Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Big Old Boats"
channel.
-
17
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
How was it then that Californian's officers reported a 'large steamer' firing off rockets to Captain Lord.
Can you name any other liner of the period with bulkheads extending up to the top deck. That was why they were liners, not Dreadnoughts.
The Switch Theory was invented by an author, Robin Gardiner, in the mid 1990s. No one with any actual knowledge of the subject takes it remotely seriously, perhaps because of the mountain of evidence disproving it.
Samson was built in 1885 as the 'City of New York.' She was a sailing ship with an auxiliary steam engine, capable of 7 knots, 148 feet long and displacing 506 GRT. Anyone mistaking her for Titanic ( 882 feet long and displacing 46,329 GRT) ought not to have been standing a watch at sea!
Additionally, official Lloyd's and Icelandic records claim that the Samson docked in Isafjordur on 6 April and 20 April 1912, making it impossible for her to have encountered the Titanic given her speed.
It has also not been explained why the crew of the Samson would be concerned about legal issues 500 miles off the coast of Newfoundland in international waters, or what seals would have been doing so far out to sea.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
'Opposition billionaire businessmen murdered?' Who were they? Don't say Astor, Guggenheim, or Straus, by the way, as it has been proven over and over again that the first two never voiced their opinions, and the third supported the Fed.
'Insurance Fraud?' When White Star lost £500,000 a major asset, and their safety record? Some fraud that was.
'Whitewashed hearings?' You obviously haven't read the minutes of either.
'Government blame?' How was any government to blame?
Stokers didn't refuse to board. The passage crew of Belfast men simply returned to Belfast after arriving at Southampton, where they were replaced by the deep-sea crew , mainly recruited from the Southampton area. Just as had happened with Olympic, in 1911, by the way.
'Catholics turning down work?' Whereever did you get that nonsense from?
Which 'books' do you mean? The two ships had a number of obvious differences.
In short. Don't be a fool.
3
-
Olympic had been fully repaired, and had returned to sea, from 20 November, 1911. When Titanic was still some five months from completion. She had made five further transatlantic round trips, and was in New York, halfway through her sixth, when Titanic left Southampton.
There were no opponents of the Fed. aboard. The 1990s conspiracy myths about Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus have long since been proven false.
What was 'whitewashed' about the Inquiries? How was any government involved? Perhaps you should read the actual minutes, instead of pontificating from Conspiracy Theorist ignorance?
No 'coalmen' refused to re-board at Southampton.The delivery crew of Belfast men simply returned to Belfast, to be replaced by a deep sea crew of men from the Southampton area. Exactly as had happened with Olympic in 1911.
What leads you to claim that Catholics turned down work on Titanic?
What sort of insurance fraud is one which loses the perpetrators a major asset, their safety record, and £500,000 or one third of Titanic's building costs?
Which books?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Let's assume that Californian left Royal Albert Dock at 1200 on 5 April. By late on 14 April, she would have been at sea some 216 hours. Her position was some 2400 sea miles from Liverpool. Now divide 2400 by 216. That gives an average speed of just over 11.1 knots. Californian's maximum service speed when new was 12 knots, although an economical cruising speed would certainly be less. She was actually making good time.
She didn't drop anchor. Ships did not have anchor chains 13,000 feet long. She simply stopped. Quite why Lord acted, or rather, didn't act, as he did, will never be known, but it seems you are implying that Californian was there to act as a rescue ship (she wasn't, by the way) but then claiming it to be equally suspicious that Lord didn't seem to know that that was his role. Make your mind up.
'Futility' is a total Red Herring. Did you know that the second edition was extensively re-written, interestingly, in 1912?
The only weirdness is that invented by conspiracists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@specialnewb9821 No-one was 'stuck' with inferior rivets. Tests on Titanic rivets in recent years have demonstrated that , whilst they were inferior to more recent rivets, they were more than adequate for the purpose. Moreover, you haven't addressed the case of Olympic, a successful liner for 23 years, with the same rivets.
You say 'corners were cut.' What corners? Titanic actually took longer to build than Olympic. Look it up.
Alexander Carlisle, designer of the Olympics, who retired in 1910, gave evidence at the British Inquiry. There was never any suggestion that bulkhead height was reduced, nor that the suggestion was ever put to him to reduce it.
Perhaps you would consider that 'corners were cut' by Leonard Peskett, with the Mauretanias, because he did not include anti-torpedo bulges against the possibility that a war might break out some years later, and one of them be torpedoed?
