Why was the fire theory so heavily promoted?

Hello, I remember some year ago, this theory was promoted a lot by the media, despite it being easily disproven by simply comparing where the mark on the pictures are to boiler 5 coal bunker location. I don't understand why did senan melony got with it since it seem it affected his credibility negatively. On the media part, my best guess would be the click and audience since when a so call prof of this kind come up, there'll often be a lot of article about it.
Thanks for your answers, I wonder if melony is still credible today and how he feel about the fire theory now.
 
Hello, I remember some year ago, this theory was promoted a lot by the media, despite it being easily disproven by simply comparing where the mark on the pictures are to boiler 5 coal bunker location. I don't understand why did senan melony got with it since it seem it affected his credibility negatively. On the media part, my best guess would be the click and audience since when a so call prof of this kind come up, there'll often be a lot of article about it.
Thanks for your answers, I wonder if melony is still credible today and how he feel about the fire theory now.
As Michael amd Kyle stated click bait for dollars. My guess and it's only a guess because I don't know Senan Molony personally is that he might have been trying to gin up interest in the subject of Titanic because if were honest there really hasn't been anything in the last 20 years discovered about Titanic that has really changed the story. Except for us Titaniacs most people wouldn't know if it was credible or not. But I don't really know why he went with that. His other stuff on Titanic I have enjoyed reading. Cheers.
 
Even then, it still hurt his credibility since all you have to do to see the fire theory is bad is to compare the mark with drawings of the ship. I remember reading melony didn't made a reference to it in his unseen titanic.
 
Like MHS said, anything that is different from the simple, straightforward explanation that eveyone believes in provides fuel for yet another non-exstent conspiracy theory. This is especially true for things like the Titanic disaster, JFK assassination, 9/11 attacks etc. The original perpetrator gets pseudo-fame and money and the only-too-willing gutter press whips up interest in their equally stupid clientele who have nothing better to do.

Believe it or not, there is even a whole book written about how Charles Lindbergh accidentally killed his own baby son while perpetrating a practical joke and then created the entire kidnap scenario to cover-up for his mistake, including arranging for "innocent" Bruno Hauptmann to be convicted and sent to the gallows.

The Titanic disaster has had more than its share of conspiracy theories, some of them beyond ridiculous. The switch with the Olympic theory, the "No Pope" curse theory, the fire in the coal bunker that really caused the sinking theory, the brittle steel theory, the drunk crew theory, the no iceberg theory, the underwater quake that caused the ship to break theory etc. Then there were fraudsters claiming that they were survivors - Helen Kramer, Vera Hanson, Walter Belford and so on.
 
Molony used to participate here quite regularly. He came across as well-informed, passionate . . . and utterly contemptuous of those refused to buy into his theories purporting to exonerate the Californian.

Over time, his arguments were generally rejected and his vituperative rhetoric alienated a large number of reputable researchers; and I am inclined to think that his recent antics are more a sort of vindictive trolling than anything else. I think he knows it’s nonsense, but he enjoys the discomfiture it causes in the mainline historians he despises.
 
I agree with the opinion expressed by James Smith. At one time not so long ago, Molony seemed well-informed if a bit self-indulgent but these days his attitude is extemely off-beat, for lack of any other term.

I am inclined to think that his recent antics are more a sort of vindictive trolling than anything else. I think he knows it’s nonsense, but he enjoys the discomfiture it causes in the mainline historians he despises.
utterly contemptuous of those refused to buy into his theories purporting to exonerate the Californian.
That sort of VERY much reminds me of a certain ex-member with an excellent professional record but went deep South somewhere along the line.
 
In working with a production team for a new documentary, the current "belief" of some of the networks is that ONLY conspiracy theories or conflict are wanted by the Titanic masses. They could not be more wrong, in my opinion - but no network will put out the $$ for production unless the conspiracies or conflict is prominent in the plan.
Another example of this is in the early 2000s, a Titanic doc claimed "see the never before seen 3rd piece of Titanic! Newly discovered!" I have footage from 1993 where not only do they explore the "3rd piece" but the ROV Robin goes underneath it to reveal the inner parts. But people posted (for some time) theories about the new piece never before seen, LOL.
 
In working with a production team for a new documentary, the current "belief" of some of the networks is that ONLY conspiracy theories or conflict are wanted by the Titanic masses. They could not be more wrong, in my opinion - but no network will put out the $$ for production unless the conspiracies or conflict is prominent in the plan.
Another example of this is in the early 2000s, a Titanic doc claimed "see the never before seen 3rd piece of Titanic! Newly discovered!" I have footage from 1993 where not only do they explore the "3rd piece" but the ROV Robin goes underneath it to reveal the inner parts. But people posted (for some time) theories about the new piece never before seen, LOL.
I believe that about the networks. Kind of goes along with the practice of the news media "If it bleeds it leads" philosophy.
 
In working with a production team for a new documentary, the current "belief" of some of the networks is that ONLY conspiracy theories or conflict are wanted by the Titanic masses.
As far as the "masses" are concerned, that is true with not just the Titanic but with a lot of other headline making incidents. The Hindenburg disaster, Marilyn Monroe's death, JFK assassination, 9/11 etc. There are people who prefer to believe that most such events have politically motivated, twisted conspirational backgrounds, however improbable those might be. They are never satisfied with the simple or obvious explanation, which they consider as a spoilsport. Worse still, there are pseudo-writers and media hounds who feed on that cockeyed need and are only too happy to come-up with articles, books etc about it.

I have a couple of books in the same mold as Titanic: The Ship that Never Sank? One theorizes that the death of Belgian financiar Alfred Lowenstein in 1928 was an elaborate murder consipracy that involved complete replacenet of an aircraft door in mid-fight over the English Channel. The other alleges that Charles Lingbergh accidentally killed his own baby son and then covered it up to the extent of laying a false trail that sent Hauptmann to the gallows. Any person of average intelligence can guess the workings of brains and the motives behind such ridiculous theories.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top