Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "BuzzFeed Unsolved Network" channel.

  1.  @Embracing01  It is unwise to take any notice of what Mr. Hamer alleges.
    7
  2. Unfortunately, for the conspiracists, Titanic's insured value was always £1 million. It was never increased, and remained at £500,000 less than her building costs.
    6
  3. The collision actually occurred when Olympic was under the command of a Southampton harbour pilot, who had taken her into and out of Southampton on a number of previous occasions. At the Court of Inquiry, no blame at all was attached to Captain Smith.
    6
  4. Morgan never intended to sail in Titanic. There are even newspaper reports from March 1912 stating what he intended to do instead. More people cancelled from Olympic's maiden voyage than did for Titanic's. Astor was never a vocal opponent of the Fed. Neither he nor Guggenheim had ever expressed any opinions at all. Straus had, however. He was a supporter. Insurance job? Not a smart one, White Star received £1 million for a ship which cost £1.5 million to build, and lost their reputation for safety at the same time. Do try harder!
    5
  5.  @purplehearts2565  Indeed. Personal beliefs always trump actual facts where conspiracists are concerned.
    5
  6. 'I truly believe is the Irish used the wrong screws I’ll call them, or bolts or what have you.' Before you post drivel like this, perhaps you should read a little about the history of Harland & Wolff, and more particularly about their record as a shipbuilder.
    5
  7. Don't be silly. Olympic had had one collision, and had been repaired in late 1911. Both ships were not in dry dock. Harland & Wolff only had one dry dock. During the time the two ships were together in Belfast, 1-7 March, 1912, Olympic used the dock because of the need to fit a replacement propeller blade. This work had been completed by 3 or 4 March, but strong winds prevented tugs from moving Olympic out, and she left Belfast on 7 March. The insurance value was not increased. This is yet another unsubstantiated switcher falsehood. White Star received $5 million for a ship which had cost $7.5 million to construct. There was no rescue ship. For the simple reason that the sinking was not planned.
    5
  8. Well, this one certainly hasn't.l
    5
  9.  @Corteggy  Does 'keeping an open mind' involve ignoring all known evidence, as the conspiracists feel the need to do?
    4
  10. As such details do not exist, perhaps it is just as well the video didn't go into them.
    4
  11. Titanic wasn't steaming through a known minefield. She was in an area where, POTENTIALLY, there MIGHT have been icebergs. Smith did what any other liner captain of the time would have done, which was to maintain course and warn his lookouts to be vigilant. You should read the evidence given by several other liner captains at the British Inquiry for confirmation of this fact.
    4
  12. Nonsense. Captain Smith had an excellent record since becoming a Master Mariner in 1887. Why else had he been made White Star's csenior captain in 1904, and had taken every new liner on her maiden voyage since then? Who described Olympic as a 'write-off?' Certainly not the joint Admiralty/Board Of Trade/White Star damage inspection report of November, 1911. Certainly not Harland & Wolff, who had fully repaired her by late November, 1911, and certainly not White Star, who returned he to her Atlantic service after that day. In fact, nobody at all, until Robin Gardiner came up with his imaginative switch nonsense in the late 1990s.
    4
  13.  @pellenyberg  Yes. You are wrong. Why would Harland & Wolff sabotage one of their own products, and why would White Star deliberately wreck their own reputation as a shipping line?
    4
  14.  @pellenyberg  Don't be silly. Moreover, as Olympic's minor damage had been repaired by 20 November, 1911, why destroy a perfectly good ship for $2.5 million less that she cost to build?
    4
  15. If Olympic was a 'write off' how is it that both ships of the class were engaged in Atlantic crossings on the day that Titanic sank? Moreover, how is it that the 'write off' had been repaired after her collision with HMS Hawke, and had been regularly carrying out Atlantic crossings since late November, 1911, when Titanic was several months away from completion? Moreover, how do you explain the photographs of Titanic and Olympic close together in Harland & Wolff's yard in November, 1911? Titanic is the one which is semi complete, and has only one funnel in place, by the way.
    3
  16. You would lose you bet. What 'secrets' could possibly be involved?
    3
  17. Yes. The large number of ventilation cowls are proof that she is a Lusitania class liner.
    3
  18. He didn't. Why have you even bothered posting such idiotic nonsense?
    3
  19. No, she wasn't. That was a myth created by Robin Gardiner in a rather silly book in 1995.
    3
  20. Olympic was not badly damaged in the collision. Certainly nowhere near enough to even suggest that she was irreparable.
    3
  21. If you are going to obsess about conspiracy theory nonsense. At least have the good manners not to confuse two different ones.
    3
  22. There are very few genuine photos. of Titanic. Her older sister was the glamorous one which attracted the cameras.
    3
  23. In view of the quality of your comments, I doubt that you 'think' at all.
    3
  24.  @thetruth5483  Would you care to supply a source that confirms your claim? Guggenheim and Astor had never expressed any opinions about the Fed., whilst Straus supported the idea. I can provide you with details of two articles in the New York Times from October 1911 supporting this fact. Can you provide any contemporary source which contradicts it?
    3
  25. The problem here is that Olympic was never 'worthless scrap.' She was repaired by Harland and Wolff, and returned to sea from 20 November, 1911, when Titanic was around 5 months from completion. Repair costs, at 1912 monetary levels, were £25,000 which was 1.67% of her building costs. That is where the whole switch nonsense, invented in 1995 by Robin Gardiner, collapses. Unless Olympic was a write-off, then the argument for any switch ceases to exist. Which is why Gardiner thought up a whole host of improbable claims, none of which stand up to the slightest examination.
    3
  26. By 'documentary' presumably you mean 'conspiracy video'? There is precisely no such evidence. In fact, Titanic, which had cost £1.5 million to build, was insured for £1 million. The sinking thus cost White Star £500,000 as well as their reputation for safety. Some scam. Typing nonsense in capital letters doesn't make it any less nonsensical.
    3
  27. No.
    3
  28. Do you mean because they become offensive & insulting when you do?
    3
  29.  @TomFoti  Only, perhaps, if they present a shred of evidence in support of their claims. Which, of course, none have ever done where Titanic is concerned.
    3
  30. Actually, in October, 1911, the New York Times' covered a speech by Straus in support of the Federal reserve, and there is no evidence at all that Guggenheim or Astor were opposed. Yet another false claim unsupported by any actual facts.
