Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Oceanliner Designs"
channel.
-
78
-
46
-
Just a minor point about HMS Hawke. She was a ship of the 'Edgar' class, of nine First Class Protected Cruisers' built between 1889 & 1894. The class did not have actual ram bows, but ram-style, or inverted, bows, which simply meant that the most forward point of the bow was at the waterline, rather than at the top.
This was intended to maximise the length of the ship, in order to increase speed, provide better hydrodynamic drag, and make the ship more fuel efficient. It was not intended to enable the Edgars to ram other ships to sink them. The Edgars carried 2 x 9.2 inch guns and 10 x 6 inch guns for the purpose of doing that.
The bow was not heavily reinforced in the manner of earlier ships, such as the 1881 built HMS Polyphemus, designed from the outset as a 'torpedo ram' or indeed the Danish Tordenskjold, commissioned in 1882. There is an excellent photograph available of Polyphemus in dry dock, which shows what a real ram bow, intended for that purpose, looks like.
The proof of this may be seen in the photographs of HMS Hawke after the collision, showing her badly crumpled bow. Something which would not have happened had she actually been fitted with a bow designed for ramming.
Just one of a myriad of errors to be found in Robin's imaginative, but largely fact free, book. I fear.
29
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
14
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
'And whilst ive not read any of Gardiners books I've read the more recent "RMS Olympic" by John Hamer, and there's TONS more evidence to support the switch theory that this smooth talker doesn't even mention to you here!' Really? Tell us what some of your 'evidence' is then. I look forward to seeing it.
Aside from the fact that Mr. Hamer has never yet stumbled across a conspiracy theory he hasn't immediately swallowed whole, he seems generally simply regurgitate Gardiner's long disproven nonsense.
'JPMorgan used the event (which oddly enough was much more publicised than Olympic's maiden voyage) to attract & bump off all the 3 billionaires who objected to his forming of the US Federal Reserve.' Firstly, Olympic's maiden voyage was a much more celebrated affair than Titanic's. Haven't you thought to ask why there is no contemporary footage of Titanic leaving Southampton, for example? Or that there is precisely no newsreel footage of Titanic in her completed state? Secondly, the claim of any connection with the Fed. only appeared with the rise of Social Media in the 1990s. Were you to take the time & effort to look into the careers of Astor & Guggenheim, you would be shocked to discover that neither had expressed any opinion about the Fed. Straus is easier to check, as his speech in support of the Federal Reserve concept, made in October, 1911, was reported in the New York Times and can still be read. I can give you the details if you wish.
'In fact one of the propellers dropped off on one NY crossing, which required another return to Belfast,. and another chance to switch the ships!!' No, it didn't. One propellor blade was damaged when it struck an underwater object. Olympic returned to Belfast, and a new blade was fitted, before Olympic left, some three or four days later. 'A chance to switch the ships?' Only in your fevered imagination.
'Oh, and it doesnt matter if there were a million workers at that shipyard who all knew about "the switch" or how many were drunkenly talking about it in bars.' There is no record of any such claims by anyone, and Ulstermen are not noted for being either particularly secretive, or being cowed by authority. If you think that your comment is true, please supply a source. By the way, the term source refers to a contemporary record, such as a newspaper, not to some nonsense you read in a switcher video.
'And how after the Cunard rescue ship dropped the "Titanic" lifeboats off at White Star NY pier terminal, they noticed how the names had been chiselled off of them but so badly they could still tell they were "Olympic" ' Who are these 'they' and why is none of this documented? You evidently are unaware that lifeboats did not have the names of the ship to which they were allocated carved into their sides, largely because they were often transferred between other ships of the line. The most any lifeboat would have had might have been a plate attached by a couple of screws. Why have none of these plates survived, either?
Furthermore, the US Inquiry began on 19 April, 1912. The boats languished in New York harbour for months. How was it that this dramatic evidence of the switch never reached Senator Smith, nor anyone else connected with it?
Sorry, owd lad, but you seem to have swallowed whole most of the nonsense excreted by switchers over the years. I would suggest that you try to think for yourself, but I doubt that you would dare.
Still, any 'evidence' you can produce would be fascinating to me.
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
Whereever did you get this drivel from? White Star had attempted to claim for repairs to Olympic following her collision with HMS Hawke, but a court held that the fault was that of the Solent Pilot in charge of Olympic at the time. As a result, though White Star could not claim, neither were they held liable for repairs to HMS Hawke.
Consequently, they paid Harland & Wolff £25,000 and the repaired Olympic was back at sea in Late November, 1911. A nuisance, but as the company had posted profits in the region of £1 million in the previous financial year, not a serious one. Indeed, also in November 1911, White Star confirmed with H & W their order for the third Olympic, RMS Britannic.
There was never the remotest suggestion that Olympic was a 'write off' as inspection teams fro the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and White Star themselves had already confirmed.
'1. Irrelevant due to the fact that they were going into receivership if they didn't somehow get the insurance money for the Olympic, given that it was crippled.' Nonsense. White Star were a successful company. I have already told you of their trading strength, and their order for a third Olympic. Does that sound like a company on the brink? Seriously?
'2. There is no such thing as bad publicity, and it could be spun to cover any possible bad consequences.' Do explain how anyone could 'spin' the loss of 1500 lives and a huge liner as anything other than a bad thing!
'I believe that the sinking of the ship at sea where it could not be recovered or inspected, would cover up any obvious proof of the switch. I'm still keeping an open mind.' This may come as a shock to you, but when ships sink, it is always at sea!
After posting such nonsense, you claim to be keeping an open mind? As a famous tennis player was wont to say 'You cannot be serious!'
7
-
7
-
7
-
Oh dear, there is no such proof at all. 'Go to wiki to see the two ships side by side and you will see there names are both painted over you can read the tug boats name that is pushing the titanic easly in the pic.' Aside from the fact that White Star ships had their names engraved into the steelwork of the bows, the names of the tugs were scratched out because the port of registry was also shown. As that port was 'New York' seeing it would have instantly discredited any claim that the ship was Titanic, because Titanic never reached New York, of course. Actually, the footage is of Olympic, and was hastily adjusted so that the makers could pass it off as Titanic at a time when, after the sinking, there was little or no footage of the real thing and there was a considerable demand for it.
'Sea trails in that pic you will find a square hold just above the round port holes. you will find this square hole dissappares in march 1912. now go find a picture of titanic in dry dock underconstrution you will see it has no such hole but the hole shows up latter after march 1912.' I won't comment on that as it doesn't seem to be in any recognisable language. You might wish to explain one or two more obvious problems, such as why does the wreck have a window pattern at the forward end of 'B' deck which accords with that of Titanic & differs from the Olympic of 1912, and why was the number 401 observed on the blade of a propellor at the site?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
Where ever do you get these notions? Did you simply watch a conspiracy video & swallow it whole?
'It is very interesting that Morgan was booked on the maiden voyage of Titanic, but cancelled at the last minute. Very interesting.' It would indeed have been interesting, had it been true, but Morgan had already, in March, 1912, announced that he intended to be at an event in Venice before Titanic could have returned from New York. He hadn't sailed on Olympic for her maiden voyage in 1911, either. Do you consider that suspicious, by the way?
Actually, checking Morgan's returns from Europe from 1904 to 1912 reveals that only twice (1908 and 1910) in those years did he return to New York from Europe before July, and in one of those years (1908) he returned so early only to attend a family wedding, before heading back to Europe a few days later and staying there until late August. By the way, those occasions when he returned early were in June - never as early as April.
Even more conclusively, a New York Times newspaper article of Thursday 28th March 1912 reveals that in March "J. Pierpont Morgan has written a cordial letter to the committee, announcing that he will be in Venice on April 23 for the inauguration of the biennial International Art Exhibition, April 25, and dedicate the new Campanile of St. Mark's." This means Morgan would certainly have no reason to return to New York on April 10, when he was due in Venice by April 23, given that the transatlantic voyage at the time was at least 5 days long, and therefore he could not have made it back in time.
'I don't think Gardner ever thought the workers in Belfast even knew or were complicit in the switch.' Really? You don't think that H & W's workers were bright enough to realise that they were suddenly carrying out modification to the ships to alter their identities? You have a much lower opinion of the intelligence of those workmen than is warranted, just as you seem to assume than most of the office & management staff of H & W were complicit in the plot.
Where is there any anger about Gardiner's book? It is simply, and accurately, proven to be the entertaining nonsense that it was.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Try to understand my comments. I have kept them simple, for even the most gormless of switchers to understand.
Olympic was returned to sea on 20 November, 1911, after repair by Harland & Wolff. At that time, Titanic was around five months from completion. There are even photographs of the two together in October, 1911. Titanic is the partially painted one, with only one funnel in place.
By the time Titanic left Southampton on 10 April, 1912, Olympic had completed five further Atlantic round trips since returning from repair, and was in New York Harbor, halfway through her sixth.
In order to return to sea, her insurance (for two thirds of her building costs) had been renewed, and she had full Board of Trade certification.
Is this clear enough for you to understand? You could easily have verified all this for yourself, but I appreciate that switchers cannot usually cope with mere facts.
5
-
5
-
5
-
The Admiralty report, with which teams from White Star and the Board of Trade concurred, referred to damage to propeller shafting, but not to the propeller itself. Only propeller shafting intended for Titanic was used, not the propeller itself. This idea was, simply, an invention of enthusiastic switch fanatics who simply could not bring themselves to accept the facts about the number discovered on the blade at the wrecksite.
The collision with HMS Hawke did not involve keel damage, again as the Admiralty synopsis, which made no reference to any such thing, confirmed. The first suggestion of keel damage was made in the 1990s by Robin Gardiner.
Although a court case did place the blame for the collision on Olympic, and thus White Star could not claim from Lloyds, it also placed the blame on the Solent Pilot who had charge of Olympic at the time, George Bowyer, and not on Smith.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
By 'evidence' you presumably mean switcher videos? Actually, the only 'evidence' of this mysterious 'M' (and a 'P') is in a short video which appeared, without any provenance at all, in the year 2000 or thereabouts.
The problem with it is that no exploration team has ever claimed it, nor even referred to it, despite the fact that such 'incontravertible' evidence would make headlines all over the world. Moreover, even the father of the myth, Robin Gardiner, denounced it as a fake.
Still, if you really can be taken in by what is clearly CGI imaging, and poor quality imaging at that, then that seems to say rather more about you than it does about the images.
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@MacAdvisor Perhaps Olympic, like Mauretania & Aquitania, actually survived because of the soundness of her design?
Board of Trade regulations (the ones you wrongly say did not exist) stated any ship over 10,000 tons must have four water tight bulkheads three and half feet above the waterline giving them five compartments. The Olympics well exceeded the figure by a long way with fifteen bulkheads, each extending ten feet above the waterline. Instead of making false claims, why not simply look them up for yourself?
They were outdated, I agree, but they were the regulations which applied when the Olympics (and the Mauretanias) were designed and built.
'Portholes with automatic closing were available as they were patented about ten years previously.' Very good, but that was not what I asked. As I wrote, name any liner, or even any warship, which actually had been fitted with such devices. The fact that something might have been patented does not mean that it was practicable.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@harryshuman9637 Would you describe the KGVs as 'battlecruisers' as well? Same armour as Vanguard. Or the Iowas, perhaps? Or Bismarck?
Agreed, the original distinction between battleship and battlecruiser had largely disappeared after the appearance of the first battlecruiser/fast battleship hybrid, HMS Hood, but the concept of the roles of the two types was entirely different. Put briefly, a battlecruiser was not expected to fight in the line, against other battleships, but to act as the reconnaissance arm of the Battle Fleet, to drive away enemy scouting cruisers, and to hunt down enemy armoured cruisers. The Falklands being a case in point.
No-one, British, American, or German, saw Iowa, KGV, Vanguard, or Bismarck as any anything other than fast battleships.
4
-
Where did you get that idea from? No-one, least of all Astor, Guggenheim, or Straus, were given complimentary tickets,
Mind you, Astor & Guggenheim had never commented about the Federal Reserve either, whilst in October, 1911, Straus had made a speech in favour of the concept.
Ever thought of actually checking the conspiracist video you swallowed for accuracy, or do you prefer to remain ignorant?
4
-
@MegaDavyk If you seek for evidence that Astor and Guggenheim were 'outspoken opponents' of the Federal Reserve, you will search in vain. Whatever their opinions might have been , they both kept them to themselves. If you believe anything to the contrary, please feel free to provide evidence.
Straus is easier. He came out as a supporter of the concept of the Fed. in Ocrober 1911, and his speech appeared in the New York Times. Twice, in fact. Would you like to know the dates so that you may check the archives for yourself?
Oh yes, of course. The M & P letters on the wreck. The letters which appeared, without provenance, in 2000 or thereabouts. The letters which no exploration team has ever claimed, and to which no team has ever even referred. The letters which were even denounced by the founder of the switch myth, Robin Gardiner, as 'fake'. Would you like me to post a copy of his denunciation post?
Have you ever asked yourself why no Titanic researcher or historian has ever given this nonsense house room?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@haredr6511 Titanic had received ice warnings only, not references to a 'dense ice fleld.' Californian was the only ship which stopped. Carpathia was further south because of her destination, which was Fiume, not Southampton.
Smith had taken other ships, including Olympic, through the same area at the same time of year and, in Olympic's case, at the same speed, on many previous occasions without problems. He had, by the way, altered to a more southerly course.
Therefore, your analogy is totally spurious.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
The switch nonsense is a myth invented by an amateur writer, Robin Gardiner, in the 1990s, and later propagated by a number of conspiracist fantasists, to whom everything is part of a series of huge and evil plots conceived and operated by 'THEM!
In the real world, Olympic was returned to Harland & Wolff, repaired by them in about seven weeks, at a cost to White Star of £25,000, and sent back to sea from late November, 1911.
4
-
Wherever did you get this nonsense from? There was never a 'conspiracy' to cripple, still less sink, Titanic, and certainly not through smouldering fires, which evidence from surviving stokers has proven were extinguished around 24 hours prior to the collision.
Moreover, Olympic had made several further transatlantic crossings since returning to sea in late November, 1911, and at the time of Titanic's sinking was around 500 miles from her, returning to Southampton from New York. Thus, there were two Olympics at sea, both steaming in excess if 20 knots. If one was already seriously damaged, how did anyone manage that?
