The Titanic: Or, Wait, Scratch That
I am pretty confident you guys have all heard the story of the infamous RMS Titanic. Or, at least, seen the movie. Well, since the doomed voyage, many people have come out and said that the Titanic didn't sink.
Before I make myself sound dumb, let me rephrase that: The ship that sank that April morning was not the RMS Titanic at all, but the Olympic disguised as the RMS Titanic
Does that make sense?
Perhaps you've heard of this theory, and if you haven't, you're probably confused. But without further ado, let's get started.
Don't drown.
Taking us back to a few months before The "Titanic" set off from Europe, The Olympic had been sailing to and from North America. Unfortunately, a collision occurred with another ship, and The Olympic suffered reasonable damage to the starboard side and propeller shaft.
The Royal Navy inquiry blamed the incident completely on the Olympic, which cost the White Star Line not only thousands of dollars in repairs, but also subsequent loss of revenue and legal fees. Ouch.
Now, what does the Titanic have to do with this? I'm glad you asked.
Some theorists claim that after this devastating loss to the company, they switched the Titanic with the damaged Olympic to recover financial losses. They did this by swapping out parts of the ship that had the Titanic’s name attached.
Not saying I agree with this, but 'theoretically,' White Star Line could have changed the Olympic by covering the floors with carpet, among other things. The Olympic had tile flooring and the passengers and crew on the "Titanic" would have been able to see the footprints left by previous passengers.
If they didn’t do this people would have wondered why this brand new ship (that no one had been on) was covered in footprints and stains from spilled drinks.
Another reason why many say the sister ships were switched was because it seemed impossible for the Olympic to continent serving for 24 years after its awful accident in 1911. (Remember that?)
Many of the people who claim this make the assumption that Olympic's keel was damaged, for which there is no evidence. The fact that the Olympic went on to serve 24 years could simply just be because the damage was repaired.
(Fun fact: Although called 'Old Reliable,' her 24 years were not without numerous other incidents. One of the most popular includes the Nantucket Lightship LV-117, which caused the lightship to break apart and sink with seven fatalities out of Nantucket's crew of eleven.)
One last thing I want to touch on is popular "evidence" that the ships were switched. Many noticed that the portholes of the Titanic during construction was 14, while, when it left on its doomed voyage, had 16. The Titanic had 14 bow portholes. Olympic had 16 bow portholes. The ship photographed departing Southampton has 16 bow portholes. Therefore, it's the Olympic, not Titanic. Right?
However, this claim, while very (VERY) popular, is also easy to disprove.Titanic had 14 portholes on the bow when launched, but in the following months she got 2 extra for better light and air. Surprisingly enough, both Olympic and Titanic were launched with 14 portholes. However, in December 1911, during Titanic's fit out, 2 had to be added to light the crews galley and wash room (resulting in the 16 shown on maiden voyage)
By the time of the Titanic disaster, Olympic's 14 portholes were also changed to 16 during her major refit, so in fact they were the same. Hence post-Titanic-sinking images of Olympic also have this 16 porthole configuration.
So, while most claims you research on this have more logical reasons, it is interesting to think about. It surely seems possible with the motive White Star Line had. Before researching this, I was a firm believer in that they were switched. However, now I am not so confident about that.
What do you believe?
Before I make myself sound dumb, let me rephrase that: The ship that sank that April morning was not the RMS Titanic at all, but the Olympic disguised as the RMS Titanic
Does that make sense?
Perhaps you've heard of this theory, and if you haven't, you're probably confused. But without further ado, let's get started.
Don't drown.
Taking us back to a few months before The "Titanic" set off from Europe, The Olympic had been sailing to and from North America. Unfortunately, a collision occurred with another ship, and The Olympic suffered reasonable damage to the starboard side and propeller shaft.
The Royal Navy inquiry blamed the incident completely on the Olympic, which cost the White Star Line not only thousands of dollars in repairs, but also subsequent loss of revenue and legal fees. Ouch.
Now, what does the Titanic have to do with this? I'm glad you asked.
Some theorists claim that after this devastating loss to the company, they switched the Titanic with the damaged Olympic to recover financial losses. They did this by swapping out parts of the ship that had the Titanic’s name attached.
Not saying I agree with this, but 'theoretically,' White Star Line could have changed the Olympic by covering the floors with carpet, among other things. The Olympic had tile flooring and the passengers and crew on the "Titanic" would have been able to see the footprints left by previous passengers.
If they didn’t do this people would have wondered why this brand new ship (that no one had been on) was covered in footprints and stains from spilled drinks.
Another reason why many say the sister ships were switched was because it seemed impossible for the Olympic to continent serving for 24 years after its awful accident in 1911. (Remember that?)
Many of the people who claim this make the assumption that Olympic's keel was damaged, for which there is no evidence. The fact that the Olympic went on to serve 24 years could simply just be because the damage was repaired.
(Fun fact: Although called 'Old Reliable,' her 24 years were not without numerous other incidents. One of the most popular includes the Nantucket Lightship LV-117, which caused the lightship to break apart and sink with seven fatalities out of Nantucket's crew of eleven.)
One last thing I want to touch on is popular "evidence" that the ships were switched. Many noticed that the portholes of the Titanic during construction was 14, while, when it left on its doomed voyage, had 16. The Titanic had 14 bow portholes. Olympic had 16 bow portholes. The ship photographed departing Southampton has 16 bow portholes. Therefore, it's the Olympic, not Titanic. Right?
However, this claim, while very (VERY) popular, is also easy to disprove.Titanic had 14 portholes on the bow when launched, but in the following months she got 2 extra for better light and air. Surprisingly enough, both Olympic and Titanic were launched with 14 portholes. However, in December 1911, during Titanic's fit out, 2 had to be added to light the crews galley and wash room (resulting in the 16 shown on maiden voyage)
By the time of the Titanic disaster, Olympic's 14 portholes were also changed to 16 during her major refit, so in fact they were the same. Hence post-Titanic-sinking images of Olympic also have this 16 porthole configuration.
So, while most claims you research on this have more logical reasons, it is interesting to think about. It surely seems possible with the motive White Star Line had. Before researching this, I was a firm believer in that they were switched. However, now I am not so confident about that.
What do you believe?
This is nice work. I had not even heard this theory before. Your treatment of evidence is much more balanced this time, though we know that a diehard enthusiast would just say that the papers were doctored to show a "refit" adding portholes.
ReplyDeleteWait! Maybe the papers WERE doctored!