Titanic The Ship That Never Sank


Status
Not open for further replies.

Jamie Bryant

Member
Aug 30, 2003
160
3
183
Before I begin with this "controversial" thread, i'd just like to say that I am quite aware that there are many factors which can disprove it, but there are also many others which contribute to make ruling out such a switch, foolish.

When I first purchased Gardiner's follow up book from Riddle of the Titanic, i too was quick to laugh off the idea, but then i read it, and the man makes valid points which fit into place better than what we all currently believe happened on that night 92 years ago.

Such Points Include:

1)The well known (to some of you) James A Fenton, alias "Paddy the Pig", who in the early 1970s, hinted how the loss of the Titanic was not entirely accidental.

2)J.P. Morgan had the power to influence governments, not least the British Government due to aid in the Crimean War.

3) The turbine engine was not used during Olympic's voyage from Southampton to Belfast following the Hawke incident, telling us that the engine was damaged in some way, and inoperative. Also the damage inflicted on the liner extended far deeper than the 8 feet usually accepted.

4) By the time Olympic had made the voyage from Southampton to Belfast, the after compartment had filled with water despite 2 weeks of emergency repairs that had been intended to prevent such an occurrence.

5) The White Star Line was quite capable of keeping large secrets, for large periods of time, even to the extent of stopping witnesses spreading word of what had happened.

6) Not only was Titanic on fire when she reached Southampton, but instead of putting that fire out her officers allowed more coal to be put into the bunker, stoking it up.

7) There were still civillian workmen aboard and there was so much work to do to complete the ship that she could not be opened to the public.

8)While Olympic underwent two full days of trials before being handed over to her new owners, Titanic's trials only lasted several hours, most of which was just cruising.

9) J.P. Morgan cancelled his passage on Titanic, his ill health excuse has since been disproved.

10) A lack of ceremony for the completed Titanic, unlike her sister.

11)The ship had a persistent list to port throughout the voyage.

12)Contrary to company standing orders, Titanic was on the Autumn Southern track, to the north of the usual one.

13)Despite many ice warnings, the ship increased in speed daily.

14) Incredible as it seems, although the forces involved are similar to the vessel being struck by a broadside from a battleship, the collision passes unnoticed by most aboard.

15) During the collision, the watertight integrity of the fireman's passage, deep within the ship, is breached, arguing that something harder than ice had penetrated the hull.

16) Although it was immediately obvious, it was 45mins before the passengers were given any warning of danger.

17) QM Rowe reported seeing boats in the water, before any were even swung out!

18) Titanic sent up red, white and blue signals, instead of recognised white ones.

19) Only white rockets were seen by the Californian.

20)Captain Lord frequently asked his crew for signs of red or blue signals.

21)At least one of Titanic's lifeboats had more than one number on it.

22)Lowe picked up many survivors from life rafts, Titanic did not carry such equipment. This goes with the fact that many crew members who registered on Carpathia, did not register with Titanic .

23) several reports of mysterious vessels nearby.

All in All i've only touched the tip of the iceberg, there are many more points, but in summary Gardiner's version of events include the fact that Olympic was so damaged, it would be un economical to repair her. Two ships were put on stand by awaiting the arrival of Titanic. One of these was the Californian.

I will include more info as replies to any queries you will most probably have, but as "homework" i suggest you look at Olumpic pics post-Titanic, pre 1914. Compare these pics with pre-Titanic Olympic pics. Look at the forecastle deck porthole arrangement on the starboard side. Compare it with Titanic in the same position. The results left me amazed.

Before any of you say it, the 401 evidence is not as concrete as previously thought. It does however show that the switch was planned 5 months prior to the 10th April. Enough time for H&W workers to do what they had to do. Also the layouts of B Deck on both ships were different, with full promenades on both sides on the Olympic, but cabins on Titanic. Yet as she sank, many passengers report being able to see the lifeboats on B-Deck from the Promenade. The workers converted olympic to Titanic, and Titanic to Olympic accept that they overlooked the c-deck forecastle portholes.

JB
 

Mike Bull

Member
Dec 23, 2000
515
15
263
Oh, PLEASE; with the best and kindest will in the world Jamie, this subject has been done to the absolute death on here; every point Gardiner made has been disproved and laughed away time and time again. In the opinions of many, that ridiculous book is schlock sensationalism of the cheapest, worst kind; complete and utter rubbish, trading on a disaster that took 1,500 lives.