Captain Lord was never knighted, and SS Californian was almost ludicrously unsuited for the task of rescue ship, given that she was a small freighter already laden with a full, 'mixed, general' cargo. At least according to the Boston shipping papers when she docked there on 19 April. 'Confusion' by the way? Californian's officers saw Titanic's flares, and notified Lord. He simply failed to respond. If the rescue was already planned, why might that have been?
'Captain Smith and some of this lieutenants were aware of the plan and that is why Murdoch gave a nudge to the iceberg (the iceberg could had been avoided easily) ... That is why the boats were lowered half empty/full.' Sorry, but that is simply too idiotic, and too insulting to the memory of decent men who, whatever mistakes any of them may or may not have made, died honourably on the night of the sinking. It is simply unworthy of comment.
'The insurance fraud - switch theory is very compelling and has many confirmed facts behind it to make it real.' What 'confirmed facts' might those be? Please educate us all by elucidating.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@gokulgopan4397 He cannot. I write as someone who has read the minutes of both Inquiries, which clearly he has not.
As to insurance fraud. Olympic and Titanic, in 1911 terms, both cost £1.5 million to build, and both were insured for £1 million. I an not an accountant, but perhaps someone could explain how losing £500,000 a major asset and a safety record, all at the same time, benefitted anyone?
Except, perhaps, Cunard?!
4
-
4
-
This is what I, and anyone who actually knows anything about Titanic, makes of it:-
1). Olympic was not 'beyond repair.' In fact, she had been repaired, and returned to sea from 20 November, 1911, when Titanic was still some five months from completion. The cost to White Star was about £25,000 (at 1911 monetary values), or 1.67% of Olympic's building cost. Morgan didn't pay anything out to have anything scrapped, as he had been dead since 1913.
When Olympic was withdrawn from service, in 1935, after the merger of Cunard & White Star, and at the same time as her old rival Mauretania, she was purchased, for £97,500 and went first to Jarrow for partial dismantling, and then to Inverkeithing, where her hull was broken up. Cunard/White Star did not pay anyone to scrap her. Quite the reverse.
2). Titanic, not Olympic, had around 2,220 people aboard when she sank, which included a full crew of around 900. Nor, of course, was she deliberately sunk.
3). 'Gain about ten million quid from the exercise.' Hardly. The sinking cost White Star a major asset, a record for safety, and £500,000 because Titanic was only insured for £1 million, against her building costs of £1.5 million, again at 1912 monetary values, of course.
The only people who might perhaps have gained anything from the sinking, albeit indirectly, could have been Cunard.
4
-
@michaelnarramore3415 You obviously care, or you wouldn't have posted such nonsense.
The Report on the extent of Olympic's damage, published on 10 November, 1911, was confirmed by teams from the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and White Star. It made no reference to keel damage at all, only to 'two flooded compartments, a 6-8 feet deep gash in the hull, and a damaged propeller shaft.'
Perhaps you don't know that the first ever suggestion of keel damage occurred in 1995, when it was invented precisely to justify the ludicrous switch claim?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@MacAdvisor Just as Olympic had a 24 year career until, at the same time as Mauretania, she was withdrawn from service when still, also like Mauretania, in good condition.
Just as, without the intervention of unforseeable events, the other three, Lusitania, Titanic, & Britannic, might be expected to have had equally long careers.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@gjustg1540 Which ships 'sat waiting?' Don't you think that both the Manhattan Project & Bletchley Park involved issues of far greater import than the sailing of an ocean liner? Or that things like the Official Secrets Act, or the US equivalents, may have been relevant?
Furthermore, many of Harland & Wolff's staff were made redundant after the end of WW1, only six and a half years later. What induced them to keep silent, and, anyway, what was 'compartmentalised' about the work they did?
Moreover, those crew members who escaped Titanic's sinking never, for the rest of their lives, made any suggestions about anything suspicious about either the ship or the sinking.
Indeed, no one at all did, until an amateur historian, Robin Gardiner, wrote a largely fact-free book about it in the 1990s.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Of course, the British should have simply sat back and allowed Germany to conquer the rest of Europe. Firstly when Germany simply chose to march into Belgium in WW1, and secondly when Germany embarked on a policy of rampant military expansion in WW2.
After all, why should any decent person object to Germany, without any declarations of war, invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium? Twice, in the case of Belgium.
I appreciate that you are still annoyed after all these years, herr obergruppenfuhrer, but please address two matters.
1). How would seeking to prevent a general European war have expanded Britain's 'Colonial Empire?'
2). Why do you believe that US involvement in WW2 was simply to aid Britain, when in fact it was primarily because of Pearl Harbor and the subsequent German declaration of war?
3
-
3
-
@StandWithRussia But the ship was far from a write off. She was repaired by Harland & Wolff and returned to sea on 20 November, 1911, when Titanic was several months short of completion. By the time Titanic left Southampton on 10 April, 1912, Olympic had completed five Atlantic round trips since returning to sea, and was in New York harbor, half way through her sixth. Not bad, I suggest, for a eritted off cripple.
The fact is, without the false 'broken keel' claim, the whole idea of any switch collapses. Have you considered looking at Olympic's actual service record yourself, or have you simply not got the integrity?
You might also look in more detail at HMS Hawke. She did not have a reinforced. ram, bow, but had simply a ram style bow. By the time she was built, ramming was no longer a feasible method of naval warfare. Indeed, her repairs saw her fitted with a more modern, straight, bow.
The collision, by the way, was at low speed (eight knots), and despite your convction to the contrary, Hawke's damage was nor severe, as the bow was not even crushed as far back as the hawse hole.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I will keep this as simple as I can. The tone of your post suggests it would be pointless to write anything more complicated.
The Home Fleet had four capital ships with sufficient speed and firepower to catch Bismarck. There were two exit points into the wider Atlantic. The British needed to prevent Bismarck & Prinz Eugen reaching the wider Atlantic, as they would then be harder to chase down, and could become a threat to convoys.
Admiral Tovey, therefore, sent his second and third best ships, Hood & Prince of Wales, to one exit, the Denmark Strait, and positioned his strongest and weakest assets, King George V and Repulse, in the second, the Iceland-Faroes Gap. The reasoning was that each unit, individually, would be capable of preventing the breakout, and each had cruiser support in the area.
Guess what? It worked. Despite the loss of Hood (an aging ship, but with a heavier broadside than that of Bismarck, and armour on a par with a Queen Elizabeth class battleship) Prince of Wales was able to damage Bismarck sufficiently to force her commander to abandon his raiding mission and run for St. Nazaire for repairs.
I hope that this was not too difficult for you to grasp, and I hope that great-granddad did not get bored sitting in Tirpitz at the end of a Fjord for many months betweem 1942 & November, 1944.
3
-
3
-
3
-
White Star could not claim from Lloyds for the repair, because a court deemed that Olympic was at fault for the collision. However, repairs were carried out by Harland and Wolff in around 6 - 7 weeks, and she was back at sea by late November. The cost was some £25,700 which equated to around 1.85% of her building cost of £1,500,000 For a Company which had shown profits of over £1million in the last financial year, that was a minor inconvenience at most.
Indeed, in the same month that Olympic returned to sea, White Star placed an order with Harland & Wolff for the third Olympic class liner.
As to the imaginary insurance scam, Olympic was insured with Lloyds for £1 million, which would mean that White Star would lose £500,000 their safety record, and a major asset. Perhaps the Board of Cunard suggested the 'scam' to White Star?
You might perhaps fill in the gaps yourself, instead of simply swallowing whole a switcher video?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@zillahwells4063 'The article quotes transcripts from the inquiry.'
Sorry to be pedantic, but the US Inquiry only ended on 25 May, 1912. Moreover, Barrett gave his evidence on the 18th, and last, day, from RMS Olympic. His statement is headed :-
'Testimony of Frederick Barrett
BY SENATOR WILLIAM ALDEN SMITH, ON SATURDAY, MAY 25,
IN THE FIREROOM ON BOARD S. S. "OLYMPIC," NEW YORK.'
His statement was a very short one, with no reference to fire damage.
Congratulations to the DuPage County Register, having access to a time-travelling reporter in 1912!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jimcrawford3185 Olympic's keel was not broken. Indeed, it was not even touched. The ram of HMS Hawke penetrated about 6-8 feet into Olympic's side. Olympic had a beam of 92 feet. The collision was at slow speed. Hawke's captain, at the court case, testified that her speed was not more than eight knots. Hawke, though an old lady by 1911, was capable of 20 knots.
The Admiralty report, issued on 10 November, 1911, and supported by separate teams of inspectors from White Star and the Board of Trade, summarised the total extent of the damage as “Two major watertight compartments were flooded, hull plating gashed from the Orlop deck to E deck, and the starboard propeller shafting damaged.”
The claims about keel damage only began to appear in the 1990s when Gardiner wrote his entertaining but silly book. Just as the switchers found it necessary to make the false claim that a propeller from Titanic was fitted to Olympic to justify the presence of Titanic's 401 number on a blade photographed on the wreck.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@shahmanz How do you explain the fact that Olympic had been back at sea since November, 1911, and was en route from New York to Southampton when Titanic sank? Or, come to that, how there could possibly have been two Olympic class liners at sea, both steaming at 21+ knots at the same time?
Californian (you got her name wrong) was a freighter on her way to Boston with a dull 'mixed general' cargo. Had she really been intended to be a rescue ship, and it is difficult to think of one less suited for the task, why did her captain not react when the distress flares of a large ship were reported to him.
The three influential people were Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus. The first two had never expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst the third had spoken in support in October, 1911. His speech may still be read in the NYT archives, by the way.
Insurance fraud? Titanic was only insured for two thirds of her building costs. When she sank, White Star lost a major asset, their safety record, and £500,000 If it was an insurance fraud, who thought it up? CUNARD?!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
1). At the time, Germany had a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. A number of merchant ships had already been sunk. Lusitania, in German eyes, was also a legitimate target, whatever she was, or was not, carrying. The fact is that no one in Britain or the US really believed that a large passenger liner would be attacked in this manner.
2). Turner reduced speed in order to reach Liverpool when the tide was favourable.
3). Churchill was not 1st Sea Lord, he was First Lord of the Admiralty, which was a political, rather than a military, office. Do you seriously think he spent his days deciding where the Royal Navy's ships would or would not be?
4). The northern channel around Ireland was not out of U-boat range. Moreover, the southern route was shorter. Simply look at a map.
5). No, it wasn't. Certainly, the allies wanted US support, but the best way thew Germans could have avoided that would have been not to have attacked a prestigious target carrying many US citizens. In any case, the US didn't become involved for two more years, and only then because the Germans re-introduced unrestricted submarine warfare, and began sinking neutral US ships.
6). Simply nonsense. Lusitania was a legitimate target, in German terms, in any case. The weapons, actually rifle ammunition, were not illegal.
7). Even more nonsensical than 6).
The rest of your post is simply lunacy, and not even worthy of comment. Although I do like your fantasy that Bouncing Bomb research had been completed by 1933. Brilliant!!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@theodorechill Perhaps, as you sit in your comfy chair and make pious comments about events of 80 years ago, you might consider the estimated casualty figures, both American and Japanese, for Operation Olympic?
Then you might explain how a soldier who loads a bullet or shell into a weapon is a legitimate target, yet the civilian who makes the shell, or even supplies the soldier with the food to carry on fighting, is not? To help you excape from your Ivory Tower, please note that 20th century warfare had no room for civilians. Goebbels called in a famous speech, for total war, and got it.
By the way, Dresden was an industrial & route centre, and the Red Army General Staff had requested the bombing to aid their offensive.
I wonder if the people of numerous small Spanish towns, or Warsaw, or Rotterdam, realised that your ah was a warm hearted. kindly, individual? .
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Oh dear. Another day another ignorant comment. Just to educate you, Neither Rockefeller nor Rothschild had booked on Titanic. As to Morgan, a New York Times newspaper article of Thursday 28th March 1912 reveals that in March "J. Pierpont Morgan has written a cordial letter to the committee, announcing that he will be in Venice on April 23 for the inauguration of the biennial International Art Exhibition, April 25, and dedicate the new Campanile of St. Mark's." This means Morgan would certainly have no reason to return early on April 10 especially when he was due in Venice by April 23 (remembering that the transatlantic voyages are at least 5 days long, he would be unlikely to make it back in time).
Next, neither Astor nor Guggenheim had ever stated their opinions about the Fed. Straus had,, however, in October, 1911 he had made a speech in favour of it, which may still be read in the NYT Archives.
'And the argument that that many employees would keep that a secret is very easily explained as I’m sure they were promised a life time of work to do the switch if they helped the company solve this massive problem of insurance.'
You are sure? Oh good. Based upon what? Especially since many of H & W's workforce were laid off at the end of WW1, only just over six years later. Why didn't anyone say anything then? Moreover, do you really think saying 'if you help us kill 1,500 people, we'll let you continue to work in a heavy manual job for the next few years' would have had much appeal?
'Insurance?' The Olympics cost £1.5 million each to build, and were each insured for £1 million. Thus, when Titanic sank, White Star lost £500,000 and a major asset, and their safety record. The only people who might, possibly, have gained from the scam were Cunard.
'This is 1912/1912 Ireland you numptys very poor and uneducated people that didn’t know any better and a few pounds in the pocket at the time would have shut many of the alcoholic men in that time period up.' You are the numpty here. The workforce at H & W was entirely Protestant, and working in shipbuilding, especially as a riveter, was a very well paid job, albeit of comparatively short duration at the time. One thing you could not risk being working in so dangerous an environment was drunk. Are you really silly enough to believe that H & W employed a workforce of drunks?
Moreover, once again, once Titanic had sunk, are you seriously suggesting that not one man who knew of your (imaginary) switch, would not have spoken about for the rest of his life?
Congratulations, by the way, the stupidest post of the day so far. However, it is still early.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
JP Morgan didn't invite anyone to 'join him' aboard Titanic. Astor, Guggenheim & Straus had all booked their own passages aboard her. In Guggenheim's case, as late as 8 April, well after it was known that Morgan was not sailing. In fact, between 1904 & 1912 Morgan had only sailed to New York twice before July. He hadn't sailed on Olympic's maiden voyage either. Was that suspicious, too? President Taft, King George V, & Tsar Nicholas II weren't aboard either. Were they also part of your cunning plot?
