Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Titanic vs Olympic: The Key Difference" video.

Brilliant! Spend £1.5 million building a ship. Insure it for £1 million, then sink it. You lose £500,000 and your reputation for safety. Who came up with this spiffing wheeze? The Board of Cunard, perhaps?
3
'I was a shipyard supervisor in a ship yard.' Yes, of course you were. I was Holy Roman Emperor in the 18th Century. Perhaps you were unaware that, when Olympic returned to sea on 20 November 1911, after repair, Titanic was several months from completion. A photograph of the pair together in October, 1911, shows Olympic in full White Star paintwork, and Titanic lacking three funnels, parts of her superstructure, and, of course, her paintwork. Are these differences 'non structural?' By the time Titanic left Southampton on 10 April, 1912, Olympic had completed five double crossings of the Atlantic since November, 1911, and was in New York, halfway through her sixth. Not bad for a cripple with a broken keel, I suggest. You haven't, by the way, explained firstly why anyone should seek to swap the identities of two perfectly seaworthy ships, and secondly why, for the rest of their lives, not one of the H & W managers or shipbuilding personnel in H & W's yard ever thought to mention it to anyone?
2
@JesusIsaFlatEarther The word 'Government' comes from the term 'govern', which derives from the old french 'governer'. This is itself derived from the Latin 'gubernare.,' (to direct, rule. guide, govern) This, in turn, is derived from the Greek 'κῠβερνᾰ́ω' or kybernan (to pilot a ship). NASA in Hebrew has several meanings :- nasá (נָשָֹא) = to carry, to marry nasá (נָסָע) = to travel NÁSA (נאס"א) = NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration nása (נַסָה) = “she flees” (poetic). So, 'does it?' No, it doesn't.
2
@JesusIsaFlatEarther What is it about Titanic & the Moon Landings which attracts a large than usual percentage of nut cases?
2
They will be back. The switch, to them, is simply a matter of faith. Facts and evidence mean nothing to them.
2
Do you actually mean, 'I want to believe this, but I haven't a single piece of evidence to support my belief.' Honest of you to admit it, at least.
2
Titanic's window pattern was originally the same as Olympic's, but a number of modifications were made to Titanic during her construction. Firstly, two extra portholes were added to her port side forward, in late 1911, then the forward end of 'B' deck was modified in early 1912, resulting in a different window configuration. Finally, the forward end of 'A' deck was enclosed, seemingly as late as March, 1912.
2
@MohawkHalfBreedTheShredder Perhaps because Old Reliable was a hugely successful liner, without many incidents of note, two collisions twenty years or so apart, and the sinking of a U-boat. Mere reliability and success isn't, apparently, interesting enough.
2
'How could a ship with a bent keel go on to serve in the war..for 15yrs.' Perhaps because Olympic never had a bent keel, until an author invented one in the late 1990s? She lasted for 23 years, by the way. 'The Olympic had used the titanic propeller after Olympic threw a blade..that's why the propeller at the bottom which is the titanics propeller say 401...history.' 'History?' No, actually fantasy. The blades on the outer propellers of the Olympics were bolted on, not cast. When Olympic lost a blade in February, 1912, she returned to Belfast, where a new, spare, blade was fitted. There are even photographs of this procedure taking place. Never at any time was anything other than part of a propeller shaft taken from Titanic & fitted to Olympic. Olympic was scrapped in the mid 1930s, after the merger of White Star & Cunard. Her old rival Mauretania was scrapped at the same time. Why do you fantasise that the scrapping was part of a devious plot, especially since the switch myth was still sixty years in the future. 'The captain was screwed out a job otherwise..the passengers were forced to sign a piece of paper stating not to tell what they had seen..secret act.' Oh yes, of course. You have lost most of your family in a disaster at sea, but you are forced to sign a paper, and all 700+ of you, for the rest of your lives, loyally remain silent. Are you serious?? There are many photographs of the Olympic of 1912, and some, though obviously fewer, of Titanic. 'If they could get a Pic of the other propeller I would be willing 2 bet anything it says 400!...' If you are so sure, why not sponsor a new exploration team? Think of the money you would make with so sensational a discovery! Oh, but having read your comments, I now realise that your carers would let you handle money. Or probably, anything sharp?
