The Ship That Never Sank a new thread needs your input

Nov 12, 2000
682
0
146
Kyrila, he hasn't written another book yet, but about two years ago there was a press release that he was working on a third book on his conspiracy theory where: "the world is going to be astonished when Robin backs up his theories with hard evidence and facts which will quite simply rewrite the history of this epic disaster."

There has been little news since then, but I wouldn't be surprised to see another book come out. Stop the madness? As long as people buy into conspiracy theories, blindly accepting whatever they are told, such books will be written. If there is a demand, it will be filled.

And we seem to be in a renaissance of conspiracy theory subjects. Look at the incredible success of The DaVinci Code, a book that is a work of fiction, yet it is probably the most successful book publishing phenomenon in the history of publishing.

all the best, Michael (TheManInBlack) T
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,582
371
283
Easley South Carolina
>>Look at the incredible success of The DaVinci Code, a book that is a work of fiction, yet it is probably the most successful book publishing phenomenon in the history of publishing.<<

Indeed it is and the grabber is that a lot of people who have read this earnestly believe that this book was based on real history backed up be valid historical research using credible source materials.

It's not!

But that hasn't prevented the whole thing from taking on a life of it's own.

I don't like dabbling in religion in a public forum...it's too easy to step on somebody's toes...but I've been interested in critical/historical studies of the Bible for over 20 years now, and I have a good understanding of the historical problems that trained Biblical Scholars have to address. They have to work by the same criteria and rules of historical research that we do if they want to be able to demonstrate that their findings are in fact valid. Their work is made a lot more difficult in that a lot of written source material dating back to this particular era has long since gone to dust.

For the record, a Biblical scholar is an individual who has the necessary training in the history, archaeology, languages, cultures, and religions of the Ancient Near East and who participates in the usual round of academic activities which includes publishing and sharing their research in peer reviewed academic journals and fora.

Say what you want about Dan Brown, but a Biblical scholar he ain't, and his work has been sliced, diced, panned, bent, folded, spindled, mutilated, and skewered by scholars of every patch and persuasion, and for good reason. For one very devastating critique of the book and it's claims, go to http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v11n4_da_vinci_code.php

The same situation applies to Gardiner's work. It has a very broad appeal to those who have no background...even as a talented amature...into historical maritime research and who are rarely inclined to check the facts. (After all, if it's written, it's just...just...just got to be true! Right? Oh yeah. Suuuuurrrrrrreee it is!)

However, it doesn't hold up so well among maritime professionals such as sailors and naval architects or marine historians or even those extraordinarily well studied and talented amatures who have the training, experience, and body of knowledge to actually know what they're talking about.

Unfortunately, in any contest between the sensational and reality, guess which one gets all the good publicity?
 
Nov 12, 2000
682
0
146
Right you are, Mike. I have to give Dan Brown credit for some slick marketing, though. He states emphatically that his book is a work of fiction, and if he had left it at that, he would still have had a bestseller on his hands.

But he went a step further by stating in the introduction that "All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." The implication is that although it is a novel, all the claims he makes in the work are historically accurate. That this is his fictional recreation of something that really happened. That little bit of sleight of hand is what has rocketed this book into the publishing stratosphere, made it into an international bestseller, grabbed the imagination of conspiracy advocates everywhere, riled historians, set off a whole slew of Da Vinci Code band wagon books, both for and against, and made him a whole, whole lot of money.

But I think we digress. ;)

all the best, Michael (TheManInBlack) T
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Dec 3, 2000
8,242
5
198
Niagara Falls, Ontario
Aye vey...

Jorge, if you would take the time to read that article, you'll note that it has nothing to do with the silly ship switch theory. The author has even debunked that theory himself, along with many other experts!

Please don't leap frog into something, without getting all the facts straight first.
 
Aug 11, 2008
45
0
36
Then if you would take time to see the video...why would they have 2 ships docked switching it occasionally when the Olympic only needed a propeller switch that would only take 2 days yet it took a whole week to do so? Now that is kind of strange if you were to ask me...to someone in charge of that they would say just change the darn thing and get it back to sea...yet it took a whole week maybe 2 to get it fixed when it should've taken 2 days to fix...
 

James Smith

Member
Dec 5, 2001
490
1
146
Jorge, I'm not as familiar with Titanic's fitting-out timeline as others here are, but consider the following:

1) Researchers HAVE gone through much of the bow section, room by room, and deck by deck. They've documented, among other things, the existence of cabins on B-deck where the Olympic had only an open promenade. They've documented the presence of ventilators, windows, and numerous other structures that the Olympic did not have. The outline of the wheelhouse (with its squared front--contrast with the curved front of Olympic's wheelhouse) is still plainly visible on the wreck. The number "401" is visible on various components of the ship, some of which have been recovered--and switching all of those components with their counterparts on the Olympic would have taken far, far longer than a week.

2) The photo you link to from Wolfgang Abratis' site, I believe, is mislabeled--it's actually the Olympic. Mark Chirnside's evidence in favor of a three-bladed central propeller for Titanic is an important development in Titanic research and is highly persuasive--but it is not definitive, as I'm sure he himself would be the first to admit. So raising Titanic's stern section (or merely excavating her central propeller) and counting the prop blades would ultimately "prove" nothing.