I wonder just how much Gardiner has made from it so far?

Sorry if I sound a little cross, but I hate to see more and more people still being suckered by that 'theory'.
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
<font color="#000066">Before any of you say it, the 401 evidence is not as concrete as previously thought.

Since you wrote this, then I will say that you couldn't be more wrong. You are overlooking or neglecting the most concrete evidence of all -- the forensic evidence from the wreck. If Gardiner insinuated or said this, then he, too, is providing only circumstantial evidence while omitting concrete forensic evidence. He took a risk in doing so, and lost. Assuming, of course, that his goal was to provide a reasonable alternative theory to the Titanic sinking and not just to make money on a book that he knew was more fiction than fact.

I wish that people would do their homework and/or follow through in their studies before they present half-developed claims/theories to this forum. But maybe there are other members that are entertained by the cyclical appearance of these claims and the inevitable -- but ultimately unsatisfying -- debate that ensues.

If you have no idea of what I'm talking about, then I can't help you. I respond with the assumption that people are familiar with at least a good majority of the evidence regarding their claim before they post. I'll help anyone who has done as much of their own work on a subject as possible, but I do not want to waste time continually showing the faults behind a half-baked theory when evidence that clearly disproves that theory is available to anyone who wishes to follow through the rules of good historical research. I get paid to install combat systems aboard ships, not to do peoples' Titanic research for them.

And if you think that I haven't responded properly to your question, then you have neglected to check previous forum threads on this same subject. Please check there first, so that I don't have to keep saying the same thing, over and over.

Parks
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,235
31
243
Don't forget Parks, that people do write these atrocious books to top up their pension funds.

At least Mr.Gardiner hasn't been on their forums to beg us to read his book etc.

Paul

 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
>>but there are also many others which contribute to make ruling out such a switch, foolish.<<

No there are not. The ground has been well covered by Parks and also in numerous other threads where this has been discussed. More to the point, in the original edition of their book, Gardiner and Van Der Tat admit that a switch never happened.
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,235
31
243
That would be "The Riddle of the Titanic"? I thought it was just Van Der Vat who wasn't convinced by the theory?

Best wishes

Paul

 

Mike Bull

Member
Dec 23, 2000
515
15
263
Maybe it was, but Gardiner's name was on that book too, so he should stand by what was in it.

To set the theory up and then shoot it down in the same few pages is one thing, but what Gardiner did in '...Never Sank?' was, in my opinion, the lowest form of tabloid, make it up to make a buck writing.

It's a pity the man hasn't had the nerve to back himself up publicly on forums such as this; has anyone ever read ANYTHING said by him on the subject since? I'd love to know what the man has got to say for himself!
 
A

Alicia Coors

Guest
There are books I would pay any price for.

There are books for which MSRP is fair value.

There are books that I might buy for a dollar from the "overs" counter.

And there are Titanic Conspiracy books.
 

Mike Bull

Member
Dec 23, 2000
515
15
263
Actually, I think perhaps this thread should perhaps be shut off Michael? Discussion is one thing, but this...
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,666
881
563
Easley South Carolina
Mike, I'm tempted to do just that. The trouble is that if I do that, it looks like we've all been co-opted by (insert terrified scream here) "The Conspiracy." -
shock.gif
So long as any further discussion remains civil, I'll leave it alone. I'd comment on how much I agree with Alicia's putting Titanic Conspiracy books at the bottom of the list (And better yet, the birdcage!) but then "THEY" might come for me in those "Black Helicoptors."
wink.gif
 
S

Susan Leighton

Guest
Parks said:
>>I get paid to install combat systems aboard ships, not to do peoples' Titanic research for them. >>


You could just choose not to respond instead of fueling the debate with comments like that.
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
<font color="#000066">You could just choose not to respond instead of fueling the debate with comments like that.

And you responded, why?

Parks
 
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
Susan,

Let me take that a step further, since you didn't consider my remarks in context. I have spent a good deal of my time, and given specific examples, to rebut the argument that has surfaced yet again in this thread. I don't mind doing that, if people will listen to what I have said. But when, for example, this same argument comes up again and again without any acknowledgement of the work that I put into answering it, then my patience runs out.

It's not that I feel that I have to be right, but when I give concrete examples, only to be told later that there is no concrete evidence, to refute the assertion, then I say the things I say out of frustration. This happens one too many times and the forum loses another knowledgeable historian who feels that the effort is not worth the agony. Think of the members -- fine historians all -- who have left, or otherwise stopped participating in, the forum...a good many left for just this reason.

People have to understand that there are some very knowledgeable historians in this forum who are willing to help as much as possible. However, one soon learns that if you say something once, you have to repeat it a hundred times for the benefit of those who don't bother to read what has been discussed about the very same topic before. Like I said, I don't mind saying something once or twice, but to have to repeat it over and over again...well, that takes up too much time and this is not a paying job.

Yes, I'm sure that my post was insulting to a certain extent. That was on purpose, because the initial post was insulting. Why did I take the time -- in this very same forum -- to pass on knowledge that I have gained through my experiences? It's like all that work was in vain.

Why did they do that?

Because of this.

Why did they do that?

Because of this.

Why did they do that?

Because of this.

See what I mean?

Parks
 

Mike Bull

Member
Dec 23, 2000
515
15
263
Well Parks, Titanic's wireless euipment was just some sparky-sparky thing 'wot had gone 'CQD' before I came here and read your posts on it, but now I know what all the various bits and pieces were called, and where they were installed etc etc, so I've listened, and learnt, from you. Thank you.

Re. this particular thorny little topic, you've better summed up the kind of exasperation I was originally trying to express here; that this has all been said before, over and over, yet here we are again.

Sheesh!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
S

Susan Leighton

Guest
Parks,
I know that you are a dedicated Titanic researcher and I think everybody else here knows that and respects it too. This thread was intentially started to create controversy and if the profile is accurate, it was done by a teenager (age 15). No amount of research can change the opinions of some teenagers. It is a wasted effort and I don't want to see you waste your effort on newcomers who have NO intention of doing any homework and who think "The Titanic Inquiry Project" is something they saw on MTV.
I know you probably feel like you have to set the record straight when it comes to a flagrant disregard for the facts, but I think most people look at the "23 original observations" stated above and get a really good chuckle at how ridiculous they are. Quite frankly they are so far off base that one doesn't know whether to laugh or cry. They are so far off base that they can make one's blood boil. I had to consider the source and just be grateful there are people like you who have actually done primary research and really can set the record straight.
I hope I didn't offend you by taking your words out of context. I do respect and appreciate the research you freely share on this website.

Sincerely,
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,235
31
243
Perhaps we should give Jamie a break here? He might just have an inquiring mind, wanting to know a bit more about the controversy. Perhaps he hasn't been on here long and doesn't know about the search facilities? I don't think he posted the message to inflame people, just to learn more from those who do know more that he does.

After all, we were in his position many years ago.

Please, everyone, lets calm down here. Please?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Mar 3, 1998
2,745
261
358
To be honest, I hadn't checked Jamie's profile when I posted. I try not to...I don't care if someone is 15 or 60, man or woman, mariner or layperson. I judge a person by their stated assertions. There are obvious drawbacks to this philosophy (no more obvious than in this thread), but I like to think that I give everyone fair and due consideration, without bias.

Since Jamie's age has been brought up, though, I have to say that I demand no more of him than I do of my 12-year-old son when I help him with his History homework. For a learning mind (or even a learned mind), any printed source can appear to be authoritative. What I constantly preach to my son is to never take any single source as the definitive account of what happened during any historical event, especially if the source is sensational or leaves questions unanswered. And, when discussing potentially controversial topics with others, don't encourage confrontation by alluding to opposing viewpoints as "stupid," "inane," "foolish," etc.

This happens all too often on E-T, unfortunately. A current discussion in the Lusitania books thread is another recent example. After having been hammered in other threads by those who wish to ram their point through in almost total disregard of evidence, my patience is not what it should be. I do not think ill of Jamie and I'm not even angry by the appearance of yet another Olympic-Titanic switch thread. What is irritating me right now is much larger than that.