    3
  31. The insurance policies were identical, as were the building costs.
    3
  32. What? Do you mean that 'it's hard not to believe' that this story was invented in the 1990s, and has no actual supporting evidence at all?
    3
  33. Congratulations for getting so many thinks wrong in so short a post. It must have taken real effort on your part.
    3
  34. Britannic was mined and sunk in the Aegean whilst in use as a hospital ship in WW1. Fortunately there were no wounded aboard when she sank.
    3
  35. This would be the same Pryal who, two years later, claimed that a miracle had cured him of eye & brain cancer in the course of a single night?
    3
  36. Where did you get this nonsense from? Presumably a conspiracy video? There are many around, each one getting dafter. Titanic was not at full speed, as five boilers were never connected. Smith had also altered to a more southerly course. Which hatches were left open? Perhaps you might also explain why Titanic's crew were so eager to kill themselves? Why should J.P. Morgan have sailed aboard Titanic? He hadn't bothered to sail in Olympic on her maiden voyage in 1911. Moreover, he had already announced his intention to attend an event at St. Mark's in Venice, which would have clashed. This had been mentioned in newspapers from March, 1912. You could even read the article if you had the gumption to try. The 'coincidences' are invented ones, thought up when this conspiracy nonsense was created, in the mid 1990s.
    3
  37. Those who tell others to 'do the research'' are usually the same ones who haven't done any themselves, of course. Watching a conspiracy video, by the way, does not count as 'research' especially when you swallow it whole.
    3
  38. A theory with prrecisely no evidence to support it. When Californian docked in Boston, the Boston shipping newspapers described her cargo as being a 'mixed general' one.
    3
  39. Britannic was sunk in the service of the country which built her in WW1, Titanic was involved in a totally unforeseeable collision, and Olympic served as a successful and much loved liner until 1934. So, in short, you are wrong.
    3
  40.  @pellenyberg  The proof that Olympic has sustained minor damage only, which Harland & Wolff had repaired in six weeks, totally discredits the switcher nonsense. Moreover, the very idea only appeared in the mid 1990s, as a result of a book by one Robin Gardiner.
    3
  41. Absolute, unmitigated, idiocy. Have you thought of seeking professional help?
    2
  42. Only if you swallow it whole, and can't be bothered checking any of the (false) claims it makes.
    2
  43.  @thomasgreen8894  No. You mean you have watched conspiracy theory videos on YouTube, made by people who have little actual knowledge of the subject, and you have swallowed them whole. Read any book by any researcher or historian for the facts of the matter. Or simply look up a few facts about Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus for yourself. instead of simply believing unsubstantiated nonsense claimed by people with conspiracy axes to grind.
    2
  44.  @TimeMasterOG  Unfortunately, switchers have seen the claim on a video or perhaps in Gardiner's book. In their addled way of thinking, it must be true.
    2
  45. No, she didn't. She received part of ther half-completed Titanic's propeller shaft. The supposed propeller swap was invented by switchers to explain why a propeller with 401 on the blade was found on the wreck. Olympic was repaired in six weeks, and was back in service by late November, 1911, well before Titanic was anywhere near complete.
    2
  46. You mean how Titanic hit an iceberg and sank, I suppose?
    2
  47. Both Olympic and Titanic were launched with 14 portholes on their port sides forward. Titanic had two more added before completion, and Olympic was similarly modified in 1912. Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus had never expressed opposition to the Fed. Indeed, in two newspapers from October, 1911, Straus had expressed his support. Moreover, how do you suggest Morgan would have persuaded the three to travel on the Titanic? Californian had sailed a week before Titanic left Queenstown, heading for Boston with a mixed, general, cargo. How would Morgan have known that the two ships would even be close, let alone that Titanic would find a convenient iceberg? You are perhaps confusing J. P. Morgan with Henry Morgan? More likely, you have simply watched a switcher video, and gullibly swallowed it whole.
    2
  48. Morgan did not cancel, because he had never booked. He was already committed to attend an event in Venice on 23 April, which wouldn't have been possible had he sailed on Titanic. There was a news item to that effect in the New York Times in March, 1912.
    2
  49. Did J. P. promote the war by means of a Ouija Board? He died in 1913.
    2
  50. How? In 1912? Who had a submarine with the range to reach Titanic or the speed to catch her? Don't be silly.
    2
  51.  @lukeaustin4465  Tell you what then. You Provide one shred of contemporary evidence to prove that Astor, Guggenheim, or Straus opposed the Federal Reserve. I await your response with interest.
    2
  52. How did he persuade the survivors to refer to the iceberg, then? By the way, he died less than a year later, so he couldn't actually have written much, unless he had a Ouija Board connected to a laptop, could he?
    2
  53. Smith was a lifelong teetotaller, in point of fact.
    2
  54. Except that there is no connection between the two events, until a false one was invented in the 1990s. If you think you know differently, feel free to explain.
    2
  55. No. She wasn't.
    2
  56. 'an accident caused by arrogance and ignorance.' What arrogance & what ignorance?
    2
  57. Nonsense. The video is only credible if you don't bother to check the absurd claims it excretes.
    2
  58. If you mean the windows forward on 'B' deck, Olympic retained the original, even, square, windows until her refit. Titanic received uneven, rectangular, windows from late in 1911 when she was modified with additional cabins and the cafe Parisien.
    2
  59. Astor, just like Guggenheim, had never expressed his opinion about the Federal Reserve. Isidor Straus had actually spoken in favour of it, in a speech in October 1911 reported in the New York Times. What is really 'fishy' is the way conspiracists have twisted or simply invented history in support of their obsessions.
    2
  60. You must be seriously disturbed. I hope your carers are taking good care of you.
    2
  61. What is even odder is your apparent belief that the names of the two Olympics were rivetted on, when they were, as was White Star's custom at the time, engraved into the hull, and then painted in. If Olympic was 'uneconomical to maintain' how was it that in April, 1912, there were two Olympic class liners at sea, one heading for New York and the other for Southampton, and both steaming at 21+ knots? As you have already been told, both ships were insured for two thirds of their £1.5 million building costs, and £1 million was what Lloyds paid out. You can check this fact for yourself, of course.
    2
  62. ‘Was the Fire started on Purpose as a sabotaged or not & it was an accidental fire???' Neither, it was simply a smouldering coal fire, caused by spontaneous combustion of wet coal. Such things were not uncommon, and explain why IMM insisted that the bunkers of their ships were inspected on a daily basis.
    2
  63. good point. If you wish to dispose of business rivals, even ones such as these three for whom there is no actual evidence of their opposition to the Fed., is hoping that they will sail aboard Titanic, hoping that Titanic will hit an iceberg and sink, and then hoping that the three will have the good manners not to survive, really the best way of achieving your aim?
    2
  64. Astor & Guggenheim never made their opinions about the Federal Reserve knowm. Straus had, in October, 1911, made his support fro the concept known. His opinions may still be read in the archives of the New York Times. I would be happy to give you further details. Other ships did answer, and made for Titanic, but they were, like Carpathia, too far away to arrive in time. By the way, Carpathia was a Cunard liner, and was not carrying blankets. I think you mean Californian? However, Californian was not carrying blankets either. When she docked in Boston on 19 April, her cargo was recorded as a 'mixed, general', one by the Boston newspapers. Titanic was supplied with Socket Signals, recommended by the Board of Trade. 36 of them. They were white, with explosive heads, and were state-of-the-art at the time. In 1912, there was no requirement that distress flares should be red, and white flares were visible from a greater distance. If what you claim had been remotely correct, why would Californian's officers have been so concerned about a ship firing 'celebratory' rockets? The glasses are a total Red Herring. Lookouts rarely used them, as their job was to scan the whole horizon, not just a small part of it. When anything was spotted, it was to be reported to the Bridge, where officers with glasses would identify it, and what, if any, action needed to be taken. Have you ever thought of finding out a few facts, if you are really interested?
    2
  65. You suggest that an insurance claim which lost White Star £500,000 was a good idea? Who were these individuals who were eliminated, by the way?
    2
  66. Enjoy the switcher video you swallowed whole, did you? Much easier than assessing facts, or even thinking, I suppose. One question. Who were taken out deliberately?
    2
  67. The problem here is that such conspiracy theories, where Titanic is concerned, do collapse into jokes when confronted with a few facts.
    2
  68. Really? In thre case of Titanic, wouldn't some actual 'truth' be desirable?
    2
  69. The Federal Reserve theory is simply a myth invented by Robin Gardiner in a 1995 book, believed by many gullible fools who cannot be bothered to look into Robin's false claims.
    2
  70. How did it do that? Do you refer to the myth, from the 1990s, that Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus opposed the Fed? A pity that there is not a single shred of evidence in support of this, isn't it?
    2
  71. Oh dear! Someone else swallowing a switcher video whole! When Olympic went to Belfast for repairs after the collision with HMS Hawke, Titanic was little more than half completed. When Olympic returned to her Atlantic service in late November, Titanic was five months away from completion. There is even a photograph of the pair close together in October, 1911. Olympic is a completed, fully painted, ship, whereas Titanic is still in base paint, has parts of her superstructure still not in place, and only one of four funnels fitted. Someone blindfolded at midnight on the darkest night of the year would still be able to tell them apart! The boiler stoking Crew all quit.' Another nonsensical myth. Titanic was delivered from Belfast to Southampton by a passage crew, mainly of Belfast men, who had no interest in signing on, but wanted to return home. Much the same had happened with Olympic in 1911. White Star were based in Southampton, and had already recruited the Deep-Sea crew from that port.
    2
  72. Possibly a good idea to rest your case, as you haven't actually made one.
    2
  73.  @skyhighnightlight  Yes, your medication clearly is overdue. Do your carers know you have got hold of the laptop? A Russian submarine off Newfoundland in 1912? Astonishing idea. Are you sure that they didn't use long-range missiles, or even large bricks?
    2
  74. You would also think that sinking a ship which cost £1.5 million to build in order to claim £1 million from the insurers was not all that bright an idea either. Which, of course, helps to explain why 'they' did nothing of the sort.
    2
  75. How would the sinking have any effect on the creation of the Fed?
    2
  76. Just out of interest, are you aware that the footage is actually of Captain Smith aboard Olympic in summer, 1911? The white summer uniform is something of a clue.
    2
  77.  @ZeranZeran  I have no idea what it says. Other newsreel footage of Olympic in New York had the port of registry of the tugs treated in a similar manner, so that viewers would not realise that the footage was not of Titanic as was being claimed. Perhaps what had been concealed might have, similarly, given away the fact that Smith was not aboard Titanic at the time?
    2
  78. The sinking of Titanic in 1912 coincided with the start of the Depression of 1929? How does that work? Come to that, how did sinking an underinsured ship which belonged to one of his companies benefit J. P. Morgan?
    2
  79.  @mickeywicked478  You think so? Please explain how you have reached such a conclusion.
    2
  80. No.There is a single CGI video which appeared from nowhere around the year 2000. It has precisely no provenance, and no exploration team has either claimed it, nor even mentioned it. Even Robin Gardiner, the author who invented the switch nonsense in 1998, denounced it as fake. If you believe in it, you might as well also believe in the Cottingley Fairies.
    2
  81.  @amaritineenthusiast  Agreed. As a naval historian with a secondary interest in Titanic, it has become something of a crusade against ignorance.
    2
  82. Hello Mr. Swithin! Still as crazy as ever, I observe.
    2
  83. Were you actually to read ther evidence given to the British Inquiry by several senior Master Mariners, you would read that they all agreed that Smith's actions accorded with those that they would have followed had they been in a similar situation. Their evidence was presented on days 26 & 27 of the Inquiry. Try reading what Andrew Braes, for example, said.
    2
  84. Switching the ENGINE? What are you even talking about? Do you have the faintest idea what the 'engine' of an Atlantic liner looked like? Simply to educate you, and clearly someone needs to, 401 was the build number allocated to Titanic by Harland and Wolff, just as 400 was Olympic's build number. Nothing with the number 400 has ever been found on the wreck. Nor has the name 'Olympic' been found on the wreck. If it had been, don't you think that the exploration team who found it might, just possibly, have mentioned it?
    2
  85.  @yasarmajid134  I suspect it is not a serious question. However: I do not defend Morgan. I simply correct some of the half-witted claims and allegations made about him, and more widely about Titanic. by ignorant conspiracy theorists. Comments generally dating to no earlier than the mid 1990s. If some half-wit claimed that hitler was Jack the Ripper, I would correct that as well. Simply correcting a falsehood does not equate to admiration. Secondly, I correct this nonsense both because I have the knowledge, and because I have plenty of free time. Do you understand now?
    2
  86. Are you sure she wasn't destroyed by a Klingon Bird of Prey? more probable than your suggestions.
    2
  87. 'Can you tell I like this conspiracy' Indeed. The way you have fallen for it, despite the lack of evidence, and the errors of fact you have made, are characteristic. 1). J. P. Morgan had nothing removed from the ship. He confirmed in March that he would not be sailing in Titanic, as he intended to be at St. Mark's in Venice instead. This was even confirmed in newspapers in March, 1912. 2). 'If you look at the windows on the ships titanic were all even and had portholes underneath, Olympic were uneven and no portholes. The ship 12,500 ft in the Atlantic has uneven windows, no portholes' Sorry. Wrong way round. Titanic's 'B' deck forward end was modified during building, in late 1911, to include extra cabins and a cafe. As a result, the windows there were unevenly spaced and rectangular. The olympic of the same period still retained to evenly spaced, square windows, of her original construction. The wreck matches Titanic, not Olympic. 3). The hotel in Alnwick, the 'White Swan' has an 'Olympic Restaurant' which uses furniture purchased when Olympic was scrapped in the mid 1930s. Some of this furniture carries the number 400, which was Olympic. None has ever been found carrying Titanic's number, 401. You have got this the erong way round. 4). White Star marketed the ships as Olympic & Titanic. They used an artist's impression for their publicity material. Why go to the trouble of producing duplicate sets of advertising material for two similar ships? 5). 'As far as the crew. They were threatened with imprisonment, black balling, all sorts of threats.' Simply untrue. Did noy of the crew, for the rest of their lives, ever make any statement to this effect? You have precisely no evidence to support this outright lie. Do provide your proof, assuming you can, of course. 6). Olympic didn't need repair after late November, 1911, when she left Belfast to resume her Atlantic crossings. Just out of interest, if Olympic needed repair, and Titanic, in November, 1911, was still five months short of completion, which ship actually undertook these crossings?
    2
  88. Nonsense. The Fed. claim originated from 1995. I assume you have proof from contemporary sources that this has any credibility? You don't? Oh well, never mind.
    2
  89. The story is totally unsubstantiated, of course. But gullible fools will always be gullible fools.
    2
  90. Claimed by whom, exactly?
    2
  91.  Shoahshana Goldberg-Shekelstein  Sorry, but that is simply wrong. Neither Astor nor Guggenheim ever expressed their views about the Federal Reserve. Straus did, in a speech reported in two articles in the New York Times from October, 1911. The articles may still be read, and confirm his support for the concept of the Fed, The claims of opposition by these three are myths, invented by conspiracists in the mid 1990s.
    2
  92. Only when viewed with the eyes of Conspiracy Theory faith.
    2
  93.  @MagicalOwls  It depends upon the nature of the collision. A cruise liner sank after collision with an iceberg as recently as 2007. Olympic had previously survived a collision with a Royal Navy cruiser. Moreover, I doubt anyone would suggest that Lusitania was badly designed because of her lack of anti-torpedo bulges. Titanic suffered an event just as outside her design parameters as Lusitania did.
    2
  94.  @scamueladams  No. Simply a rational one.
    2
  95. 'Is it normal that a ship sailed with a permanent fire on board ?' How do you think the boilers aboard Titanic were fired? Small bunker fires were not unusual, as spontaneous combustion was always a possibility, which is why IMM required daily examinations of the bunkers aboard their ships. In this case, the fire was dealt with around a day before the collision with, according to stoker survivors, the only damage being to paintwork inside the bunker. The real Olympic, at the time of Titanic's sinking, was on her way from New York to Southampton, fully certified by the Board of Trade and insured by Lloyds of London. There was no conspiracy, just a conspiracy fantasy.
    2
  96.  @lukeaustin4465  As Abe Lincoln, or perhaps Mark Twain, wisely said, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.” Too late, I fear, in your case.
    2
  97. The problem here is that such conspiracy theories, where Titanic is concerned, do collapse into jokes when confronted with a few facts.
    2
  98. You think that White Star deliberately chose where to sink the ship so that it could not be investigated? In 1912, virtually anywhere in the Atlantic would have done.
    2
  99. Why is demonstrating that the Reptile theory is nonsense a mistake? Why is stating that Guggenheim booked his passage late, or that he never expressed his opinions about the Fed., both correct statements, wrong? Why is ridiculing the mummy lunacy 'rediculous'? Aside from your spelling of course?
    2
  100.  @meechiedee  Well, you won't find a single credible source which proves that any of the financiers opposed the Fed., but you can easily find one which proves that Straus did.
    1
  101. Unfortunately for you conspiracists, the cunning plots you expound drop to pieces when challenged by actual facts.
    1
  102. The insurance claim simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as the ships were each only insured for two thirds of their building costs. The iceberg was witnessed by a number of survivors.
    1
  103.  @Idekanymoreboutyt  It is already known why Titanic sank. Sabotage not being the reason.
    1
  104. Do try to explain how J. P. Morgan was directly involved?
    1
  105. If you told me that, I would say:- 1). If it isn't on public record, how do you know? 2). If you do know, show some evidence to support your claim. 3). What is the relevance to Titanic in any case?
    1
  106. Ignoring you strange ramblings after this 'For sure the Olympic is the ship on the ocean floor one of the biggest scams ever pulled on the American people,' perhaps you aren't aware that both Olympics cost £1.5 million each to build, and both were insured for £1 million. Thus, White Star lost £500,000 as well as their reputation as a result of your brilliant scam By the way, there were a number of structural differences between the two ships, in particular in the areas of 'A' & 'B' decks. Unfortunately for your fantasy, the wreck matches known photographs of Titanic, and is different from the Olympic of 1912. I assume that you don't know, or choose to ignore, the cast number 401 (Titanic) on one of the wing propeller blades at the wrecksite?
