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

  1. Idiot. Those who say 'do some research' are, as in your case, the ones who have not actually done any themselves. By the way, swallowing a switcher video whole does not count as 'research.'
    1
  2. No. Because it wasn't.
    1
  3. Nonsense. Strange how any reference to Titanic tends to bring out the idiots, isn't it?
    1
  4. 'Coincidence?? I don’t believe in coincidences' It seems you don't much like facts, either. Like the facts that neither Astor nor Guggenheim had commented on the Fed, whilst Straus was in favour of it.
    1
  5. THe BBC didn't make the video.
    1
  6.  @johnscott8739  'Actually those are called barnacles.' The depth, or rather shallowness of your knowledge, astounds me. Two dictionary definitions :- Barnacle :- A type of arthropod constituting the subclass Cirripedia in the subphylum Crustacea, related to crabs and lobsters. Rusticle :- A rusticle is a formation of rust similar to an icicle or stalactite in appearance that occurs deep underwater when wrought iron oxidizes. Of course, those who urge others to 'do a little research' are almost exclusively those who, like yourself, have done little or none themselves. For example, had you bothered to check, you would have found out that no Titanic propeller was ever fitted to Olympic, for two reasons. :- 1). The angle of pitch of Olympic's propellers was different from that of Titanic's. 2). There was no need, as Olympic's starboard propeller was not damaged in the collision with HMS Hawke. At least, not according to the Admiralty inspection report of 1911, supported by other teams from the Board of Trade & White Star. It was published in November, 1911. Perhaps you missed it? Part of a propeller shaft was transferred to Olympic, in order to get her back to sea as quickly as possible, at a time when Titanic was many months away from completion and a new part could be fabricated without delaying this. You have fallen for a switcher invention, intended to explain away the inconvenient fact that there is a 401 Titanic propeller on the wreck. Only in the bizarre world of the switcher fanatic could a Titanic propeller be seen as proof that the ship is really Olympic!
    1
  7. We have actually had a good idea since 1912. Until the conspiracists, with their evidence-free inventions, arrived in the 1990s.
    1
  8. No, I din't remember that. Largely because he actually said no such thing.
    1
  9.  @PSimon-xr3pw  I suppose that you can provide a contemporary source confirming that? No, of course you can't.
    1
  10.  @PSimon-xr3pw  I prefer to rely on archives, newspapers and records from the time. None of which agree with your claim. 'No, I don’t get paid to do all that.' Which I presume means that you don't actually have any such source?
    1
  11.  @Nemenis  Nonsense. 400 kms? or 249 miles?!!
    1
  12.  @Nemenis  Well. It is wrong.
    1
  13. 'Like the Ship were over 10,000 Refugees and People Fleeing WW2 in Europe who were sunk by a German U-boat, Killing Everyone Onbaord.' No, there wasn't.
    1
  14. Brilliant! Pay £1.5 million to build a ship, then deliberately sink it in order to claim £1 million back, thus losing £500,000 and your reputation for safety. You probably aren't an accountant, are you?
    1
  15. Perhaps the descendants of the African tribal leaders and Arab slave traders who profited greatly from the Trade might make a major financial contribution?
    1
  16. Please don't be silly.
    1
  17. There is nothing to investigate. The wreck has been known to be Titanic since April, 1912. Despite what a myth invented in 1995 might claim.
    1
  18. Are you really that stupid? Please explain why the commanders of a ship with a serious fire aboaed would even set sail. As no-one from H & W or White star ever made any 'unsinkable' claim, are you suggesting that God is both vindictive & ill-informed?
    1
  19. Aren't those conspiracist videos entertaining? A shame they are unable to provide any evidence to support them. Or, at least, none which stands up to scrutiny.
    1
  20. Brilliant! Sink the ship and lose £500,000 on the insurance claim, as well as your safety record. Not an accountant, are you? By the way, how do you order someone to kill himself? Oh, and Titanic really did sink, as the overwhelming evidence has proven countless times.
    1
  21. Idiot. Did you enjoy your fact-free conspracist video? Much better than the mundane facts, wasn't it?
    1
  22. Compared to modern cruise liners, she was.
    1
  23. Of course they didn't, largely because only a combination of switchers and their associated idiots believe that nonsense. You may decide for yourself which group you inhabit.
    1
  24. It appears that you believe the myth. The claim was never made by either owners nor builders.
    1
  25. 'All those high ranking passengers onboard who were against the creation of a Federal Reserve, dead.' Except they weren't. At least, not until the myth was invented in the mid 1990s. I am confident you can cite supporting evidence for this nonsense?
    1
  26. 'Morality?' I assume you realise that sarcasm doesn't come across well in writing?
    1
  27. As Olympic returned to Harland & Wolff in October, 1911, and was fully repaired by late November, 1911, what would you expect to see?
    1
  28. No. Harland & Wolff records suggest that Titanic had a three bladed centre propeller, whilst Olympic's had four blades. The intention was to test which was more efficient. After the sinking, Olympic was fitted with a three bladed propeller for a short period, before the four bladed one was re-fitted.
    1
  29. Not interesting, simply nonsense. Californian was carrying a 'mixed general' cargo, at least according to the Boston shipping papers when she docked. White Star lost £500,000 and their safety record as a result of this supposed 'scam.' Still, all is not lost. At least you mush have enjoyed the conspiracist video you watched and swallowed whole.
    1
  30. What about the wreck, which actually tells us nothing new by the way, calls anything survivor statements said incorrect?
    1
  31. Names of White Star ships were engraved into the hull. After 110 years, the remains are a mass of rusticles, so nothing will be visible. The fact that the window pattern at the forward end of 'B' deck, and the 401 number on the propeller blade are unique to Titanic is adequate proof to all except the fanatical switcher extremists.
    1
  32. Then you are guessing wrong.
    1
  33. I suppose you have sources which confirm this? No, of course you don't. You simply watched a switcher video and you lack the gumption to check any of the false claims within it.
    1
  34. Why? It wasn't. White Star received £1 million from Lloyds for a ship which cost £1.5 million to build. What sort of a clever scam is that?
    1
  35.  @adrianrangel1497  'gullible.' Yes, we know you are. You needn't confirm the fact.
    1
  36. What fraud might that have been? Do tell.
    1
  37.  @Superbustr  1). What structural damage do you think that might have been? 2). What was 'deliberate' about the collision? 3). What 'botched' rescue mission? 4). What insurance? The one which paid out 2/3rds of the building cost? 5). Why don't you have the slightest idea what you are writing about?
    1
  38. That's it. Rub it in, why don't you? Actually, from a third generation Man United fan, congratulations. You have a very fine team and an admirable manager.
    1
  39. No, but H & W records say that Titanic's centre propeller was three bladed.
    1
  40. Indeed. I expect the same ones that believe the earth to be flat, and carried round on the backs of four large elephants.
    1
  41.  @TheRealDerekL  The image of the build number, 401, has appeared in several photographs. What do you think might have changed? Perhaps you are also unaware of the photos. of the forward end of 'B' deck, where the windows correspond with the modified Titanic pattern, and are different from the Olympic of 1912? Perhaps you simply refuse to accept the rather mundane truth? I observe that you have ignored my original question, which was 'Which expeditions have made the sort of claim that identifies Titanic as Olympic?' I wonder what might be the reason for that oversight on your part?
    1
  42.  @TheRealDerekL  I assume you don't know who Doveton Sturdee was? Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
    1
  43.  @TheRealDerekL  The article about Titanic was on a public Daily Mail site. It was not something I found 'at random.' I haven't 'tried' to do anything; I have simply corrected your errors, and your only response so far seems to have been a combination of insults and refusal to dispute any of the points I made. Perhaps you don't understand what a 'discussion' is? An exchange of differing opinions. What have I 'refused to acknowledge' and what 'video evidence?' Do please enlighten me.
    1
  44.  @TheRealDerekL  Who is being 'cryptic?' I simply wish to retain my anonimity. Why don't you try proving me in error, by revealing your evidence that the wreck is that of Olympic? I assume that you believe it would be easy to do, although you have been very coy about it to date.
    1
  45.  @TheRealDerekL  What is? You don't actually know much about the Titanic sinking, do you?
    1
  46.  @TheRealDerekL  Is English your second or third language? I merely said that I saw the item on the Dail Mail online site, presumably as you did. I then responded to some of the idiotic and ill-informed comments which followed, as they always do, from people such as you. Please show me when I suggested that it was 'verified researched information?' You appear to be making things up, as you are unable to debate sensibly.
    1
  47. Why?
    1
  48. No, there is no reference to Olympic on the ship. Moreover, details revealed by several expeditions from Ballard onwards match those of Titanic from 1912 & are different from details of the Olympic of the same period. However, none of this matters to conspiracists or switchers, as they insist upon clinging to their fantasies in defiance of evidence, however overwhelming it might be.
    1
  49. Gustloff was sunk in the Baltic, whilst carrying troops and U boat crews as well as refugees. As an armed auxiliary warship, she was a legitimate target.
    1
  50. Olympic had been damaged when, in the charge of a Solent Pilot, not Captain Smith, she collided with HMS Hawke. However, she had been repaired, and was back on her Atlantic run, from late November 1911. Your imaginary scam resulted in White Star receiving £500,000 less than Titanic cost to build. What sort of a scam was that?
    1