TV TITANIC CONSPIRACY Special


Steven Hall

Member
Aug 8, 2001
648
23
183
Going back several months, a UK production company produced a series of Conspiracy (Theory) television specials. Specifically, one in the series address’s the OLYMPIC & TITANIC switch theory.
Amongst those (familiar) individuals interviewed (on camera) was M. Chirnside, B. Beveridge, R. Gardiner & myself.
As with the Olympic & Titanic — The Truth Behind The Conspiracy book (Beveridge & Hall), I took the best available material I could muster which purported to support the switch while Beveridge sat firmly on the opposing bench. (this is, & has always been purely for a balanced debate)
The title of the program will be; TITANIC — The Ship That Never Sank. It will be televised on Sky One at 9pm, Thursday 16th September. (UK)
Enjoy.
 

Paul Lee

Member
Aug 11, 2003
2,235
31
243
If someone records it off-air, they could always provide you with a copy, either VHS or DVD?

Cheers

Paul

 

John Flood

Member
Mar 4, 2002
73
1
156
You're lucky you don't have Sky One on your side of the pond, Mike!! Their programs are not usually intellectual feasts!!
I have never seen them do a historical documentary before,so I await this one with interest.
 

Jamie Bryant

Member
Aug 30, 2003
160
3
183
What's wrong with Sky One? They provide quality entertainment such as the Simpsons and Futurama. I personally need a balance. Too much 'intellectual feasting' can be a bad thing.

Although I'm not a personal believer, i do give the theory patience, i've read the book of the same name as the programme, but I wasn't really impressed with the 9/11 episode shown earlier this week, so i'm hoping this will be a bit better and i can safely say it will not be received too well on this board.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,662
872
563
Easley South Carolina
>>What's wrong with Sky One? They provide quality entertainment such as the Simpsons and Futurama.<<

Mmmmmmmm...some may not be of the same mind as you are in calling the above "quality entertainment"
wink.gif


>>Although I'm not a personal believer, i do give the theory patience,<<

I don't, and there's a very simple reason for it. Mr. Gardiner himself knows it's bogus and ended up saying as much in the first book shortly after the Titanic was found. I never give patience to those who knowingly continue to offer up a premise they've actually admitted was false the first time around.
 

Jamie Bryant

Member
Aug 30, 2003
160
3
183
By giving patience, I mean listening to what these people have to say, by no means am I agreeing with it. I just want to see what kind of an argument they can possibly use. Conspiracy theories are never usually true, it's just interesting to hear what different people think, after all that's why we all belong to this forum. Plus Gardiner is not the only one involved.

J.B
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,662
872
563
Easley South Carolina
>>Conspiracy theories are never usually true,<<

Strangely enough, that's not entirely accurate. Some grand conspiracies are quite true. The catch is that the people behind them seldom if ever bothered to hide their intentions. Hell, Adolph Hitler wrote a book detailing his intentions and published it for all to see.

It's the conspiracy theories that claim the existance of secret cabals with neferious plots that tend to be over ripe male bovine feces.

You might find the Paranoid, Conspiracy Theorists entry in The Skeptic's Dictionary to be of some interest. While the asserted conspiracies discussed aren't germane to Titanic, it does offer some insights into the thinking of those who hold to this sort of thing.

Having said that much, I don't think it applies very well to Mr. Gardiner himself whose sole motivation appears to be selling books. It does apply very well to the True Believer types who latch onto it however.
 

Andrew Fanner

Member
Nov 5, 2003
36
0
156
I have it on good authority from a man I met in the pub that The Government employs a special unit of people with no relatives. These people meet in a secret location and think up conspiracy theories which they then drop into newsgroups and chat zones. Its to misdirect you from what is really going on...

:)
 

John Flood

Member
Mar 4, 2002
73
1
156
I watched this program last night. They claim that the Californian was crossing the Atlantic without any cargo or passengers. I had never heard this before, i.e. that the Californian was not carrying any cargo at the time. Any know whether it is true or not?

All the Best,
John.
 

