Quote:

I agree with you in part, but I disagree that the conspiracy theory will never be proved wrong. In my opinion, every knowledgeable researcher in command of all the necessary sources will believe that the theory is false; because so much of it has been demonstrated to be inaccurate.

Quote:

That is evidence of damage to the Olympic, yes; but not evidence about the ship’s keel at all. The conspiracy theorists don’t mention, for instance, that Hawke’s speed decreased from 16 to 8 knots prior to the collision (according to the Hawke’s captain’s own account), which reduces the amount of damage Olympic would have suffered. As I said, every independent expert who testified in 1911 agreed on the damage assessment of Olympic – and that assessment differs from the conspiracy theory.

I'd like to quote Harry Roscoe's testimony. He was a senior ship surveyor and does not mention any keel damage whatsoever:

‘2900. Mr. Laing. Dealing with the Olympic first; I daresay I may lead about this; no doubt, we are agreed about this. Was there a large triangular hole extending from immediately above the D deck to above 15 feet below that deck?
A. Yes…
2904. Q. A large triangular hole immediately above the D deck and about 15 feet below the deck. And was there a large penetration in D deck extending inwards about 8 feet?
A. Yes.
2905. Q. Is that where the bows of the other vessel had entered?
A. Yes, the upper portion that was about 14 feet long, I think, from memory.
2906. Q. Extending in?
A. About 8 feet.
2907. Q. The next deck you come to is the E-deck. Was that cut into?
A. Yes.
2908. Q. In the same way, but to a lesser degree?
A. Yes.
2909. Q. Did the damage continue below the waterline; I think you surveyed that after she got into drydock?
A. Yes.
2910. Q. Were the frames, beams, and stringers, broken and bent around the hole that you have been just describing?
A. Yes.
2911. Q….Now with regard to below the waterline. After she got into drydock, did you find the damage similar in character, but inverted in shape in F and G [decks]?
A. Broadly speaking, that is so.
2912. Q. Was the hole below deck pierced by the Hawke’s ram?
A. I think so...
2915. Q. And did the broken and indented plating extend over these decks D, E, F, and G?
A. Yes.
2916. Q. Did the penetration cease between G, and the orlop deck?
A. It did.
2917. Q. Was the ship’s side scored at all?
A. Yes, aft of the hole, for about 38 feet…
2953. Q. Now the extent of the penetration into the Olympic was, I think you have given it to me?
A. The hole measured 6 feet 8 inches to 8 feet in athwart ship line.’

There's no mention of keel damage, and he testifies that the damage extended eight feet or less into Olympic. To reach the keel, you'd need to penetrate forty-five feet in, and thirty feet below where Hawke hit the Olympic.

Quote:

I’d like to discuss the theory, time permitting. In my view, much of the conspiracy theorists’ ‘evidence’ is flawed, misinterpreted or inaccurate.

Quote:

I disagree.

Quote:

I don’t think you’re being ‘dumb’ at all, and there’s nothing to apologise for. You’ve been told a theory, and you’ve asked us about it.

Quote:

I don’t quite understand your point.

Quote:

I believe it’s the Titanic too. Don’t worry about typing quickly, we all do it sometimes.

Best wishes,

Mark.