Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "New Digital Scans Give New View of Titanic Wreckage" video.

  1. Probably because she was?
    5
  2. Shame about the lack of any evidence for your fantasy, isn't it?
    5
  3. You can deduce that how, precisely?
    5
  4. 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
  5. I suppose it would be pointless to ask a troll like you, 'Why' would it?
    4
  6. Actually, no it isn't, whatever you might have swallowed whole from fact-free switcher videos.
    3
  7. 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
  8. After much exhaustive research, it seems that Titanic sank because of collision with an iceberg.
    3
  9. No. The evidence decides, and all the real evidence proves that the wreck is that of Titanic.
    3
  10.  @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
  11.  @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
  12. Which rather shows the extent of your knowledge. No, it isn't.
    2
  13. @Jason Torres You think incorrectly.
    2
  14. You belief is not supported by any facts.
    2
  15. Perhaps you haven't actually looked at the images?
    2
  16. Really? I am sure you have convincing evidence? What? You don't? how sad.
    2
  17. Actually around 1,500. Titanic was only about half-full.
    2
  18.  @bobbyhernandez9558  No, but perhaps their superior knowledge?
    2
  19.  @evictioncarpentry2628  Nonsense. It was not an insurance scam. White Star lost £500,000 from it, at 1912 monetary values. Nor was there any 'rescue ship.' There was a fully laden freighter, Californian, nearby, whose officers saw Titanic's flares and alarted the captain, who chose neither to investigate nor even to ask. If Captain Lord was part of your imaginary plot, and knew what he was supposed to do, why didn't he do it?
    2
  20. We certainly do know that the Federal Reserve was not involved. That was simply a fairy story invented in the 1990s.,
    2
  21.  @LeodisTrainSpotter  Ah, but the conspiracists will soon be claiming that the survivors were either bribed or threatened.
    2
  22. Then why did you bother commenting?
    2
  23.  @bobbyhernandez9558  The world does. For over 100 years.
    2
  24. You mean the myth invented in the 1990s, about two people who had never commented, and a third who supported the Federal Reserve? That 'unknown story?'
    2
  25. You cared enough to comment.
    2
  26. Do you unquestionably believe every myth you come across? Smith never said anything of the sort.
    2
  27. Of course it is. Why do you insist in believing evidence-free videos about a myth invented in the mid 1990s?
    2
  28. Why? Where do you think it is?
    1
  29. Who do you wrongly believe actually made such a claim?
    1
  30.  @armedprophet3321  The claim that the comment had been made only, oddly, arose after the sinking. Prior to that, the Olympics had been described as 'practically unsinkable.' A small circulation engineering periodical did manage to miss out the word 'practically' in an article about them, but no-one from H & W, nor White Star, made such a claim. You seem to be basing your opinion on an article by a journalist. To believe that 'it was in the newspapers so it must be true,' is not a good idea.
    1
  31. No.
    1
  32. You will need to wait a long time. No one has yet managed to prove any such allegation in the last 110 years.
    1
  33.  @rogeriopires5352  What persuades you that the captain, officers and crew, would even sail if the ship really had a serious fire aboard? They were White Star employees, not members of a suicide cult. Have you ever tried thinking for yourself? You should. It really doesn't hurt.
    1
  34.  @rogeriopires5352  'The owner told to someone on board to get rid of the fire brigade men.' I am sure you have a source? You don't? How sad.
    1
  35.  @crazyTrouble80  Who were these men who were against the Fed., and where is your proof?
    1
  36. If you actually do do the research, you will discover that the myths about Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus were invented by conspiracists in the mid 1990s. You will find precisely no evidence to support the suggestion that the first two opposed the Fed., but you will find documentary evidence that Straus supported it. Had you actually done any research, other than simply swallowing whole a conspiracist video, you would not have posted as you have.
    1
  37.  @titaniac3037  Olympic was used as a troopship.
    1
  38.  @titaniac3037  All three were built by Harland & Wolff.
    1
  39.  @bobbyhernandez9558  Good idea. If you actually do do the research, you will discover that the myths about Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus were invented by conspiracists in the nid 1990s. You will find precisely no evidence to support the suggestion that the first two opposed the Fed., but you will find documentary evidence that Straus supported it. Had you actually done any research, other than simply swallowing whole a conspiracist video, you would not have posted as you did.
    1
  40. Really? Why might that have been?
    1
  41. In many cases, simply watch a switcher or conspiracist video, swallow it whole and unquestioningly, pronounce yourself an instant expert, and then post lunatic comments on line. Or, you can study maritime and naval history over many years, be familiar with the archives, records, and documents from the period, and seek to correct the idiots I have referred to above.
    1
  42.  @dimi9215  A convincing fact that is.
    1
  43. Which government, when, and to what purpose?
    1