Main Menu
Recent News
Latest Articles
Random photos


Titanic.com - Titanic News, Photos, Articles & Research | Forum Index
   Titanic historic
  Who started the conspiracy theory?

Browsing this Thread:   36 Anonymous Users

 

 Bottom   Previous Topic   Next Topic
  •  Rate Thread
      Rate this Thread
      Excellent
      Good
      Average
      Bad
      Terrible
Poster Thread
  •  MGY Friend
      MGY Friend
Who started the conspiracy theory?
#1

Joined: 2006/7/7
From New Mexico, USA
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
Since we have been talking about the possibility that Olympic and Titanic were switched, I just wondered, does anyone know who was the first to talk about this "ensurance fraud conspiracy theory"?

I read a book about it long ago and forgot the author's name, but I am not sure if he was the first to come up with the theory.

Did they have any real evidence to come up with such a claim or was it just a interesting topic to discuss to try to sell books?
_________________
"Why is it the ship beats the waves
when the waves are so many and
the ship is one?
The reason is that ship
has a purpose".

Sir Winston Churchill


www.mrmarshall.proboards62.com
Posted on: 2006/10/20 14:33
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
Re: Who started the conspiracy theory?
#2

Joined: 2003/9/14
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
I had made a post on this subject to another forum, which answers some points:




I did promise to offer some thoughts and will do so. I am keeping it brief as I have neither the time nor desire to explore absolutely everything.

Quote:
The third sister, Britannic , would be slightly larger at 887 feet 9 inches long and weigh 48,158 gross register tons.


Britannic was exactly the same length as Olympic and Titanic: 882 feet 9 inches. The figure of 887 feet 9 inches comes from an erroneous newspaper report. As Gardiner’s text acknowledges later, ‘gross register tons’ is actually a measure of enclosed space: so Britannic did not ‘weigh’ this much as this statement wrongly implies.

Quote:
For the trip back to the builders, which began on 3 October, Olympic was obliged to steam on just her port main engine, which tell us that the centrally mounted turbine was damaged and unusable, along with the starboard reciprocating engine. Under normal circumstances this turbine could operate on the exhaust steam from one or both of the main engines.


The problem with the above statement quoted is that it is not true. The fact that the turbine was not used does not prove that it was either damaged or unusable. As Beveridge and Hall state:

‘As discussed in chapter 3, the Olympic would more than likely sail to Belfast with only the port engine in operation. We believe the simple answer as to why the center turbine was not engaged was based on the fact that the ship could produce sufficient speed without it, and that although it was feasible to operate the turbine on the exhaust of just one engine, it was deemed unnecessary for a run of such short a distance. To provide the answer to the never ending question of "why didn't the Olympic use the center turbine also, when returning to Belfast?" we turned to Scott Andrews, a trustee of the Titanic Research and Modeling Association, who stated:

“It's possible that the port engine may have been able to supply sufficient steam to run the turbine at low power, but in order to do this, it would have been necessary to block steam from backing up in the starboard engine's exhaust manifold and condensing into water…
“…The work involved in the derangement of this and other machinery just to gain a knot or two in speed would have been impractical given the short distance to be traveled from Southampton back to Belfast. Contemporary accounts state that the Olympic proceeded back to Belfast at a cautious eight to ten knots. Either reciprocating engine was capable of generating that much power by itself without the help of the turbine. By all indications, the Olympic probably went back to Belfast on only one engine”.’

I believe the Beveridge and Hall interpretation is far more knowledgeable and likely than Gardiner’s belief as to the turbine.

Quote:
By the time the ship made it back to the Belfast yard the patch on her hull had failed and the same two aft compartments were once again flooded.


Gardiner’s statement that the compartments were flooded is true, but his speculation that the ‘patch on her hull had failed’ is not. It was not intended to be watertight, and again:

‘The layup of 2 weeks is completely understandable, as the stores and passengers had to be offloaded. The patchwork done to the hole was only temporary and could not be expected to be fully watertight. One can even see in the Harland & Wolff photos of the damaged area where wood had been pounded into the open rivet holes to seal them off.’

Quote:
The impact of the collision must have given the starboard engine bed quite a jolt, which would inevitably have caused further structural damage.


While it’s true that the starboard engine stopped revolving for a time when the collision occurred, the statement that further structural damage (beyond that acknowledged) was inevitable is speculation.

Quote:
And we know that the centrally mounted turbine engine was unusable, which hints at damage deep within the ship, possibly to the keel itself.


No, ‘we’ do not know that the turbine engine was unusable – as stated earlier, that is Mr. Gardiner’s speculative opinion and not a proven fact.

With regard to keel damage, even if the keel had been damaged (which I don’t think it was), the keel was (like the rest of the hull) essentially metal frames, plates and so forth riveted together – it would be perfectly possible to replace a small section of the keel. (Part of Olympic’s aftermost keel was removed in 1925-26 and then replaced after the stern frame had been changed.)

Quote:
(There is evidence to show that the British Admiralty knew the whereabouts of the wreck for many years before Dr Ballard made his discovery of it.)


Yes. There is some evidence to support that. Again, however, I don’t believe this proves the ships were swapped. Far more likely, remembering that the Cold War was ongoing at the time, it is entirely possible that the British Navy (or any other navy) may have photographed or discovered the wreck and not revealed this information publicly. As always, military secrets are classified.

Quote:
Because of the shortage of time the only alterations to Olympic's B Deck that could be completed were the two executive stateroom suites, the enlarged restaurant and Café Parisien. As these alterations noticeably altered the outward appearance of the ship it was essential that they were done in the time available. We know that the rest of the alterations were never carried out because during the sinking a steward walked along B Deck, checking that cabins were empty and locked. As he was carrying out his duties he could see the swung out lifeboats hanging from their davits two decks above, something he patently could not have done had there been cabins between the passageway he was in and the outside of the ship.