The Olympics were well designed and well built ships. Titanic sank simply because she was subjected to damage which was entirely unforeseeable, and far beyond anything with which her design was intended to cope.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@merafirewing6591 No, he wasn't. Try to understand this :-
Morgan’s actual reason for not sailing on the Titanic’s maiden voyage is well-documented. According to Jean Strouse’s 1999 biography “Morgan: American Financier” and Brad Matsen’s 2008 book “Titanic’s Last Secrets,” Morgan was busy trying to ship his vast art collection in England and France by sea to New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art.
In late March, he hit a setback: a U.S. Customs Office art specialist, sent to London to inspect the shipments, unexpectedly left for the States. Morgan stopped the shipments, asked the art dealer supervising them to meet him in France in mid-April, and sent a telegram to the White Star Line’s president with his regrets: Business would keep him from sailing on the Titanic.
That, incidentally, explains also his intention to be in Venice in late April, before Titanic could have brought him back from New York.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@fmyoung Alexander Carlisle, who was the original designer of the Olympics until retiring in 1910, testified that no pressure was applied to him to reduce the number of lifeboats. His evidence was that he expected the Board of Trade to increase the minimum number for such large ships, and thus he designed them for, but not with, 48 lifeboats. When no such regulation appeared, the 'with' number was the one applied. Neither Ismay, nor anyone else, was in a position to dictate to designers how to design their ships. Leonard Peskett, who designed the Mauretanias in 1906, included 16 lifeboats. Do you think he was 'persuaded' and by whom?
1
-
1
-
@fmyoung Source? If it were true, and not simply the false myth that it really is, how do you explain this?
In February, 1913, American claimants filed multiple lawsuits in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. The White Star Line subsequently petitioned to limit its liability under the Limited Liability Act, which limits the liability of the ship-owner to the value of the vessel and its pending freight, and vests authority in the district court. Under that statute, a ship-owner may limit its liability only if that liability arises without the ship-owner’s “privity or knowledge.” In The Titanic, the White Star Line sought to limit its liability under the statute to $91,805.54—the value White Star had assigned to the recovered lifeboats and pending freight...
...Once a ship-owner petitions for limitation of liability, all other claims in American courts must cease or be consolidated. On June 22, 1915, the trial began with initial consolidated claims totaling $16 million. Interestingly, among the experts consulted prior to the trial was Captain William Turner of the Cunard Line, who gave testimony on April 30, 1915. Turner testified on several matters pertaining to the operation of a large ocean liner including navigation, posting of lookouts, and basic principles of buoyancy involving watertight compartments. The next day, Turner was in command of the Lusitania at it sailed out of New York Harbor and into history.
Eventually, the parties reached a formal settlement on July 28, 1916, for the amount of $664,000. The claimants agreed to end their claims in the United States and England, and they acknowledged that the White Star Line “had no ‘privity or knowledge’ of any negligence on the Titanic.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tjroelsma The problem with these steps is that they are invented. Moreover, they were only invented when Gardiner wrote his book in the 1990s.
Smith, for example, did alter to a more southerly course, and Titanic was never ar full speed. Master Mariners and Liner Captains who gave evidence at the British Inquiry did not question nor criticise his decisions.
The actions of Captain Lord are certainly difficult to explain, but were hardly due to anyone connected with Titanic.
Certainly, a number of passengers did cancel their bookings for Titanic. Just as a similar number had cancelled for Olympic in 1911.
The supposed patch on the ship much touted by enthusisasts in well forward of the affected bunker, and well above the waterline. The evidence give by stoker survivors was that the bunker fire, caused by smouldering coal, had been extinguished around 24 hours befor the collision, and the only damage was to paintwork inside the affected bunker.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nosferatut9084 I assume you have a source?
A number of conspiracists have previously made this unsubstantiated claim. They have alleged that 'Titanic's insurance was increased by J. P. Morgan from $5 million to $12.5 million 5 days before her fateful journey'. Some go as far as to state that 'Lloyd's paid out $12,500,000'.
However, Lloyds records do not agree with this at all. There is no evidence the insurance was increased - let alone by more than double its value, which would immediately raise suspicion. 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 these 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 "$7.5million"? Quite simply Titanic was underinsured, the main reason being that the White Star Line actually insured its own ships.
Any allegation to the contrary - of an increase - needs evidence, for which at present there is nothing but unverified speculation.
