Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

A theory exists that the owner of the Titanic - JP Morgan - was the force behind it's sinking and that all the wealthy and powerful men that his group wanted to get rid of were invited to be on that ship. You can read about it here - http://www.titanicuniverse.com/the-titanic-conspiracy


I was supposed to paste the same link, good thing I saw this.

However, I must say that this scientific explanation doesn't quite explain it all. This 'morgana' (I think it is what the phenomenon is called) has been made apparent in the 1650's, although obviously not carrying the same name. The Titanic sank in 1912. I very much doubt that this phenomenon was not yet introduced to the sea men during those times.


Your summary elides quite a bit of the quackery of that article... Illuminati, Jesuit secret agents, Federal Reserve...


Ben Bernanke sunk the titanic!


The site itself is not a conspiracy site. The article is written in a completely neutral point of view.

It's your opinion that any conspiracy theories involving the aforementioned subjects are quackery. If you think conspiracies never happen, you're wrong and if you believe that all of our institutions exist for the good of mankind you're even more wrong.

So, what was your point anyway? I was just pointing out that there's a theory that exists. Are you accusing me of some sort of subterfuge here?


It's not just his opinion that the article you linked to is quackery. It is fact.

For instance, consider the stuff about the color of the flares, and red meaning distress and white meaning identification. That's all made up. In 1912 the internationally recognized distress signals at night were:

1. A gun or other explosive fired at intervals of about a minute,

2. flames on the vessel,

3. Flares of any color, used one at a time at short intervals,

4. A continuous sounding with any fog-signal apparatus.


Those weren't the examples that were given to me.

Even assuming you're right on that single fact, being incorrect on a single fact still isn't quackery.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: