Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "BBC News"
channel.
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
Actually, all the data from 1911-1912, by which I mean documents, archives, records, and even photographs, is still readily available and easy to examine. You wouldn't wish to see it, of course, as it proves beyond any doubt at all that Titanic really is Titanic, and the switch theory, if I may dignify it with such a term, is arrant nonsense, dating from the mid 1990s.
You really shouldn't swallow whole everything you see in switcher videos. It do rather make you look a fool when you do.
4
-
Odd that there were so many witnesses to the Iceberg then, isn't it? How do you explain that, mass hallucination?
Oh, and the suggestion that the sinking was to facilitate the creation of the Fed. is a fantasy created in the mid 1990s. Two of the three supposed oppenents of it who died in the sinking, Astor & Guggenheim, had never expressed their opinions either way, whilst the third, Straus, was a supporter, and can be proven to be so by reference to reports of his speeches in newspaper articles from the period.
Do feel free to try to prove me mistaken, of course.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@johnm3845 'A fire was raging before it launched.' Really? A fire had been raging inside the ship for 11 months, for most of which Titanic had not even been coaled?
'They backed the ship in with the burnt black spot facing the ocean so it wasn't visible to people on shore.' Really? Then how do you explain the photograph which shows a mark on the forward part of Titanic's starboard side? The part nearest the quay? Moreover, how do you explain the fact that this mark is well above the waterline, and in the area of third class cabins, nowhere near any bunker?
How do you explain away IMM regulations, which required daily inspection of coal bunkers? How do you explain evidence at The British Inquiry, which stated that a smouldering bunker fire had been identified and dealt with at least a day before the collision, causing damage to internal paintwork within the bunker only?
As you cannot explain any of the above, try a simple question? If there was such a fire 'raging' as you describe it, why would a captain as experienced as Edward Smiith sail in the first place?
'I think this new 3d scan will reveal there was no iceberg damage.' Your comments suggest that you cannot think at all. The £D scans show precisely nothing which has not been seen many times before.
'I think they sacrificed the people on the Titan to cover the headlines about the new findings about what truly sunk it.' You should be ashamed of yourself for making so offensive a comment. Are you not even aware that Titan was a tourist vessel, not part of any exploration team?
You really are beneath contempt.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Maximus-HK Congratulations on selecting possibly the worst of a number of silly conspiracist & switcher videos as 'support' for your beliefs. Is that truly the extent of your 'research?'
I can refer you to an excellent site which analyses the nonsensical claims in that video, but will stick to the porthole silliness for now :-
This is one of the most popular pieces of 'evidence' of a switch but also the easiest to disprove. Quite simply, Titanic had 14 portholes on the port side C deck (bow) when launched, but in the following months she received 2 additional ones for better light and air, following recommendations for improvements following Olympic's early voyages.
In fact both Olympic and Titanic were launched with 14 portholes on the port side forecastle on C-Deck and 15 portholes on the starboard side of the same area. However, in December 1911, during Titanic's fitting out, she had 2 added to light the crews galley and wash room which resulted in a total of 16 as seen in the maiden voyage photographs. Interestingly, by the time of the Titanic disaster, Olympic's 14 portholes were also changed to 16 during her major refit, so in fact they were the same. Hence post-Titanic-sinking images of Olympic also have this 16 porthole configuration
Perhaps you aren't aware that, when Titanic was launched, she was basically a shell, and definitely a work in progress. After she was launched then she was 'fitted out' i.e. everything else was added. Ships were not launched in a finished state. Why do you think there was a nine months gap between launch & completion? This misunderstanding may be one of the reasons why this particular 'theory' holds fast despite its obvious answ
According to Titanic researcher Ioannis Georgiou, "the two additional portholes on Olympic were added about March 1912 during her short stay in Belfast and before the maiden voyage of Titanic. So by April 1912 both ships had 16 portholes. (This is something I have noticed.)"
By December 1911, Titanic was fitted with an additional 2 portholes, giving her a total of 16. Courtesy Steve Hall.
Hall summarises the porthole historyas follows: "At the time of the Titanic's launch there were 14 portholes in the port side plating between the fo´c’sle deck and the sheer line of the hull, but by December the same year, the ship was fitted with an additional 2 portholes, giving her a total of 16. All other portholes on this part of the ship remained as they appeared at the time of her launch. Although the ship had 14, then later 16, portholes on the port side, she had 15 on her starboard side, and this number remained consistent throughout.
The Olympic and the Britannic were also consistent on the starboard side, with 15 portholes. The Olympic, like the Titanic, was fitted originally with the same 14-porthole arrangement on the port side of her fo´c’sle, but 2 additional portholes were later fitted; they were there in March 1912. The Britannic, when launched, had 16 portholes, consistent with the later port side configuration of the Titanic and the Olympic."
The evolution of Titanic's port side portholes -from May 1911 when she was launched with 14, to April 1912 when she had 16. There is nothing here that reveals a 'switch'.
To give the spurious 'switch' claim more credibility than it deserves - if those behind the 'switch' were so clever so as to be able to switch absolutely everything aboard Olympic/Titanic as to include the numbers 400/401 etched onto the back of wooden panels in all the state rooms, then how is it they would overlook something as simple as the number of portholes on the outside of the ship?
Oh, and the insurance scam. This would only have even the slightest credibility if Olympic had indeed been damaged beyond repair, but the fact is that she returned to Harland & Wolff and was repaired, and back at sea, by late November, 1911. Thus, White Star had, in April, 1912, two huge, state of the art, Atlantic liners available to them. At 1911-12 monetary values, both cost £1.5 million to build, and both were insured with Lloyds for £1 million. Thus, when Titanic sank, and Lloyds duly paid out £1 million, White Star lost both £500,000 and their reputation for safety. I thought insurance scams were intended to make money, not lose it in large amounts?
If you would like me to correct any more of your apparent misunderstandings, please feel free to ask.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2