3) There was no "insurance reason" to sink either Olympic or Titanic. Whatever the ship was that sank on April 14-15, 1912--it was definitely under-insured. And that's not even considering all the liability claims that arose from individual passengers. If White Star were trying to limit its losses from Olympic's "mortal wound", its efforts were a rather spectacular (and altogether foreseeable) failure.

Bruce Beveridge and Steve Hall--two of the foremost experts on the structure of the Olympic-class ships--have written an excellent book (Olympic & Titanic: The Truth Behind the Conspiracy) explaining why the theory is impossible. If you are unable to obtain that book for the moment, you might look at Mark Chirnside's website at http://www.markchirnside.co.uk/Titanic_Index.html. You will find there a very well-written paper debunking major elements of the switch theory as well as notes he prepared for a television interview he gave on the subject.

--Jim
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Dec 3, 2000
8,242
5
198
Niagara Falls, Ontario
quote:

why would they have 2 ships docked switching it occasionally when the Olympic only needed a propeller switch that would only take 2 days yet it took a whole week to do so?
So that the necessary repairs could be conducted and plus, it was a common practice in shipyards. A ship's propeller cannot be removed, without placing the ship in drydock. I've already seen that video and am well versed in this ridiculous theory.

Jorge, you're making something out of this that it's not. The ships were NEVER switched...guaranteed. Even IF it happened, the entire shipyard would have known about it before long.

Stop beating a dead horse, that's been dead for ages.​
 
Aug 11, 2008
45
0
36
Why would it take a week to inspect a ship and fix whatever is wrong with it? It shouldn't take long to take a look at a ship fix what is wrong with it and sail it out...at least to my knowledge...and if you were to take a look at where the Olympic and Hawk has crashed it is obvious that it was in the same exact place that the Titanic crashed the iceberg. A true coincidence isn't it?
 
Dec 23, 2004
68
2
78
All Robin Gardner is interested in is making money out of fiction! There is no way on this earth that the ships were swapped - it would take a lot of wool to pull over the Surveyors eyes when the passenger certificate was issued to pass Olympic off as Titanic.
 

James Smith

Member
Dec 5, 2001
490
1
146
quote:

Why would it take a week to inspect a ship and fix whatever is wrong with it? It shouldn't take long to take a look at a ship fix what is wrong with it and sail it out...at least to my knowledge...
See http://titanic-model.com/db/db-02/sh-db-2.html. In short: The propeller work only took one day (March 3rd); but as Olympic was being removed from drydock on the 4th she grounded. They thus had to put her back in the drydock in order to inspect her hull for damage, which was done on the 5th; and Olympic left the drydock the next day.

quote:

and if you were to take a look at where the Olympic and Hawk has crashed it is obvious that it was in the same exact place that the Titanic crashed the iceberg
Whaaat? Olympic was damaged by the Hawke in her stern; the fatal damage to Titanic was in her bow.

--Jim​
 
Aug 11, 2008
45
0
36
Hey I don't know about you but i have seen people pull off things no one has ever thought of doing...i say that they were probably slick enough to pull it off...i mean it should not take long to inspect a boat and fix whatever it has wrong with it and get it to sail like i said before...
 

James Smith

Member
Dec 5, 2001
490
1
146
Jorge, the amount of time it would take to inspect the ship was irrelevant.

If you read the link I gave you, you will see that the Olympic and Titanic could only be moved in and out of drydock at high tide, which occurs twice a day--one of which is at night, during which time there's no way any responsible ship handler would have tried to carry out an operation like that.

Once either Olympic or Titanic got into that drydock, the ship was basically stuck there for 24 hours.

--Jim
 
Aug 11, 2008
45
0
36
Okay, have it stuck there for 24 hours, while you have it there for those 24 hours have it inspected and have every little problem that the propeller on the inside or the engine written down so then to have all replaced the next day. Like i said, it should not take long to do that. Besides, Titanic's last finishing touches was delayed since they had to repair Olympic. And Jim, the Olympic was damaged on the stern but also in the bow, exactly where the Titanic was damaged. Double check the video and the black marks are where the Olympic's damages are. It has a similar damage on the bow as Titanic, making it the weak spot.
 

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Dec 29, 2000
6,066
154
223
The grounding was on 4 April. She was unable to leave after she was inspected on 5 April due to weather. She finally left on the 7th, three days after she was originally ready to go. Sources: The New York Times, 5 and 6 March 1912; Chirnside's RMS Olympic: Titanic's Sister; Eaton and Haas' Titanic: A Journey Through Time.
 

Steven Hall

Member
Dec 17, 2008
647
3
88
Yes, what Mark Baber stated above (re grounding) is correct.
Re the damaged to Olympic on the forward starboard side: that was indicated in (repair) documents that 'were' held in H/W archives.
On another note. Its been hinted that all six blades were replaced on Olympic in March.
Knowing both ship quite well, there is little doubt Titanic lies at the bottom of the Atlantic.
Mark Chirnside is your Olympic specialist, so what he says I'd pay attention too.