    1
  107. What makes you think that Californian carried '3000 life vests?' When she docked in Boston on 19 April, the Boston shipping newspapers recorded that she was carrying a 'mixed, general, cargo' only. Don't you think that, if a ship which had been in close proximity to Titanic really had docked with such a cargo four days later, collective eyebrows might have been raised in Boston's customs office? Unless, of course, there was a critical shortage of life vests in the Boston area at the time? As to passengers, Californian was primarily a freighter. She earned her corn as a Leyland Line ship, and Leyland Line was a 'common carrier' who carried anything and everything to the US, in order to re-load baled cotton, normally from from New Orleans. She had been doing something of the sort for some ten years. She did have cabins for 47 passengers, but her raison d'etre was to carry freight. At that time of year, passenger traffic was light. Even Titanic was half empty. If there really had been the kind of plot about which you fantasise, the small Californian was almost ludicrously unsuited to the role of rescue ship, by the way. Oh, and imagine expecting the lookouts to 'look out.' Highly suspicious? 'I 100% believe the Olympic was *scuttled" I'm sure you do, given that you seem to have swallowed unquestioningly one of the dafter myths about the Titanic sinking.
    1
  108.  @lea-rw5cb  In even simpler terms, one word - Iceberg. Olympic used the same rivets, and was a successful liner for 23 years. The fire had been dealt with at least 24 hours before the collision, and damaged nothing except bunker paintwork.
    1
  109. Olympic never had a bent keel. That was a myth invented by Robin Gardiner in order to justify his absurd switch nonsense, in the mid 1990s. The actual damage to Olympic was repaired, and she was back at sea by late November, 1911, well before Titanic was completed.
    1
  110. There were a number of 'Robber Barons' in the US economy at that time. It doesn't, of course, mean than any of them were involved in Titanic's sinking.
    1
  111. Wherever did you get that from? The collision with HMS Hawke punched a hole in her starboard quarter, opening up two compartments. She was never in danger of sinking, and after returning to Belfast, was repaired in about seven weeks. There was never the slightest suggestion of her being a 'write off' or of her needing to be 'cut in half.' She was known as 'Old Reliable' because in her career she made over 250 Atlantic round trips, and sailed around 1,8 million miles. Not to mention sinking a U-Boat in WW1.
    1
  112. If you believe the fact-free myth invented by conspiracy theorists in the 1990s, of course.
    1
  113.  @ajrwilde14  You get dafter. What possible reason do you fantasise that the Royal Navy could have had to sink Titanic,? What is this nonsense about an icebreaker?
    1
  114. Not that you would have any actual, credible, arguments to support you opinion, of course?
    1
  115. Brilliant. The ships cost £1.5 million each to build. White Star lost £500,000 and their reputation for safety when Titanic sank. Cunning Plan, Baldrick.
    1
  116. Why? Because he pointed out a few known facts about Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus?
    1
  117. No, there weren't. That is simply a myth invented by Robin Gardiner in a 1995 books, believed by many gullible fools who cannot be bothered to look into Robin's false claims.
    1
  118. Feel free to expand on what is obviously a highly considered and reasoned opinion on the issue.
    1
  119. Perhaps you might give us the benefit of your superior knowledge to explain to us what actually happened to Titanic, then?
    1
  120. What do you think is wrong?
    1
  121. For something to be 'obvious' shouldn't there be some supporting evidence?
    1
  122. Brilliant! Pay £1.5 million to build a ship, then scuttle it in order to claim back £1 million from Lloyds. As a result, you lose £500,000 and your reputation for safety. Who came up with that cunning plan on behaf of White Star? The Board of Cunard, perhaps?
    1
  123. Twenty, including the four collapsibles.
    1
  124. How does the fact that an ocean liner sank equate to 'Market manipulation?'
    1
  125. There is no evidence at all for your claim about Californian carrying life vests. Her cargo was described in the Boston shipping papers when she docked as a 'mixed, general' one, typical of those carried by a 'common carrier' such as the Leyland Line. If you have any source for your life vest claim, then produce it. Moreover, Californian had left Liverpool on 5 April, almost a week before Titanic left Queenstown. Her captain would have no idea where Titanic might or might not be, or even if she had actually sailed. The 'Red Flag' for any real investigator would be why anyone should invent such an unprovable, patently dubious, claim.
    1
  126.  @Micscience  Does any of that suggest that there was a huge conspiracy? Lord's evidence may have changed, but perhaps because he realised that he was being accused, almost, of dereliction of duty, and sought to portray himself in a better light. The Inquiry simply did not concern itself with Californian's cargo, only her behaviour on 14/15 April. Californian was a small freighter, with accommodation for 47 passengers. Her principal purpose was to carry freight to the United States, and re-load with cotton from New Orleans. This is what she had been doing for around ten years. The only concrete evidence about her cargo comes from the Boston shipping papers when she docked on 19 April. Once freight had cleared customs, manifests were held for a time by Customs, but generally disposed of soon afterwards. No-one in Boston expressed any misgivings about Californian's cargo, and to claim, as conspiracists do that, 'as no actual manifest is available to examine, that means Californian MUST have been loaded with blankets and life jackets,' is simply absurd. The fact that the claim only arose as part of Robin Gardiner's entertaining but evidence-free book, eighty years or so after the event, may also be relevant?
    1
  127.  @Micscience  Shipping newspapers routinely published the arrival and sailing dates of freighters, usually with a description of their cargoes. The newspapers from the time may still be read. It appears that your actual knowledge is rather superficial, I fear. 'Why would anyone in Boston express misgivings about the cargo is beyond me.' All that comment proves is that your sense of curiosity is under-developed. You really think that a customs official, asked to process a manifest referring to life-saving equipment from a ship which had been closely involved in the Titanic sinking, and wqhich had docked only a week later, would not have raised the proverbial eyebrow? Yes, you are indeed 'done with this.'
    1
  128. Aren't those switcher videos convincing? As well as being useful alternatives to rational thought.
    1
  129. Amazing how the mere mention of Titanic encourages idiots to post nonsense, isn't it? As you appear to be one of them, could you perhaps explain what motivated you?
