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

  1. 'Literally?' Who did they kill, and when?
    1
  2.  @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
  3.  @SexiSeahawk69  Go on then. What precisely is stopping you?
    1
  4. What do you think he wanted that would have made 'sinking a giant liner' a good idea?
    1
  5. When typing things like this, I hope you take care to cover your keyboard to protect it from your drool.
    1
  6.  @joebrandonopolis3389  Are you indeed? What has that to do with Titanic?
    1
  7. 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
  8.  @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
  9.  @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
  10.  @mickeywicked478  It is clearly apparent that you get lots of things mixed up, little fellow.
    1
  11. Why? What is amiss about his comments? Simply posting insults for the sake of them are most unedifying.
    1
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Certainly not an Olympic. The cowl ventilators suggest Lusitania or Mauretania.
    1
  15. 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
  16. Why do you think that? The presentation is certainly flippant, but the facts stated are accurate. What 'research' have you done?
    1
  17. So, what is your opinion about the Titanic?
    1
  18.  @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
  19.  @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
  20. 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
  21. Do you? Based upon what actual evidence?
    1
  22. 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
  23. No, he didn't.
    1
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26.  @foreignmilk  What does that even mean?
    1
  27. Then why didn't that same 'ego' sink the several other ocean liners in service at the same time?
    1
  28. 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
  29. Apart from conspiracists, no 'they' don't.
    1
  30. How do chickens come into this?
    1
  31. Morgan does not seem to have any track record of wandering around murdering business rivals. Do please supply examples.
    1
  32. 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
  33.  @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
  34. Indeed. A wonderful old ship, with an illustrious career, before being scrapped in the 1930s.
    1
  35. But most said that there wasn't.
    1
  36. The relevance of the Fed. to the sinking of Titanic being?
    1
  37.  @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
  38.  @pellenyberg  Who are these mysterious 'THEY' people?
    1
  39.  @pellenyberg  I assume you have a source confirming that?
    1
  40. 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