If she went for scrap they wouldnt get much for her. a few hunderd thousand pound. she was worth a good million pound plus all the profit she would of made.

It's always interesting how many points are raised in connection with the conspiracy theory. Indeed, many are not indicative of a switch at all, but seem to serve simply as a device to produce a degree of suspicion. To my mind, it highlights the lack of any conclusive evidence; and the factors that the theory overlooks are in fact conclusive evidence against the theory.

It would be very interesting to try and find a knowledgeable, respected researcher working in the field who respected the theory.

With regard to values, Olympic's worth in a 1915 insurance estimate was still approximately £1,500,000. In terms of scrap, he was ultimately sold for £100,000 in 1935, yet that figure appears after 24 years of depreciation at about 4-5% per year. The whole question of selling her for scrap in 1911-12 is irrelevant to the debate, since as Tom says that would only apply 'if' she was no longer seaworthy.

In June 2004, I was asked to provide some feedback for a documentary. Was there any evidence as to the Olympic being damaged as badly as the conspiracy theorists alleged? In my view, no. I said:

'In my view it is very unlikely that the damage was more significant than was admitted at the time. The hearings following the Olympic/Hawke collision included a damage assessment of the Olympic which was agreed upon by both White Star and the Royal Navy, and stated that the Hawke’s bow had penetrated eight feet into Olympic’s hull. (This was also mentioned in Dan van der Vat and Robin Gardiner’s 1995 book, The Riddle of the Titanic, page 21.) I think it is impossible that the Olympic’s keel was damaged in the collision, as Robin Gardiner speculates in his 1998 book Titanic: The Ship That Never Sank? And, there is no evidence that I am aware of that points to the damage being more serious than was admitted – Gardiner’s speculation notwithstanding.'

Indeed, has anyone looked at photos of the Hawke's damaged bow? There's no question that it could not have penetrated Olympic's hull to such an extent as to damage the keel, as Gardiner has alleged. Indeed, photos of the Olympic also demonstrate this.

I also said:

'Titanic was insured for two-thirds of its value (about $5,000,000) with the remaining third being carried by IMM. At the American inquiry into the sinking, Maurice Farrell (the Managing News Editor of Dow, Jones & Co.) said that the net loss to IMM as a result of the sinking might be ‘$2,000,000 to $3,000,000,’ which ‘ought not’ to ‘break a company like the International Mercantile Marine.’

Why would the White Star Line or IMM deliberately sink a ship that was liable to loose them some $2,500,000, particularly when (even if the damage to Olympic was worse than accepted) the Olympic could be repaired at what would most probably be a lower cost? And, if a loss of $2,500,000 could be withstood by IMM/White Star after their flagship sank, how could the damage to the Olympic ever have been serious enough for them to take the drastic – indeed, criminal – measure of ‘swapping’ the ships in an insurance scam?

Even if Olympic had been as badly damaged as Gardiner suggests, I can’t see the White Star Line doing anything other than moving heaven and earth to get their flagship into service again. She had proved extremely popular in 1911. Assuming the repairs were carried out and she was structurally sound once more, I cannot see any barrier to obtaining insurance or a new seaworthiness certificate (which had to be issued each year).

Swapping the two ships and sinking the Olympic, disguised as the Titanic, could hardly be expected to improve the White Star Line’s financial situation or resolve its problems. Indeed, it is unlikely in the extreme that a successful company such as the White Star Line would conspire to sink their newest ship, the largest and most luxurious in the world, on her maiden voyage – think of the bad publicity! To make matters worse, they would only be left with one of the two sisters for their express service, with the third liner still incomplete, at a time when rivals such as Cunard and Hamburg-Amerika were on course to be operating three-ship services within a very few years, not to mention the cost of building a suitable replacement.'

Anyway, must sign off now. Have a good day everyone.

I agree with every thing in your post, Mark.

Tom

After the collision with the Hawk, Olympic had to have emergency patching on the damage made during the crash. on her way back to belfast this patching failed which shows that the ship was no longer seaworthy.

'After the collision with the Hawk, Olympic had to have emergency patching on the damage made during the crash. on her way back to belfast this patching failed which shows that the ship was no longer seaworthy.'

Hi Superbowl!

In my view, that statement is complete rubbish. Can you cite an authoratative source? Indeed, would you mind me asking what led you to believe this? And, are you aware of anybody other than Gardiner who believes this -- anybody who has studied the subject in depth and is a recognised authority?

Best wishes,

Mark.

it mentions it on titanic-titanic.com

Hi Superbowl!

Could you provide a link to the specific page? And, is it a page that simply reports Gardiner's theory? With the switch theory, context is 'nearly' everything.

From my conversations with the site's owner, he does not believe that the conspiracy theory is practical. Was the page simply reporting Gardiner's work?

Best wishes,

Mark.

titanic and olympic conspiracy theroy

This page, you mean?:

http://www.titanic-titanic.com/conspiracy%20theory.shtml

A page which quotes Gardiner word-for-word. So, we still have no-one other than Gardiner claiming this. And certainly no-one authoritative. It's a statement of Gardiner's, not a fact; and it has been disproved. See, for instance:

Beveridge, Bruce, and Hall, Steve. 'Olympic and Titanic: The Truth Behind The Conspiracy.' Published in March 2004 and available from Amazon.com.

It puzzles me as to why you can feel so sure of the accuracy of Gardiner's work, bearing in mind your -- forgive me if I am mistaken -- original lack of knowledge as to who Gardiner was. Or have you any primary sources to cite which back up what Gardiner has said, that have led you to believe that he is correct?

Best wishes,

Mark.

So were did gardiner get it from then. he make it up?