The Titanic didnt sink, its sister the Olympic did!

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: VoidHawk
THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

I see. So you've been reduced to answering my points by shouting. How mature. Please address my previous posts.

Some people see it as shouting. I don't.

I'm just tired of the deniers of whatever subject, insisting on having their denial posts as the last post in the thread, its almost like they're afraid of something! Hence my use of
THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

As for addressing your previous posts, whats the point? All of us on ats know that the deniers just wont stop. What ever is presented to them is simply ignored and they throw up something else from there copy and paste database. So I'll just stick to
THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

I see. So, you deny facts do you?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: VoidHawk
THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

I see. So you've been reduced to answering my points by shouting. How mature. Please address my previous posts.

Some people see it as shouting. I don't.

I'm just tired of the deniers of whatever subject, insisting on having their denial posts as the last post in the thread, its almost like they're afraid of something! Hence my use of
THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

As for addressing your previous posts, whats the point? All of us on ats know that the deniers just wont stop. What ever is presented to them is simply ignored and they throw up something else from there copy and paste database. So I'll just stick to
THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

I see. So, you deny facts do you?

LOL
Have you got an alarm attached to this thread? You have havent you!

THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: VoidHawk
THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

I see. So you've been reduced to answering my points by shouting. How mature. Please address my previous posts.

Some people see it as shouting. I don't.

I'm just tired of the deniers of whatever subject, insisting on having their denial posts as the last post in the thread, its almost like they're afraid of something! Hence my use of
THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

As for addressing your previous posts, whats the point? All of us on ats know that the deniers just wont stop. What ever is presented to them is simply ignored and they throw up something else from there copy and paste database. So I'll just stick to
THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

I see. So, you deny facts do you?

LOL
Have you got an alarm attached to this thread? You have havent you!

THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

Erm, I quoted some facts. What do you have again?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: VoidHawk
THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

I see. So you've been reduced to answering my points by shouting. How mature. Please address my previous posts.

Some people see it as shouting. I don't.

I'm just tired of the deniers of whatever subject, insisting on having their denial posts as the last post in the thread, its almost like they're afraid of something! Hence my use of
THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

As for addressing your previous posts, whats the point? All of us on ats know that the deniers just wont stop. What ever is presented to them is simply ignored and they throw up something else from there copy and paste database. So I'll just stick to
THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

I see. So, you deny facts do you?

LOL
Have you got an alarm attached to this thread? You have havent you!

THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

Erm, I quoted some facts. What do you have again?

I dare you, let me be the last post in this thread.

THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: VoidHawk
THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

I see. So you've been reduced to answering my points by shouting. How mature. Please address my previous posts.

Some people see it as shouting. I don't.

I'm just tired of the deniers of whatever subject, insisting on having their denial posts as the last post in the thread, its almost like they're afraid of something! Hence my use of
THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

As for addressing your previous posts, whats the point? All of us on ats know that the deniers just wont stop. What ever is presented to them is simply ignored and they throw up something else from there copy and paste database. So I'll just stick to
THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

I see. So, you deny facts do you?

LOL
Have you got an alarm attached to this thread? You have havent you!

THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

Erm, I quoted some facts. What do you have again?

I dare you, let me be the last post in this thread.

THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

Right. So - I quote facts and you just shout. I see. Interesting.

So, for the newcomers to this... fascinating thread, we have laid out the following:

There is no evidence that the two ships were switched in the slips.
There is no evidence that any of the cutlery, napkins, china, linen, menus etc, were switched.
Stanley Lord had no connection to any insurance frauds.
Californian was stopped in front of an ice field on a very cold night, in abnormal conditions with next to no swell, making it very, very hard to spot icebergs.
Samson was in port in Iceland.
Titanic let off eight white rockets. Not red-white-and-blue, white rockets.

There. Case closed.

originally posted by: VoidHawk
...I'm just tired of the deniers of whatever subject, insisting on having their denial posts as the last post in the thread, its almost like they're afraid of something! Hence my use of
THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

Hmm. I just read this entire thread, and then did some side research on this using the various links from BOTH sides of this argument provided in this thread, and I have to say that the only person here who seems to be denying the facts is you, VoidHawk.

The alleged evidence purporting that the Olympic actually sunk all seems to be refutable and debunkable, and the evidence that the ship that hit the iceberg and sank that night really was the Titanic seems pretty clear.

I came into this thread knowing practically nothing about this and no pre-conceived notions (other than the general notion I was taught that the Titanic sunk), and I simply relied on the evidence presented to help me form my opinion. And that opinion is that it seems very clear that you have virtually no evidence that will stand up to scrutiny to support you claim that the ship that sunk was the Olympic.

In fact, if anything , it seems that some of the evidence present (just some) in support of your theory was intentionally fabricated in order to deceive. Not necessarily by you, but by the original presenters of that evidence.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
So, for the newcomers to this... fascinating thread, we have laid out the following:

There is no evidence that the two ships were switched in the slips.
There is no evidence that any of the cutlery, napkins, china, linen, menus etc, were switched.
Stanley Lord had no connection to any insurance frauds.
Californian was stopped in front of an ice field on a very cold night, in abnormal conditions with next to no swell, making it very, very hard to spot icebergs.
Samson was in port in Iceland.
Titanic let off eight white rockets. Not red-white-and-blue, white rockets.

There. Case closed.

To newcomers of this thread.
The case maybe closed in AngryCymraeg's mind, however, you should NEVER allow others to make up YOUR mind for you, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY KEEP POSTING "CASE CLOSED".

Read the OP and then do your own research.

There is no evidence that the two ships were switched in the slips.

Prove it!
But you cant can you, all you can do is give your opinion!

There is no evidence that any of the cutlery, napkins, china, linen, menus etc, were switched.

It was made quite clear that the cutlery, napkins, china, linen etc were STANDARD White star issue, totally interchangeable between ships! But even if they weren't, how do YOU know they weren't changed? Were you there?

Stanley Lord had no connection to any insurance frauds.

How do you know who may or may not have been involved in fraud?
The truth is you don't, all you can offer is your opinion!

Californian was stopped in front of an ice field on a very cold night, in abnormal conditions with next to no swell, making it very, very hard to spot icebergs.

Being as the sea was flat on that evening meant that waves were not so easily seen splashing against the ice, however, I am unaware of any evidence that states that is the reason why the Californian was stationary. Is that just your opinion again?
Also, although it was very calm, visibility was very good, the court records prove that to be true. Also, as stated by all concerned captains, it was quite normal to run full steam through the ice fields, so even though there was a lack of splashing on the ice, there certainly was no reason for the Californian to remain motionless! especially as the state of the sea was so good, in fact you'd expect a good captain to take advantage of good weather, not lay at anchor!

Samson was in port in Iceland.

It was stated in the video they "believed" it was the Sampson. Other boats were seen. Also its believed that some of those boats were involved in illegal activity so its likely they would have falsified their documents/whereabouts.

Titanic let off eight white rockets. Not red-white-and-blue, white rockets.

What are you saying here?
A rocket is one colour. your sentence reads like you think a rocket is all three colours, or just white.
How do you know what rockets were fired, were you there?

AngryCymraeg, just like me you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to make up other peoples minds for them! So please refrain from posting "Case closed" because its only closed in YOUR mind!

Will you let it go now? after all, everyone who comes through this thread will be well aware of your opinion, so there's no need to keep repeating it, is there!

THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

The alleged evidence purporting that the Olympic actually sunk all seems to be refutable and debunkable, and the evidence that the ship that hit the iceberg and sank that night really was the Titanic seems pretty clear.

If its pretty clear then please show us that evidence.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
I simply relied on the evidence presented to help me form my opinion.

Please provide evidence (not your opinion) that it was the Titanic that sunk.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
In fact, if anything , it seems that some of the evidence present (just some) in support of your theory was intentionally fabricated in order to deceive. Not necessarily by you, but by the original presenters of that evidence.

Just to be clear, I created NONE of the evidence, I merely provided a summary of the video.

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Please provide evidence (not your opinion) that it was the Titanic that sunk.

There are several things, but one of the more damning pieces of information is the enclosed A-deck promenade, as mentioned by ATS member 'ionwind' on the previous page. The A-decks are clearly different in images of both ships, and the images of the sunken ship show the enclosed promenade of the Titanic.

This difference in the two ships is well-known because it is a way for collectors of Titanic memorabilia to be able to tell the difference between photos and postcards of the titanic from photos and postcards of the Olympic. It also seems to serve the same purpose for being able to tell which is underwater in the North Atlantic.

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
So, for the newcomers to this... fascinating thread, we have laid out the following:

There is no evidence that the two ships were switched in the slips.
There is no evidence that any of the cutlery, napkins, china, linen, menus etc, were switched.
Stanley Lord had no connection to any insurance frauds.
Californian was stopped in front of an ice field on a very cold night, in abnormal conditions with next to no swell, making it very, very hard to spot icebergs.
Samson was in port in Iceland.
Titanic let off eight white rockets. Not red-white-and-blue, white rockets.

There. Case closed.

To newcomers of this thread.
The case maybe closed in AngryCymraeg's mind, however, you should NEVER allow others to make up YOUR mind for you, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY KEEP POSTING "CASE CLOSED".

Read the OP and then do your own research.

 

There is no evidence that the two ships were switched in the slips.

Prove it!
But you cant can you, all you can do is give your opinion!

There is no evidence that any of the cutlery, napkins, china, linen, menus etc, were switched.

It was made quite clear that the cutlery, napkins, china, linen etc were STANDARD White star issue, totally interchangeable between ships! But even if they weren't, how do YOU know they weren't changed? Were you there?

Stanley Lord had no connection to any insurance frauds.

How do you know who may or may not have been involved in fraud?
The truth is you don't, all you can offer is your opinion!

Californian was stopped in front of an ice field on a very cold night, in abnormal conditions with next to no swell, making it very, very hard to spot icebergs.

