Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Wreck of Titanic visualised in first full 3D scan" video.

  1. Some passengers did indeed cancel their bookings. Almost as many as had cancelled for Olympic's maiden voyage almost a year earlier. What would you suggest that proves? Olympic had been back at sea, fully repaired, since late November, 1911. At the time of Titanic's sinking, she was about 500 miles south by west of her, heading for Southampton from New York. 'Full insurance payout?' Yes. £1 million for a ship which cost £1.5 million to build. "They tell you what they want you to believe'. I assume you refer to the switcher bideos which you have evidently watched and swallowed whole?
    7
  2. No, there weren't. Don't believe the nonsense you see in conspiracist videos, expecially the fact-free ones.
    3
  3.  @SilverEye91  Unfortunately, references to Titanic seem to bring out the idiots in large numbers.
    3
  4. No, he didn't.
    2
  5.  @12packadayhabit  No. They didn't, despite what sad obsessives might wish to believe.
    2
  6.  @danke1150  Well, I have actually heard the case, since it was first invented by Robin Gardiner in the mid 1990s. It had no credibility then, and has, if possible, even less now.
    2
  7. Titanic' 'owner' never said anything of the sort.
    2
  8. I have never encountered an expert on icebergs before. Oh sorry, my mistake, I still haven't.
    2
  9. No. It didn't.
    2
  10.  @MicklowFilms  Perhaps you should look at pictures of the wreck?
    1
  11. The stern separated, and is a mangled wreck.
    1
  12.  @JORDANDAVIES30  They were not identical. Titanic was modified during building following recommendations from Olympic's first few voyages. These included partial enclosure of 'A' deck, and the conversion of the forward end of 'B' deck to fit extra cabins and a cafe. These modifications can be seen on photographs of the wreck, and were unique to Titanic.
    1
  13.  @alamunez  No. She was designed to be 'practically unsinkable.' Her sister Olympic was just that.
    1
  14.  @alamunez  It is clear enough. Look up 'practically.'' - Almost, nearly, just about, close to, more or less, not far from. That should explain it.
    1
  15.  @alamunez  No. I am saying that 'practically unsinkable' is not the same as being 'unsinkable.'
    1
  16.  @alamunez  Changing your tune, I observe. You actually wrote 'Wasn’t it designed to be “unsinkable”? Seems like there was a pretty big flaw in that design.' A design is not flawed simply because it encounters circumstances far beyond anything it is designed to survive. Were the Mauretanias 'flawed' because Leonard Peskett did not include anti-torpedo bulges?
    1
  17. It usually does, like the poor, the conspiracists and switchers are always with us.
    1
  18. Perhaps the sinking of a warship, even an auxiliary one, carrying troops & U boat crews, as well as refugees herded aboard at the last minute by the German authorities, b y an enemy submarine, in wartime, is not seen as quite so surprising?
    1
  19.  @davidvanhansen  Gustloff was an armed auxiliary warship. If you can put your prejudices aside for a few minutes, try looking her up. She had an operational life of less than six years. The sister of that 'tin heap' Titanic, the mighty Olympic, had one, in peace & war, of 23 years. You are becoming hysterical, mon brave. I am really sorry that the facts don't agree with you, but it cannot be helped.
    1
  20. Which comment, repeated by you on frequent occasions, is, as usual, irrelevant.
    1
  21. These are CGI 'images' not actual pictures.
    1
  22. Proven false on myriad occasions, ever since the claim was invented in the mid 1990s.
    1
  23. You really shouldn't swallow conspiracist videos whole. When you repeat what they say, it does tend to make you look something of an idiot.
    1