No passengers ever claimed to have heard 'explosions' although one or two reported 'rumblings.' However, a far larger number reported the iceberg. If there had been no iceberg, what do you suggest that the International Ice Patrol has been monitoring for over 100 years? Large blocks of expanded polystyrene, perhaps?
By the way, Astor and Guggenheim had never commented on the Federal Reserve, which Straus had spoken in support.
Out of interest, where do people like you get your 'imaginative' notions from?
Baaaaa!!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Titanic was owned by White Star, part of the overall IMM group, which was owned by J. P. Morgan. As owner, Morgan could have sailed aboard her, but chose not to do so. In March, he had announced his intention to be in Venice on 23 April, which would not have been possible had he sailed in Titanic on 10 April. It was even mentioned in the New York Times. Perhaps you missed it?
In fact, between 1904 & 1912 Morgan only twice (1908 and 1910) returned to New York from Europe before July, and in one of those years (1908) he returned that early only to attend a family wedding, heading back to Europe a few days later and staying there until late August. He hadn't sailed on Olympic in 1911 when she made her maiden voyage, of course. Do you find that equally suspicious?
'Sunk by a torpedo? Off Newfoundland in 1912? Who had a submarine which could get there, which could catch a ship steaming at 21 knots, and which could even hit a ship in the pitch dark? Do elaborate.
No-one reported any explosion, although a few people did report 'rumblings' as internal machinery broke loose. A greater number of people did make reference to the iceberg, however.
Good to read your reference to the Federal Reserve myth invented in the 1990s, however. Unfortunately for your fantasy, neither Astor nor Guggenheim had ever expressed their opinions either way, whilst in October, 1911, Straus had spoken in support of the Fed. If you think that you can prove me wrong, go ahead.
Isn't it odd how people who have clearly done little or no actual research, like you, are invariably the ones who write 'Please do some serious research,' by the way?
Perhaps you might explain this phenomenon?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
' Olympic had to pay for its own damage, and they were already on the verge of bankruptcy, and so the insurance was doubled with documents, provided the value of Titanic and it just happened to sync a month later collecting on that kept white star line in service until 1930s when it was bought by Cunard.' Oh dear, where ever did you get this nonsense. White Star paid for Olympic's repairs, because the man in charge of her, a Solent Pilot, was deemed responsible for the collision with HMS Hawke. The cost was, in 1911 terms, £25,000. As White Star had posted profits in excess of £1 million in the previous financial year, it was simply a nuisance, which was why, when Olympic returned to sea in November, 1911, the Company confirmed their order for the third Olympic with White Star.
The financial woes of White Star (and, by the way, Cunard) were the result of an enitirely different event, the 1929 Wall Street crash. As a result, both were rescued by the British government, with the requirement that they merge. As there were more ships available to the combined company than the market justified, the two oldest, Olympic & her old rival Mauretania, were sold for scrap.
The insurance was not 'doubled' both Olympic & Titanic were insured for £1 million, or two thirds of their building costs, and £1 million was what Lloyds paid out after Titanic sank.
'How many people have totaled cars and switched identification numbers and drive the car for 5+ years nothing is impossible.' Don't you even realise how absurd that analogy really is? Similar cars are built in thousands. There were only two Olympics in existence at the time. Both took several years to complete, and required a workforce of some 15,000 men. How many cars fall into that category?
The Olympics were never proclaimed 'unsinkable.' The nearest to that is a comment that they were 'as near to unsinkable as modern shipbuilding techniques can make them' which is rather a different thing.
Olympic was painted either white or light grey for her launch because Cunard had done the same to Mauretania for her launch around four years earlier, and she had shown up impressively in early pictures & newsreels. Both ships rapidly acquired the black hulls of their respective companies, however.
There was little celebration when Titanic was launched, because she was nerely the less glamorous younger sister. Titanic's became celebrated because of what happened to her subsequently.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
What exactly do you mean? RMS Carpathia was torpedoed by U55 in July, 1918, when under the command of Captain William Protheroe, with the loss of five lives, all engine room staff. U55 surfaced and was approaching Carpathia's lifeboats, but left the scene when an escort, HMS Snowdrop, approached.
U55 surrendered at Harwich on 26 November, 1918, and was handed over to the Japanese navy in 1920, operating briefly as O.3, until being dismantled about a year later.
3
-
@svenschildhauer9139 1). You are correct that Titanic had 14 portholes when launched. However a ship at the time of launch is still very much a work in progress. After Olympic's first voyages, a number of recommendations for improvements were made, which included the fitting of two extra portholes, which Titanic received late in 1911. In November, I believe. Similar retrospective modifications were later made to Olympic as well. Photographs of the completed Titanic clearly show 16 portholes.
2). The propeller swap in a claim of comparatively modern origin. The Admiralty report into Olympic's damage from the Hawke collision, supported by teams from the Board of Trade and White Star, refers only to damage to Olympic's propeller SHAFT, not to her propeller. In view of the location of the damage, it is difficult to see how damage could have been done to the propeller itself. H & W only ever claimed to have used parts from the incomplete Tirtanic's propeller shaft, in order to get Olympic back to sea ASAP. Actually, by late November, 1911. The propeller swap claim was created by dedicated switchers as a fairly desperate means of explaining away why a Titanic (401) propeller was on the wreck, which they still insisted was Olympic, No. 400.
3). Again, this was a recommendation from Olympic's early voyages. Additional first class cabins and a cafe were added to the modified forward end of Titanic during the final stages of her build, giving her a pattern of uneven, rectangular, windows, when compared to the more regular square, even, pattern of her older sister, seen in photographs from the same period Again, this window pattern, clearly visible on the wreck, matches Titanic, but is different from Olympic, in 1912.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Actually, the evidence for your comment is notable only by the absence of any. However,it is quite likely true that most of the Belfast 'delivery trip' crew would choosenot sign on for Titanic's maiden voyage, even if asked. There is a very simple and logical reason for this, which does not necessitate a conspiracy.
The voyage from Belfast to Southampton was a short one, while the North Atlantic route (Southampton to New York) was much longer. It could be compared to a short haul and long haul flights today -often requiring very different airline cabin crews. The crew aboard Titanic from Belfast to Southampton were (except for the deck officers) local operators (or "runners") who mostly worked on voyages that were made locally, and did this with a number of ships, not just Titanic.
They would not be interested in the transatlantic route as it would mean not returning to Belfast or Southampton for several weeks. They would only be interested in shorter crossings. However Southampton, (which had replaced Liverpool as a major international hub) was where transatlantic liners such as those of White Star and Cunard were based, thus the crew based in Southampton were experienced, international men.
It makes complete sense that the local Belfast runners did not sign up for a transatlantic maiden voyage, when they were not experienced or interested in such a trip, which would result in them losing all the local jobs they preferred when local Southampton crew were used to such "long-haul" trips.
Incidentally, had there been the slightest bit of credibility in your comment, wasn't it odd that there wasn't a spate of 'told you so' comments from these men after the sinking?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@gokulgopan4397 The photograph is entirely genuine. The problem arises in Swithin's interpretation of it. He claims that it is of Titanic being dismantled in Harland & Wolff's yard in 1937, when actually it is of Titanic in Harland & Wolff's yard just prior to her completion, in February, 1912.
You can tell Swithin until you are blue in the face that, after withdrawal, Olympic went first to Jarrow for partial dismantling, before the hull was towed to Inverkeithing for breaking up. In other words, she went nowhere near Harland & Wolff.
Sadly, the old chap is far too far gone mentally to understand any of this. On his own site, of course, he will block you as a 'paid shill.'
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bullruncrypto1503 Olympic's sea trials lasted two days.
Titanic's sea trials began at 6 A.M. on Tuesday, April 2nd 1912, just two days after her fitting out was finished and eight days before she was due to leave Southampton on her Maiden Voyage. The trials were delayed for a day due to bad weather, but by Monday morning it was clear and fair, with only a light breeze.
Aboard were 78 stokers, greasers and firemen, and 41 members of crew. No domestic staff appear to have been aboard. Representatives of various companies travelled on Titanic's sea trials, Thomas Andrews and Edward Wilding of Harland and Wolff and Harold A. Sanderson of IMM. Lord Pirrie was too ill to attend. Jack Phillips and Harold Bride served as radio operators, and performed fine-tuning of the Marconi equipment. Francis Carruthers, a surveyor from the Board of Trade, was also present to see that everything worked, and that the ship was fit to carry passengers.
The sea trials consisted of a number of tests of her handling characteristics, carried out first in Belfast Lough and then in the open waters of the Irish Sea. Over the course of about twelve hours, Titanic was driven at different speeds, her turning ability was tested and a "crash stop" was performed in which the engines were reversed full ahead to full astern, bringing her to a stop in 850 yards (780 m) or 3 minutes and 15 seconds. The ship covered a distance of about 80 nautical miles (92 mi; 150 km), averaging 18 knots (21 mph; 33 km/h) and reaching a maximum speed of just under 21 knots (24 mph; 39 km/h). After her sea trials her sailing safety certificate was certified for one year.
Put simply, more extensive trails were carried out in Olympic because she was the first ship of her class. There was no logical reason to repeat such a detailed trial for Titanic.
3
-
@coreyandsarahlynch There is no 'porthole issue.' Titanic, like Olympic, was launched with 15 portholes on her starboard side forward, and 14 on her port side. Following Olympic's first few voyages, a number of recommendations for improvements were made. These included the addition of two extra portholes to Titanic's port side, giving her 16.
There are numerous photographs showing Titanic on the slipway with 14, and, later, nearing and after completion, with 16. A ship at the time of launch is simply a work in progress, and improvements are frequently made.
The 'mysterious porthole issue' is simply an invention thought up by enthusiastic switchers, trying to suggest that their fantasy was actually reality.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The designer of the Olympics, Alexander Carlisle, who retired in 1910, stated in his testimony that he expected the Board of Trade to increase the number of lifeboats for ships that large to be increased, and thus designed then for, but not with, 48 boats. When the Board did not do this, the Olympics were built with 20 boats.
In short, Ismay had no knowledge of the subject. He was a businessman, not a naval architect, and Carlisle denied any involvement from Ismay, or indeed of anyone else from White Star.
'Why didn’t he give speech to all officers that full of people on lifeboats can go down all the way?' For much the same reason. He was a VIP passenger, not a Master Mariner. When Smith was told by Andrews about Titanic's imminent fate, do you think he would have called his officers together and said 'Hold everything chaps. Mr. Ismay wants to make a speech to you.'
There were no costs cut, by the way. Olympic, built of the same materials, was a successful liner for 23 years. Even examination of recovered Titanic steel and rivets by metallurgists resulted in the conclusion that, whilst both were inferior to those of 2024, they were not inferior to thos of 1911.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
No, they don't. Pictures of the wreck show a pattern of irregular, rectangular, windows. After the nodifications to Titanic, involving the addition of extra cabins and a Cafe Parisien, this precisely matches known photographs of the ship.
Olympic, at the same time, had the original pattern of even, square, windows, until the similar upgrades were applied, during her later (post Titanic's sinking) refit. Again, as photographs of Olympic also prove.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@michaelthebarbarian3380 You need to buy a book or two before posting insults. Otherwise you will continue to demonstrate what a fool you are.
Yes, Rodney was slow. This would mean only that Bismarck could evade action, much as Scharnhorst & Gneisenau had previously done during Operation Berlin.
'Her armor about as good as Hood.' Oh dear! Rodney's armour was laid out to the superior All or Nothing pattern devised originally by the US navy for the Nevada class, and installed in every US battleship since then. This was copied by the British in the Nelson, the KGVs and Vanguard. Bismarck still followed the old, less effective, incremental pattern.
Furthermore, Bismarck's belt was 12.6 inches, and her deck 4.7 inches.
By comparison, Rodney's belt was 14 inches, and her deck 6.25 inches.
In terms of weight of Broadside, Bismarck fired one of 14,112 lbs.
Rodney's weight of Broadside was 18,432 lbs.
Perhaps now you see how foolish your post truly is, especially when compounded by :-
'Rodney (who was inferior to Hood) would have suffered the same fate as Hood in the Straits.'
2
-
@michaelthebarbarian3380 As there are large areas of the subject about which you demonstrate yourself to be almost entirely ignorant, I simply thought it good manners to attempt, at least, to provide you with some of the education you clearly missed. I even tried to avoid long, complicated, words which might have alarmed you
University indeed. In fact a First in Modern History, specialising in the naval wars of the 20th century. Several published books and articles on the subject, moreover.
I observe, by the way, that amidst your insults, you have never sought to challenge any of my facts. I wonder why?
Sorry, old lad, but you are rather outgunned on this subject.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
'The court cases where lots of witnesses and evidence were not allowed to be seen or heard.' What court cases might they have been? There were two major Inquiries, in the US and in Britain, which lasted 18 and 36 days respectively. Who do you suggest were 'not allowed' to be seen or heard at those?
'People do as they are told?' You think so, when events on a daily basis prove this not to be the case? Do you really believe that, had there been such a (totally evidence free) conspiracy, not one of the people involved in it would have been even slightly concerned about 1500+ deaths?
Oh, and the coal strike had ended by the time Titanic sailed, and it applied only to Britain, not to the United States.
Finally, who are these 'shady people' and what are these 'unexplained events.'
Feel free to elaborate, and please don't hold back.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheRunereaper I believe that in the UK, Commonwealth, and Ireland, the change to ‘direct’ steering orders occurred on Jan 1 1933 in both RN and Merchant Navy. As far as merchant vessels were concerned this was in accordance with Clause 29 of the Merchant Shipping (Safety And Load Line Conventions) Act 1932, which was implementing a suggestion made in 1929, at the International Convention for Safety at Sea.
The relevant clauses read:
29. (1) No person on any British ship registered in the United Kingdom shall give a helm order containing the word “starboard” or “right” or any equivalent of “starboard” or “right”, unless he intends that the head of the ship shall move to the right, or give a helm order containing the word “port’, or “left” or any equivalent of “port” or “left”, unless he intends that the head of the ship shall move to the left.
