Titanic Conspiracies: Was It Cursed?

Titanic Conspiracies: Was It Cursed?

The Titanic was sunk on purpose? Was the Titanic actually the Olympic? Was there a curse on the remains of the Egyptian mummy on board?

Conspiracy theories, no matter how far-fetched they may seem, are fun to look into. The evidence to support even the craziest of the conspiracy theories require you to be a little more open-minded. I love researching conspiracy theories about anything from the Titanic to aliens to the men in black. Recently, I have stumbled across some conspiracies about the Titanic that have me intrigued.

According to this first theory, the ship that sank was actually the Olympic instead of the Titanic. It’s said that the Olympic had been in two collisions and the damage was so severe that they were too expensive for the owner to fix. It’s said that they switched the ships to get insurance money. Evidence of this theory includes the portholes, list to port, rumors among the crew, last minute cancellations, Californian, the wreck, lack of media scrutiny. The portholes evidence says that the Titanic had fourteen portholes, but the Olympic had sixteen portholes. In the photos of the Titanic on the day that it left the dock for its maiden voyage, it had sixteen like the Olympic. Next, list to port means the degree to which a vessel heels (leans or tilts) to either port or starboard. The Olympic had a two-degree list to port, and the Titanic had no lists. According to a surviving second-class passenger, Lawrence Beesley, the Titanic had a list to port. Next, we must address the rumors among the crew. At the time, there was a nationwide strike on coal. Thousands of people employed as firemen, boilers, stokers, and greasers were short on work and couldn't find jobs. Even though this was happening, there weren't a lot of people who wanted to work as crew members on the Titanic. Next, the last minute cancellations included some of the most prestigious and richest early twentieth century names including JP Morgan, Henry Clay Frick, and George Washington Vanderbilt. The SS Californian, which was owned by JP Morgan, was blamed for the loss of life on the Titanic. It wasn't carrying any passengers and was stopped in the Atlantic with only 3000 wool blankets and jumpers. It’s said that the SS Californian was supposed to save the passengers of the Titanic but was in the wrong area and there was a ship in between them so that they didn't know the Titanic was sinking. Last, the propeller of the Titanic was said to be fitted to the Olympic after its recent condition and the propeller on the Titanic was the same one said to be on the Olympic according to its stamp and ID number.

Another conspiracy theory is that the Titanic was carrying the remains of an Egyptian pharaoh mummy. The remains are said to have been cursed and were stored on the bridge to avoid damage to the mummy. It’s said that the remain’s curse sunk the ship. The only evidence to support this is that a historian has stated that the remains were on board.

The third conspiracy that I’m going to discuss is that a journalist had foreseen the tragedy. This really is more of a paranormal story. In 1886, a British writer, William T. Stead, wrote a story titled: “How the Atlantic Mail Steamer Went Down.” This described so close to the Titanic incident that it is extremely eerie. It’s plot said that a mail steamer collided with another vessel and the shortage of lifeboats results in a huge loss of life. Stead died in the Titanic incident. Not long after the incident, a psychic channeled his spirit.

I don’t know if I really believe these theories, but the evidence does seem pretty convincing especially for the switch theory. Although, these may seem far-fetched or unconvincing, they are fun to look into. If you would like any other weird theories, I recommend looking into the Denver airport theory, the Mandela Effect, Area 51, or fake moon landings.

Cover Image Credit: unilad.co.uk

Popular Right Now

I'm A Woman And You Can't Convince Me Breastfeeding In Public Is OK In 2019

Sorry, not sorry.


Lately, I have seen so many people going off on social media about how people shouldn't be upset with mothers breastfeeding in public. You know what? I disagree.

There's a huge difference between being modest while breastfeeding and just being straight up careless, trashy and disrespectful to those around you. Why don't you try popping out a boob without a baby attached to it and see how long it takes for you to get arrested for public indecency? Strange how that works, right?

So many people talking about it bring up the point of how we shouldn't "sexualize" breastfeeding and seeing a woman's breasts while doing so. Actually, all of these people are missing the point. It's not sexual, it's just purely immodest and disrespectful.

If you see a girl in a shirt cut too low, you call her a slut. If you see a celebrity post a nude photo, you call them immodest and a terrible role model. What makes you think that pulling out a breast in the middle of public is different, regardless of what you're doing with it?

If I'm eating in a restaurant, I would be disgusted if the person at the table next to me had their bare feet out while they were eating. It's just not appropriate. Neither is pulling out your breast for the entire general public to see.

Nobody asked you to put a blanket over your kid's head to feed them. Nobody asked you to go feed them in a dirty bathroom. But you don't need to basically be topless to feed your kid. Growing up, I watched my mom feed my younger siblings in public. She never shied away from it, but the way she did it was always tasteful and never drew attention. She would cover herself up while doing it. She would make sure that nothing inappropriate could be seen. She was lowkey about it.

Mindblowing, right? Wait, you can actually breastfeed in public and not have to show everyone what you're doing? What a revolutionary idea!

There is nothing wrong with feeding your baby. It's something you need to do, it's a part of life. But there is definitely something wrong with thinking it's fine to expose yourself to the entire world while doing it. Nobody wants to see it. Nobody cares if you're feeding your kid. Nobody cares if you're trying to make some sort of weird "feminist" statement by showing them your boobs.

Cover up. Be modest. Be mindful. Be respectful. Don't want to see my boobs? Good, I don't want to see yours either. Hard to believe, I know.

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

My AP Environmental Science Class' Cookie Mining Experiment Shows Why Capitalism Is Destroying The Planet

Who cares about the environment with profits this high?


With the AP exams in May approaching quickly, my AP Environmental Science class has wasted no time in jumping right into labs. To demonstrate the damage to the environment done by strip mining, we were instructed to remove the chocolate chips from cookies.

The experiment in itself was rather simple. We profited from fully or partially extracted chips ($8 for a full piece and $4 for a partial) and lost from buying tools, using time and area and incurring fines.

This might seem simplistic, but it showcased the nature of disastrous fossil fuel companies.

We were fined a $1 per minute we spent mining. It cost $4 per tool we bought (either tweezers or paper clips) and 50 cents for every square centimeter of cookie we mined.

Despite the seemingly overbearing charges compared to the sole way to profit, it was actually really easy to profit.

If we found even a partial chocolate chip per minute, that's $3 profit or utilization elsewhere. Tools were an investment that could be made up each with a partial chip, and clearly we were able to find much, much more than just one partial chip per tool.

Perhaps the most disproportionally easiest thing to get around were the fines. We were liable to be fined for habitat destruction, dangerous mining conditions with faulty tools, clutter, mess and noise level. No one in the class got fined for noise level nor faulty tools, but we got hit with habitat destruction and clutter, both of which added up to a mere $6.

We managed to avoid higher fines by deceiving our teacher by pushing together the broken cookie landscapes and swiping away the majority of our mess before being examined for fining purposes. This was amidst all of our cookies being broken into at least three portions.

After finding many, many chips, despite the costs of mining, we profited over $100. We earned a Franklin for destroying our sugary environment.

We weren't even the worst group.

It was kind of funny the situations other groups simulated to their cookies. We were meant to represent strip mining, but one group decided to represent mountaintop removal. Mountaintop removal is where companies go to extract resources from the tops of mountains via explosions to literally blow the tops off. This group did this by literally pulverizing their cookies to bits and pieces with their fists.

They incurred the maximum fine of $45. They didn't profit $100, however.

They profited over $500 dollars.

In the context of our environmental science class, these situations were anywhere from funny to satisfying. In the context of the real world, however, the consequences are devastating our environment.

Without even mentioning the current trajectory we're on approaching a near irreversible global temperature increase even if we took drastic measures this moment, mining and fracking is literally destroying ecosystems.

We think of earthquakes as creating mass amounts of sudden movement and unholy deep trenches as they fracture our crust. With dangerous mining habits, we do this ourselves.

Bigger companies not even related to mining end up destroying the planet and even hundreds of thousands of lives. ExxonMobil, BP? Still thriving in business after serial oil spills over the course of their operation. Purdue Pharma, the company who has misled the medical community for decades about the effects of OxyContin and its potential for abuse, is still running and ruining multitudes more lives every single day.

Did these companies receive fines? Yes.

But their business model is too profitable to make the fines have just about any effect upon their operation.

In our cookie mining simulation, we found that completely obliterating the landscape was much more profitable than being careful and walking on eggshells around the laws. Large, too-big-to-fail companies have held the future of our planet in their greedy paws and have likewise pulverized our environment, soon enough to be unable to return from.

Related Content

Facebook Comments