Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "BBC News" channel.

  1. The three financiers were Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus. The first two had never expressed their views about the Fed., whilst the third supported the idea. You should not believe a myth invented in the mid 1990s. Simply do a fact checker to determine the truth.
    2
  2.  @ascendantindigo271  So what you are actually saying is that any fact which proves you fantasy wrong must be a false fact, simply because it proves your fantasy wrong? As original approach, if not entirely a sane one. Out of interest, here is a Statement I came across fro Reuters. I reproduce it here as it parallels more or less exactly the findings of my own delvings into the matter over many years as a maritime historian. It does not, however, mention that this myth was created in the mid 1990s. "A widely-shared meme has taken several facts about the Titanic out of context to make unsubstantiated claims that  imply the ship’s sinking was a deliberate act. This is not true – experts widely agree the sinking of the Titanic was an accident.   The meme was posted to Facebook  and has been shared many times. It consists of two images: one of the ship and a second of American financier John Pierpoint (J.P.) Morgan. These sit alongside a wall of text that suggests Morgan had motive to sink the Titanic because it was hosting three powerful people who opposed his idea for a centralised banking system, ie: the U.S. Federal Reserve. The post reads:- “DID YOU KNOW? The man who funded the building of the titanic, J. P. Morgan, cancelled his long-awaited journey just hours before its proposed departure,” the meme reads. “3 of the wealthiest men on earth, whom (sic) were against the creation of the federal reserve bank, happened to be invited aboard for its maiden voyage (John Aster, Isador Strauss & Benjamin Guggenheim). “It then headed full speed into a known iceberg-field, with less than half the required lifeboats, no red signal flares, no Rothschild or Rockefeller on board, and sank to the bottom of the north Atlantic Ocean. Less than a year later, now that the wealthy opposition was out of the way, the federal reserve was created and USA was turned into an incorporated business, with its own business ID number, ’28 U.S.C. 3002 15.” J.P MORGAN CLAIMS  While it is true that J.P. Morgan owned the Titanic and did not sail on its doomed maiden voyage, there is no evidence to suggest he deliberately missed the trip because he knew the ship would sink. Historians have debated several reasons for Morgan to cancel his trip, but none is related to the Federal Reserve. “I've never been able to find an authoritative 1912 source explaining the exact reason why J. P. Morgan cancelled his passage on the Titanic, but he definitely didn't do so mere ‘hours’ before the ship's departure,” Titanic expert George Behe said in an email to Reuters.  Meanwhile, Don Lynch, a historian at the Titanic Historical Society (THS), said: “One of J.P. Morgan's biographers said that France was changing its laws to prevent Americans from exporting art treasures from that country, so Morgan went to Paris to oversee getting his purchases out of the country before the new laws went into effect.”   Also from THS, advisory board member Ray Lepien, said that as well as the art treasures theory, “the ‘official’ explanation was that he (Morgan) fell ill and wanted to take the ‘cure’ at a spa in France with his mistress.” Lepien added: “It could have been both reasons.”  STRAUS, ASTOR AND GUGGENHEIM’S OPINIONS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE PROPOSAL  While it is also true that Isidor Straus, Macy’s Department store owner; John Jacob Astor, a property tycoon, and Benjamin Guggenheim, a mining boss, died in the 1912 disaster, there is no evidence to suggest they were the target of deliberate sabotage. There is also no evidence that these three men were against Morgan’s centralised banking ideas.  Firstly, Titanic’s maiden voyage had attracted many prominent names, and was dubbed the “Millionaire’s Special” as a result.  Secondly, George Behe told Reuters he was unable to find any documents in his 45 years of researching the Titanic that proved the three men opposed the Federal Reserve. In fact, a Washington Post investigation found that while Astor and Guggenheim did not take a public stance on the matter, Straus reportedly spoke in favour of the proposal.
    2
  3. Nonsense. Do you think people in 1912 were as stupid as some are today? Do you think that when Titanic's chief engineer reported the fire to Captain Smith, Smith said 'Never mind, we'll sail anyway. It's only the North Atlantic in April. What can possibly go wrong?' Actually, there was a smouldering fire, caused by spontaneous combustion of damp coal, in one of 19 bunkers. It was extinguished 24 hours or more before the collision, without damaging the bulkheads. at least, not according to witnesses at the British Inquiry, that is.
    2
  4. You watched the wrong video. No Titanic propeller was ever fitted to Olympic, although part of a propeller shaft was, in order to get Olympic back to sea as quickly as possible. Titanic at the time (November, 1911) was months away from completion, which meant that a replacement shaft section could be manufactured for her. The supposed images of Olympic's name under that of Titanic are poor quality CGI fakes. They first saw the light of day in around 2000. They have no provenance, and no expedition has either claimed them or even referred to them. Different colours were not used for the two ships. Olympic, the first of the class, was painted in white (or light grey) because Cunard's Mauretania had been similarly painted at the time of her launch a few years earlier, and had shown up well in newsreel footage. White Star simply followed suit, after which Olympic was repainted in black before entering service. Both Olympic & Titanic had base coats of primer. Do not simply believe the things you see in switcher videos.
    2
  5. Nothing much to say. Titanic's number on Titanic's propeller. That's all.
    2
  6. In the real world, everyone knows that it is. You should try visiting the real world, as it is an interesting place.
    2
  7. I would probavbly be unconscious in 20 minutes or so.
    2
  8.  @johnsmith-rs2vk  It appears that your attempt to insult another commentator rather lost credibility when you demonstrated your inability to spell the word 'stupid.' Unless 'stuid' means something to you unknown to the world at large?
    2
  9.  @johnsmith-rs2vk  It did the job, though, didn't it? You have deleted your two word, wrongly spelled, insult, I observe,
    2
  10. Both ships cost £1.5 million to build, and both were insured for £1 million. White Star received £1 million from Lloyds when Titanic sank.
    2
  11. Would you like me to send you details of a factchecker site which proves with an idiotic comment that is?
    2
  12. No, there weren't.
    2
  13. FUN FACT: Bruce Ismay, or indeed anyone at the time, never said anything of the sort.
    2
  14. Sorry, but simply not true.
    2
  15. Not really. The first German boat with a diesel engine, U 19, only commissioned in 1913. Previous boats had unreliable paraffin engines, and were unsuitable for anything other than short range voyages.
    2
  16. Let's hope she remembers the biscuits.
    2
  17. Idiot. Did you enjoy your fact-free switcher video? Much better than the mundane facts, wasn't it?
    2
  18. Yes. Look at the windows, and especially the forward end of 'B' deck. Symptomatic of the modified Titanic windows, and different from the Olympic's window pattern in 1912.
    2
  19. Because the stern imploded during the sinking process, whereas the bow, which had filled with water, didn't. A few survivors claimed to have heard 'rumblings' rather than explosions, possibly pieces of machinery breaking loose. However, the vast majority reported the iceberg.
    2
  20. Watch it, indeed. Then actually check the claims, and be shocked to discover that it is nothing but nonsense and falsehoods.
    2
  21. Ocean liners continued to be built, generally larger, ending with Queen Mary & Queen Elizabeth, etc. With the later widspread availability of air travel, cruise ships, much larger than the Olympics were, and continue to be built instead.
    2
  22.  @bottomrung5777  'A pic of her leaving Port had a close up of the coal bin area and it was quite dark. Actually, the picture of what appears to be a smudge, is well above the waterline and well forward of the bunker which was affected. Moreover, it is in the vicinity of the third class accommodation. As far as I know, no third class survivors ever reported seeing anyone burned alive. Do try to think. Had there really been an serious fire at all, would the captain, officers, & crew have sailed? They were White Star employees, not members of a crazed suicide cult.
    2
  23.  @bottomrung5777  Where did I use the phrase 'foregone conclusion' out of interest? I have stated proven facts. If you think I haven't, please show me where. As your first post read 'If the decision was to embark knowing the fire would destroy the hull causing catastrophic failure, then mass murder was committed to benefit from an insurance payout rather than abort the voyage leaving many aristocrats upset and having to do major repairs or even trashing the Titanic before it's first voyage,' you are hardly in any position to suggest that anyone else 'take it easy.'
    2
  24. Oh dear. Another fan of switcher videos. Olympic had been repaired by late November, 1911, and back on her Atlantic run since then. The claim from insurance following her accident was because she was deemed at fault, although in the charge of Solent Pilot. That was water under the bridge, and Olympic was fully insured when she returned to sea in November, 1911. J.P. Morgan did not 'jump ship.' He never intended to board, as he intended to attend an event at St. Mark's in Venice on 23 April. This intention had already been announced in a newspaper in March, 1912, and the announcement may still be read. The supposed opponents of the Fed. have never been demonstrated to have been anything of the sort. Straus had publicly announce his support, again in newspaper articles which may still be read, whilst Astor & Guggenheim had never spoken about their views. Read Robin Gardiner's book, certainly. Just check every false 'fact' proclaimed within it.
    2
  25. Indeed. A successful liner scrapped in the mid 1930s, after being known as 'Old Reliable' for years. Deserves an honourable mention, even if not relevant to this item.
    2
  26.  @Qskeeee-Q  Ever thought of trying to communicate in some form of known language?
    2
  27. Morgan never intended to sail in Titanic as he had a prior appointment in Venice at St. Mark's. It was actually in the newspapers in March, 1912. The Federal Reserve myth was invented in the 1990s. Did you enjoy the conspiracist video you swallowed whole?
    2
  28. You refer to a smouldering fire in one of 19 bunkers? Already being addressed by the engineers & stokers, and extinguished some 24 hours before the collision? The fire which damaged nothing except paintwork inside the bunker? That fire?
    2
  29. You mean where the name Titanic was still faintly visible?
    2
  30. The damage was below the waterline and is not visible. Nothing funny about it.
    2
  31. No. H & W records say three. Olympic had four, and H & W were trying an alternative to see which configuration was more efficient. Olympic was later fitted with a three blade prop. for a time, befor switching back to four. Britannic had four from the state, so the evidence must have favoured a four bladed centre prop.
    2
  32. It was on the Hull of RMS Olympic until she was scrapped in the 1930s.
    2
  33. Don't be an idiot. Bombed with what, and from what? A black ops Wright Flyer, perhaps?!
    2
  34. Indeed, Titanic's eminent older sister. She had a long and illustrious career before being scrapped in the 1930s when White Star & Cunard were merged.
    2
  35.  @stephenbate933  Brilliant! Pay £1.5 million to build a ship, then claim back £1 million when it sinks. Thus, you lose £500,000, as well as your record for safety. Who came up with that one? Baldrick from Blackadder?
    2
  36. No, he didn't. You have a source for you claim? No, of course you don't.
    2
  37. Presumably you are very young, very stupid, or very gullible. Perhaps a combination of these three?
    2
  38. Idiot.
    2
  39.  @eliel_360  After a while, I begin to feel a degree of sympathy for these people. They watch a switcher video or two, pronounce themselves instant authorities on the subject, but run for the hills when presented with actual facts. It seems to be an issue of faith, not one of knowledge.
    2
  40. They won't, because there was no explosion and Titanic was not Olympic.
    2
  41. No, it wasn't sabotage.
    2
  42. 'Those who know.' You mean those who look at the actual evidence, and not at half-baked switcher videos, and know that Titanic sank in 1912, whereas Olympic was scrapped in the early 1930s? Those people?
    2
  43. Oh dear. Doubtless another Russian scientist will tragically fall out of the window of a high rise building in the next day or so.
    2
  44. Astor & Guggenheim never expressed their opinions about the Federal Reserve, whilst Straus was known to be a supporter. You have been fooled by a myth created in the mid 1990s.
    2
  45. They disappeared long ago.
    2
  46.  @Twiddlers  Olympic had the original, square, evenly spaced windows of the original design. Titanic had been modified with extra cabins and a cafe, resulting in an uneven pattern of rectangular windows in the same location. The same pattern as can be seen on the wreck.
    2
  47.  @jasonyap6494  Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about. You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India. Try to break your programming and think instead. In WW2 2.5 million Indians joined the allied armed forces. Was Churchill really likely to risk driving them into mutiny by acting as your indoctrinators have suggested? I am sorry if trying to reason for once might make your brain throb! I appreciate, of course, that you won't believe any of this, as it doesn't suit the agenda.
    2
  48. Don't worry. He will not be asked to give evidence. His defense team will cite mental incapacity.
    2
  49. Of course not. The images, however interesting, simply record the current condition of a 110 year old shipwreck. Anyone who suggests anything more is simply misleading people.
    2
  50.  @eyeamgod2734  Seriously, don't be a fool? Titanic is only where she is because she sank in the first place. She is in several pieces, and is 13,000 feet down. Had she sunk last week, modern technology wouldn't be able to raise her. How could Lloyds claim anything back in any case, as the ship did sink, didn't it? You cannot possibly be as stupid as you present yourself as being, surely?
    2