Question about this Switch theory


Status
Not open for further replies.
I have known about this switch theory for a while, but couldn't understand the reasoning behind Titanic and Olympic's names being switched (due to Olympic's "Hawke" incident) and that Olympic-as-Titanic was intentionally sunk.

If they really would have wanted to sink Olympic, why would it be so pertinent to switch Olympic and Titanic? Would it not have been a whole lot simpler to just leave the names and sink Olympic-as-Olympic, not Olympic-as-Titanic?

BTW, I don't believe the switch theory. I think it is somewhat laughable, actually... just a little curious about the origin of the switch and why.

Just a thought ;-)
 
A

Adam Lang

Guest
Hi John.

I don't really believe in the "switch theory" either. Don't forget about the noticeable differences with the ships, like the forward part of the Promenade Deck on Olympic which was all open air.

You have a good point about the switch. Perhaps it might be because they wanted to collect the insurance on the "Titanic" (really the Olympic) because it was bigger and worth a bit more money. A problem with this is the noticeable differences. Of course, they still could have changed all the other differences, but the theory still doesn't add up. I don't think they would do that just for a few extra bucks.

-Adam Lang
 
The origin of the "theory" is that it was invented in about 1995 by Robin Gardiner and published in a book that sold as The Titanic Conspiracy or The Riddle of the Titanic, depending on which side of the Atlantic it was published. I'd be more likely to believe it if it could be traced to a night of tall tales in a Belfast pub!

The story is discussed on several threads, which is more than it deserves.

Last year, Steve Hall and Bruce Beveridge blew the "theory" to very small bits in Olympic and Titanic: The Truth Behind the Conspiracy, which I commend to your attention.
 
>>I've heard the Titanic wasnt insured. Is that false?<<

Yep....it's false. The Titanic was insured for the sum of $5,000,000 with the remainder of the risk covered by the White Star Line's in house insurance fund.

From the U.S. Senate Report:
quote:

The Titanic was built by Harland and Wolff, of Belfast, Ireland. No restriction as to limit of cost was placed upon the builders. She was launched May 31, 1911. She was a vessel of 46,328 tons register; her length was 882.6 feet, and her breadth was 92.6 feet. Her boat deck and bridge were 70 feet above the waterline. She was, according to the testimony of President Ismay, "especially constructed float with her two largest watertight compartments full of water."

The vessel, fully equipped, cost £1,500,000 sterling, or about $7,500,000.

At the time of the accident the vessel carried insurance of £1,000,000 sterling or about $5,000,000, the remaining risk being carried by the company's insurance fund.

The Titanic was a duplicate of the Olympic, which is owned by the same company, with a single exception of her passenger accommodations, and was built to accommodate 2,599 passengers, with additional accommodations for officers and crew numbering 903 persons
 
Adam Lang wrote:

Don't forget about the noticeable differences with the ships, like the forward part of the Promenade Deck on Olympic which was all open air.


At the time of the Hawke collision, both ships had the open promenade deck, this was modified on Titanic AFTERWARDS.

I am unsure of what to believe, but it is possible. The logic behind it makes it suspicious.
 
>>At the time of the Hawke collision, both ships had the open promenade deck, this was modified on Titanic AFTERWARDS.<<

Yes it was. However, that was but one of the changes. A lot of the differences between the two ships go a lot deeper then that. Changes for example in the passenger accomadation, vent and fan arrangements, and the like, and most of these changes were well in hand back in 1911.

>>I am unsure of what to believe, but it is possible. The logic behind it makes it suspicious.<<

If you mean a ship switch is possible, then I would have to say "No it isn't." Not without a cast of nearly 13,000 shipyard workers taking notice of what's going on. Think they'ed keep quiet about it? Especially in a time of intense union activism where they would just love to get one over on "The Big Boys?"

They wouldn't.

And where's the logic behind an insurance scam where one would have to invest hundreds of thousands of pounds sterling to alter two ships to make one look like another where ultimately you would be rooking yourself out of an *additional* amount that adds up to a third of the ship's value?

Remember, the idea behind an insurance scam is not to invest money so you would lose even more money, and there's no need for elaborate conspiracies to do so. All you need is the constructive total loss of the vessel and that's easy enough to arrange while tied safely to the pier.
 
Gardiner wants to make it seem so easy to pull off such a switch. Like it was just some superficial skin-job. But just the logistics a few seconds thought and the whole idea becomes absurd and laughable.

I picked up Titanic Conspiracy at a used book store mainly because their price was dirt cheap and I also knew there would be no royalties going into Gardiner's pocket. What was blindingly clear to me was that he offered NO documentation and produced NO corroborative testimony. Which means that, while he is free to say whatever he wants to sell his books to the gullible, he doesn't offer one SHREAD of evidence to back up his claims. What kind of research is that !!?
 

Inger Sheil

Member
quote:

Gardiner wants to make it seem so easy to pull off such a switch. Like it was just some superficial skin-job. But just the logistics a few seconds thought and the whole idea becomes absurd and laughable.
I think that sums it up very well, Roy. The author seeks to diminish both the mechanical and human logistics of making such a switch in order to make it seem plausible. He seeks to give the impression that differences between the two vessels were merely cosmetic, and that only a handful of people were necessary to implement the switch and then be silenced forever after. This, of course, is not the case at all.​
 
>>What kind of research is that !!?<<

It isn't. It's innuendo, misdirection, misunderstanding and a study in non sequiters and half truths.

Further, the claims made betray a complete lack of any understanding of how things work on ships and in shipyards. The differences between the Titanic and the Olympic went way beyond the cosmetic and no switch could have been performed in the few scant weeks the two were together.
 
For Some Reason All of This is starting to remind me of the Conspiracy moon landing show last night, where 1 side claims we never landed on the moon, and the other side shows That theory is a bunch of "It's innuendo, misdirection, misunderstanding and a study in non sequiters and half truths" to quote Standart.
 
Unfortunately, all there has to be a hint of 'consipacy', and any author can sell books - regardless of any facts to the contrary. And that's what we have here.

13,000 shipyard workers, and not one every saying 'the truth' in 90 years? Seems that's not a good enough proof against it.
 
>>...and that only a handful of people were necessary to implement the switch and then be silenced forever after.

>>13,000 shipyard workers, and not one every saying 'the truth' in 90 years?

Exactly, Inger and Bill! Not to mention that the H&W shipyards were in full view of the entire city of Belfast. Can you imagine how tense those pub conversations would have been - 13,000 Irish workers who couldn't talk about the switcheroo they'd just pulled off?

>>Seems that's not a good enough proof against it.

Perhaps if they wished upon a star, or maybe put a tooth under their pillows, their dreams would all come true? . . .

Roy
 
Ahhhhh, but in the minds of conspiracy theorists, the lack of proof is the proof! "They" got to them and shut them up! Circular reasoning!

Ya gotta love it!
grin.gif
 
In the mind of conspiracy theorists, they've made up their minds and the facts don't count! Nor, for that matter, does plain common sense have to get in the way of a good yarn.

Anything that doesn't fit the "theory" is simply swept under the carpet, discredited without a second thought, or dismissed on the "they were paid to shut up" basis. Another favourite trick is to deliberately quote somebody else entirely out of context. How easy it is to completely change the meaning of somebody's words by filtering them selectively.

Working like that, you can make a conspiracy case for anything. It may fry the minds of the gullible, but at the same time can be kind of fun for the rest of us!

As Michael said, ya gotta love it!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top