The Titanic sank... Or did it?

The Titanic is the "unsinkable ship" that is famous for sinking. Obvious grounds for conspiracy, right? With over 1,500 lives lost, nobody is disputing that a ship sank on that fateful night. However, evidence has been found to suggest that it wasn't the Titanic that sank, but another White Star Line ship, the Olympic. The story is that White Star Line, the owner of Titanic, was near bankruptcy around the time of Titanic's scheduled maiden voyage in 1912, and it needed to make some money, fast. Titanic's sister ship, Olympic, had been damaged in two separate collisions in 1911. According to conspirators, the damage was more serious than White Star Line officials wanted to admit, and repairs would have been debilitatingly costly. So, they hatched a plan to switch the ships, sinking the Olympic, disguised as Titanic to collect insurance money for the newer ship.¹ A pretty straightforward plan, however devious it may have been. Now the question is, does this theory hold water, or will it be sunk?

Damage done to the hull of the Olympic after
a collision with another ship in 1911.
Wikimedia Commons

There is quite a bit of evidence that makes this theory seem plausible. The ships were moored together and looked close to identical from the outside, making a potential switch fairly easy. One aesthetic difference was the number of portholes on the ships. Olympic had 16, and Titanic had 14, until it suddenly had more. Early photographs of Titanic showed 14 portholes, until it was ready for its doomed voyage, where it is seen at the dock with an additional two portholes.¹
Remember how the Olympic had been damaged? The liner's collisions left her with a port side list, meaning that she leaned slightly to one side. The brand new Titanic would not have this sort of imperfection, would she? According to a report from survivor Lawrence Beesly, a science teacher who later wrote a book on the sinking, Titanic did list to port.¹ Other witnesses testified to this phenomenon, and it can even be seen in some photographs.
One of the more intriguing pieces of evidence deals with who was not on the ship. There were several famous people who were scheduled to travel on the Titanic, but cancelled last minute due to a variety of reasons. Interestingly, J.P. Morgan, who owned White Star Line's parent company, as well as many of his friends, were among these cancellations.¹ Did Morgan know something that thousands of other less fortunate people didn't?
Even with all the casualties, the disaster could have been much worse, considering the fact that Titanic was only about half full on her voyage. Some have speculated that White Star Line tried to minimize casualties by not selling all available tickets. However, if this was the case, then why didn't they include an appropriate number of life boats?

Olympic and Titanic in March of 1912.
Olympic, on the left, is having her propeller replaced.
Wikimedia Commons

Luckily, the wreckage of the Titanic was found in the 1980s, and more theorizing has happened with the new evidence that surfaced at the ocean floor. A few cosmetic details such as paint color and lettering have been cited as evidence that the wreck is actually the remains of the Olympic, but these can't be conclusive, especially since the ship had been underwater for 70 years before being located. One interesting discovery shows that Titanic's identification number can be seen on the wreck's propeller, which is to be expected, except that Titanic's propeller was supposedly used for Olympic during her repairs.¹ If that was the case, then it keeps the switch argument in play.
So, many facets of this theory seem plausible, but there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. I'll begin with the question of the insurance. Would it have been worth it for White Star Line to attempt this huge, dare I say titanic, undertaking of switching its ships? According to the records, no. Titanic was actually underinsured by about 2.5 million dollars.² And White Star Line was not even really in financial trouble at the time, so purposefully sinking their newest, most highly-touted ship doesn't seem like the best business model to me.
Furthermore, theorists seem to have conveniently simplified the ease with which the two ships could have been switched. Besides the fact that the ships' names were plastered all over everything, there were a few major differences in layout. Titanic had an enclosed deck as well as private suites, two features that Olympic lacked. Plus, Titanic was just plain bigger than Olympic.²

The Titanic, seen with 16 portholes
The Titanic Stop- oocities.org

So what about the portholes, and the list? Those extra two portholes were added later for better light and air quality. Titanic did list to her port side, but this has been explained as a weight imbalance, something that is not uncommon in ships.²
Now we come to the issue of all the cancellations. Apparently this is just an example of finding evidence where you're looking for it. It seems to be a myth that J.P. Morgan had planned to sail on Titanic at all, since he had public plans in Europe for later in the month.²
Finally, we are back to the propeller. If you are still clinging to this bit of evidence, brace yourself for a fall. The two ships were different enough that their propellers would not have been interchangeable. While the Olympic did apparently receive one of Titanic's propeller shafts, she likely had her own spare propeller installed.² So, the fact that the wreck's propeller has Titanic's ID number on it should be a positive identification.
 Titanic's accident intrigues us to this day, evidenced by the $2 billion made by the James Cameron film. Since the ship was advertised as unsinkable, yet sank just days into her maiden voyage, people naturally look for foul play. If you want to see more reasoning, follow this link for a whole list of rebuttals to conspiratorial claims. Based on all this evidence, I think it is pretty safe to say that the ship that really sank on that April morning in 1912 was really the Titanic. However, there are some people who will probably never be convinced. They will take the words of Jack and Rose literally, and they will never let go.



¹https://theunredacted.com/titanic-conspiracy-the-ship-that-never-sank/
²http://titanicswitch.com/claims.html

Paul McCartney is alive... Or is he?

The earth is flat. The moon landing was faked. Elvis is alive. All of these conspiracy theories have been preached by some and mocked by others for decades. Most rational people don’t believe in conspiracy theories, but they are still fun to think about, right? There are even a few that may have the most logical person questioning everything they know, at least for a while. 

This blog series will examine several different theories, some more obscure, and some more outlandish than others. I will present a summary of the theory’s argument, and examine if it has any merit at all. I will do my best to wade through the puddles of conspiracy sites, online Q & A forums, and Buzzfeed lists, but I don't have room to examine every "personal account" and factoid out there. You as a reader may have to do a little leg work on your own to make a fully informed decision for yourself, and become a believer if you wish. With that housekeeping item taken care of, let’s have a look, shall we? We’ll get to the lizard people and Melania Trump’s doppelganger later, but first we will dive into a theory that may cause a different kind of "mania." I'll just rip this bandage off and tell you, Paul McCartney is dead. At least, that's what the conspiracy theorists say.

According to the theory, McCartney died in a car accident in 1966, and with the help of the British

Paul McCartney in 1964

Wikimedia commons 

government, the other Beatles hired a look-alike to take his place. Why did the government help in the cover-up, you ask? According to conspirators, they just knew the public would not be able to handle the premature death of a Beatle, and they were allegedly afraid of mass suicides. So, what people don't know won't hurt them, right?

Fortunately for conspiracy-minded fans, the other Beatles soon started feeling guilty, so they allegedly left several clues in songs and album art, perhaps in the hopes that listeners would start playing detective. The clues begin in 1967's Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album.

Cover art of the

Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band album

upload.wikimedia.org

There are a few lyrics in different songs that specifically mention McCartney and death, but most of the arguments begin with, "Well, you have to listen to the song backwards..." I listened to the songs in question, and while sometimes I heard what I was supposed to hear, I would not have made the connection without the words on the screen telling me what the guilty Beatles were supposedly saying.

So here's the big question, if that isn't Paul McCartney, then who is it? The main theory here is that McCartney was replaced by a guy named Billy Shears, who supposedly won a Paul look-alike contest. Shears is mentioned in Sgt. Peppers, but there is controversy over whether or not he is a real person. There is a lot of unpacking that could be done here, but to keep it short, the Beatles said Billy Shears was what could be described as Ringo Starr's character for the album, since the whole album is supposed to be the Beatles singing as if they were another band.

Aside from Sgt. Pepper, another big clue that McCartney is dead is the Abbey Road cover. Notice anything strange? Theorists claim that John Lennon, dressed in white and leading the way, symbolizes a clergyman at a funeral. Ringo Starr is dressed in the black suit of a mourner. Coming in third is McCartney, and here's where it gets really interesting.

Cover art for Abbey Road album

upload.wikimedia.org

Not only is he the only one striding with his right leg instead of his left, while holding his cigarette in his non-dominant right hand; he is barefoot, alleged by some to represent a corpse. To top it all off, George Harrison, who brings up the rear, is dressed completely in denim, supposedly symbolizing a grave digger. Seems legit.

So, is there anything to this theory? Here's my countertheory: the Beatles are weird. February of 1967 was apparently the first mention of McCartney's death, after his car (sans Paul) was in an accident. Sgt. Pepper's was released in the U.K. in May of 1967. As a songwriter, John Lennon was known for his strange, yet creative lyrics, and he, along with McCartney, co-wrote almost the entire Sgt. Pepper's album. Also, we know the Beatles did drugs, just saying. Could the Beatles have heard the rumors and decided to play along? That seems more likely to me than a fifty-year-long cover-up. It would explain the weird symbolism and lyrics, and I would not put it past the Beatles to want to mess with their fans.

Paul McCartney in 2018 

Wikimedia Commons 

Where does this theory stand today? The rumors have been vehemently denied by the band members, and even joked about by McCartney himself. However, in 2009, Time magazine named "Paul is Dead" as one of the top ten most enduring conspiracy theories in the world. But, for most every "clue," a logical rebuttal can be made to explain it away. We may never know the truth, unless we find out when whoever is posing as Paul McCartney really dies. Until then, you will have to rely on blogs like these for investigative reporting.
TIME- Conspiracy Theories- Paul is Dead
YouTube.com- Vinyl Rewind - Did Paul McCartney really die in 1966?