Being as the sea was flat on that evening meant that waves were not so easily seen splashing against the ice, however, I am unaware of any evidence that states that is the reason why the Californian was stationary. Is that just your opinion again?
Also, although it was very calm, visibility was very good, the court records prove that to be true. Also, as stated by all concerned captains, it was quite normal to run full steam through the ice fields, so even though there was a lack of splashing on the ice, there certainly was no reason for the Californian to remain motionless! especially as the state of the sea was so good, in fact you'd expect a good captain to take advantage of good weather, not lay at anchor!

Samson was in port in Iceland.

It was stated in the video they "believed" it was the Sampson. Other boats were seen. Also its believed that some of those boats were involved in illegal activity so its likely they would have falsified their documents/whereabouts.

Titanic let off eight white rockets. Not red-white-and-blue, white rockets.

What are you saying here?
A rocket is one colour. your sentence reads like you think a rocket is all three colours, or just white.
How do you know what rockets were fired, were you there?

AngryCymraeg, just like me you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to make up other peoples minds for them! So please refrain from posting "Case closed" because its only closed in YOUR mind!

Will you let it go now? after all, everyone who comes through this thread will be well aware of your opinion, so there's no need to keep repeating it, is there!

THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

Oh, dear god. Are you one of the people in the video? Are you tied in some way shape or form to it?
Do you have any idea how hard it would have been to switch the ships from one berth to another without people knowing? Any idea at all? It would have been impossible. People talk - and no-one ever has. Again, when it comes to the accoutrements inside - people would have talked.
As for Stanley Lord, the man is infamous for being the idiot who ignored distress rockets at sea. His career has been minutely inspected. So no evidence for involvement in insurance fraud in any way, shape, or form has ever been detected. He stopped the Californian because there was an ice field in front of her - and contrary to your post, captains did NOT run their ships at speed through such fields at night. The ship was not at anchor, she was drifting with the current. The officers on the bridge had been given instructions by Lord to wake him at once if they heard any ice grinding past the ship. It may have been good weather, but it was night.
As for the Samson, NO. The video mentions her by name and then makes the insane assertion that she was conducting illegal sealing. In the middle of the Atlantic? When she was in Iceland at the time? No, she's long since been eliminated as a suspect.
Finally there's the rockets. The VIDEO itself says that the Titanic let off red, white and blue rockets. No, she didn't. Check the transcripts of the two enquiries. White rockets were let off. White for distress.
Case. Closed.

As I mentioned previously, Great Grandfather was a Metallurgist at Harland and Wolff.

He was responsible for Titanic's multitudinous bronze fitments, including the propellors.

His other noteworthy project was casting the massive bronze doors of the Belfast City Hall.

I had the duty of launching the signal rockets from the bridge deck of the Titanic for a movie.

They were white.

I still have one of the replica life preservers that I had manufactured for the production.

They were white also.

The Op has a point as the ships shown in the video in question are indeed identical.
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Nochzwei
The Op has a point as the ships shown in the video in question are indeed identical.
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

The video has more holes than a lace doily.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
The Op has a point as the ships shown in the video in question are indeed identical.
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

No. There are differences.

However, the video makes mistakes when pointing out those differences. For example, at the 10:37 mark of the video, the narrator is attempting to point out an alleged discrepancy between the evenly-spaced B-Deck windows of Titanic at it's time of launch and the uneven;y-spaced windows during her maiden voyage. HOWEVER, the photo he used to "prove" that the Titanic had evenly spaced windows on B-Deck at the time of lauch was actually a photo of the Olympic...

...i.e., he is mixing up the photos in order to support his conspiracy theory.

We can tell he is mixing up the photos very easily because of another difference between the two ships -- that difference is the A-deck. The A-deck of Olympic had a completely open promenade. The A-Deck of Titanic had a promenade that was partially enclosed by a bulkhead (with some openings) along the front 1/3 of the promenade.

This is a very easy way to tell the two ships apart, and is often used by collectors of Titanic memorabilia to be able to tell if a certain photo or postcard is from the Titanic or the Olympic. However, if you watch that part of the video where that narrator is pointing out the alleged discrepancies, you can easily tell that he is confusing images of the Olympic with images of the Titanic (maybe intentionally??).

At the 10:37 mark of the video, the narrator shows a picture of the Olympic (which you can tell by the A-Deck), but claims it is the Titanic, when he says "at the time of Titanic's launch, the windows on Titanic's B-Deck are clearly discernible as being evenly spaced...". Then at the 10:45 mark, he goes on to show a picture of Titanic (again, you can tell from the A-Deck), and then goes on to add "...yet at the time of her maiden voyage, the windows have taken on a distinctive uneven appearance".

So it is clear he is showing us pictures of Olympic, but calling them pictures of Titanic (and vice versa).


By the way, pictures from the bottom of the ocean of the wrecked ship that sunk in 1912 shows an A-deck promenade that was partially enclosed -- hence that ship is the Titanic.

It's gone awfully quiet in here. Perhaps the OP has finally admitted that the video has more holes in it than the Yamato?

THE OLYMPIC SANK, NOT THE TITANIC!

Closed for Staff Review.