Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Weird History" channel.

  1.  @trevorjoneill707  Don't be an offensive fool. Stick simply to being a normal fool.
    6
  2. Please stop posting sensible comments on here. The conspiracy fools who apparently infest the site don't like them.
    4
  3.  @gabrielbruce1977  The smudge on the negative of one photograph proves nothing. For one thing, it is well forward of where the affected coal bunker actually was. In point of fact, there was a well established procedure for dealing with bunker fires, which in the coal fired ships of the day were not uncommon. That was to use up the coal from the affected bunker first, which is what Titanic's engineers did. The fire had been extinguished at least a day before the collision. On an associated point, do you seriously think that a captain of an ocean liner of the time was stupid enough to sail the Atlantic with a damaged hull? Just because these people lived over 100 years ago didn't make them idiots. In fact, as I read some of the posts on here, I suspect that the opposite applies!
    3
  4. So, you believe that, knowing that Titanic's hull was compromised, Captain Smith said to his engineers 'Never mind. It's only the North Atlantic in April. What could possibly go wrong?' Don't be a fool.
    2
  5.  @cleverusername9369  The small rudder problem didn't seem to stop Olympic manoeuvring quickly enough to ram a U-Boat in WW1.
    2
  6. Do you seriously suggest that Titanic would put to sea had such a situation existed? Just because these people lived over 100 years ago doesn't make them stupid. In fact, when I read some of the comments on here, I suspect that quite the opposite applies!
    2
  7. Haven't you learned yet? Sensible comments such as yours are not what are required on here!
    2
  8. The iceberg has been estimated to have been about 75 million tonnes. Good luck trying to plough through that.
    2
  9.  @joebuckfan  No. The protocol was not to collide with anything in the first place.
    2
  10. You would lose your bet.
    2
  11. Indeed. She cost $7.5 million to build, and was insured for $5 million. What a brilliant scheme.
    2
  12.  @TwinsBigLikeTia  Yes. 1). The Marconi equipmernt was used to send and receive emergency signals after the collision. The nearest ship had only one wireless operator, who was not on duty twenty four hours away. The last iceberg warning to Titanic was at 2140 on 14 April. :- '‘From Mesaba to Titanic . In latitude 42° N to 41° 25′, longitude 49° W to longitude 50° 30′ W, saw much heavy pack ice and great number large icebergs, also field ice, weather good, clear.’ That gives the position of the ship, not of the icebergs. The position transmitted by Titanic's operators was only 7 miles from where the wreck was found, which was, in those days of dead reckoning, quite accurate. Of course there was only line. The vast majority of ships at the time still did not have wireless communications. Lightoller was Second Officer (third in command) not a lookout. Titanic had more than two lookouts. Those on duty at the time were Symons & Fred. Fleet, who had replaced two others at 2200. David Blair, who transferred to Olympic, did not leave the binoculars in a locker. He took them with him, as they were his personal property, not that of the Line. Blair, by the way, was a senior command officer, who had been second in command of Titanic until transferred, not a lookout. The locker claim is a myth, as the surviving lookouts made clear at the Inquiry. By the way, 'glasses' as they were known, were used in order to identify an object already sceen. The probability is that if Fleet had used glasses to identify the iceberg, the ringing of the warning bell would have actually been delayed. The engines were not put in 'full reverse' but Murdoch ordereda swift change of course. Only an ignoramus would suggest that the rudder on the Olympics was too small. Olympic herself was agile enough to ram and sink a U-Boat in WW1. How did she do that if she was difficult to manoeuvre? Of course Titanic broke apart as she sank. The hull was subjected to intolerable stresses as it rose out of the water. No ship ever constructed, to this day, has ever been designed with such a factor in mind. The three ships were not built at the same time. Harland & Wolff had two slipways only which were big enough. The rivets might, indeed, not meet the requirements of the 21st century, but they were more than acceptable by the standards of the time. Olympic, by the way, built at the same time, of the same materials, in the same yard, by the same company, sailed successfully and safely through the same waters for almost 25 years. Odd, that, don't you think? Ship designers don't actually believe the design was stupid, even if this chap's imaginary 'historians' do. Olympic survived a collision with a Royal Navy cruiser with minor damage, and during her long and illustrious career met many severe Atlantic storms. As best I recall she didn't break apart, nor even show the slightest signs of so doing. There are many mistakes in this video, and it is possible that, as I slowly found my wish to live ebbing as I watched it, I may not have mentioned them all above. I do know that that is a wasted 12 minutes of my life I will never get back!
    2
  13. Rubbish. Of the three wealthy financiers who died, none had expressed opposition to the FR, and one was actively in favour.
    2
  14. Rubbish. What sort of an insurance scam sinks a ship in order to recoup two thirds of what it cost to build?
    2
  15. Good idea. Spend $7.5 million building a ship, then sink it in order to get back $5 million from the insurers.
    2
  16. Actually, no they don't.
    1
  17. Morgan was never booked to sail in Titanic, as he intended to be in Venice on 23 April. Nor did he 'invite' any of his 'economic rivals' to sail aboard her. You appear to have seen one of the conspiracy videos, and simply believed it unquestioningly.
    1
  18. Nonsense.
    1
  19. Were the binoculars X ray equipped, to be able to see through solid objects? Don't be a fool. Oh, and how is it that Olympic, built at thre same time of the same materials in the same yard, experienced no such rivet problems during her 23 years as a transatlantic liner?