    1
  130. No, let's look at some verifiable, as opposed to imaginary, facts. The Admiralty damage report, published in November, 1911 (perhaps you missed it?) summarised the damage as follows :- “Two major watertight compartments were flooded, hull plating gashed from the Orlop deck to E deck, and the starboard propeller shafting damaged.” Note the phrase 'shafting.' Both the Board of Trade & White Star, who had had separate teams inspecting Olympic, concurred with this summary. Accordingly, parts of the shafting intended for Titanic, but not yet fitted, were used to return Olympic to sea more quickly. Indeed, aside from the fact that the pitches of the blades on the two ships were set at different angles, which meant that one set would not function efficiently on the other, isn't it odd that the rabid switches making this claim seem to have suddenly discovered the alleged swap only after the shocking revelation that a 401 (Titanic) blade had been found on the wreck of Titanic? As to insurance, Olympic had been back at sea from late November, 1911, and had made several more Atlantic crossings before Titanic left Southampton in April, 1912. Moreover, as the ships cost £1.5 million each to build, and were insured for £1 million each, White Star would have lost £500,000 as well as a major asset and their safety record, had there been any such shady dealings.
    1
  131. How would getting rid of three financiers, none of whom were opponents of the Fed., and one of whom was a supporter, have any effect? Moreover, how would 'They' 1). Ensure that the three individuals boarded the ship? 2). Ensure that the ship sank? 3). Ensure that all three drowned when it did?
    1
  132. Because the damage to two compartments, and nowhere near any important structural part of the ship (particularly the keel) was rapidly repaired in six to seven weeks, after she returned (under her own power) to Harland & Wolff. She actually returned to her Atlantic duties late in November, 1911. 'I'd love to know if that's true!!!' Then wonder no more. It isn't.
    1
  133. So, what did all those eye witnesses who reported an iceberg actually see? Come to that, where, in 1912, did the torpedo even come from/ Someone certainly needs to use a brain.
    1
  134. Guilty of what? You really should try to think for yourself, and not just believe every bit of nonsense you see in a conspiracist video.
    1
  135.  @albertdavid6393  I do apologise. If I had realised how lacking in intelligence you were, I wouldn't have bothered correcting your ignorance. Be happy in your stupidity, little chap.
    1
  136.  @albertdavid6393  You mean you feel sorry for those of us more educated and intelligent than people you, who occasionally encounter idiots like yourself? Understandable, as I suspect that that would apply to 98% of the population.
    1
  137.  @albertdavid6393  With all your inane ranting and drooling, you haven't actually managed to explain what you blame Morgan for.
    1
  138. So, you think that J. P. Morgan conceived a cunning plan that would take 112 years to mature, using an organisation which only came into existence around six months after he had died? Well, I am convinced. But only that you are a typical conspiracy fantasy fool.
    1
  139.  @lordhegamonster6931  If you reply to any of my comments, at least try to make the reply vaguely rational.
    1
  140.  @lordhegamonster6931  I watched it some time ago. Very convincing. Assuming that you are totally ignorant of both facts and of history, that is.
    1
  141.  @lordhegamonster6931  'You (Jew)Tube deletes any articulate, thoughtful, well reasoned responses, unfortunately..' Surely then that wouldn't be a problem for you, as your responses are not articulate, thoughtful, or well reasoned?'
    1
  142.  @lordhegamonster6931  It looks like the response you confidently asserted would not been posted has actually been posted. What rotten luck for you.
    1
  143.  @lordhegamonster6931  I will be honest when you explain exactly how relevant my political views are to the events of April 1912.
    1
  144. No. It is a Cunarder. Lusitania or Mauretania. The ventilators are distinctive.
    1
  145. No there wasn't.
    1
  146. Both Olympic and Titanic were insured for £1 million. Olympic was about 10 months older, but both were virtually brand new.
    1
  147. Er, Olympic, like Titanic, cost £1.5 million to build. She also, like Titanic, was insured for £1 million.
    1
  148. Doesn't any conspiracy theory need a smidgeon of evidence to make it credible? The Titanic ones don't have such.
    1
  149. Perhaps they would, but they didn't on this occasion.
    1
  150.  @joemama1691  It is always 'maybe' with conspiracy theorists. The argument seems to be 'The fact that there is precisely no evidence to support the theory proves that it must be true.' Quite invincibly daft.
    1
  151. Stop being sensible. Titanic conspiracists get easily annoyed when they encounter sensible comments.
    1
  152. The three financiers concerned had never expressed opposition to the Fed. Indeed, one of the three was a supporter.
    1
  153. Easy. No such footage exists, or ever has existed. A poorly made CGI appeared in 2000, or thereabouts, which has immediately labelled as fake by Robin Gardiner, the author who started this nonsense off. If credible footage really existed, don't you think that someone might, just possibly, have noticed?
    1
  154. What 'riveted letters?'
    1
  155.  @toscanojamie9474  Which bit of 'factual' information? Ther mythical letters, the propeller which was never transferred from Titanic to Olympic, or the fittings from Olympic, with the build number 400 on them, purchased when she was scrapped in 1934-5 and still to be seen in an hotel in Northumberland?
    1
  156.  @toscanojamie9474  Nonsense. The wreck itself is intracontravertible proof that she is Titanic. The 'B' deck end window pattern, as well as the build number on the propeller blade, among other features, cannot be denied. As to the insurance fraud, who actually benefitted by building a ship for £1.5 million, and then scuttling it for the insurance value of £1 million? Do feel free to explain why this was really a 'cunning plan,' Baldrick.
    1
  157.  @toscanojamie9474  If you actually believe the things you have been posting, then you haven't actually reviewed any evidence at all. You have simply accepted switcher fantasies as fact.
    1
  158. You might not like this, but the whole world is not one vast conspiracy theory. However much you might wish to believe that it is.
    1
  159. Yes, of course it did, and you also saw the Loch Ness monster last week, with Elvis riding it.
    1
  160. No, White Star didn't. Lloyds records are quite clear on this. As are contemporary accounts. Bruce Ismay went on public record at the April 1912 United States Senate Hearings and also it was reported in the official public findings that the value of Titanic was "$7.5million" a figure independently verified by the New York Times and The Spectator ("$8 million"), while insured at only "$5 million" (as reported at the Senate Inquiry, The New York Times and Lloyds itself). If indeed Titanic had been insured at the last minute at "$12.5 million," as is alleged by conspiracy theorists, would this not have raised serious alarm bells in the minds of the insurers at the time, especially if it was part of the public record that the value was "$7.5 million?"
    1
  161. Wrong.
    1
  162. No-one at the time, probably. But since this switch nonsense was invented by Robin Gardiner in 1995, a lot of people have done. With the result that, except for the fanatics, the who idea has been proven to be nonsense.
