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

  1.  @Embracing01  It is unwise to take any notice of what Mr. Hamer alleges.
    8
  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.
    7
  3. 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!
    6
  4.  @purplehearts2565  Indeed. Personal beliefs always trump actual facts where conspiracists are concerned.
    6
  5. 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
  6.  @Corteggy  Does 'keeping an open mind' involve ignoring all known evidence, as the conspiracists feel the need to do?
    5
  7. '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
  8. 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
  9. Well, this one certainly hasn't.l
    5
  10. As such details do not exist, perhaps it is just as well the video didn't go into them.
    4
  11.  @southerncross5360  You haven't explained how there was any connection. Largely because there wasn't?
    4
  12. Where do you expect to find them? Kansas?
    4
  13. Do you mean because they become offensive & insulting when you do?
    4
  14.  @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.
    4
  15. 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
  16. 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?
    4
  17.  @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?
    4
  18. 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
  19.  @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
  20.  @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
  21. 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
  22. 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.
    3
  23. You would lose you bet. What 'secrets' could possibly be involved?
    3
  24. Yes. The large number of ventilation cowls are proof that she is a Lusitania class liner.
    3
  25. There is, however, no actual evidence to support it. Simply imagined conspiracy fantasies.
    3
  26. He didn't. Why have you even bothered posting such idiotic nonsense?
    3
  27. No, she wasn't. That was a myth created by Robin Gardiner in a rather silly book in 1995.
    3
  28. Olympic was not badly damaged in the collision. Certainly nowhere near enough to even suggest that she was irreparable.
    3
  29. 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.
    3
  30.  @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.
    3
  31. ‘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.
    3
  32. If you are going to obsess about conspiracy theory nonsense. At least have the good manners not to confuse two different ones.
    3
  33. There are very few genuine photos. of Titanic. Her older sister was the glamorous one which attracted the cameras.
    3
  34. In view of the quality of your comments, I doubt that you 'think' at all.
    3
  35.  @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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. No.
    3
  39. 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
  40. The insurance policies were identical, as were the building costs.
    3
  41. Congratulations for getting so many thinks wrong in so short a post. It must have taken real effort on your part.
    3
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48.  @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.
    3
  49.  @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
  50.  @Idekanymoreboutyt  It is already known why Titanic sank. Sabotage not being the reason.
    2