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

  1.  @samdumaquis2033  No.
    1
  2. Perhaps you don't realise that parts of the ship which flooded were effectively equalised in pressure with the water outside, hence the fact that the bow section is recognisable. By contrast the stern section, whic did not flood so quickly as it sank was crushed & badly distorted.
    1
  3.  @YTPREO  No. Simple common sense.
    1
  4. You can tell that from images of a 111 year old shipwreck, can you? You must be either very clever or very deluded. I know where my money would be placed.
    1
  5. Be careful. The idiots who infest sites like this are likely to add another conspiracy theory, that the Hammers sank Titanic.
    1
  6.  @snakejuce  Feel free to prove me wrong by providing your source. When do you think Ismay made the claim, and to whom?
    1
  7.  @snakejuce  Fine. Then simply state the details of your 'source' without trying to share any URL.
    1
  8.  @snakejuce  Not 'may not be 100%.' Actually is 100% false.
    1
  9. Perhaps because Gustloff was an armed auxiliary warship, carrying troops & U-boat crews as well as refugees crammed aboard at the last minute. In fact, a warship sunk in time of war.
    1
  10. A glance at the state of the wreck is all the reason you need.
    1
  11.  @JonBanJudah813  Who is to say? Well, the German military & naval archives at Freiburg, for one. Britannic was sunk (by a mine, not by a torpedo, by the way) after more than two years of war. Germany was rather eager not to involve Britain in any European war, by the way. The German U-boat campaign began in August, 1914, by the way, and attacks on shipping, as opposed to warships, began in February, 1915, and even then initially only in waters close to the UK, which does not apply to Newfoundland. Sunk by a U-boat? Why? Sorry, but out of the question.
    1
  12. Near Newfoundland there are. What do you think the International Ice Patrol has been monitoring for over 100 years?
    1
  13. No, largely because it never said OlympIC on Titanic's bows.
    1
  14. Nonsense. Both used identical materials and were built in the same yard at the same time. Olympic was a successful liner until withdrawn in 1934.
    1
  15. No, Serial number on the propeller was 401 (Titanic). Because the wrecked ship was, and still is, Titanic.
    1
  16. Why? Nothing has changed, except the wreck is slowly deteriorating.
    1
  17.  @nicholasmaude6906  I have not questioned, nor even commented upon, the validity of the project. I have simply suggested what I believe the opinions of those worthies might be.
    1
  18. 'Real ones' actually know that the name of Titanic's older sister was Olympic, of course. The depth of your research and knowledge is stupefying shallow.
    1
  19. Try again. At least try to get the name right.
    1
  20. Because it didn't happen, perhaps?
    1
  21. 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.
    1
  22. Those who urge people to 'do the research' or in your case, 'GO INVESTIGEATE PEOPLE !!! are of course, inevitably those who have done little or none themselves. Except, of course, for watching a switcher video & swallowing it whole.
    1
  23. Just as if Titanic had had radar, she wouldn't have hit an iceberg. So what?
    1
  24. Which sister ship was that? The one which was a successful liner, in peace & war, for 23 years? That sister ship?
    1
  25. Only if you believe a myth dating from the mid 1990s.
    1
  26. Nobody profited. White Star lost £500,000 at 1912 monetary values, as well as their safety record.
    1
  27. I believe that the Dear Leader has already stated that the reason the city was ruined was a result of 14 years of Tory government.
    1
  28. Who do you think said that, and why do you think God is so vindictive & so badly informed?
    1
  29.  @skipmartin84  Edward Smith never said anything of the sort. Please provide evidence for this nonsensical allegation. You seem to have a rather 'Old Testament' image of God, I observe.
    1
  30. Of course it is. That was never in question.
    1
  31.  @bottomrung5777  Which of my facts do you want me to reference? The location of the mark, well above the waterline? The position of the Third class accommodation? The actual location of the affected bunker? You can check those yourself simply by referring to a plan of the ship. Do get back to me if I am incorrect.
    1
  32.  @bottomrung5777  Of course a passenger ship could leave port with a bunker fire aboard. Bunker fires were not unknown. Indeed, IMM had regulations in place requiring that the condition of the bunkers aboard their ships be inspected on a daily basis. Which is precisely what happened, the smouldering fire was discovered, a team allocated to it, and it was extinguished around 24 hours before the sinking. What you suggested, however, 'If the decision was to embark knowing the fire would destroy the hull causing catastrophic failure, then mass murder was committed,' borders on the lunatic. No New York team was allocated because there was no need. As every contemporary source, and in particular, the statements of the engineer & stoker survivors at the British Inquiry, made clear was that the fire had caused no damage beyond scorched paintwork inside the bunker. Thus, your claim that correspondence between the Captain and the New York repair facilities is, unambiguously, a lie. Quite what motivates you fools to behave in this manner is beyond reason, I fear.
    1
  33.  @bottomrung5777  I prefer accurate, factual, comments, to nice ones. 'You could have AT THE START given a brief background of yourself to try and qualify your take.' You mean, just as you didn't? I don't need to justify myself to anyone. My opinions, just like anyone else's stand or fall on their own merits, However:- After leaving University with a First in Modern History, alongside my business career I chose to specialise in Maritime & Navay History, and in particular that of the 20th Century. I have had a number of books and articles published on the subject. I am fortunate enough still to have access to a range of research facilities, such as the National Archives at Kew. Does that help? 'I gave opinion on a line of research that may be appropriate to help victim families get closure.' Really by suggesting to families two or three generations apart from their forebears that these forebears may have been murdered, even though you have precisely no supporting evidence? 'The hulk on the bottom of the sea may show evidence of paint discoloration or ? where the coal bunker was located to possibly help in the entire matter. POSSIBLY.' Actually, no. Definitely not. You think it might be possible to examine the quality of paint on metal which has been deteriorating for over 110 years, let alone the condition of that same metal? Seriously? Take as much exception as you like. Truth is more relevant than good manners, and your suggestion that there might have been questionable decisions made, once again with precisely no evidence, is insulting to those who died aboard Titanic, as well as to the people who built & operated the ship/
    1
  34. No. But there is a vast amount of evidence to prove that Titanic was really Titanic, and that there never was any insurance fraud.
    1
  35. Such a comment was never made by anyone from H & W or White Star. One thing ship owners & shipbuilders have always known is that no ship is unsinkable.
    1
  36. Indeed. Just as the ones who 'know' that are sadly deluded.
    1
  37. Idiot. Did you enjoy your fact-free switcher video? Much better than the mundane facts, wasn't it?
    1
  38. The name was engraved into the hull, and then painted in. The ship is so badly decayed that it is highly unlikely that such detail will still be visible. We must therefore rely on the overwhelming weight of evidence which proves beyond any rational doubt that the wreck is that of Titanic, and that the 1990s invented myth of the swap is precisely that. A myth.
    1
  39.  @epyle100  The scan will show nothing that isn't already known. It will certainly not provide any informatin about Astor, Guggenheim, Straus, or Morgan. The following is the text of a New York Times newspaper article of Thursday 28th March 1912, which states that "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." The reference that Morgan unloaded 'art works' hours before sailing seems to be simply an urban myth. There is no contemporary evidence in support. Astor might have been outspoken but, like Guggenheim, not on the subject of the Fed., on which both kept their opinions to themselves.
    1
  40.  @epyle100  Then cancelling his trip at the last moment would not have been a good idea, would it. Not that it matters, because he did no such thing. The supposed M & P letters being exposed was in a poor quality CGI attempt which appeared in 2000 or so, entirely from nowhere. No exploration team ever claimed it, nor even acknowledged it. It has, simply, no provenance at all. Indeed, Robin Gardiner, who started this trail of nonsense off, himself announced it to be faked.
    1
  41. We already know what happened, and have done since 1912. Pretty images of the wreck, however expensively obtained, add nothing to that knowledge.
    1
  42. No. He didn't.
    1
  43.  @ThrersaSmalls-yg5qt  Can you supply a credible source for your claim? I rather suspect that you cannot. Who are 'they?'
    1
  44. You could also report that more passengers cancelled their bookings on Olympic's maiden voyage in 1911 than did for Titanic in 1912 at the same time. Seriously, if you really had a cunning and secret plan such as you describe, would you tell lots of influential people about it? Do try to think.
    1
  45. What a brilliant scam. Losing £500,000 (1912 values) on the sinking. Morgan was 75 years old at the time and in poor health, dying less than a year later. Despite this, there is no suggestion that he was senile, as you seem to think.
    1
  46. I suspect that Harris is closer to Diane Abbott than to Liz Truss.
    1
  47. Except for the inconvenient fact that the Mauretanias were driven by turbines, and were four or five knots faster, of course.
    1
  48. Do explain why you say that, if only to enable me to correct your errors.
    1
  49.  @kdmatt1  Odd how people who clearly don't know what 'research' is generally urge others to do some, isn't it? I assume you refer to Morgan and the alleged elimination of those financiers who opposed the Federal Reserve, the myth invented in the 1990s. Here is what Reuters have to say about that nonsense:- 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 text 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.   Soory, but it seems you will need to find another imaginary conspiracy theory to fantasise about. Or, alternatively, rejoin the real world?
    1
  50. No. Unless you believe the myth invented by Robin Gardiner to push his silly book, in 1995.
    1