    1
  163. Morgan did not have a reservation aboard Titanic to cancel. He had a prior engagement at St. Mark's in Venice. It was even announced in newspapers in March, 1912, which may still be read today, although obviously you conspiracists wouldn't want to read the article. Guggenheim (two 'g's by the way) and Astor had never expressed any opinions about the Fed., whilst Straus (one 's') had spoken in favour, and newspaper articles reporting his speech may, also still be read, although, again, you conspiracists wouldn't want to read them. The Federal Reserve Act was actually passed on 23 December, 1913, not 'a week after the sinking. How did J. P. Morgan feel about this? Hard to tell, as he died in Rome in March, 1913, aged 75. The stupidity of conspiracists, dumbly believing a myth created in the mid 1990s, never ceases to astound me.
    1
  164. The bow section was not crushed because, unlike a submarine, it was completely open to the sea, and not enclosed. Andrea Gail sank during a storm. Ships do sink as a result of storms. The rest of your post is, like the other conspiracist fairy tales surrounding Titanic, simply entertaining nonsense.
    1
  165. Smith had an excellent record since being made a Master Mariner in 1887. He became White Star's senior captain in 1904. White Star had their pick of any captain they chose. Why do you think that they would have chosen an unreliable one?
    1
  166.  @Firemarioflower  Don't be a fool. When Olympic berthed in New York, a tugboat had a minoe collision with Olympic's side. Olympic did not 'crash' into her. So, the sea trials were a joke, were they? I assume you can jusrify your claim? No, of course you can't. I have never quite understood why you people, when you have nothing to support you, simply make thinks up instead. Smith was not used to piloting such a large vessel.' Was anyone? Would you suggest that large ships had no right to exist?
    1
  167. How was it a set-up? Moreover, why?
    1
  168. Sorry, but you have been misinformed.
    1
  169. You mean the Olympic which had already been repaired, and which had been back at sea sin 20 November, 1911? That Olympic?
    1
  170. Brilliant! White Star lost £500,000 from the loss of Titanic, as well as their reputation as a safe line. I thought insurance scams were supposed to be profitable?
    1
  171. Planting rusticles? Engine serial numbers, crankshaft cserial numbers? What are you talking about? Still, if you are so keen, why not finance an expedition for yourself? Is the hull number on the propeller blade not enough for you, or something?
    1
  172. Except, of course, for the inconvenient facts that the conspiracists who invented this nonsense in the late 1990s failed to tell you about when you swallowed whole one of their videos? Neither Astor nor Guggenheim had ever expressed their views about the Fed., whilst Straus had spoken in support of it. Simply look the three up for yourself, as you urge others to 'do some homework.'
    1
  173. Presumably, the video you watched didn't actually inform you that the claims about three financiers who were opposed to the Fed. dying on Titanic were false, invented, ones, dating from the 1990s? No? I thought not.
    1
  174. It wasn't a cruise.
    1
  175.  @vladraduandrei5227  Really? What makes you think that?
    1
  176. But who aboard Titanic actually opposed the Federal Reserve?
    1
  177. What a wonderfully daft comment!
    1
  178. Oddly, your most recent post :- 'doveton sturdee and that is how you shut down an over opinionated know it all, no rebuttal ? Really must try harder !!! ' Hasn't appeared on here, only in my inbox. However :- As I have corrected the most obvious errors in your earlier post, how much more do you need? Perhaps the fact that the Federal Reserve Plot theory dates from the 1990s, or the dates of the newspaper articles relating Straus' speech in favour of the Fed.? Actually from October, 1911. You could even look up Astor, Straus, & Guggenheim for yourself, and see what the facts really are. Or the date of the newspaper article confirming that Morgan intended to be in Venice? Bruce Ismay actually used Morgan's suite instead. Do you suggest that Ismay was unaware of Morgan's vast and overwhelming plot? Incidentally, the Spring 1912 Issue of the Shipbuilder (and a few other sources) describe the prestigious parlour suite, B 52 - 56, but make no mention about it being specifically designed or altered for Morgan. Or accounts of the actual insurance figure paid out by Lloyds? Would they help disabuse you of your errors?
    1
  179. When Californian docked in Boston on 19 April, 1912 (the day the US Inquiry began) the local shipping papers stated that she was carrying a 'mixed, general' cargo, as Leyland Line ships usually did, before reloading from New Orleans with cotton. The 'woollen sweaters' claim is a false myth, of modern origin. If Captain Lord was part of some fantastical plot, why didn't he react when alerted to the flares being fired by a nearby 'large steamer?'
    1
  180. He had been a Master Mariner since 1887.
    1
  181. 'never say that God cannot do something like sink the Titanic!!!!! ' No one did. Except in a movie, of course. 'Greed?' Commercial companies seeking to make a profit? Normal business practice.
    1
  182. Is your medication overdue?
    1
  183.  @skyhighnightlight  Yes dear. Of course they did.
    1
  184. You mean the mountain of evidence that the wreck is indeed Titanic, however much fantasists might delude themselves? Or the insurance pay out? $5 million, for a ship which cost $7.5 million to build?
    1
  185. Where do you expect to find them? Kansas?
    1
  186. The Conspiracy Theories about Titanic are Lies, unsupported by a shred of evidence.
    1
  187.  @lea-rw5cb  There was a small fire in one of 19 bunkers, identified in Southampton and dealt with at least 24 hours before the collision. The testimony of stoker survivors, who stated that the only damage was to paintwork in the affected bunker, is quite clear on this point. Seriously, had there really been a serious fire, would the ship even have sailed? Olympic, by the way, used the same steel and rivets. She was a successful ocean liner for almost a quarter of a century.
    1
  188.  @marcusbaker830  Odd, then, that in 23 years of seafaring, Olympic encountered no such problems.
    1
  189. No, it wasn't.
    1
  190. He was 75 years old.
    1
  191. Who was pressured to get a job done faster, and by whom?
    1
  192. 'Literally?' Who did they kill, and when?
    1
  193.  @SexiSeahawk69  Where Titanic is concerned, it is beyond doubt that those who urge others to 'do your research' have invariably done the least themselves.
    1
  194.  @SexiSeahawk69  Go on then. What precisely is stopping you?
    1
  195. What do you think he wanted that would have made 'sinking a giant liner' a good idea?
    1
  196. When typing things like this, I hope you take care to cover your keyboard to protect it from your drool.
    1
  197.  @joebrandonopolis3389  Are you indeed? What has that to do with Titanic?