    1
  20.  @extracelestial9527  Oh? The glasses were X-Ray ones, were they?
    1
  21. Don't be silly.
    1
  22. What was 'stupid' about the design?
    1
  23.  @conservativepineapples6203  Perhaps you aren't aware that the Olympics were intended to carry large numbers of passengers and crew. These people needed to be able to move around within the ship. Certainly a ship could be built with a series of watertight compartments. It wouldn't, however, be much use as a people transporter. The design didn't have 'watertight compartments' but watertight bulkheads. Actually 16 of them. The ship would remain afloat if no more than four were compromised. In Titanic's case, five were holed. Even with such catastrophic damage, Titanic remained afloat for two hours and forty minutes. Arguably, Lusitania suffered less initial damage. How long did it take her to sink?
    1
  24.  @conservativepineapples6203  I do not use wikipedia, in point of fact.
    1
  25. You obviously don't know how valued in the industry experienced riveters were.
    1
  26. Would it be inappropriate to ask why?
    1
  27.  @of1300  The only part of your post worth replying to is your error about Astor and Guggenheim, neither of whom had expressed any opinion about the Fed. You seem to have forgotten about the third financier, Straus, who was actually in favour of it. Oh, and Titanic cost $7.5 million to build, and was insured for $5 million. What sort of insurance scam was that? The rest of your post, by the way, suggests a degree of insanity.
    1
  28. No-one from H & W or White Star said that Titanic was unsinkable. The claim was made by a small engineering periodical, and taken up by the press.
    1
  29.  @EmilyS-gk3st  It isn't 'still there' because it wasn't there in the first place.
    1
  30. Had nothing to do with the sinking.
    1
  31. Actually, there is no such evidence at all. Only a modern myth, largely created by one Senan Molony in 2017, on the basis of a questionable interpretation of a single photograph of Titanic.
    1
  32.  @crowznest438  It would be an even better reason for the captain not to sail at all, had it been a serious fire, which it actually wasn't. Just because these people lived and died over 100 years ago doesn't make them idiots, as you seem to think.
    1
  33.  @crowznest438  Your suggestion that the captain would be in a hurry because of a fire implies, at the very least, stupidity.
    1
  34. What costs were cut?
    1
  35. What flaws and what disregard of safety? Indeed, who is Kevin Hicks, and why is he so ill-informed?
    1
  36. Always pleasing to read the considered opinions of a professional marine architect. What a shame you clearly aren't one.
    1
  37. What a brilliant scheme. Both Titanic & Olympic cost $7.5 million to build, and $5 million was paid out after the sinking. Please explain how this was an insurance scam.
    1
  38. Nonsense.
    1
  39.  @tracymerrill3321  Simply not true. At the time of the collision with HMS Hawke, Olympic was in the Solent, and under the command of a Solent Pilot, who had taken her into and out of Southampton on her previous Atlantic voyages. At the Court of Inquiry, Smith was exonerated of any blame for this reason. Olympic was fully repaired by Harland and Wolff in 14 weeks, largely because the damage, involving two compartments and a propeller shaft, was nowhere as extensive as switchers like to pretend. Olympic was back at sea by November, 1911, well before Titanic was even completed. I won't even mention the number of small design details which make the suggestion of a mere name swap laughable. Oh, and both ships cost $7.5 million to build. At the time of the sinking, Titanic was insured for only $5 million.
    1
  40. The coal fire was in one bunker (of nine) and was well aft of the point of iceberg collision. Moreover, the fire had been dealt with in the usual manner, by using up the coal from the affected bunker first, and had been extinguished by the day prior to the collision. Seriously, try to think sensibly. Would an experienced captain such as Edward Smith, who had held a Master's Ticket since 1887, have taken a ship with a damaged hull to sea?
    1
  41. What corners were cut?
    1
  42. Perhaps because it didn't weaken the steel?
    1
  43. What was 'negligent' about the design?
    1
  44.  @harrietharlow9929  I agree entirely. If there was something wrong with the design of the Olympics, why was Olympic so successful a liner?
    1
  45.  @harrietharlow9929  Moreover, when she was scrapped, at the same time as her old rival, Mauretania, in 1935, she was reported as being in sound condition. Both were, of course, considered old fashioned internally, but neither was withdrawn for potential seaworthiness problems.
    1
  46. The line is idiotic, and simply false.. The Olympic design was excellent, but no vessel could have survived the extent of the damage sustained by Titanic.
    1
  47. Why would there be? The recent claims are merely a modern myth. The fire issue had been dealt with well before the collision.
    1
  48. Sorry. Simply not true.
    1
  49. Don't be silly. The switch nonsense has been discredited. Indeed, it never had any credibility, but was entirely based on a book written in the 1990s. Titanic cost $7.5 million to build, and was insured for $5 million. Californian was a Leyland Line cargo liner, with room for a small number of passengers. There is no evidence at all that her cargo was entirely of blankets. Indeed, when she arrived in Boston, the shipping papers there stated that she was carrying a 'mixed general cargo.' Leyland Line were 'common carriers,' that was what their ships transported. In Californians case, she had been doing this for about ten years.
    1
  50. How do you come to that facile conclusion?
    1