Inaccuracy of Titanic books


Status
Not open for further replies.
Aug 31, 2004
192
0
181
Have you ever wanted to just SCREAM at the top of your lungs when you see a part of a Titanic book that is wrong and misleading, informing people with the wrong information? I recently read a book that was so full of inaccuracies that I questioned the whole book. I'm not talking about old books that talk about the 300 ft. gash or the sinking intact, I'm thinking of the ones that say there are mummies and golf courses.
 
C

Cornelius Thiessen

Guest
The worst I've seen is Peter Thresh's Titanic book, loads of booboos there, Robin Gardiner's conspiracy and switch books rank up there too.

By the way....has anyone ever invited Robin Gardiner to the ET forum to debate his theories?If that ever happens I have first dibs on ringside seats
happy.gif
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,668
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>By the way....has anyone ever invited Robin Gardiner to the ET forum to debate his theories?<<

Not to my knowladge. I'd be surprised if he was unaware of it. It's not as if were the Great Unknown. Just searching for ET on Google will get you the link in 0.48 seconds.
 
C

Cornelius Thiessen

Guest
You are right Michael, it seems the majority of the whos who in Titanica willingly share their expertise with us here. But if you have wild theories like Gardiner are you going to let yourself in for a roasting by posting here? I cannot believe that with all the solid facts we know that Gardiner actually believes what he writes.It had to have been a money making thing for him.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
Money is a major motivation for many writers. The amusing thing is that such writers claimed to have done "research" on the subject. Yet, their works are still riddled with inaccuracies. Having done "research" and still doing poorly is even worse.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,668
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>I could ask the same question regarding Tom McKluskey and Pellegrino, both of whom, as you know, are questionable as well. ;)<<

True, but in fairness to both, I think what they were writing was at least an honest attempt as documenting history. Accuracy sure left a lot to be desired, but it the effort was at least an honest one. Can't really say the same for Mr. Gardiner who has to know that what he's peddling is utterly bogus.
 
Jun 12, 2004
2,131
13
233
>>Can't really say the same for Mr. Gardiner who has to know that what he's peddling is utterly bogus.<<

As I've said before: Ignorance is the worst of all. ;)
 

Brad Rousse

Member
Nov 27, 2002
170
50
193
36
Prague, Czech Rep.
The worst one I read was in a series called "Eyewitness Books." It had the sinking on the 12th, with Chief Wireless Operator Bridge drowning. And that was just two examples. I barely got past the final plunge before I realized any further reading would have driven me bonkers. Compared to this, Thresh's book was on the level of ANTR.
 
Oct 13, 2000
682
9
263
To my knowledge, the dubious honor of most factual errors within the text goes to a children's book by Michael Cole called The Titanic: Disaster at Sea. There are nine significant errors in a book that is about 40 pages long.

Some are errors of omission, like stating that only one ship was sent from Halifax to search for bodies, when four ships were sent out for that purpose. Others are quite bizarre like the author's statement that the Carpathia, racing to the rescue, fired rockets to let other ships know that the survivors had been found!

It's too bad about the problems with the text as it is otherwise an attractive little book in format.

all the best, Michael (TheManInBlack) T
 
Mar 18, 2000
1,384
21
313
"Total Titanic" is pretty bad - the Olympic at the wreck site the next morning? "Treasury of Titanic Tales" is also loaded with wholes - I found one or two on the first page of text! Without trying!
 
Feb 24, 2004
907
3
183
>>Some are errors of omission, like stating that only one ship was sent from Halifax to search for bodies, when four ships were sent out for that purpose.

Interestingly, as an aside, I read last night that the Guggenheim family had been approached by some West Coast flying ace about the possibility of sending 4 seaplanes out to the disaster site, to search for bodies over about a 100-mile area -- this less than 10 years after the Wright Brothers had flown at Kitty Hawk. Nothing seems to have come of it, though -- the Guggenheims were reported to have been "studying" the proposal.

Roy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads