Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Titanic sinking: Here are three of the wildest conspiracy theories" video.

@castro7362 So, you think Antarctic ice is different from Atlantic ice? The fact is that Explorer, like Titanic, was sunk by ice. Leaving that aside, how do you explain the accounts of survivors? Mass hallucination?
11
What do you think happened to MV. Explorer in 2007, then?
10
@SajjadGul2 Well I, for one, know. As does every other knowledgeable person.
8
@castro7362 The first U-Boat with a diesel engine was U19, commissioned a year later. Previous ones had paraffin engines which were unreliable and gave off large amounts of smoke. In WW1, these older boats stayed close to Germany. Newfoundland is not close to Germany. Why does a torpedo 'make more sense?' Aside from the technical impossibility, why would Germany benefit from such an action. The last sinking caused by an iceberg, by the way, was in 2007.
7
The U-boat nonsense is simply that. This was in 1912. The first U-boat with a diesel engine, U19, did not commission until 1913.
6
No, it didn't. It was simply stopped, and the captain chose not to respond to the distress rockets observed by his own officers.
6
@I_like_bacon_well_done 'just because a ship can travel that fast doesn't mean it is.' He isn't the misinformed one. The U-boats in commission in the German navy in 1912 had paraffin engines for surface running. They were unreliable, which is why the older boats were used for short range operations only in 1914. U18, the most modern boat, had a surface speed ot eight knots. At the time of her collision, Titanic was steaming at 21 knots. Oh, and it was pitch dark, by the way. So, are you saying that a boat incapable of reaching Newfoundland, with a surface speed of 8 knots, was able to locate, catch, and torpedo, a liner steaming at almost three times that speed, in the dark?
3
Yes. Sad how a magnificent liner with a glorious 23 years in service ended up in a scrapyard in the mid 1930s wasn't it?
3
@legendarycheez3471 Edgar Allan Poe. Gustavus Adolphus. Spike Milligan. Orson Welles. As you seem to be listing names at random, I thought I would join in.
3
@I_like_bacon_well_done What? That Titanic was torpedoed? You don't need to believe me. Simply look up, for example, the U-Boats of Kaiser Wilhelm's navy. In particular U19, the first of the diesel-engined boats. My old tutor used to say that people who resort to insults rather than argument do so because they haven't actually got any arguments. You have made his case very well.
2
@thecensoredmuscle563 J. P. Morgan had decided not to sail aboard Titanic around a month before the sailing, and the reason had been mentioned in an article in the 'New York Times' in March, which can still be read by those interested or open minded enough. He did not pay, or was not required to pay, for anything, as he was Chairman of IMM. The cabin was the most prestigious aboard the ship, as might be expected, but it was not specifically designed for him, or for anyone else. Yes, he died less than a year later. He was 75 years old, and was known to be in failing health.
2
Perhaps you might like to explain why J. P. Morgan 'sank it?' I am sure that you can assemble a number of credible arguments. In fact, I look forward to reading them.
2
No. One thing that Harland & Wolff were very good at was designing & building large ships.
1
The only nearby ship was Californian, unless you wish to believe Molony's dubious claims about Mount Temple. Californian's officers were concerned enough to alert Captain Lord. Lord chose not to investigate. Why not was never really explained.
1
@amaritineenthusiast Californian's officers were concerned enought to alet their captain. I doubt anyone was timing the rockets by stopwatch, as there were more pressing issues to concern those launching the signals. Like possible imminent death?
1
Small problem here. The Federal Reserve/Titanic myth was created in the mid 1990s. If you actually look up the men proclaimed as Morgan's victims, Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus, you will find that neither of the first two had expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst Straus was a known supporter, as two newspaper articles from October, 1911, prove. For whatever reason, the creators of the conspiracy simply picked these three, as the most high profile victims, and labelled them without a single piece of supporting evidence. As to those who cancelled their bookings (they didn't disembark, as they were never aboard), yes, there were quite a number, but not as many as had cancelled for Olympic's maiden voyage the previous year. How would you explain that? Hasn't it occurred to you that, should you contact a devious and highly secret plot, then telling all your friends about if hardly helps to maintain secrecy. I refer you to Guy Fawkes for further information.
1
@mickeywicked478 Which, of course, provides precisely no proof of the false conspiracist allegation that Titanic was deliberately sunk precisely to eliminate Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus. Or even any proof that any of the three really did oppose the Fed.
1
The Second Boer War ended in May, 1902. The first powered flight was in December, 1903. Manchester United won the F.A. Cup in 1948. Isn't it eerie how these events are connected? Or even more eerie how they aren't!
1
@amaritineenthusiast Morgan actually supported the Federal Reserve. Just like Isidor Straus, one of his imaginary 'victims.'
1
Actually no, they weren't.
1
'13 colonies?' Perhaps you aren't aware that the suggestion that Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus opposed the Federal Reserve was a myth invented in the 1990s, without a single piece of evidence to support it?
1
@thecensoredmuscle563 Actually, it is easy to determine his reasons, should you so choose. In regard to J.P. Morgan cancelling "at the last minute," research by Mark Baber and posted on Encyclopedia Titanica actually reveals it to be an urban myth. Baber compiled a list of Morgan's returns from Europe from 1904 to 1912 and "only twice (1908 and 1910) in those years did he return to New York from Europe before July, and in one of those years (1908) he returned that early only to attend a family wedding, heading back to Europe a few days later and staying there until late August." Moreover, those occasions he returned early were in June - never as early as April. Even more conclusively, a New York Times newspaper article of Thursday 28th March 1912 reveals that in March:- "J. Pierpont Morgan has written a cordial letter to the committee, announcing that he will be in Venice on April 23 for the inauguration of the biennial International Art Exhibition, April 25, and dedicate the new Campanile of St. Mark's." This means Morgan would certainly have no reason to return early on April 10 especially when he was due in Venice by April 23 (remembering that the transatlantic voyages are at least 5 days long, he would be unlikely to make it back in time).
1
Except, of course for the awkward fact that this idea was only invented in the 1990s, and that actual evidence from the time proves three things :- 1). Astor & Guggenheim had never expressed any views about the Fed. 2). Straus was a supporter, as newspaper reports of his speech from October, 1911, clearly prove. 3). No-one was 'invited' aboard Titanic. Least of all by Morgan.
1
True. Some people are blind & stupid enough to believe the lunatic conspiracy theories.
1
@amaritineenthusiast You are wasting your time. The people who believe that nonsense do so almost as a matter of faith. The more evidence you show them that the conspiracy is fantasy, the more angry & obnoxious they seem to get.
1
Only if you believe a myth invented in the 1990s.
1
The same Peter Pryal who also claimed to have been miraculously cured of cancer overnight? He was known, even in 1912, to have been something of a fantasist.
1
Nonsense. It is not true that Olympic had been 'severely damaged.' At least, not until Robin Gardiner invented the idea in 1995, to sell his book. Olympic had been in collision with HMS Hawke in September, 1911. She returned to Belfast, being repaired by Harland & Wolff by late November, after which she was back on her Atlantic service. White Star was far from in financial difficulties at the time. If you don't wish to read their most recent accounts, simply ask yourself whether a company with such problems would have committed to the building of the third Olympic class liner, which they did in November, 1911. As to the insurance fraud itself. Both Olympic & Titanic cost £1.5 million to build, and were each insured for £1 million. Thus, any such 'fraud' would have lost White Star £500,000 together with their reputation for safety. I thought that insurance frauds were supposed to make money, not lose it in large quantities. I suspect that you have simply swallowed a switcher or conspiracist video, totally and unquestioningly?
1
Nonsense. Californian had sailed from Liverpool before Titanic left Queenstown, and had stopped because of concerns about sheet ice (not icebergs), by the way. Perhaps you are unaware that there is no evidence which suggests that Astor & Guggenheim opposed the Fed., whilst there is solid evidence that Straus was a supporter. This Fed. myth was invented from nowhere in the mid 1990s. Why not simply look these three up for yourself?
1
@nathatndennis4490 Oh, OK. The problem with Titanic sites is that there are so many barmpots infesting them that it becomes impossible to determine who is being humorous, and who is simply a conspiracist berk.
1
Except Olympic had been repaired, and returned to sea, from late November, 1911, when Titanic was several months from completion. In fact, when Titanic sank, Olympic was around 500 miles from her, on her way to Southampton from New York.
1
No. It means that Titanic's structure at the time of her sinking was subjected to stresses far beyond anything for which she had been designed. Neat attempt to smuggle the ludicrous 'Titanic & Olympic were switched' myth into you post, however. All you now lack is one single credible piece of evidence.
1
@castro7362 'Antarctica is way more hostile with ice that’s just a fact.' Evidence? No, of course you don't have any. 'Times were different the world was in war when the Titanic sank.' Really? In April 1912? Do you know something the rest of the world doesn't? Which survivors heard a 'huge explosion?' Are you a natural fool, or did you complete a training course and get a Certificate of Foolery?
1
Perhaps because ot the lack of the slightest piece of supporting evidence?
1
@tooth8551 If there really is 'plenty of evidence' why are you so reluctant to give me a single example?
1
'The Great switch with the Olympic is not conspiracy.' No, it isn't conspiracy at all. It is simply false.
1