Marie barker

Member
Jan 28, 2004
11
0
131
I watched it too, apparently the Californian was carrying around 3000 blankets and sweaters which would have come in handy for the passengers on the titanic (about the right number needed). I am still not convinced though although some of the evidence was very interesting.
 
Jul 9, 2000
58,662
872
563
Easley South Carolina
>>Any know whether it is true or not?<<

Half marks on this one. The Californian wasn't carrying passengers, but she was carrying quite a bit of general cargo. The fact that she wasn't carrying passengers is hardly compelling evidence of anything. She was a general bulk freighter with very small passenger accomadations in a single class. 49 if I recall correctly. Hardly ample room for 2200+ people and they would have made an uncomfortable fit in filled cargo holds.

>>apparently the Californian was carrying around 3000 blankets and sweaters which would have come in handy for the passengers on the titanic (about the right number needed).<<

Gat a manifest to back that up? I know several people who have been researching the Californian for years and so far, none of them have found it and they would love to do so.

In any event, the Californian would have made a lousy choice for a rescue vessel if the intent was to deliberately sink a mail boat as large as an Olympic Class liner. It would have made far more sense to have a ship of near equal size and accomadation to take them and feed them all. Befor getting too carried away with all this, it would be a good idea to read the following threads in order. This has been discussed many times here;

https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5664/6796.html?995382794

https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5664/6744.html

https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5664/85285.html?1076395519

https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5664/49072.html

https://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5664/70469.html
 
Jan 2, 1997
141
2
263
Heaven knows, I hate to raise this particular ghost from the abyss once again (and I can hear the collective sighs, worldwide !) but this documentary re-appeared a few nights ago on
Sky - Steven, you were marvellous, darling.

However, and this is my question, it was stated by at least two contributors that rumours of the ship-switch were 'widespread' and even on the Titanic herself, it was 'common' talk amongst the crew that the ship was, in fact, the Olympic.

Is there any evidence that these stories/rumours existed prior to the conspiracy book ?

Once again, I am sorry. But it has been bugging me !
 

Jamie Bryant

Member
Aug 30, 2003
160
3
183
Sorry for what?
The programme and it's contributors made good points, but you try keeping 50,000 irish men quiet, particularly down the pub! I can say that I am 100% sure that the Titanic sank. it's just a case of over whelming evidence against "rumours". Though it was a good programme for conspiracy theorists.
J.B
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Feb 9, 1999
5,343
67
398
I've never seen a single report that these rumours were 'widespread', Susan - would love to see that statement challenged!

I haven't seen the doco yet, but I gather that Steve and Mark Chirnside had quite a bit of input into the questions, and have heard rumours that Gardiner looked quite uncomfortable with some of the challenges that were put to him? What was your impression.
 
Jan 2, 1997
141
2
263
Inger - I have to say I thought Gardiner looked far less at ease with the subject than any of the other contributors. Let's put it this way, I wouldn't buy a used car from him, far less a conspiracy theory ! I have to say I spent quite a lot of time shrieking at the tv, so I may have missed on or two points.

One of the points I missed was the name of the sailor who claimed to have been a survivor - I remember though his nickname was 'The Pig' (which doesn't exactly inspire confidence) and he was the source of the fire story - his claim being the old one of the water getting in to a superheated hold, and the coal bunker exploding etc, etc.

Did anyone else get his name ? Was he a crew member ?
 

Jamie Bryant

Member
Aug 30, 2003
160
3
183
Paddy the Pig alias Patrick Fenton. He worked at Harland & Wolff banging rivets etc. He's the guy who started it all with is drunken rambling in some Aussie bar.
JB
 
Jan 2, 1997
141
2
263
Now that's interesting, Jamie, since it was made clear in the programme that 'The Pig' was a crew member who had survived. Since he banged in rivets, wouldn't that make him the only member of the Guarantee Group to survive (in secret !)?

This wouldn't really make him the best prop for a story that's a bit shaky in the first place, surely ?
 

Similar threads

Similar threads