2
There are photographs of Titanic prior to launch, in which the name has been overwritten by the photographer to make if more visible to the viewer. These date from prior to the lauch in May 1911. 'B' decks forward end was modified in Titanic during construction. Additial cabins were added, and a cafe. This resulted in an pattern of rectangular windows, when compared to the even, square, pattern of the original design & of the Olympic in 1912. The Titanic pattern is the one seen on the wreck, of course. These modifications were indeed structural.
1
If you wish to be taken seriously, please do not write gibberish. I will not comment further until/unless an English translation appears.
1
@Apollo_Sausage 'Also, a structural staircase from the first floor of the Olympic was sold to the White Swan Hotel in Alnwick, UK as part of Olympics salvage and demolition in 1935. It was stamped with a 401.' False. The 'Olympic Restaurant' in the White Swan contains furniture purchased when Olympic was being scrapped. Several items were & are marked with the number 400, but never has the number 401 been found on anything.
1
It doesn't matter how many differences you produce. Obsessive switchers will refuse to accept the obvious. They are not interested in facts, as they have a strange need to believe in their fantasy.
1
I doubt it was. Mauretania was scrapped at the same time. In the middle of a depression, people had more pressing matters to concern them.
1
Wouldn't have are meaningless.
1
@cosmina.m.7570 'It doesn't mean that Titanic was poorly build, nor that the other ships were better.' My memory must be failing, as I don't recall either saying or even suggesting that.
1
To be even fairer to the switch theory, it has no evidence at all to support it, and large amounts to prove it false. To believe in it, suspension of reason & rational thought is essential.
1
Smith did not 'break' Olympic. At the time of her collision with HMS Hawke, she was in the Solent, in the charge of a Solent Pilot, deemed responsible by the court. Smith was White Star's senior Captain, and had commanded each new White Star liner on her maiden voyage since 1904.
1
No, there ian't. Olympic was less than a year old in April 1912.
1
You mean by ' I still think the titanic was sunk on purpose ' that you wish to believe that, and choose to ignore the evidence which disproves it?
1
@davinp If there had been a competition in 1912 to determine which ship was least suitable to act as the rescue ship for this devious plot, Californian would probably have been near the top. A small, fully laden, freighter on her way to Boston with a 'mixed, general' cargo? Seriously? Moreover, if Captain Lord was part of the scheme, why, when his officers reported Titanic's flares to him (which presumably he had been expecting) did he not act?
1
@mrsmerily 'But I do find the hearings after sinking weird and for sure someone wanted to cover up something.' Perhaps you should actually read the minutes? The bunker fire was discussed, as was the fact that the damage to the paintwork was over-painted after it had been extinguished. 'Raging Inferno' it wasn't, despite the insistence of some people that it must have been.
1
@paulwoodford1984 'Do you really think the olympic could have carried on until 1935 or 1937 when it was scrapped.' In a word, yes. Because the alleged keel damage is not referred to by any contemporary source. It is not mentioned in the Damagec Report produced by the Admiralty, White Star, & the Board of Trade from 1911. Indeed, it isn't mentioned by anyone anywhere until Robin Gardiner invented it in the late 1990s. Oh, and neither is there any report of any propeller replacement. Harland & Wolff did use parts from Titanic's propeller SHAFT on Olympic in order to speed up repairs at a time when Titanic was five months from completion. This absurd allegation was thought up by switchers to explain away the inconvenient fact that Ballard had photographed Titanic's 401 number on a blade at the wrecksite. Only on switcherworld could Titanic's number on the wreck prove that the wreck must have been Olympic!
1
@paulwoodford1984 i have seen the historical documents that reveals the truth' Of course you have. Now prove you point by telling us where these remarkable documents, presumably kept secret from everyone other than you, may be examined or viewed. I wait with eager anticipation.
1
@paulwoodford1984 'Don’t believe everything you read or are told in mainstream media. You will be amazed how easy it is to fool the public.' Well, certainly the switcher videos did a good job on you. I don't believe every I read. For a start, I don't believe you.
1