(2) Any person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall for each offence be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
It does seem to have been introduced rather late in the day. The United States Navy had changed the regulations 20 years earlier :-
General Order 30 read:
NAVY DEPARTMENT Washington, D. C., May 5, 1913
ORDERS GOVERNING THE MOVEMENTS OF THE RUDDER.
1. On and after July 1, 1913, the present designations “starboard” and “port” governing movements of a ship’s helm are hereby ordered discontinued in orders or directions to the steersman, and the terms “right” and “left,” referring to movement of the ship’s head, shall thereafter be used instead.
2. The orders as to rudder angle shall be given in such terms as “Ten degrees rudder; half-rudder; standard rudder; full rudder;” etc., so that a complete order would be “Right–Half-rudder,” etc.
3. Commanders-in-chief and commanding officers acting independently may, in their discretion, institute the above changes at an earlier date.
F. D. ROOSEVELT
Acting Secretary of the Navy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The red flag is an invented one. Morgan did not 'back out' of the voyage at the last minute. The NYT on 28 March carried an article about him, stating that he intended to be at St. Mark's in Venice on 23 April, which would not have been possible had he sailed in Titanic. Moreover, he wasn't aboard Olympic for her maiden voyage either. Was that equally suspicious?
The claim that there were opponents of the Fed. aboard Titanic is equally invented, and originated with the rise of Social Media in the 1990s. The opinions of Astor and Guggenheim were never expressed, whilat Straus had spoken in support of it in Ocrober 1911.
Morgan, by the way, did not build the Fed. By the time it was created, in December, 1913, he was too busy being dead, as he had been for over six months.
2
-
Photographs of the wreck, and in particular of the forward ends of 'A' & 'B' decks, match exactly known photographs of Titanic, and differ from known photographs of the Olympic of the same period.
Morgan had no need to book a trip, as he owned IMM, White Star's parent company, and thus did not need to reserve anything. As it was, he had already announced in March that he intended to be at St. Mark's in Venice before Titanic could have returned from New York. The article stating this may be read in the archives of the New York Times, had the gumption to look. There was no 'mystery' all. Morgan didn't sail on Olympic's maiden voyage either. Do you think that that was suspicious, as well?
As to 'insurance', White Star were insured for only two thirds of Titanic's building costs, which meant that when she sank, the company not only lost a major asset and a reputation for safety, but also £500,000 at 1912 monetary value.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Where do you people get your ideas from? IMM (White Star's parent Company) had regulations which required daily inspection of the bunkers of their ships. A smouldering fire caused by spontaneous combustion was discovered during one of these when Titanic was in Southampton. Joseph Bell set a team to work, and the fire was dealt with at least 24 hours before the collision. According to testimony of stoker survivors, the only damage was to bunker paintwork.
Cleaely, you find thinking difficult, but please try. Is the following scenario even vaguely credible?
Joseph Bell reports to the Bridge :-
'Captain Smith, sir. There is an uncontrollable fire raging below decks, and the hull is being weakened! '
Edward Smith: 'Never mind, Joe. We'll sail anyway. It's only the North Atlantic in April. What could possibly go wrong?'
As to the men aboard Titanic who opposed the Fed., Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus, neither of the first two had expressed their views either way. Straus, however, had. In October 1911 he made a speech in favour of it, which was recorded in the New York Times. The first suggestion of anything different was a myth invented in the 1990s. You should check these facts for yourself.
'Just a day after Titanic sank, both systems were started.' You seriously think so? Titanic sank on 15 April, 1912. The Federal Reserve Act was passed on 23 December, 1913. Which was, by the way, 9 months after J. P. Morgan's death.
You are one of astonishingly gullible, astonishingly ignorant, or astonishingly stupid. I leave it to you to work out which.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Indeed, but not so much a theory as a fantasy, which appeared with the rise of Social Media in the 1990s. The claim was that three prominent financiers, Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus, all opposed the proposal for the establishment of the Federal Reserve, and were lured aboard Titanic in order to dispose of them.
The fact that neither Astor nor Guggenheim had ever voiced their views about the Federal Reserve, or that in October 1911 Straus had spoken in favour of it, was, of course, totally ignored by the conspiracy fantasists who made the allegations.
Sadly, many people have seen these absurd claims, and simply swallowed them whole and unquestioningly.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@vitordebruim8634 Lightoller was 4th in the chain of command, behind Smith, Wilde, and Murdoch.
I don't really see what difference it makes whether Titanic broke up on the surface, or as she sank. It is simply a detail of the sinking process, and Lightoller was rather busy at the time. How would him 'lying' about this detail have been of benefit to White Star, in any case?
Certainly, his interpretation of Smith's 'women and children first' order is open to question, and to criticism, but, his answers do not fall into the category of falsehoods.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
What inspires you people to write such utter nonsense?
Firstly, the Olympic was stripped of her fittings at Jarrow, before the hull went to Inverkeithing. Many of them were auctioned off, including restaurant furniture purchased for the White Swan Restaurant at Alnwick. It is still in use, in the 'Olympic' restaurant, and the original hull numbers are marked on some of the items. In every case the number is 400.
There are no photographs of 'MP' in Titanic's hull. The pictures are poor quality fake images, which appeared, without provenance, in around the year 2000. No exploration has ever claimed them, nor even acknowledged them. Even the father of the myth, Robin Gardiner, denounced them as false, by the way.
No Titanic propeller blade was ever used on Olympic, although parts of a shaft intended foir Titanic were. Because the blades for the outer propellers were bolted on, a n umber of spares were cast at the same time.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@rkk578 'So basically the law didn't force the company to pay the seamen, not forbade it.' How many companies do you know who handed out money simply for the sake of it? Why single out White Star? How much did Canadian Pacific pay out to surviving crew when the Empress of Ireland sank following collision with a collier in the St. Lawrence in May, 1914, and 1,012 out of 1,477 died? Would you like me to list a few other examples, or would you simply prefer to try to grow up?
You seem to have a perverse need to make this 'personal.' I have not defended Ismay, but simply provided a few facts of which you are clearly unaware. I wonder if you know that the attacks on Ismay were the creation of an individual called William Randolph Hearst, someone who disliked Ismay on both a personal & commercial level, and who used his power as a press baron to orchestrate a campaign of vitriol against him. As the saying goes, those who control the media control the history, and Hearst, in his own business dealings, made Ismay look, in comparison, like a social worker.
I wonder if you know that, later in life, Ismay set up a fund for lost seamen, or that in 1919 he gave a sum, in excess of £1.1 million, to recognise the contribution of merchant mariners in the First World War? No, of course you don't. You are too fixated with the two dimensional moustache twirling villain you imagined you saw in a movie.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You could look this up for yourself, bu you probably won't as you won't like what yo find.
Olympic returned to Belfast for repairs following the Hawke collision on 11 October, 1911. She left, fully repaired, on 29 November, 1911. After that, she made several more Atlantic crossings, and was in New York, when Titanic left Southampton in April, 1912. The two ships were together for around 44 days, and were even photographed together. In the photos. Olympic is the one in full White Star livery, whereas Titanic is in base paint, with parts of her superstructure and three funnels still not in place.
2
-
@jeanie6936 Alex. lad, using this false name to pretend to be an idiot support of yourself convinces no-one, and simply makes you look more asinine. Still, if you wish to continue this childish behaviour, direct me to any occasion when I have disagreed with actual evidence.
Indeed, you might start with my earlier post :-
'Olympic returned to Belfast for repairs following the Hawke collision on 11 October, 1911. She left, fully repaired, on 29 November, 1911. After that, she made several more Atlantic crossings, and was in New York, when Titanic left Southampton in April, 1912. The two ships were together for around 44 days, and were even photographed together. In the photos. Olympic is the one in full White Star livery, whereas Titanic is in base paint, with parts of her superstructure and three funnels still not in place.'
Please direct me to any error in that?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Tozzpot500 Good for you. The recent flak I have been receiving includes an allegation that I am, apparently, 'getting rattled.' The last time I can actually recall getting rattled (although 'bloody terrified! might be more accurate) was when opening the batting in a club cricket semi-final, in a cup competition.
The opposition turned up with a Professional fast bowler who had played a serious number of international matches, and delivered the ball, very accurately, at 85+ mph. I, somehow, and more by luck than judgement, managed to get to the mid 20s before my off stump vanished. We were hammered, by the way! I suggest that arguments over a half-forgotten, at least to most people, event, discussion of which is, at most, an interesting hobby, do not really come close.
As to the recent fracas, I see no point in replying to insults as opposed to debates about facts. Hopefully, these people, or at least the one I believe is overseeing their antics, well begin to realise that it takes a lot longer for them to post their comments than it does for me to press a delete button.
i regret, of course, the degrading effect their behaviour is having on the quality of discussion on the two main sites, however.
Oh, Merry Christmas, by the way!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1). Why should it seem odd that the two ships were together at the dockyard which built them, when one was being repaired after collision damage, and the other was in the final stages of construction?
2). What 'cash paid?'
3). What word 'got out?'
4). Which opponents to the 'Central Bank?' Certainly not Astor & Guggenheim, whose opinions were never known. Nor Straus, who was known to have supported the idea.
5). Indeed Morgan didn't. It was known from late March that he wasn't intending to sail in Titanic. Just as he hadn't sailed in Olympic in 1911. Indeed, from 1904 to 1912 only twice (1908 and 1910) did Morgan return to New York from Europe before July, and in one of those years (1908) he returned so early only to attend a family wedding, heading back to Europe a few days later and staying there until late August. President Taft, King George V, and Kaiser Wilhelm II were not aboard either. Do you think that significant as well? The fact that he intended to be in Venice instead had even been mentioned in the New York Times, late in March. I expect that you didn't know that?
6). Actually, there were plenty of reports of ice on deck, although that would not be significant anyway, where a glancing impact was involved.
7). Exactly how many more facts do you need to disprove the nonsense?
8). Your Caps Lock needs to be repaired, as it makes you look like an idiot.
9). As do your comments, of course!
2
-
2
-
2
-
@zillahwells4063 The problem with the claims made by Senan Molony about the bunker fire are that, in order to have any effect at all on any steelwork, it would need to reach between 1000 ans 1800 degrees Farenheit. By chance, the affected bunker was directly below Titanic's swimming pool. Such temperatures would have caused the water in the pool to boil, but no survivor ever reported anything of the sort happening.
Certainly, the deck at the forward edge of the pool would have been searing hot, paint would have been bubbling off, and the hull plates outside the pool would likely also have been deforming from the incredible heat. Survivor testimony from first class passenger Archibald Gracie and surviving photographs of the Titanic’s pool show the pool area was undamaged and the water’s temperature was mildly heated to a comfortable warm rather than a scalding hot. It would, moreover, have taken men with protective gear to approach the bulkhead and fight the fire had it been as hot as Molony claimed, as the temperature would have been too hot for the exposed human body to handle, something which was never described by survivors.
Actually, The impact of the bunker fire has been investigated and examined and dismissed long before Molony published his rendition of the theory. One such investigation into the matter was performed by Commander Brian Penoyer of the United States Coast Guard. Commander Penoyer re-evaluated the available evidence on the sinking of Titanic in 2006 for the television show Seconds From Disaster. When evaluating the possibility of fire damage to the ship’s structure from the coal bunker fire, Commander Penoyer consulted naval architect Bill Garzke.
When Commander Penoyer asked Garzke what he thought regarding the fire theory, he replied, “It’s a good theory, but it doesn’t measure up to what we now know happened the ship” (Seconds From Disaster). Garzke further stated he believed the fire had little to do with the sinking as the sixth compartment was already flooding with water and being pumped dry shortly after the iceberg strike, meaning any fire damage to the bulkhead would have made little difference in the ship’s sinking as the iceberg damage had already gone passed the offending bulkhead.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@zillahwells4063 Of course I have no idea what information you claim to have. Largely because you have so far been unable or unwilling to provide any of it.
'Look up the article yourself if you're capable. I am not required to prove anything to you.' Sorry, but that is not how things work. If a claim is made. allegedly based on specific information, then it behoves the individual making the claim to seek to substantiate it by providing the source of that information. Saying, as you have, 'It is true because I say that it is true' doesn't meet that requirement, and the fact that you seem to be getting more and more angry hardly adds weight to your case.
My replies simply presented a host of facts about the reality of the bunker fire. I am sorry that I have, apparently, raised your blood pressure, but it seemed appropriate that one of us, at least, should deal in documented facts.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Titanick9-1912 Mrs. Lines' account of the conversation between Ismay & Smith, which may be read in full in her statement to the Limitation of Liability Hearings, having been given in Paris on 22 November, 1913, states that Ismay simply said to Smith that Titanic was performing better than Olympic had on her maiden voyage. Indeed, she repeated this comment more than once. What she specifically did not say was that she heard Ismay press Smith about Speed.
Ismay's first telegrams used his name. Why the later ones were signed 'Yamsi' neither I, you, nor anyone else knows. If it was code, it was a pathetic one, I suggest. Moreover, when it was put to him, apparently by Lightoller, that the idea was an inappropriate one, nothing more was heard of it.
At the time, Lightoller was Second Officer, effectively 4th in the Chain of Command. He was 38 years old, compared to Captain Smith (62) or Captain Haddock of Olympic (51). Put simply, he was rather young to be considered for command. Moreover, no other White Star officer survivor ever received a White Star command, either. Although unspoken, having been aboard Titanic seems to have been regarded as a Black Mark against the survivors, of whatever rank.
Lightoller served in RMS Oceanic after the sinking, and became her First Officer after her conversion to an Armed Merchant Cruiser in WW1. He later served in the same role aboard the early aircraft carrier HMS Campania before receiving his own command, in 1915.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
'What is not terribly debatable is the many eyewitness accounts from stokers that multiple bunkers ignited from radiant heat through the plates partitioning them. During liability hearings after the sinking, they were forcibly silenced.' Simply not true. Surviving stokers gave evidence, and there is no suggestion that they were 'forcibly silenced.' What, indeed, does that phrase even mean?
'What is absolutely not debatable is the "doosie"; calling for more speed to dispose of the coal, which was allegedly burning in a chain as the fire spread from bunker to bunker, and, even if it did not.' Again, simply not true. Titanic had 19 bunkers, only one of which ever reported a fire, which had been extinguished 24 hours or so before the collision, by using the coal from Bunker that bunker first. Simply shovelling coal into a boiler might increase boiler pressure, which will be dealt with by releasing the excess through safety valves. It will not cause reciprocating engines to operate more quickly.
