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

  1. '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
  2. 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
  3. The story is totally unsubstantiated, of course. But gullible fools will always be gullible fools.
    2
  4. Claimed by whom, exactly?
    2
  5. 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?
    2
  6.  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
  7. Only when viewed with the eyes of Conspiracy Theory faith.
    2
  8.  @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
  9.  @scamueladams  No. Simply a rational one.
    2
  10. '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
  11. The problem here is that such conspiracy theories, where Titanic is concerned, do collapse into jokes when confronted with a few facts.
    2
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14.  @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
  15. Unfortunately for you conspiracists, the cunning plots you expound drop to pieces when challenged by actual facts.
    1
  16. Do try to explain how J. P. Morgan was directly involved?
    1
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20.  @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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24.  @lordhegamonster6931  'a leap of faith isn’t exactly required here.' Perhaps 'faith' is all you have, because every fact surrounding the sinking of Titanic is against you?
    1
  25.  @Will46666  The facts contained in the archives from the time, and those expressed by proper Titanic Historians. The evidence of photographs from the period, and the evidence of items removed from Olympic when she was stripped at Jarrow in 1935, and the contents auctioned off. Among a vast array of others, of course.
    1
  26.  @Will46666  Actually, it has been proven beyond the slightest doubt that no such swap took place.
    1
  27. If you believe the fact-free myth invented by conspiracy theorists in the 1990s, of course.
    1
  28.  @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
  29. Not that you would have any actual, credible, arguments to support you opinion, of course?
    1
  30. 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
  31. Why? Because he pointed out a few known facts about Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus?
    1
  32. 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
  33. Feel free to expand on what is obviously a highly considered and reasoned opinion on the issue.
    1
  34. Perhaps you might give us the benefit of your superior knowledge to explain to us what actually happened to Titanic, then?
    1
  35. What do you think is wrong?
    1
  36. For something to be 'obvious' shouldn't there be some supporting evidence?
    1
  37. 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
  38. Twenty, including the four collapsibles.
    1
  39. How does the fact that an ocean liner sank equate to 'Market manipulation?'
    1
  40. 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
  41.  @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
  42.  @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
  43. Aren't those switcher videos convincing? As well as being useful alternatives to rational thought.
    1
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49.  @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
  50.  @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