The statement as to the steward’s observations is not accurate. As I said in my dissertation, this time quoting a similar statement Mr. Gardiner made in 1998:

‘…the more detailed statement from [Steward] Wheelton which he gave to the American investigation into the sinking:
“I went down to the [boat] deck. They were just getting away [lifeboat] No. 5 then. I assisted in getting away lifeboat No. 5. I was ordered to the storeroom. I went down to the storeroom. The way I went to the storeroom was down Bdeck, along B-deck. As I went along B-deck I met Mr. Andrews, the builder, who was opening the rooms and looking in to see if there was anyone in, and closing the doors again. I went along B deck and used what we call the accommodation staircase, which goes through the ship, and is used by the stewards. I went down to the storeroom and I got a bottle of biscuits, and I carried them up to the main dining room, through the reception room, up the main staircase. I got onto the deck; the boats had gone.”

‘There is nothing in his statement to contradict the assumption that Wheelton walked along B-deck deck using the interior corridor. The fact that Wheelton saw Mr. Andrews opening the cabin doors to see if any passengers remained behind would support the view that Wheelton used the interior corridor. Wheelton does not support Gardiner’s assertion that B-deck resembled Olympic’s configuration.’

The steward himself, Wheelton, stated:

‘Senator NEWLANDS. When you left the ship where were the bulk of the remaining passengers located?
Mr. WHEELTON. There was no bulk at all, sir. They were scattered all around the deck.
Senator NEWLANDS. What deck?
Mr. WHEELTON. There were a very few, only our own men, left on A-deck when the boat went down, sir.
Senator NEWLANDS. As you went down [in the lifeboat] to the deck below –
Mr. WHEELTON. I did not see any deck below, sir, because it is all closed in.
Senator NEWLANDS. That would be B deck?
Mr. WHEELTON. We passed B, sir.’

Quote:
Titanic's registration document has an interesting hand written note included in it which says , “Note 2. The undermentioned spaces above the upper deck are not included in the cubical contents forming the ship's register tonnage: Open space in front of poop 16 feet long = 65.24 tons. Open space abaft 2 nd class smokeroom, 6 ft long = 15.84 ton. Open space on promenade deck, abreast windows, port side, 198 feet long = 343.27 tons. Open space on promenade deck, abreast windows, starbd side 198 feet long = 377.24 tons.” Of course the spaces referred to are not above the upper deck at all but on A Deck. The document is dated 25 March 1912 . The man responsible for forwarding this document to the Registrar is Harold Arthur Sanderson (WS Manager). The registrar's signature is unreadable. The question is, why are these spaces not to be included in the GRT of the ship. The only believable reason is that they did not actually increase the cubic capacity of the vessel


The implication here, in the question in the above quote in bold, is that Titanic’s registration documentation was somehow unusual and that specific steps were taken to distort the measurement of her gross tonnage. In fact, the remarks merely relate to the Board of Trade’s efforts to ensure that all British merchant vessels were measured on the same basis to ensure fairness in terms of comparing their gross tonnage. I don’t believe Mr. Gardiner’s opinion as to the explanation is true or even remotely likely. His opinion as to ‘the only believable reason’ is merely that: an opinion rather than a proven fact.

Similar notes as to spaces not to be included in the tonnage measurement can be found in the registration papers relating to practically every other ocean liner of the period. In this case, Britannic:

(See attachment)

As I said, I have tried to keep this very brief. I disagree with almost everything in the article, but I don’t think anything will be served by spending time analysing every claim. Those maintaining an open-minded curiosity will hopefully be interested.

Best wishes,

Mark.



Attached file: jpg  2-GRT.jpg (17.50 KB)


1161_4538e843b1db9.jpg 645X87 px
_________________
Mark Chirnside, Warwickshire, England.
'RMS Olympic: Titanic's Sister.'
Posted on: 2006/10/20 16:15
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
  •  MGY Friend
      MGY Friend
Re: Who started the conspiracy theory?
#3

Joined: 2006/7/7
From New Mexico, USA
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
Mark, thank you so much for your devoted time and effort.

I'm going to take my time and study this post this afternoon!
_________________
"Why is it the ship beats the waves
when the waves are so many and
the ship is one?
The reason is that ship
has a purpose".

Sir Winston Churchill


www.mrmarshall.proboards62.com
Posted on: 2006/10/20 19:27
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
Re: Who started the conspiracy theory?
#4

Joined: 2003/9/14
From
Posts: -1
Group:
Registered Users
Offline
Quote:

MGY Friend wrote:
Mark, thank you so much for your devoted time and effort.

I'm going to take my time and study this post this afternoon!


Hi to hear from you, MGY Friend.

I hope you find it useful. For completeness, the post of mine that I quoted was analysing the following conspiracy page written by Mr. Gardiner:

http://www.titanicconspiracy.com/aboutme.html

I also posted my 44-page dissertation analysing the theory on my website.

Best wishes,

Mark.
_________________
Mark Chirnside, Warwickshire, England.
'RMS Olympic: Titanic's Sister.'
Posted on: 2006/10/20 21:01
Create PDF from Post Print
Top
 Top   Previous Topic   Next Topic

 


 You cannot start a new topic.
 You can view topic.
 You cannot reply to posts.
 You cannot edit your posts.
 You cannot delete your posts.
 You cannot add new polls.
 You cannot vote in polls.
 You cannot attach files to posts.
 You cannot post without approval.



Copyright © 2006-2012 Titanic.com
Home Photos Advertise Link to us Flower Box