Send this link to let others join your presentation:
Researchers Bill Sauder and Parks Stephenson have come to the conclusion that in fact the dining room was not carpeted. The evidence for this is that it is only mentionedby Burgess alone, with no collaboration from other eyewitnesses. In fact his comment was made at least 30 years after the disaster (he was 20 while aboard ), so could well have been an exaggeration. He also may have been confused with the Reception Room, which did indeed have wall-to-wall carpet on the . However his comments that the furniture and panelling was better that the is not accurate; furnishings and paneling aboard were, with the exception of unique rooms such as thePromendate Suites, identical to 's. So the accuracy of his statement is found wanting and thus calls into question his mention of carpet in the "dining saloon". Also, fragments of linoleum have been recovered from the wreck, further proving this to be more likely. Also it must be noted that 's dining room was huge and had been outfitted with the most expensive linoleum onboard (a "Persian Rug" linoleum pattern) so it does not make sense they would carpet over such an investment, especially as typically most dining room of the time were not carpeted.
Damage to the due its collision with HMS . (Click to enlarge)
Compare the two videos below -one is the real footage of the name on the wreck, one is fake. Incidentally, 's name was first filmed in 1987 by IFREMER and Titanic Ventures (later RMS TITANIC INC.) after they cleaned that part of the bow from rust.
This particular claim began when Robin Gardiner stated in his book that when the name on the bow of the wreck was cleared of rust (allegedly filmed by Dr. Ballard during his 1986 dive to the wreck), the raised letters 'M, P & Y' were visible. However, he does not show a picture of this, nor does he offer any source for this assertition at all. Sometime later in a documentary entitled "Titanic - The Shocking Truth" the following image appeared:
Video footage of 's name clearly visible on the wreck in 1987.
While the was primarily designed to transport cotton, there is absolutely no evidence that it had a"cargo of a few thousand woolly jumpers and blankets." The fact is that the 's cargo manifest does not exist. To prove this claima manifest needs to be presented (and in the grand scheme of things and the overwhelming evidence a 'switch' did not take place would prove very little anyway).
Mark Chirnside writes regarding the bell in his dissertation:
However it is definitely not logical. Firstly, how would White Star believe they could pull something likethis off when no doubt hundreds of crew would see water pouring into the ship through the seacocks. Did they think they would just stand there and watch?Additionally, especially as the ship was being labelled "practically unsinkable" how would they explain this 'mysterious' flooding to the inquiries that would no doubt take place afterward? For a company that has miraculously been able to switch ships including hundreds of thousands of numbers on the back of wooden panels, without anyone knowing, this seems a rather farfetched and unlikely plan. But more important than that, what evidence does Gardiner provide for such a plan, or even the existence of seacocks on ? Of course there is none. It is pure speculation about a 'switch' that didn't happen.
The Difference Between a Fact, Hypothesis, Theory, …
According to Gardiner the original plan to pull off the sinking after the switch was to slowly flood the ship by opening the seacocks. The collision with an"iceberg" (or what Gardiner believes was an "IMM rescue ship") interrupted this original plan. It has to be admited that this is plain bizarre and shows at what lengths some will go to try and justify a conspiracy. Obviously realising that planning a collision in the North Atlantic would be too difficult and improbable Gardiner uses this to allege a more deliberate and logical plan.
What is the difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis?
But does this now mean we should treat with suspicion that there were "numerous" ships in the area when sank? There are a couple of important points to first realise.