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.