What motivated me to post at this particular time, what stung me the most, was the assertion: ...the 401 evidence is not as concrete as previously thought. Throughout the entire course of debate on the switch theory, I have tried to bring forward very concrete examples to rebut the theory. I don't mind if someone wants to dispute those examples, but to post the same assertion that is totally oblivious to the arguments I have put forward in the past? It's like fighting a Hydra...no matter how many figurative heads I cut off, more grow in their place. At some point, the effort is too demanding and I am forced to give in and concede defeat. But, why? Was I wrong? No, just overwhlemed. It's frustrating.

There are some well-known names who used to post here, but do so no longer. Privately, I implore them to rejoin the debate, but they say that it's no longer worth the effort. It used to be that I didn't understand why, for all their expertise, they would shy away from debate...now I am beginning to feel that way myself. I don't want to withdraw completely from participation, but more often than not, I do. With everything that I have going on in my life, I can't afford the time to speak but not be heard. This is the basis for my comment about not being paid to help others with their research.

Please do not take those last few sentences to mean that I feel that I am right all the time, or that I feel that others must listen to what I have to say. That's not the case at all. But when I have argued a point, only to see the argument come up again as if I had never said anything at all, then I begin to wonder if I have gained anything by participating.

What it comes down to is this...in my view, when one throws an assertion out onto the playing field, one should be aware of what has been said on the topic -- at the very least, in the same forum in which the assertion is being posted -- beforehand. It's not just Jamie that did this...if I hadn't battled this same problem a hundred times over before today, I wouldn't have been so short in this thread. Regardless, this is a fact of Internet life and my concern is real. That's why I try to teach this lesson to my son and why I was so forceful in my response today: If everyone took just a little extra time to answer their own questions and/or nagging doubts before throwing an assertion out as challenge to others, we would all advance our knowledge considerably.

I do Titanic research on my own free time so that I can satisfy my own personal desire to get to the truth behind the myth. Along the way, I have been attracted to many theories and have been disappointed many times to find that certain theories were created for cynical reasons. I do not wish for others to fall into the same pits that I have, so I freely share my knowledge whenever I can to help others in their quest for their own truth. Many times, my offer is rebuffed, but that does not particularly trouble me. What leads to irritation is when I keep having to revisit a topic, just to reiterate something that I have already said many times before. It's irritating, because it keeps me from working on something else that is more important. Why do I come back, then? Because, hidden behind the snarling face is a sincere desire to help wherever I can.

I have no intention of shutting Jamie down. I do hope that he will pursue the topic more, with the help of some things said in this thread. I don't want to shape his conclusions, but I do want him to know that his conclusion, as of his post of this morning, is not a fully informed one.

Having said that, I have run out of time to continue this post. I hope that I have explained my actions; if not, I can write more later.

Parks
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Inger Sheil

Member
Feb 9, 1999
5,343
69
398
Jamie, I don't think it's advisable to set 'homework' for the members of this board, some of whom are very familiar with these arguments and have seen them addressed years ago. And before suggesting it is 'foolish' to dismiss Gardiner, it might be worth considering that we do so on excellent grounds.

quote:
1)The well known (to some of you) James A Fenton, alias "Paddy the Pig", who in the early 1970s, hinted how the loss of the Titanic was not entirely accidental.​

Please provide your specific source and the exact wording of this claim, and why he is a credible witness.​
Against this, we have the fact that, as far as is known, no one - any where, at any time - involved in this purported cover-up can be demonstrated to have said that these ships were switched. This includes all the Harland & Wolff employees who were supposedly involved.​
quote:
2)J.P. Morgan had the power to influence governments, not least the British Government due to aid in the Crimean War.​

Provide specific evidence that Morgan influenced any government in this instance, and to what extent. Then try to demonstrate that he was engaged in this specific conspiracy.​
quote:
3) The turbine engine was not used during Olympic's voyage from Southampton to Belfast following the Hawke incident, telling us that the engine was damaged in some way, and inoperative. Also the damage inflicted on the liner extended far deeper than the 8 feet usually accepted.​

Gardiner's allegations on the extend of the damage have been discussed and debunked elsewhere, by folks who have made extensive use of the original source materials.​
quote:
4) By the time Olympic had made the voyage from Southampton to Belfast, the after compartment had filled with water despite 2 weeks of emergency repairs that had been intended to prevent such an occurrence.​

Primary source beyond Gardiner's questionable use of evidence? The failure of a repair job does not provide evidence for more extensive, overly expensive damage.​
quote:
5) The White Star Line was quite capable of keeping large secrets, for large periods of time, even to the extent of stopping witnesses spreading word of what had happened.​