    1
  198. It looks like you have watched a conspiracist video and swallowed it unquestioningly. There seem to be a number of people who are ill-informed enough to do the same. Where does the Federal Reserve come into this? That is a rhetorical question, by the way, as I know exactly what yo will post, if you post any reply at all.
    1
  199.  @mireyathebrat1244  'if they never sunk it, if they switched ships and sunk the Olympic,they would still have a 1.5 million dollar ship plus an extra 1 million.. ' Pounds, not dollars. Yes, of course it matters. Both Titanic & Olympic cost £1.5 million each to build. When Titanic sank, 'they' still had Olympic plus £1 million from Lloyds. In other words, a loss of £500,000 as well as White Star's safety record.
    1
  200.  @mickeywicked478  I don't think I have ever commented on 9/11. Sad that an immature little idiot like you should treat the event with such disrespect.
    1
  201.  @mickeywicked478  It is clearly apparent that you get lots of things mixed up, little fellow.
    1
  202. Why? What is amiss about his comments? Simply posting insults for the sake of them are most unedifying.
    1
  203. Indeed, the theory does make sense, providing of course that you ignore all the facts. Like the fact that there is precisely no evidence to support the allegation that Astor & Guggenheim opposed the Federal Reserve. Or the fact that, in October, 1911, Straus gave an important speech in favour of it. Or, indeed, the fact that this devious conspiracy was a creation of conspiracists in the 1990s, of course.
    1
  204. Titanic carried 14 lifeboats capable of carrying 65 people each, 2 cutters each capable of holding 40 people, and four collapsible boats capable of holding 47 people. 18 boats were launched, and the last two collapsibles floated off as she sank, one upside down.
    1
  205. Certainly not an Olympic. The cowl ventilators suggest Lusitania or Mauretania.
    1
  206. White Star had already paid Harland & Wolff for the repairs following the Hawke collision. Olympic had been back on her Atlantic beat since late November, 1911.
    1
  207. Why do you think that? The presentation is certainly flippant, but the facts stated are accurate. What 'research' have you done?
    1
  208. So, what is your opinion about the Titanic?
    1
  209.  @JabarAsterimos  1). J. P. Morgan owned IMM. A large organisation of which White Star was a part. 2). So Morgan didn't sail in Titanic. He didn't sail on Olympic's maiden voyage either. Please explain why you think that even relevant? 3). False. The suggestion that these three were opposed to the Federal Reserve is simply not true. There is no evidence for Astor's or Guggenheim's opinions as they were never stated. There is evidence about Straus, in a speech he made in October, 1911. In support of the Federal Reserve. An account may be read in the New York Times archives. This myth about the three dates to the mid 1990s, but no further back.
    1
  210.  @jwb_666  That simply is not true. The majority of survivors who reported anything referred to the iceberg. A small number identified 'rumblings' which were probably from heavy machinery breaking loose. Wht do you feel the need to make these things up?
    1
  211. No. Ismay went on public record at the April 1912 United States Senate Hearings and also it was reported in the official public findings that the value of Titanic was "$7.5million" a figure independently verified by the New York Times and The Spectator ("$8 million") while insured at only "$5 million" (as reported at the Senate Inquiry, The New York Times and Lloyds itself). The claim that Lloyds paid out $12.5 million because Titanic's insured value had been raised at the last minute is a conspiracy theorist's myth. One among many, in point of fact.
    1
  212. So, to remove these rivals, who weren't actually opposed to the Fed. in any case, Morgan had to rely on them all boarding a ship, rely on the ship fortuitously colliding with an iceberg, and then rely on his rivals having the good manners not to save themselves. Wouldn't it have been easier to wait for them to be struck down by meteorites? Morgan was 75 in 1912 and in poor health, but does not appear to have been senile.
    1
  213. No, he didn't.
    1
  214. I suspect that you do not understand the immense power of massive quantities of ice. In 2007, MV Explorer was sunk by ice. Was that a devious plot, as well?
    1
  215. No. 'Conspiracy Theory' is simply a polite way of referring to the sort of conspiracy fantasies people with little or no knowledge of a particular subject sometimes feel a perverse need to invent about it.
    1
  216.  @foreignmilk  What does that even mean?
    1
  217. Then why didn't that same 'ego' sink the several other ocean liners in service at the same time?
    1
  218. 1). No bomb. 2). The Federal Reserve Plot was invented in the 1990s, and is simply a falsehood. 3). J. P. Morgan can be proven never to have intended to sail in Titanic. 4). No iceberg? What did the survivors report then? A mass hallucination?
    1
  219. Apart from conspiracists, no 'they' don't.
    1
  220. How do chickens come into this?
    1
  221. Morgan does not seem to have any track record of wandering around murdering business rivals. Do please supply examples.
    1
  222. Put simply, lookouts were expected to scan the whole horizon, and report anything they saw to the bridge at once, in order that waychkeeping officers could decide what action to take. Binoculars would hinder the overall survey of the horizon as a whole. At the time, use of binoculars by lookouts was the exception rather than the rule.
    1
  223.  @DANIELLE_BREANNA_LACY  But, as a host of sea officers testified at the British Inquiry, lookouts having glasses was the exception rather than the rule, because their use led to a concentration on specific, limited, areas of the horizon rather than to an overview of it as a whole. The norm was for lookouts to report an object, and for watchkeeping officers on the bridge to use binoculars to identify it.
    1
  224. Indeed. A wonderful old ship, with an illustrious career, before being scrapped in the 1930s.
    1
  225. Who do you think these rivals were? Moreover, isn't sinking a ship in which they might possibly have intended to sail a less than reliable means of removing them in any case?
    1
  226. But most said that there wasn't.
    1
  227. The relevance of the Fed. to the sinking of Titanic being?
    1
  228.  @tyfromuzi5871  The maxim is certainly appropriate. When the comment is as ill-judged as the one to which I responded was, than silence would certainly have been more sensible.
    1
  229.  @pellenyberg  Who are these mysterious 'THEY' people?
    1
  230.  @pellenyberg  I assume you have a source confirming that?
    1
  231. Why do you think there is any connection between the sinking of Titanic and the creation of the Federal Reserve? I assume you have swallowed a conspiracist video whole?
    1