1
-
1
-
@of1300 I have read Senan Molony's book. Unlike many, I have also been able to examine his claims. Who were the 'people' who reported seeing Titanic? A Doctor, Dr.Quitzrau (though his name has various spelling variations). He was a steerage passenger but was upgraded when 3rd class became full. When he was seen on the Saloon Deck by a crew member and asked what class of ticket he held, he was ordered from it when he replied that he held a steerage ticket. It is highly likely that Quitzrau concocted the whole story as a means of revenge against the Mount Temple, and went around circulating the story to anyone who listened. Certainly, when the US Senate Inquiry heard of the story, an affidavit was obtained and this confirmed that Quitzrau had seen nothing at all and was just repeating the story.
Or Mount Temple's 4th Officer, Baker, who claimed that she was much closer to Titanic than her Captain stated? Baker had indeed been 4th officer, but was not aboard on the voyage in question. He simply claimed that he had been told this, although the alleged source never came forward.
Molony also failed to mention that Mount Temple and Californian were both ships with single funnels and four masts, when he claimed that Mount Temple had a distinctive appearance.
There was no testimony that Titanic exploded. Only that 'rumblings' were heard late in her sinking.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richardjohnson4373 Actually, no-one talked about any switch until Robin Gardiner invented the idea in the 1990s. There are blueprints for both ships. Why do you fantasise that there aren't?
The tugs names were erased by the newsreel distributors precisely because the vessel in the pictures was Olympic in New York, not Titanic in Southampton. People wanted to see reels of Titanic, after she sank, and there were none, so images of Olympic were used to satisfy the demands of people instead. There is nothing suspicious about that.
.'Not so fast they had to change the propeller at dry dock and since they did not have time to cast another one to get the Olympic back in service they took the propeller off the Titanic and installed it on the wreckage at the bottom of the north Atlantic.' Nonsense. The Damage Investigation Report from 1911 refers only to damage to Olympic's propellor shaft, and only parts of one of Titanic's shafts were used in order to get Olympic back to sea. This claim was made by desperate switchers, apparently like you, to explain why a blade with Titanic's number on it was found on a wreck with they fantasised was Olympic.
'The lions share of the things on board are white start lines markings not Titanic or Olympic.' Indeed they are, but the differences between the forward ends of 'A' & 'B' deck, and the bridge wings, provide evidence as to which ship was which.
'The town the ships were constructed there was a lot of locals talking about the switch. Really? Then there must have been lots of gossip in local newspapers, mustn't there? Be good enough to provide chapter and verse on for these articles.
'I dont worry about what happened in Irland I look at the Carpathia and its odd cargo leaving New York.' Well, you certainly don't worry about facts, it seems. What 'odd cargo?' Do you mean the 740 passengers aboard when she left New York for Fiume on 11 April? Oh, and Carpathia was owned by Cunard, not White Star.
'Plus it makes it to a place in the north Atlantic same place the Titanic sinks?' Have you ever considered that the distress call sent by Titanic, and given to Captain Rostron, which contained a position, might have played a part? Do you think that in 1912 captains simply set off into the unknown and hoped for the best, rather than using sextants and other navigational aids?
I would shut up if I were you. You are simply making yourself look like a fool.
1
-
1
-
1
-
sdt8764 Thanks for your comments.
Personally, I wouldn't ban Molony from anything, as his claims are easy to debunk. I incline to the opinion that he was simply a journalist on the make, and spotted an opportunity to profit from a sensationalist book on the subject. After all, Robin Gardiner did set something of a precedent!
How far away Californian was has always seemed to me to have been something of a Red Herring. She was certainly near enough for her officers and lookouts to observe the lights & flares of a 'large steamer' and to report their concerns to Captain Lord. Subsequent criticism of Lord was not because he failed to rescue anyone from Titanic, but because he showed a remarkable lack of interest in the events unfolding around him, not even waking up Evans, his wireless operator, to check the airwaves to investigate. Had he done so, and then set off in Titanic's direction, even had he not reached her in time he would surely have been lauded (sorry about the pun!), like Rostron, for making the effort.
Molony's claims about the fire aboard Titanic are equally improbable, of course. Marks on a photograph, well above the waterline and well forward of the affected bunker, convince no-one except either the ignorant, or those who wish to be convinced.
Claiming that Mount Temple was the alleged 'mystery ship' are equally improbable. Molony in the video claimed that her appearance was distinctive, with four tall masts and a single funnel. A pity he did not show photographs of Californian in his video. Apparently, she, with four tall masts and a single funnel, was totally different!
Indeed, viewing archive photographs of the two ships show how similar in appearance they were.
1