Where, precisely, is your (or Gardiner's) evidence for this claim? Where is the evidence that it did so in relation to the switch theory? Specific cites, please.​
quote:
6) Not only was Titanic on fire when she reached Southampton, but instead of putting that fire out her officers allowed more coal to be put into the bunker, stoking it up.​

The evidence is that the coal fire was managed according to common practice at the time. Why would they be 'stoking it up' and yet later attempted to combat it? How does this tie into the conspiracy theory?​
quote:
7) There were still civillian workmen aboard and there was so much work to do to complete the ship that she could not be opened to the public.​

How is this relevant to your argument? This is entirely explicable - it was well known that the Titanic's fitting out was behind schedule. Her officers wrote freely from Southampton about it to their families. What exactly is being alleged here, and why? How does this support the conspiracy theory?​
quote:
8)While Olympic underwent two full days of trials before being handed over to her new owners, Titanic's trials only lasted several hours, most of which was just cruising.​

Again - entirely explicable, and not untoward. Stephen Cameron is a good source on this.​
quote:
9) J.P. Morgan cancelled his passage on Titanic, his ill health excuse has since been disproved.​

Again - explicable. One of my father's old cronies goes sailing with a Morgan descendant on Chesapeake Bay - and according to what he has said, Morgan was indeed with his mistress. Obviously Morgan had his mind on other things at the time.​
quote:
10) A lack of ceremony for the completed Titanic, unlike her sister.​

What form of 'ceremony', and where was the lack? This was the second ship in her class - can you, or Gardiner, demonstrate that this was unusual? And - again - why does this fit into the theory? If the WSL was trying to cover something up, they'd be keen on following keeping appearances as normal as possible.​
quote:
11)The ship had a persistent list to port throughout the voyage.​

Discussed elsewhere on this board at some length, and various explanations not involving dire conspiracy have been put forward.​
quote:
12)Contrary to company standing orders, Titanic was on the Autumn Southern track, to the north of the usual one.​

The Titanic's track has been discussed at great length, and no such discrepency has been flagged - whatever Gardiner might say.​
quote:
13)Despite many ice warnings, the ship increased in speed daily.​

Gardiner doesn't seem overly aware of the practices at the time.​
quote:
14) Incredible as it seems, although the forces involved are similar to the vessel being struck by a broadside from a battleship, the collision passes unnoticed by most aboard.​

This statement ignores both the eyewitness evidence and the nature of the collision. Many on board noticed the collision - Nellie Walcroft, for example, said she was nearly thrown from her bunk. It is absurd to say that it was like being struck by a broadside - this analogy for the nature of the impact is very misleading.​
quote:
15) During the collision, the watertight integrity of the fireman's passage, deep within the ship, is breached, arguing that something harder than ice had penetrated the hull.​

Is this going into Gardiner's theory that there was another ship that caused the impact damage?​
quote:
16) Although it was immediately obvious, it was 45mins before the passengers were given any warning of danger.​

Can you please provide the evidence for this timeline? I would dispute the 'immediately obvious' to start with (presumably you mean it was 'immediately obvious' that the ship was damaged) - Boxhall's initial investigation, for example, did not reveal the damage.​
quote:
17) QM Rowe reported seeing boats in the water, before any were even swung out!​

Anomolous eyewitness testimony is what conspiracy theories thrive on, disregarding the fact that it is often confused and innacurate. For an extraordinary claim such as this, I'd expect to see corroboration. Where is it?​
quote:
18) Titanic sent up red, white and blue signals, instead of recognised white ones.​

Gardiner needs to do his research into what were regulation distress rockets (and what rockets the Titanic fired).​
quote:
19) Only white rockets were seen by the Californian.​

Which is what the Titanic fired.​
quote:
20)Captain Lord frequently asked his crew for signs of red or blue signals.​

Where is the evidence that he 'frequently' asked his crew for signs of red or blue signals? There was a query as to what colour the rockets were, but to suggest that Lord was conducting an ongoing series of questions on this point is a distortion of the evidence.​
quote:
21)At least one of Titanic's lifeboats had more than one number on it.​

Please provide a cite for this.​
quote:
22)Lowe picked up many survivors from life rafts, Titanic did not carry such equipment. This goes with the fact that many crew members who registered on Carpathia, did not register with Titanic .​

I've read this claim by Gardiner before, and I consider it the most absolute pile of rubbish I've ever read. Gardiner has taken Scarrott's description of collapsible A as a 'raft' and added a whole new boat to the equation. Again, an anomolous piece of evidence (in this case a descriptive term) twisted to suit a new purpose. Where are the people who were allegedly on this raft? Can you name a single individual? Why did Lowe, in all his accounts (and I have two that were never published) only refer to the rescue of the occupants of A? Why do the other crewman only refer to the rescue of the people on the collapsible? Where is the evidence for Gardiner's claim about the 'raft'?​
quote:
23) several reports of mysterious vessels nearby.​

Which particular vessel does Gardiner find inexplicable? And why? There were many ships out there that night.​
quote:
there are also many others which contribute to make ruling out such a switch, foolish.​

I think it would be 'foolish' in the extreme to take any of Gardiner's points on face value, and I think it would be foolish in the extreme to credit a man who so blatantly distorts history and peddles half-truths and misleading 'evidence' to support a re-writing of the evidence.​
quote:
I will include more info as replies to any queries you will most probably have, but as "homework" i suggest you look at Olumpic pics post-Titanic, pre 1914. Compare these pics with pre-Titanic Olympic pics. Look at the forecastle deck porthole arrangement on the starboard side. Compare it with Titanic in the same position. The results left me amazed.​

As "homework' I suggest you critically reappraise the 'evidence' given by Gardiner, and familiarise yourself with the extent of the differences between the two ships, which go far deeper than the fairly cosmetic discrepencies Gardiner describes.​
Then look at Gardiner's misuse and distortion of evidence - his claims about the crew taking the ship from Belfast, his use of Wilde's letter to his sister, and his complete failure to address obvious problems with his theory. To suggest that the many crewmen and women who had served on the Olympic would not have noticed they were back on the Olympic is the height of absurdity ('Look! Isn't it odd that there's a stain there on the wall that's exactly the same as on the Olympic!). That no one later breathed spilled the beans - either crew or workman - makes it laughable on a grand scale.​
quote:
Before any of you say it, the 401 evidence is not as concrete as previously thought.​

Talk to Parks - or Bill Sauder - about how concrete this evidence is. Recent expeditions to the wreck have revealed that it is far more extensive than merely a prop blade.​
Now, perhaps, you'd like to answer a few points raised by researchers who specialise in the technical field? These include (and I paraphrase):​
The wing cabs on both sides of the forward superstructure are different. The Olympic's were flush with the sides. The Titanic's extended over the sides by two feet. The Olympic's were not upgraded until her 1912 - 1913 refit.​
The Olympic's grand staircase dome cover, forward of the seocnd funnel, had a series of portholes or sidelights installed on all four sides of the structure. Along with the sidelights were devices to enclose the windows to protect them from weather. The Titanic never had these sidelights and retractable devices - her dome cover was plain with only two sidelights.​
The Olympic's docking bridge did not extend over the sides of the hull, but ended at the supports on each side. The Titanic's docking bridge exteded over the sides of the hull.​
Look at the sides of the hull on C deck. There were both large and a number of small portals, where the lavatories were located. On the Olympic there are only single small portholes situated in the line of large portholes. On the Titanic, wherever there is one small porthole, there is also a second. This was never changed on the Olympic. A set of these small portholes is on the 'big piece'.​
The gangway entrance doors to first class on D deck are different - the Olympic's doors had round portals, the Titanic's had rectangular ones. These are visible on the wreck today.​
Bruce Beveridge has pointed out that:​
quote:
The doublers surrounding the side anchors of the Olympic and Titanic were different. The Olympic had an overlapping strake just forward of the anchor hawse pipe, while the Titanic had a smooth transition to the strakes. This difference in doublers remained consistent throughout the Olympic's career.​

From both a human angle (Gardiner is accusing men like Andrews, Lowe, Moody, Murdoch etc of being deeply involved in this conspiracy, not to mention many unnamed crewen and H&W employees)​
and a technical angle (the differences between the ships that remained consistant, the 401 evidence) this theory is so implausible as to be absurd. It can very safely be dismissed - and deplored - as a pollution of the historical record.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Similar threads