press also mentioned Rigel the dog and dozens of other tall tales.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
880
563
Easley South Carolina
G'day Dave. As I recall, the press is good for fantasys. Remember the paper which claimed all aboard were safe and that the Titanic was being towed to Halifax? They certainly got a couple of trivial details wrong with that one!

I wonder if they ever printed a retraction...and an apology?

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
B

Bill DeSena

Guest
What about the fantasy that Captain Smith had a clean record of incident free command? I just read that he and Olympic were found at fault with the collision between that White Star vessel and a RN ship. Remember he nearly had a collision with the New York too. His record is still better than mine.

I had acting command of a small Navy vessel and hit 7 ships before getting out of the harbor. Good thing I was'nt on Titanic the loss may have been total!

Bill
 

George Behe

Member
Dec 11, 1999
1,280
12
313
Michael Standart wrote:

> the question is what gold and diamonds?

Hi, Michael!

Although I don't know where RMSTI dug up their information (and that's assuming they really did so -- a big assumption), it is known that Jacob Birnbaum had been on a diamond buying jaunt in Europe and that he was bringing his purchases back to America with him. Whether he trusted his diamonds to the purser or whether he had them with him in his stateroom is unknown, though.

All my best,

George
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Feb 9, 1999
5,343
67
398
G'day, Bill -

What about the fantasy that Captain Smith had a clean record of incident free command? I just read that he and Olympic were found at fault with the collision between that White Star vessel and a RN ship. Remember he nearly had a collision with the New York too. His record is still better than mine.

Not quite true. The Olympic was found at fault in the Hawke collision but Smith was not, as the vessel was under compulsory pilotage at the time. Here's an extract from the original judgement:

"The collision here was due solely to the faulty navigation of the pilot, and there is not a shadow of a foundation for saying that the negligence of any of the Owner's servants partly caused it. The Owners of the 'Olympic' therefore succeed on the defence of Compulsory Pilotage".

Researchers since have found the Hawke/Olympic collision an interesting case, and if you can visit the PRO in London and look through the boxes of evidence there you'll find a good deal of fascinating material well worth perusing.

Regards,

Inger
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
880
563
Easley South Carolina
Hi George, thanks for the info on what may well be the source of the story. As for RMSTI, I don't trust them any more then you do. They seem to be using rumors as an excuse to hack away at the hull of the ship. Hopefully, the judge's injunction will hold up.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
339
433
It's attributed by Walter Lord to an un-named deck hand who said it to Mrs Caldwell as she was boarding at Southampton. Like a lot of these post disaster statements take it with a grain of salt. Lord does not name his source.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads