Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Inside Edition" channel.

  1. Yes dear, of course it was dear. Now take your medicine and stop pestering normal folk.
    8
  2. Brilliant! Invest £1.5 million to build a ship, then sink it for £1 million in insurance, and lose you record for safety at the same time. Why do you twerps continue to post this nonsense?
    7
  3. How would people possibly know something which isn't true? Moreover, even giving your absurd comment more credibility than it deserves, why is it that no exploration team hasn't suggested anything of the sort?
    6
  4. First, you need to shed your indoctrination and seek an education instead.
    5
  5.  @deepaksn1  If you had had a proper education you wouldn't have posted such nonsense.
    5
  6. Evidence, dear boy, evidence.
    5
  7. 'Trust you?' Because you watched a switcher video and swallowed it whole? I would be more likely to trust my cat to drive me to work.
    5
  8. Probably because she was?
    5
  9. Shame about the lack of any evidence for your fantasy, isn't it?
    5
  10. You can deduce that how, precisely?
    5
  11. 'most of the worlds ritches people died that night..' Not really. A small number only.
    4
  12. Good luck with that, as there is no such evidence, only an amateurish CGI fake from around 2000, ignored by everyone except a handful of switcher fanatics. As Titanic's sister ship was actually named OLYMPIC, I am rather impressed by the depth of your knowledge. By which I mean, how shallow it is.
    4
  13. No, it doesn't. Because it wasn't.
    4
  14. Haven't you actually heard of an ICEBERG?
    4
  15. It was a good documentary providing that you enjoy fiction. There is, almost literally, nothing in it which has not been disproven. It is totally implausible, and people need to be amazingly gullible to fall for the nonsense it presents.
    4
  16. I suppose it would be pointless to ask a troll like you, 'Why' would it?
    4
  17. Drivel. An officer was replaced by White Star, in favour of an officer from Olympic more familiar with that type of ship. Smith had no involvement in what signals were received by Titanic. He had altered to a more southerly course, and Titanic was never at full speed. Anything else you would like to blame him for?
    3
  18. No, he, or anyone else in the management of H & W or White Star, ever said such a thing.
    3
  19. Actually, no it isn't, whatever you might have swallowed whole from fact-free switcher videos.
    3
  20. Brilliant! Invest £1.5 million to build a ship, then sink it for £1 million in insurance, and lose you record for safety at the same time. Why do you twerps continue to post this nonsense?
    3
  21. Titanic means 'of exceptional strength, size, or power.' The Titans were a family of giants in Greek mythology born of Uranus and Gaea and ruling the earth until overthrown by the Olympian gods.
    3
  22.  @crisaunt  I neither know nor care much about 'the rich families of America.' I do, however, know more than enough to understand that, apart from in the minds of conspiracy theorists, the sinking of RMS Titanic was certainly not planned.
    3
  23. You shouldn't believe everything you see in Conspiracist videos. Morgan never intended to sail in Titanic, as he had a prior engagement at St. Mark's in Venice. An engagement which, moreover, was mentioned in a New York Times article from March, 1912, which can still be read. There were three leading financiers aboard Titanic who died. One supported the Fed., and the other two had remained silent on the issue. This myth firsy appeared in the mid 1990s. By the way, hasn't it occurred to you that, should you wish to remove your business competitors, sinking an ocean liner in the hope that they might possibly drown is a less than reliable of doing it?
    3
  24. Indeed. Look it up. You will find that this claim originated in the mid 1990s. It alleges that Astor & Guggenheim opposed the Fed., when they never seem to have done anything of the sort, and that Straus also opposed it, when he can be proven to have been a supporter. If you want people to believe that myth, the last thing you should do is tell them to look up the facts!
    3
  25. After much exhaustive research, it seems that Titanic sank because of collision with an iceberg.
    3
  26. No. The evidence decides, and all the real evidence proves that the wreck is that of Titanic.
    3
  27. If so idiotic a myth makes sense to you, then you clearly know nothing about the facts.
    3
  28.  @Blu3_SK33  You don't consider that, just possibly, Olympic was scrapped in the late 1930s (60 years before this lunatic claim was first made) because she had reached the end of an illustrious 23 years in service? Perhaps you don't know of the internal fittings and furniture auctioned off when Old Reliable was broken up, most of which still bears Olympic's 400 yard number? Silly me. Of course you don't. Her old rival Mauretania was scrapped at the same time. What do you consider that was intended to conceal?
    3
  29.  @badcholesterol  Whether I do or not is a judgement for my peers, not for me. I do, however, have the ability to hold a debate without feeling the need immediately to resort to insults. Possibly because I am certain of my facts?
    3
  30. Really? What is it then? The Hindenburg, perhaps?
    3
  31. More amazing that fools like you can still trumpet such nonsense, despite a total lack of evidence to support it.
    3
  32. 'Research history?' Yes, you should. History being facts and archives, rather than the silly switcher video which you have obviously watched and swallowed whole.
    3
  33. You appear to have cared enough to comment.
    3
  34. Perhaps because professionals use State ot the Art equipment, and can even explore the Marina Trench these days. A commercial enterprise taking short cuts is not the same thing.
    3
  35. No. 'They' didn't.
    2
  36. I thought insurance scams were supposed to make money, not lose it in large amounts?
    2
  37. No. They didn't.
    2
  38. No.
    2
  39. Which rather shows the extent of your knowledge. No, it isn't.
    2
  40. @Jason Torres You think incorrectly.
    2
  41.  @Seavixenn848  Perhaps it is because :- 1). I know rather more about the sinking than many? Or, 2). I have plenty of spare time available to allow me to educate people?
    2
  42. No.
    2
  43. You belief is not supported by any facts.
    2
  44. Do your carers know you have got hold of the laptop again?
    2
  45. Perhaps you haven't actually looked at the images?
    2
  46. No. It wasn't.
    2
  47. EEJOT!
    2
  48. No. He didn't.
    2
  49. That would be the Britannic which was launched in February, 1914, would it?
    2
  50. How does a 'scam' which loses you £500,000 and your reputation for safety actually work? Call me naive, but I thought that such scams were intended to make money, not lose it in large amounts.
    2