'Boilers cannot operate on seawater.' Correct, which is why Titanic carried fresh-water tanks in the ship's double bottom. These were located under the reciprocating and turbine engine rooms and had a total capacity of just over 1000 tons. She also carried distillation plants to convert sea into fresh water. As her stokers were not frenziedly shovelling coal in vast amounts into her boilers in any case, however, your point is irrelevant.
'Theblaze precipitating the collision and subsequent sinking is actually quite compelling, indeed.' Indeed not. There was no significant blaze, which makes this comment, indeed your entire post, meaningless.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Dizzy19. Careful, don't poke the bear. You might reach a situation which results in every comment you make being the subject of a reponse which is replete with insults, as I have.
What makes this more entertaining is that these responses don't usually actually relate to the comment or subject at all.
Whilst this is extremely amusing, it does lead to my considerable misgivings about the mental state of the person (or now, it seems, people) concerned.
A pity there don't appear to be any qualified psychiatrists interested in Titanic, as I would welcome their opinion.
I now propose to refrain from replying to any of these people, as it was considered, as early as the 18th century, to be rather bad form to poke the residents of Bedlam with a stick.
Of course, actual, genuine, comments, even if silly on occasion, will still receive a response.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@keithammleter3824 'Harland & Wolf were a bit dodgy back then, focused on saving costs. It has been found in old records that they knowingly put cheap rivets in parts of the hull they thought should see less stress. Which was where the berg hit.'
I'm sure that you have an unimpeachable source for this allegation. You do, don't you?
You should view the documentary 'Titanic 100 : Mystery Solved, ' which would inform you of the following :-
Parks Stephenson and Dan Butler also tested the weak rivet theory. They reproduced Titanic’s seams using original blueprints and the exact same materials. When they performed their tests, the steel bent much further than 5mm. The rivets didn’t fail until around 20,000 pounds of force. Even then, the seam was still watertight.
But there was another test to perform, on a newer and bigger seam. In January 1912, Olympic ran into a very heavy storm. A storm that Captain Smith described as the worst he’d ever experienced. During this storm, some of Olympic’s hatch covers and railings became loose. But also some rivets became loose. This resulted in her returning to the dry dock between January 1912 and the maiden voyage of the Titanic. Harland and Wolff had to prevent this from happening to the Titanic. So they drilled old rivets out, added a new strap of metal over the original seam and inserted newer rivets. This also included steel rivets.
According to original drawings, this was done on all seams under the Titanic’s waterline. With this, the seams were now quadruple riveted, not tripled. When they tested the new seam, it began to fail at 25,000 pounds of force. Yet it was still more watertight that the original seam.
Thus to conclude, the Titanic was NOT a weak ship and the materials used to build her were not cheap or defective. Even though she could have been stronger, she was still not weak. The answer why she could have been stronger lies in why Harland and Wolff ordered Grade 3 iron and not Grade 4. The exact reason is unknown, as there are no official documents, letters or memoirs containing a reason. If there is one, it is buried somewhere in a private collection. If she was made with Grade Number 4 wrought iron rivets, the seams would still have failed, but not as much as they did. This means she could have stayed afloat longer than she actually did. But whether she would have stayed afloat long enough for help to arrive is still questionable and always will be. But the Titanic was NOT a weak ship.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@luigicorvi1661 So if the Olympic, badly damaged and sailing as the Titanic, in your view. did leave Southampton, how was it that no-one, crew or passengers, ever noticed that they were aboard a crippled ship?
How was it that the ship was, apparently, performing better than she had on her previous maiden voyage, as herself, the previous June?
How was it that only one other ship had actually stopped? A small freighter, Californian. Which, by the way, was carrying a 'mixed, general, cargo' according to the Boston shipping newspapers when she docked on 19 April, and not your imagined cargo of blankets at all.
The rest of your post is too crazed to be worthy of further comment, except for one more, of course.
Pl;ease get your Caps Lock mended!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alexandros4703 ' Bla, Bla, Bla, you're a scatterbrain, bud, Lusitania this, Olympic the other and Maritunai something else; And yeh, yeh, yeh, if my Aunty had a bollox she would have been my Uncle, etc etc, etc.'
Oh dear. Were you intoxicated when you posted that?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Morgan had already decided, in March, not to sail in Titanic, and his actual destination, St. Mark's in Venice, had already been announced in the NYT around two weeks before Titanic sailed. Morgan hadn't sailed in Olympic when she made her maiden voyage in June 1911 either. Do you suggest that that was suspicious? Come to that, Tsar Nicholas II, King George V, and President Taft were not aboard Titanic either. Do you think that they were aware of the nefarious plot as well??!!
Indeed, between 1904 & 1912, Morgan only sailed to New York before July twice, and one of the trips was to attend a wedding. By the way, as owner of IMM, he had no need to book a ticket in any case. Nor, except in conspiracist myth, did he have artworks loaded aboard, then taken off, Titanic.
Ismay actually went instead, on what was actually intended to be a business trip. Why should his wife be ordered to travel with him?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@carterglass1694 Didn't you write 'Failed TV presenter dressed as a banker telling you its all nonsense. HHHMMM.' Apparently attacking by that that a video arguing the conspiracy theory was false?
But now you support such theories yourself :-
1) The ship was not poorly built.
2) The claim that three bankers who opposed the Fed. died on board is classic conspiracy fantasy nonsense from the 1990s. The views of two, Astor & Guggenheim, were never made clear, whilst the third, Straus, had spoken in support of the Fed. in October, 1911. His speech may still be read.
3) The Jekyll Island meeting took place in November, 1910. None of those present had anything to do with Titanic.
4) No Insurance scam could have worked because the Olympics were both only insured for two thirds of their building costs. When Titanic sank, White Star lost a major asset, their safety record, and £500,000 at 1912 values, Some scam
5). NDAs did not exist in 1912. Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) were first used in the 1940s in maritime law. But the reality is that the H & W workforce never spoke about the switch, because there was no switch.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joeyjojo5986 'How can you say he wasn't involved in the design?' Put simply, because he wasn't. Aside from absurd claims in some of the sillier conspiracy theory videos, there is no evidence to support your nonsense.
Alexander Carlisle designed the Olympics, and gave evidence to the Inquiry after the sinking. He stated, under oath, that no-one from White Star attempted to influence him.
The whole idea is absurd. Do you seriously think that, for example, the Chairmen of British Airways, Qantas, Emirates, or Luftsansa had any involvement in the design of the A380? They, like Ismay, were businessmen, not designers, and thus left the design to the professionals.
The minimum height of bulkheads, in any case, was dictated by Board of Trade regulations.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fmyoung MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894. (In force in 1911) :-
Compulsory pilotage.
(1)Subject to any alteration to be made by the Board of Trade or by any pilotage authority in pursuance of the powers herein-before contained, the employment of pilots shall continue to be compulsory in all districts where it was compulsory immediately before the commencement of this Act, but all exemptions from that compulsory pilotage shall continue to be in force.
(2)If, within a district where pilotage is compulsory, the master of an unexempted ship after a qualified pilot has offered to take charge of the ship, or has made a signal for the purpose, pilots his ship himself without holding the necessary certificate, he shall be liable for each offence to a fine of double the amount of the pilotage dues that could be demanded for the conduct of the ship.
The Court determined that George Bowyer, who had piloted Olympic into and out of Southampton on several previous occasions, was in error.
The judgement was that White Star, whilst unable to claim from Lloyds because the fault was Olympic's, were not required to fund the repairs to HMS Hawke because a White Star employee did not have charge of the ship at the time of the incident.
Stop arguing and simply read the judgement of the court, unless you think you know better, of course?
2
-
2). Titanic had two further portholes added to her port side forward in later 1911, following recommendations from Olympic's first few voyages. The same change was made to Olympic in 1912. WW1 had nothing to do with it.
4). Hearsay without any supporting evidence, documentary or otherwise.
5). Ballard never reported anything of the sort. Source?
7). Again, mere hearsay. Provide a source.
10). Both ships had grey undercoat. Moreover, Ballard never to my knowledge has never reported that he came across any such anomaly. Olympic had been launched in white or light grey paint because it made her look more impressive in early photographs, as it had Mauretania, which was the inspiration for it. Olympic was immediately overpainted in black. Do you really think that shades of paint on a wreck which had been 13,000 feet down for 70 years could actually be discerned?
11). Olympic's bridge wings were extended simply to improve visibility for her officers when docking. The windows of 'B' deck forward were altered when Olympic received the same improvements that Titanic had previously received.
12). No Titanic propellers were ever fitted to Olympic, or vice versa. Parts of Titanic's propeller shaft were used to speed up Olympic's return to sea after the Hawke collision, at a time when Titanic was months from completion. The pitches of the blades on the two ships were different, by the way.
15). Pure nonsense. No item has ever been found at the White Swan with anything other than the number 400 on it. Seriously, if the owners 'do not like to be asked about the numbering issue' why refer to the restaurant as the 'Olympic Restaurant' at all. Moreover, think of the huge opportunity to be had if there really been anything with 401 on it. Who says the owners have said this?
16). Presumably a reference to the video which appeared, without provenance, in 2000 or thereabouts. The video which no exploration team has ever claimed, nor even mentioned, despite the fact that it would make worldwide news? The video which even Robin Gardiner denounced as a fake?
17). Again, mere hearsay with no actual evidence to support this claim. Furthermore, the lifeboat names were on plates screwed into the side, for easy removal if boats were re-allocated to another ship. Had such a momentous discovery been made, morever, why no photographs or contemporary accounts?
Oh, and 'fateful night in 2012.'
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
-
Actually, no, because the subsequent court case determined that Olympic, or more accurately the Solent Pilot who was in charge of her at the time, was at fault, thus invalidating the insurance cover.
However, despite the nonsense spouted by switchers, White Star could comfortably afford to meet the repair costs. These took around six weeks, and cost around £25,000 (at 1911 values), when White Star had shown a profit of around £1 million in the most recent financial year.
2
-
2
-
2
-
Olympic was damaged once, when in collision with HMS Hawke. She returned to Harland & Wolff, and was repaired and back at sea by late November, 1911. So desperate for cash were White Star at the time that they ordered construction of the third Olympic, Britannic, at the same time, by the way. You do understand that the damaged plating was fully replaced in Belfast, do you? Hence, your comments about paint marks are simply nonsense.
Both Olympics cost £1.5 million to build, and both were insured for £1 million. Thus, the insurance scam you imply cost W hite Star £500,000 as well as a reputation for safety. I thought such things were intended to make money?
'We all know he ( J. P. Morgan) was scheduled to be on the ship for its "maiden" voyage but cancelled last minute.' No, 'we' actually know that he intended no such thing. The New York Times of 28 March 1912 contains an article, still available in their archives, which states that Morgan intended to be in Venice, at St. Mark's on 23 April, to dedicate the new Campanile and attend an Art Exhibition. How might he have managed that, had he intended to sail aboard Titanic, do you suppose?
You may now accept yourself to be proven wrong. Swallowing switcher videos completely and unquestioningly does make you look such a fool when the real facts are explained, doesn't it?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You presumably refer to the entertaining myth that Californian carried nothing but sweaters & blankets, so beloved by conspiracists.
Unfortunately, the original manifest has long gone, but when she docked in Boston on 19 April, the shipping newspapers referred to her as carrying a 'mixed, general, cargo', as Leyland Line ships generally did.
Seriously, if a ship which had been in the vicinity of Titanic when she sank had docked four days later (the day the US Inquiry began, incidentally) with so bizarre a cargo, isn't it just possible that one or two eyebrows would have been raised in the Boston Customs Office?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Jazzanaught Edward Smith was indeed captain of Olympic at the time, but, because she was leaving Southampton and in the enclosed, restricted, waters of the Solent, she was in the charge of a Solent Pilot, who, indeed, and taken her into and out of Southampton on several previous occasions. Many restricted waterways in Britain have similar pilotages, the Mersey and the Thames being examples.
Were you actually to read the verdict of the Court Case which followed, you would learn that the conclusion was that, whilst Olympic's movements were primarily rresponsible for her being rammed by Hawke, and thus White Star were not able to claim on insurance, neither were White Star required to pay for the repairs to HMS Hawke, because the movements of Olympic were directed by George Bowyer, a Pilot not employed by White Star.
The court also exonerated Smith of any responsibility for the incident.
Perhaps you are unaware of the duties and responsibilities of a Pilot. You might look them up?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fmyoung As a famous English comedian, Frankie Howerd, used to say 'Nay, Nay, and thrice Nay!'
Elizabeth Lines gave her testimont to the Limitation of Liability Hearings in October, 1913. She claimed that she recognised Ismay by sight, having lived near him twenty years earlier, but that she did not know Captain Smith. Even assuming that she was correct about his identity, what she actually testified to hearing was the following :-
Question 41 : Are you able to state from your recollection the words that you heard spoken between Mr. Ismay and Captain Smith on that occasion? ( Addressed to Mrs. Lines).
- We had had a very good run. At first I did not pay any attention to what they were saying, they were simply talking and I was occupied, and then my attention was arrested by hearing the day's run discussed, which I already knew had been a very good one in the preceeding (sic) twenty-four hours, and I heard Mr. Ismay - it was Mr. Ismay who did the talking - I heard him give the length of the run, and I heard him say "Well, we did better to-day than we did yesterday, we made a better run to-day than we did yesterday, we will make a better run to-morrow. Things are working smoothly, the machinery is bearing the test, the boilers are working well". They went on discussing it, and then I heard him make the statement: "We will beat the Olympic and get in to New York on Tuesday."
42. In your last statement, Mrs. Lines, were you giving the substance of the conversation or the exact words which were used?
- I heard "We will beat the Olympic and get in to New York on Tuesday" in those words.
43. If there were any particular words spoken that you can remember, I should be glad to hear them.
- Those words fixed themselves in my mind: "We will beat the Olympic and get in to New York on Tuesday."
44. Do I understand you to say that the other things that you stated were the general substance of what you heard and not the exact things or words used?
- No, I heard those statements.
45. What was said by Mr. Ismay as regards the condition of the performances, of the engines, machinery and boilers?
- He said they were doing well, they were bearing the extra pressure. The first day's run had been less, the second day's run had been a little greater. He said "You see they are standing the pressure, everything is going well, the boilers are working well, we can do better to-morrow, we will make a better run to-morrow."
46. In speaking of standing the pressure well, Mr. Ismay was referring to the boilers, was he not?
- Of the boilers, I gathered.
47. I understand that hitherto you have been stating what you heard Mr. Ismay say: is that true?
- Yes.
48. What, if anything, did you hear Captain Smith say?
- I did not hear anything.
Do you see any reference to lighting addition boilers in any of that?
You might also refer to later cross-examination :-
162. I understood you to tell us that the two gentlemen had a table in front of them?
- Yes.
163. And that they had coffee and liqueurs and cigars?
- Yes.
164. You are quite clear about that?
- Oh yes.
165. You do not mean that one of them had coffee and liqueurs and cigars, you mean that they both had?
- Yes.
172. If it were a fact that Captain Smith was a teetotaller (sic) and did not smoke, that would rather point to the conclusion that the gentleman who was sitting there was not Captain Smith, would it not?
- I could not tell you. I saw the gentlemen sitting there with their liqueurs, I saw the steward bring them as he came and asked me if I would have any. It was the steward to serve all those things, you know that is a customary thing on a steamship; it was no special order.
So your claim is inaccurate. Ismay, if it was Ismay, made no reference to firing up additional boilers (five were never connected, by the way), and Smith, if it was Smith, apparently gave up his lifelong teetotallism on that one occasion.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It cost White Star £25,000 or thereabouts to have Harland & Wolff repair Olympic, which they had done by 20 November, 1911. So short of funds were White Star, that in the same month they placed their order for the third Olympic, Britannic.
When Olympic returned to sea, Titanic was some five months from completion. Photographs of the pair in Belfast in October exist. Titanic is the partly painted one with parts of her superstructure still not in place and three funnels still missing. It would be hard to confuse the two, and harder still to 'switch' them.
How did White Star 'benefit greatly' by the loss of a major asset, a safety record, and £500,000?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Isn't it odd how people who demand 'do more reading' are those who, like yourself, have actually done the least?
I assume you have watched one of the Conspiracy Fantasy videos about Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus? Well, whatever those videos might, falsely, claim, the opinions of Astor & Guggenheim were never made known, whilst Straus had, in October, 1911, spoken in favour of the Federal Reserve concept. You can still read accounts of this speech in the archives of the NYT. Assuming that, of course, you wish to 'Do more reading'.
Of course, if you have credible evidence to the contrary which has been hidden for 110 years, you are entirely welcome to present it.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@of1300 Yes, I have read the transcripts, and done much research. The Inquiries were not trials, as for a trial there would need to be evidence of criminal intent, and neither Inquiry concluded that there was.
When you make comments like ' freemasons are not allowed by solemn oath to implicate any other freemasons, and since most people of notable position in politics, law and media at that time were freemasons, the whole charade of these hearing actually makes total sense' you can hardly expect to be taken seriously.
I was not intending to insult, but simply to express my bewilderment that someone who is, presumably, an adult, could cling to such bizarre ideas.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Actually, as many people were aboard Titanic for her maiden voyage as had been for Olympic's in 1911. The coal strike, by the way, had ended a few days before Titanic sailed.
The binoculars are a total Red Herring. They would have made no difference, except possibly, had the lookouts been using them instead of using their eyes, the result might have been a slight delay in the alarm being given. Simply read the comments made by a whole series of officers about them. The norm was that lookouts would warn the bridge officers of a sighting, and the officers, not the lookouts, would use their binoculars to determine what it was, and what action, if any, should be taken.
How does the 'insurance scam' work when Titanic was only insured for two thirds of her building costs? Who thought it up? The Board of Cunard, perhaps?
Which testimony can't be true? Is this the usual line followed by you conspiracy people, that the fact that there is no evidence for it is the best evidence of all that it happened?
Exactly how much more does the video need to do to prove how foolish the conspiracy and/or switch theories really are?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Where did you get the myth of the hull plating from? Titanic, like Olympic before her, was designed by Harland & Wolff, who presented White Star with a tender for the cost of construction. The ship did not sink quickly. Compare her sinking to that of Lusitania, for example.
Ismay was not a marine architect, and had precisely no say in the type of steel used. Smith acted exactly as any other captain would have done. He altered to a more southerly course, and warned his lookouts to be particularly vigilant. I don't make this claim, but several Master Mariners who gave evidence at the British Inquiry did.
When did Smith run a ship aground entering New York? I am sure you will immediately provide chapter and verse on this!
Phillips did not send 'shut up' to California. At least, Californian's operator said he didn't, in his evidence. He said that Phillips simply asked him, in Morse shorthand (probably DDD) to clear the frequency. The operator then switched off his set because his shift had ended. He was Californian's only operator, and did not work 24 hours each day.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
'There's no mention of the source of this article or the date, but the screenshot in the book looks legit to me and not something that someone has made up.' As your source is Mr. Hamer, and you want to believe him, firstly, of course there wouldn't be any supporting source information, this is Hamer, after all, and secondly' if you wished to believe in, for example, the Loch Ness Monster, of course you would believe in the authenticity of photographs.
Back on earth, by the way, Bruce 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 you conspiracy fantasists, 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"? The actual record, which is confirmed in Lloyds Archives, shows that the Insurers paid out $7.5 million (in US Terms) within 30 days. A shame Mr. Hamer didn't bother to check that inconvenient fact, isn't it?
'Maybe it's been removed from the site or hasn't been scanned. That's the problem with anything online, it can be easily removed if it contradicts the official story.' Here you go again. the world encompassing conspiracy maintained by 'THEM' and the claim that there being no supporting evidence is the best proof of all that it happened.
Don't you realise how daft you sound?
2
-
2
-
'please examine all the facts.' Indeed, you should. Start with the alleged keel damage, which wasn't mentioned in the Inspection Report published in November, 1911. The keel damage not noticed or mentioned by anyone until Robin Gardiner invented it for his switch theory book in 1995 or thereabouts. One third of the stern needed replacing? Really? It seems you have read Gardiner's imaginative book then. Harland & Wolff didn't seem to know about that.
Perhaps you might then explain how, after returning to sea from 20 November, 1911, when Titanic was five months from completion, Olympic had made five further Atlantic round trips, and was in New York, halfway through her sixth, when Titanic left Southampton?
Then you might explain how, at the time she hit the iceberg, the crippled and keel-damaged 'Olympic' had actually made better time than the real Olympic had on her maiden voyage.
Alternatively, you might be wiser simply remaining silent?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alexandros4703 You seem obsessively determined to pick a fight, despite what keeps happening. Are you a fan of the Black Knight in the 'Monty Python' movie? 'T'is but a scratch!'
Please feel entirely free to explain to me which part of my brief comment :-
'In 1911 or 1912 Belfast was in Ireland, and Ireland was part of the United Kingdom' is, in your profound opinion, a terminological inexactitude?
'That's much like saying, ''Yes, I know, But in 1776 there was no such place as 'North America' was there?'' ' Actually, no it isn't. the term 'Northern Ireland' only came into being after the political division of the Island. The term Ireland, like the term 'North America' is a geographical, not a political, one.
Seriously, in your obsessive determination to argue with me about anything and everything, I urge you to stop shooting yourself in the foot.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alexandros4703 'So far, you've made excuses for Smith, Lord, Ismay, the Olympic collision, boilers, the British Board of Trade, mirages, and now the crows next.'
In point of fact. I haven't made excuses for anyone. I have simply explained why these people acted as they did, and why hindsight is not a reliable guide.
Perhaps in your version of reality, a non-Alexandros opinion may not be permitted to be expressed?
Fortunately, we do not live in your reality.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There was no damage to RMS Olympic in New York harbor. The damage to the tug, O.L. Hallenbeck, one of twelve tugs nursing Olympic into position, occurred when Olympic's starboard propeller was put into reverse. The tug was sucked into the liner, cutting off the Hallenbeck’s stern frame, rudder, and wheel shaft. Apart from. perhaps, scuffed paintwork, Olympic was undamaged, That was on 21 June, 1911.
This event had no connection at all to the repairs following the Hawke collision, which took place on 20 September, 1911, as Olympic left on her fifth voyage.
No-one aboard Titanic can be shown to have been opposed to the creation of the Federal Reserve. Of the three 'suspects' Astor and Guggenheim had never made their opinions known, whilst Straus had spoken in favour of the concept in October, 1911.
Possibly, members of the general public might not have been clear about the differences between the two ships, but experts at the time, and every researcher or historian working in the field since were and are. The details of the wreck, and the fact that items auctioned off when Olympic was scrapped in 1935-7, which are still around and in many cases still carry the yard number 400, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the wreck is that of Titanic.
Any insurance fraud is totally implausible, by the way, as the ship was only insured for two thirds of her building cost.
The boilers and engines for the Titanic were installed over the 10-month period following the ship's launch in late May 1911.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@alexandros4703 I am not saying it, but several Master Mariners did, at the British Inquiry. As I keep suggesting, clearly without getting it into your skull, simply read the minutes, which may be found with ease, on line.
Actually, a whole host of captains sailed their liners through the same areas at the same time of year. in the same manner. For further details, you might look up the voyage dates of Mauritania, Lusitania, & Olympic among the big liners, and any of the smaller liners traversing the same waters.
But, of course, I assume you won't?
2
-
You have received two excellent replies already, but just to add a further point, I would ask how it was possible for any switch to have been made, as you write, 'right before the voyage' when Olympic was in New York when Titanic left Southampton.
After completing her repairs by late November, 1911, Olympic made a number of transatlantic voyages between then and April, 1912. The only time she met her sister was in early March, 1912, when she returned to Belfast to have a shed propeller blade replaced. She was there for around four-five days.
As White Star lost a major asset, their safety record, and £500,000 when Titanic sank, I doubt that Morgan was laughing much about it.
2
-
@Dizzy19. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, as well. Apart from visiting relatives and eating, I suspect mine will involve pretending to enjoy my wife's favourite films. It's a Wonderful Life and A Christmas Carol.
Not just the Alastair Sim one, but the Seymour Hicks, George C., Scott, Patrick Stewart, & Muppet ones, as well, dammit!
I daren't say it, but I really cannot see Patton as Scrooge, and as for 'Make it so, Mr. Cratchit.' I expect a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Past imminently.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Amazing how idiots seem to get everywhere these days, isn't it? No pictures of Titanic's maiden voyage exist because, after her older sister, she really wasn't that interesting. Had she not sunk, she would have been the maritime equivalent of Princess Margaret to Queen Elizabeth.
Olympic had actually returned to sea after repair from 20 November, 1911, when Titanic was still several months from completion. In fact, by the time Titanic left Southampton on 10 April, 1912, Olympic had completed five further Atlantic round trips since returning to sea, and was in New York, half way through her sixth. Not bad for a crippled, uninsurable, wreck, I suggest.
The investigations proved nothing of the sort, as you would know if you had acually read the Minutes of either.
By the way, the three bankers, Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus, were only alleged to have opposed the Fed. in conspiracy myths from the 1990s. Back on earth, there is precisely no evidence either way about the views of the first two, who never expressed them. Straus, however, spoke in favour of the Fed. in October, 1911, and accounts of his speech may be read in the archives of the New York Times.
I hope that you are not this erratic when carrying out your medical duties!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
'The story goes, and has been around for many decades, with lots of circumstancial evidence pointing towards it, that since it is a fact that all of the wealthiest opposers of a central bank being established in our country were all invited to sail on the titanic.'
The story goes back to a myth invented with the rise of social media in the 1990s, when people with no actual idea about a subject could post their opinions, however silly they might be.
No-one was 'invited' to sail in Titanic. Moreover, of the three prominent financiers who died, two, Astor & Guggenheim, had never expressed their opinions about the Federal Reserve, whilst the third, Straus, had spoken in support of it.
The number of lifeboats was in accordance with Board of Trade regulations. Olympic carried a similar number, whilst the Mauretanias carried less.
The Federal Reserve Act was passed in December, 1913. Harry Truman was 29 years old at the time. He first entered politics in 1922, when he became a judge.
2
-
There was no 'massive coal bunker fire.' There was a fire in one of Titanic's 19 bunkers, which was never remotely out of control, and had been extinguished some 24 hours before the collision. There was no damage to the hull of the ship, and the only action taken seems to have been to have painted over the scorched area. The photograph so imaginatively interpreted by Mr. Molony is some 40 feet forward of the affected bunker, and shows a smudge which does not appear on other similar photographs, and, even if real and not a flaw in the negative, could just as easily have been the result of a close encounter with a dockside fender. Moreover, it is well above the waterline. I thought ships generally only sank when holed BELOW the waterline?
'The coal bunker was so hot that water just turned instantly to steam.' Really? I assume you have a contemporary source? In point of fact, the bunker was directly below the ship's swimming pool, yet there were no reports of that beginning to boil, or the metalwork around it heating up. Odd, that?
To suspend disbelief for a moment, try to think for yourself, and consider this :-
Chief Engineer Joseph Bell reports to Captain Smith that a 'massive coal bunker fire' (your words) is raging uncontrollably below decks, and is damaging the hull of the ship. Smith, a Master Mariner since 1887, and Senior White Star Captain since 1904, remember, replies, 'Never mind, we'll sail anyway. It's only the North Atlantic in April. What can possibly go wrong?' Is this really credible?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The original ship was not 'damaged beyond use'. It was repaired.at a cost of £25,000 (in 1911) and went back to sea in November, 1911. Olympic was then, with a brief interruption in WW1, as successful and, as 'Old Reliable', a much loved liner until withdrawal in the mid 1930s.
Because Olympic, or, at least, the Solent Pilot in charge of her, was deemed at fault for the Hawke collision, her insurance was invalidated.
There was no insurance scam, except in the fevered minds of conspiracy fantasists.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Morgan had no need to book a trip, as he owned IMM, White Star's parent company, and thus did not need to reserve anything. As it was, he had already announced in March that he intended to be at St. Mark's in Venice before Titanic could have returned from New York. The article stating this may be read in the archives of the New York Times, had the gumption to look.
There was no 'mystery' all. Morgan didn't sail on Olympic's maiden voyage either. Do you think that that was suspicious, as well?
Oh, and J. J. Astor never expressed his views about the Federal Reserve at the time. This was simply a false claim made by conspiracists, who also included Guggenheim, who similarly had never commented, and Straus, who was a known supporter of the Fed., in order to make up the numbers.
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
-
'Smith's apparently "stupid" questions were deliberately asked in response to enormous public pressure about the possibility of survival in trapped air pockets.' Really? How would asking what an iceberg was made of be relevant to that?
'Trapped in Air Pockets' at a depth of 13,000 feet? I doubt anyone at all thought such a thing.
Events like this occur when a Senator whose expertise is in Railroads and Railroad Finance grabs control of an Inquiry far outside his area of competence.
By the way 'Further, his list of witnesses was much broader in scope than the British inquiry.' Really? :- US Inquiry - 18 days, 86 witnesses. British Inquiry - 36 days, 98 witnesses.
Did the US Inquiry interview expert witnesses, such as Alexander Carlisle, designer of the Olympics, or Leonard Peskett, designer of the Lusitanias, or John Pritchard, retired Master of Mauretania, or Joseoh Ranson, Master of Baltic, or Harold Sanderson, Vice President of IMM, or Ernest Shackleton, or William Stewart, Master of Empress of Britain?
The British Inquiry was far more detailed, and far more exhaustive, involving people from all levels, from surviving Greasers to the Vice-Chairman of IMM.
By the way, which newspapers screamed 'WHITEWASH!!?'
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@PeterPete Perhaps because the alleged 'information' you claim to have shown is actually nothing of the sort?
Have you considered that, if you stopped posting inane comments to me, you would have more free time available actually to look up the facts surrounding the sinking in greater depth, instead of adhering limpet-like to something you probably saw on a switcher video, and swallowed hook; line, and sinker?
If you believe that anything which disagrees with your fixation cannot, ipso facto, be of 'substance,' even when if comes direct from contemporary archives, then clearly rational discussion is impossible.
In short, I won't waste any further time upon you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If Olympic was not a well-built ship, how was it that she had a long and successful career?
Californian's officers reported Titanic's flares (white, not red, by the way) to Captain Lord, but Lord simply failed to investigate. Red flares were not a requirement at the time, by the way.
The 'A M' claim about the wreck has been disproven so often that it is unworthy of comment. Perhaps you might ask yourself why no exploration team has ever claimed it, or even acknowledged it? Or why the father of the myth, Robin Gardiner, denounced these images as false?
'I think that they staged the California in order to save the people on the White Star vessel and their navigational skills were so inept that they didn't get to where they were supposed to be.'
Perhaps you might explain why a fully laden, but small, freighter like SS Californian was chosen to be the rescue ship? A vessel less suited to the job is hard to imagine.
In short, you have watched one of the numerous conspiracy fantasy videos infesting the subject, and swallowed it whole, I suggest.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@paulboyce8537 Olympic's propellor was never damaged, although her propellor SHAFT was, and in order to speed up her return to sea a propellor shaft intended, but not yet fitted, for Titanic was installed instead. As the summary of the damage sustained by Olympic, as detailed in the inspection report published by the Admiralty in November 1911, and supported by teams from White Star & the Board Of Trade stated :-
“Two major watertight compartments were flooded, hull plating gashed from the Orlop deck to E deck, and the starboard propeller shafting damaged.”
Do you see any reference to any propellor damage? It hardly seems worth mentioning, in addition, that the blades of the propellors of Titanic & Olympic were set at different pitches, meaning that a propellor from one would not have functioned efficiently on the other. Isn't it odd that switchers only 'discovered' the supposed switch after the 401 casting had been found on the blade at the wrecksite, and they were stuck for an explanation?
'Also the changes would have been labelled as upgrades for the workers. They wouldn't have been no wiser.' Nonsense. Aside from the fact that, when Olympic returned to sea, Titanic was largely unpainted, had parts of her superstructure still not installed, and only one funnel in place, you are still insulting the intelligent of the workers. Do you really think that they arrived for work on Monday morning, looked at the ships, and thought, 'Must have been windy last weekend. Three funnels and all the paint have blown off' Please don't be an idiot.
It must have been a remarkable insurance plan which thought it a good idea to sink a ship which had cost £1.5 million to build in order to claim £1 million from the insurers, whilst losing the asset itself, as well as a reputation for safety. Who came up with it? Cunard?!
There was no other ship in the area, except Californian, by the way.
'I see the fraud very viable and fooling the workforce.' Perhaps you do. But there again, similar fools believe in the Cottingley fairies.
'I have to say all the ignorance that went on in the ship and reasons given why there was no help also doesn't feel right.' The only ignorance I have ever seen about this subject is that excreted by switchers like you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
'Debunk vids.' as you call them have been appearing since the myths of the switch and of the Federal Reserve/Titanic connection first appeared. Both in the 1990s, when Social Media rendered actual knowledge obsolete.
There never was any 'O' on Titanic's hull, unless you chose to be misled by amateurish CGI, which appeared in 2000 or thereabouts, which no expedition has ever claimed, or even acknowledged, and which even the founding father of the switch myth, Robin Gardiner, denounced as fake.
The windows on 'B' deck of the wreck are of the modified uneven rectangular pattern, as seen on photographs of Titanic after the installation of additional cabins and the Cafe Parisien during building.
Neither Astor nor Guggenheim ever voiced their opinions about the Fed. Straus did. He spoke in favour of it, in October, 1911. Either you genuinely didn't know that, or you, in common with every switcher or conspiracy theorist, simply choose to ignore known facts.
'Have to now wonder if a certain mini sub sinking was a wee warning ,stop looking to hard .' Odd, then, that a small tourist vessel should receive such treatment, when a whole host of real scientific and research vessels have gone unmolested, isn't it? Perhaps you might explain that?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@darkmath100 The problem is that Olympic's windows on B deck were of a regular square pattern, as seen on photographs. The, much fewer, of course, photos. of the same area on Titanic show an irregular pattern of narrower, rectangular windows.
The reason for that is because, following recommendations received after Olympic's first few voyages, Titanic's starboard B-deck forward had been converted into two private verandahs and suites. Other modifications also included two additional portholes forward, added in November, 1911, a modification also later carried out on Olympic.
According to a very detailed source, the 'Encyclopaedia Titanica' Titanic had a similar pattern to Olympic when launched, but the modifications to provide the two private suites were carried out between February and March, 1912.
2
-
2
-
@darkmath100 The B Deck modifications were carried out early in 1912, or possibly at the same time as the two extra portholes port side forward were added, which was in November, 1911. Harland & Wolff's archives show that discussions about the changes began as early as June, 1911.
They were introduced after experience of Olympic's first voyages had shown that the B Deck promenade area was not popular with passengers, and the space could be better utilised by installing first class cabins and a cafe instead. If 'someone' wanted to switch the ships, why carry out modifications which would make them look different, by the way?
As to Edith Russell. If there was a cunning and devious plan to switch the ships, is it likely that the crew would be in on the plot, and would be cheerfully discussing it with passengers? Californian, by the way, was a small cargo/passenger liner with space for 47 passengers. She had sailed from Liverpool for Boston, on 5 April, with a mixed cargo., She had been operating on the same service for around ten years.
2
-
@darkmath100 You seem to either ignore things which don't please you, or invent things which do. I simply corrected you when you blamed Smith for the Hawke collision. I made no comment on his ability as a captain, although he had been a qualified Master since 1887, and Commodore of the Line since 1904, so he must have been doing something right.
The cost of Olympic's repairs, which Lloyds did not meet, was, in US dollars, $125,000. This can be verified from the accounts and archives from the time. She was out of service for two months only. The second time, in February - March, 1912, she did not miss a scheduled sailing. If you had any actual interest, you could have determined these facts for yourself.
I know what a Robber Baron is, but as Titanic & Olympic were not switched, then your odd fixation with Morgan's alleged devious plot is irrelevant, and I do not feel inclined to allow you to muddy the waters to conceal your increasingly obvious lack of actual knowledge.
In fact, I am wasting too much of my time educating you, and replying to your increasingly bizarre posts. I could recommend a book or two, if you like, but I don't propose personally to indulge your nonsense further.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@PaddyBaxter-ji8in You may find this hard to accept, but Harland & Wolff had considerable experience of building ships, as had White Star in operating them. Neither company had any illusions that any ship was unsinkable.
There is no documented record of Ismay, or anyone else from either company, making such a claim, and thus no evidence that Andrews disputed something which was not said. The claim does, I understand, appear in the movie, however.
Sectarian discord, still less Home Rule, did not apply to a company such as H & W, whose workforce was entirely Protestant. Thus, the rest of your comment shows utter ignorance of the facts of the time.
Of course, you are welcome to provide credible evidence from any contemporary source.
2
-
@Me-fm9zk Virtually no American sailors died before the US entered WW2, although thousands certainly did after the German declaration of war, when Admiral King chose not to institute a convoy system, and lights on the US East coast were left on, silhouetting freighters nicely for U boat commanders. Perhaps you should look up exactly how many US merchant ships were lost in 1930, 1940, & 1941, instead of posting from a state of ignorance?
By the end of 1940, Britain (not 'England') by the way, had survived.The possibility of Operation Sealion had vanished. After June, 1941, the eventual outcome of WW2 was becoming clear.
Your US Department of the Historian refers to Lend Lease as :-
'Although British Prime Minister Winston Churchill later referred to the initiative as “the most unsordid act” one nation had ever done for another, Roosevelt’s primary motivation was not altruism or disinterested generosity. Rather, Lend-Lease was designed to serve America’s interest in defeating Nazi Germany without entering the war until the American military and public was prepared to fight.'
So please don't pretend that the US bailed anyone out in WW2.
2
-
@Embracing01 Hamer is not a 'Researcher,' he is a conspiracist who has never yet encounted a conspiracy theory he didn't swallow whole. Just because he 'said' something doesn't make it true. Indeed, almost everything he claims about Titanic is lifted straight from Gardiner's book, with some imaginative embellishments.
Here is a quote from 'General Knowledge Podcast BONUS CONTENT SHOW Teaser 5 - The Titanic Conspiracy, May 13, 2021' direct from Hamer :-
"I've spoken to quite a few people who've been obliquely involved in it. For example, I spoke to Bertie Lightoller, who was second officer, the most senior surviving officer. I spoke to his nephew and he had some interesting titbits to tell me about various different things. That didn't quite follow the official narrative."
Lightoller died in December, 1952. Hamer was born in 1952. It must have been an in-depth conversation. Unless, of course, Hamer was being less than truthful?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@inttubu1 It really doesn't matter what I think. Facts are what matters.
1). Other liners had sailed through the same waters, in the same manner, at the same time of year.
2). Why would he, then, be accused of 'murder' particularly by you? Captain Smith certainly died at the scene.
3). All they knew was that circumstances had arisen which required them to cancel their voyages. Just had previously happened with Olympic. You surely aren't suggesting that they had been told of a 'plot', and, after 1500+ people had died, staunchly kept quiet for the rest of their lives? Every one of them?
Rescue would only be possible if there were ships in the vicinity of Titanic. There was only one, whose captain showed s remarkable lack of interest in events unfolding around him.
4).No, there isn't. Titanic's sister ship had been back at sea since late November, 1911. She was on her way from New York to Southampton when she received Titanic's distress signal, but she was over 500 miles away.
5). What 'safety privileges' did the prominent VIPs have?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
As Sherlock Holmes would also say, 'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. inevitably one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' As you have done, examples being :-
1). Titanic's insurance value was never increased. It was, and remained, two thirds of her building cost of £1.5 million.
2). The first reference to 'keel damage' appeared in 1995 with Robin Gardiner's little book. The Inspection report compiled by the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and White Star made no such reference. Harland & Wolff certainly knew nothing about it, and Olympic returned to sea on 20 November 1911, when Titanic was five months from completion.
3). Most, if not all, ships had an initial coat of grey primer. Certainly, Titanic was so painted. Olympic had, in addition, a temporary coat of white, or of light grey, paint added before launch, because similar paint applied to the earlier Mauretania had made her stand out well in photographs and newsreels during her launch. Olympic was repainted in normal black after the launch.
4). When Titanic sank, White Star lost a major asset, their reputation for safety, and one third of her building costs. Exactly which financial losses did that recoup?
Or, as Watson would probably have commented, 'Good heavens, Holmes, stop reading ill-informed rubbish written by a simpleton. Direct your attention to this instead. A Dr. Mortimer is worried about a big dog apparently wandering around Dartmoor.'
2
-
@TheCountofToulouse Captain Smith was White Star's senior captain, and had been since 1904. Since then, he had commanded every new White Star liner on her maiden voyage. The probability is that, unless he chose to retire, he would have taken Britannic out as well, had she been completed before the commencement of WW1.
'Further, you notion that 'no Titanic researcher or historian' takes is seriously? Do you understand that you just lied? Everyone that has looked into this is a HISTORIAN and a RESEARCHER, why do research and only look for the truth that supports your preconceived outcome?
Don't be silly. Anyone can be interested in any subject, but only those with access to archive records and documents can really be considered genuine researchers or historians. Hence the manner in which the method of history is described. - Look at the evidence, and come to your conclusions based upon that evidence.
Actually, many survivor accounts refer to the iceberg, as do accounts from surviving officers. 'Curious that the damage was in the EXACT places to ensure the ship would sink, too, huh? Again, don't be silly. When a ship designed to stay afloat has five, or, indeed, possible six, compromised, what do you expect to happen?
As you seem wedded to your fantasy, perhaps you might explain who planted the explosives, when, and why?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dizzy19. I have just finished ploughing through the 'Brilliant Expattaffy's' latest video. All 1 hour 30 minutes of it. Comment is unnecessary, except to refer to 'Hamlet' Act IV Scene 1 :-
"Mad as the sea and wind, when both contend, which is the mightier"
I must confess to being flattered by a few references to myself, albeit not by name. It seems I am a liar, of course.
By the way, don't watch the video, when you come across it, in one go. After around 15 minutes, you will experience a damp sensation down both sides of your neck.
That is your brain dissolving and seeping out of your ears.
Otherwise, enjoy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@larebear1902 ' hmmm, r u an algorithm bot?' No, I am a naval & maritime historian.
Don't be a fool. No expedition has ever found any 'O' on the hull of Titanic. If one had, don't you think that, just possibly, it might have been mentioned? There was a fake CGI video claiming something similar, which appeared from nowhere around the year 2000. It has precisely no provenance, no expedition has ever claimed it, and even the father of the Switch myth, Robin Gardiner, denounced it as fake.
Except in the eyes of the fantasist, it isn't even particularly good CGI, by the way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GreyWolfLeaderTW Neither can you deny that the deck armour of HMS Hood was on a par with that the Queen Elizabeth class battleships, and superior to that of every other British battleship design except the Orions, the King George Vs, the 'R' class, and the post WW1 designs.
You might also reflect on the probability that the sinking was not brought about by penetration of the deck armour in any case, but by a fortunate hit in the lower hull, above the exterior anti-torpedo bulge. It is difficult to be sure about Bismarck's weaponry, as she only ever achieved one hit, of course.
Oh, and a famous golfer one said, 'the more I practise, the luckier I get.' The Fleet Air Arm had for years been rehearsing techniques which were intended to slow down enemy heavy ships in order for the Battle Fleet to engage them. They had already achieved this once, when HMS Formidable's Albacores damaged Vittorio Veneto, and thus brought about the Battle of Matapan, two months later.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rogeredwarrddeshon5000 In that case, why not go the whole hog and claim Titanic was sunk by aliens?
Actually, No 'explosion' was ever reported, although a small number of survivors reported 'rumbling' during Titanic's last moments. Doubtless heavy machinery breaking loose.
No Stoker survivors, and there were 45, together with 20 Coal Trimmers and 4 Greasers, reported anything other than sudden flooding, and they were in the area where any explosion would need to have been.
A large number of survivors reported the impact, actually quite a gentle one, of the iceberg. Moreover, the engineering sections were off limits to passengers. A furtive figure carrying an enormous sack trying to get down into one or other of those sections would have stood out like the proverbial sore thumb, especially since your theoretical device would have needed to have been enormous. Simply compromising one or two compartments would not have sunk Titanic, as Olympic's collision with HMS Hawke, flooding two sections, had demonstrated in September, 1911.
Finally, the suicide bomber is a bizarre late 20th & early 21st century phenomenon, which you have feverishly back-projected to 1912.
As Sherlock Holmes said :- “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Inevitably one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
Just as you seek to do, in fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Goofydownrange 'Another person who can not read.' Were you to follow your own advice, you might read the 'New York Times' of 28 March, 1912, which reveals that:
"J. Pierpont Morgan has written a cordial letter to the committee, announcing that he will be in Venice on April 23 for the inauguration of the biennial International Art Exhibition, April 25, and dedicate the new Campanile of St. Mark's."
By the way, between 1904 & 1912, Morgan only twice returned to the United States from Europe before July, and one of those occasions was to attend a wedding.
Tsar Nicholas II wasn't aboard Titanic either. Neither was President Taft, nor KIng George V. In your entertaining world, does that make them part of the plot as well?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelthebarbarian3380 As my old University professor, M.R.D. Foot, was wont to tell his students, 'when people resort to insults, it is a sure sign that they have lost the qrgument.' Thank you for proving his point!
Perhaps you aren't aware of the problems with German gunnery radar, the most serious of which being that it tended to fail when the guns fired. As, indeed, Bismarck's did when firing at HMS Norfolk on the evening of 23 May. When she was in action with HMS Hood, and HMS Prince of Wales, therefore, she was not using radar. Didn't you know that? It doesn't surprise me.
Actually, the story about the Nelsons being difficult to handle is doubtful. At least one of her former captains said he found Rodney responsive to her helm, and on a level with a Queen Elizabeth. That was one Andrew Cunningham, a future Admiral of the Fleet, and a former destroyer man, known for his ship handling. Just possibly, he might have known more than you?
My knowledge of the various battleships of WW1 & WW2 does not come from World of Battleships, whatever that is, but from people like Siegfried Breyer, Norman Friedman, or R.A. Burt, among others. Heaven alone knows where you get your misconceptions from. Wehraboo sources or inclinations perhaps?
Your reference to 'range' also demonstrates your lack of knowledge. Bismarck's guns had a maximum range of 38280 yards, whilst Rodney's had a range of 38,000 yards. Not that this matters. If you knew anything about actual naval battle ranges in WW2, you would have known that the longest range hits achieved by any capital ship was 26,000 yards, by HMS Warspite on Giulio Cesare, and by Scharnhorst on HMS Glorious, both in 1940.
26,000 yards was exceptional, and the normal range at which a capital ship might hope to achieve success was 20,000 yards at most. From 15,000 yards, the odds of a successful hit became favourable. Didn't you know that, either?
Perhaps you didn't know, either, that the Nelsons were cut down versions of the proposed G3 battlecruiser, with the same level of armament and the same strength of armour, but with reduced engine power in order to keep to the limits of the Washington Naval Treaty. Bismarck, despite displacing around 15,000 more, still managed to have a lighter broadside and weaker armour than the Nelsons.
Don't worry about not respecting me, by the way. I could never feel the slightest respect for some who couches his ignorance in a series of insults.
Perhaps you should read some books by the authors I mentioned earlier, little chap?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexandros4703 Don't be disingenuous. The booklet actually reads :-
'AS FAR AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO, these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable.'
Perhaps you simply haven't actually seen the booklet? After all, one wouldn't want one to appear less than truthful would one? I have seen it, by the way.
If either Ismay or Pirie made such claims, provide proof, rather than your vague 'reported to have uttered.'
I know what Franklin said, but this was after the sinking, in a traumatic moment of denial. Furthermore, there is no evidence that he, or anyone else, made such a claim about either Olympic class ship prior to June, 1911, when Olympic left on her maiden voyage.
Good attempt at misleading. But, alas, no CEEGAR!
1
-
1
-
@alexandros4703 Isn't the question which should be asked, 'why did you only quote part, rather than the whole, of the statement in the leaflet?
By which I mean 'AS FAR AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO, these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable.'
What part of 'AS FAR AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO,' evaded your cognitive abilities, and, of course, WHY?
There is no shame in your being in error. There is shame, to a degree, in refusing to admit it.
1
-
@alexandros4703 'Are you sure you're not getting confused about the difference between Icebergs and Lifeboats again, lol.' Indeed, an entertaining typing error on my part, and it amused me greatly when I re-read it.
I did, of course, immediately admit it when it was brought to my attention. I submit that it is less worthy of criticism than posting part, rather than the whole, of a reference to the desigh of the Olympics, in order, falsely, to try to make a point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@pop5678eye 'It also had much more limited resources for rescue since it was far far smaller than the Titanic.' That really doesn't apply, as during the Dunkirk evacuation, vessels half the size of Californian were able to transport eight or nine hundred troops back to Britain. Moreover, it was known that other ships were on their way, so the crowded conditions, on a calm sea, by the way, would only have applied for three or four hours. Given the choice between standing on a crowded open deck, or dying of hypothermia, I suspect I could guess which people would have chosen.
' My argument is that even if the Californian had heard the distress call it could not arrive in time safely to save those who went down with Titanic or those already freezing in the waters.' That wasn't what you argued in your first comment, when you wrote ; 'The duty of a captain first is to ensure the safety of his own ship. The obligation to rescue another ship in distress is secondary to that,' was it?
Whether Lord could have saved any of those who died, moreover, is not the issue. The crux of the matter is that he was made aware of a situation, and chose not even to investigate it.
1
-
@pop5678eye 'Exactly what was he made aware of that would have obligated him to investigate? The only data he had was that the Titanic was at some distance from his ship, previously ignoring ice warnings and telling his radio operator to shut up and finally shooting rockets that are normally used for celebrations into the air.'
What more data did he need? His own officers had told him of their concerns, which he ignored. Firing rockets was the usual means of signalling a ship in distress. That is why Titanic carried 36 Socket Signals. Whereever have you acquired this strange and unsubstantiated belief that there were commonly used for 'celebrations?'
Your second paragraph entirely misses my point, which is not whether Lord could actually have done anything to help Titanic's passengers and crew, but that he simply chose not to investigate what events were unfolding. Alone of the ships in the area, Californian sat motionless, as Carpathia and others effectively busted their guts trying to get to the site. How can you justify that?
Actually, Carpathia was at full speed, and Rostron deployed additional lookouts. Her normal maximum speed was 14 knots, but it seems she managed just over 17 as she raced towards Titanic. Changing a fact or two to justify your claims is really unworthy of you. By the way, Californian's radio operator could also have been at his set, if Lord had bothered to wake him up.
'Here's a hypothetical to you as a demonstration.' Still you miss the point. Lord was vilified, not because he failed to rescue anyone from Titanic, but because he simply refused to find out what was happening. Can you really not grasp that simple fact?
'And again I can remind you that even into modern times rescuers frequently suspend searches when conditions are too hazardous for themselves and wait until daytime or for weather to clear or for seas to calm. You read about this in the news all the time. These are standards of rescue to this day.' Very good. The part you missed is the word 'suspend.' Usually, rescue ships reach the area, and carry out their searches. Only when it is becoming increasing evident that further effort would be futile is any search suspended, as, inevitably, it has become an attempt to recover bodies, rather than to find survivors.
1
-
Once again, so many errors here.
1). There was no change in hull sheet thickness in the design. Titanic's hull sheets were as thick as those of a 1910 built Southampton class cruiser, or come to that a modern oil tanker. They compared favourably with those of the Lusitanias.
2). The same rivets were used in her sister ship Olympic, which plied the same waters, successfully, for 23 years.
3). no binoculars were left behind on any dock in 'Irland.'
4). Frantically shovelling coal into boilers has no effect on speed. It simply raises the boiler pressure above the safe working one of 215 lbs psi., at which point the safety valves raise to protect the boiler.
Doubtless you will immediately delete your post, as you have already done several times. A shame that you lack the integrity to discuss, never mind defend, your errors.
As a former professor of mine used to say, 'the only thing more amusing than someone who does know what he is talking about is someone who doesn't know that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
If you really believe what you claim, why not simply try to prove anything I have written to be inaccurate? Good luck with that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jrbaretta What exactly do you think the 'Log Book' of a ship from that time contains? Certainly nothing like you appear to believe.
Oh, and the Olympics were designed 'for, but not with' 48 boats. Alexander Carlisle explained the reasons for this in detail during the British Inquiry. Suffice it to say, Ismay had nothing to do with it, although the Board of Trade did.
Binoculars would have made no difference to the observation of the iceberg, by the way, except perhaps by delaying notification of the danger slightly. Such items reduced overall observations to a limited area, rather than to the wider vista to be scanned. That was why glasses were the exception rather than the rule.
It seems, by the way, that Smith ordered the news to be kept quiet, in order to avoid a mass panic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DrDoohickey 'Sure, but if witness testimony is to be believed, there is the matter of the overheard conversation.' You really should read what Mrs. Lines actually said. She denied that there had been any comment about increasing speed. All Ismay (assuming it was Ismay) actually said was that Titanic was performing better than Olympic had on her maiden voyage in June, 1911.
Those who allege that speed was mentioned need to read the 'DEPOSITION of Mrs. Elizabeth L. Lines, taken upon oral interrogatories, pursuant to Commission granted October 27, 1913, at the American Consulate-General, 36 Avenue de l'Opera, at the City of Paris, Republic of France, on the twenty-second day of November, One thousand nine hundred and thirteen.'
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Embracing01 The minutes of both Inquiries are available on line. I have read them, you clearly haven't. No need to visit the Bodleian, or even to spell it correctly.
Where is Hamer's evidence about Astor, Guggenheim & Straus? The only actual evidence in existence confirms that Astor and Guggenheim never expressed their opinions, whilst Straus had gone on record as a supporter.
I'm sure you can provide statements made by these descendents of H & W workers, of course. Can't you?
The earliest of Hamer's efforts date back to 2012, by the way. He has simply reproduced Gardiner's book, with imaginative additions, such as :-
"I've spoken to quite a few people who've been obliquely involved in it. For example, I spoke to Bertie Lightoller, who was second officer, the most senior surviving officer." Quite an achievement, given that Lightoller died in December, 1952. The same year that Hamer was born.
Do you think that, as well as never having encountered a conspiracy theory he didn't swallow whole, Hamer is also a maestro of the Ouija Board?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@catchloe1989-k9l 'Maybe Ballard lied for the rewards that came with sticking to the party line. The White Star Line were in dire financial straits, & could not afford the bad publicity/delay & major repairs required to make the ship seaworthy.'
White Star had just posted profits in excess of £1 million for the last financial year. Olympic had been repaired, and had been back at sea since late November, 1911, and White Star placed their order for the third Olympic class liner in the same month. Moreover, wasn't losing a liner, leading to 1500+ deaths, rather worse publicity than the need to repair one?
Why would Ballard lie? What he had found, others would also soon inspect, and the discovery gave him as much celebrity status as he might (or, indeed, might not) have sought. As to 'THEM!!' still monitoring references to Titanic 70+ years after the event, and still doing the same today, compared to that notion the idea that Elvis, Princess Diana, and hitler are living in domes on the dark side of the moon has more credibility!
Ask yourself why not one Titanic historian, researcher, or exploration team has ever given house room to the switch or conspiracy idiocies invented from the 1990s onwards.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Embracing01 Nonsense. Aside from the fact that the allegedly 'crippled' ship steamed at close to full speed until the time of collision, and, indeed, was making better progress on her maiden voyage than Olympic had in June 1911, which messages did not, in your opinion, get through?
If Californian had indeed been the planned rescue ship, why did Lord, presumably a key part of your imaginary plan, ignore the concerns of his officers about the flares being fired by 'a large steamer?' How many large steamers do you think there were wandering about the North Atlantic at the time, happily firing off distress flares?
Moreover, if there had indeed been a planned rescue ship, a fully laden, slow, small, freighter was almost ludicrously unsuited for the job.
Oh, and Lord was never blamed for the sinking, but he was blamed for his failure to investigate the reason for the flares, and for thus ignoring the concerns of his deck officers.
He did, by the way, give detailed evidence at both Inquiries, but the fact that his evidence actually changed over time hardly aided his case.
You are clearly interested in the subject. Perhaps you should read a book or two about it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rayray7527 They didn't have radar until WW2, and most freighters didn't have it until later. Are you going to name any ship at all which had such a light between, for example, 1900 and 1950?
Did Lusitania, Mauretania, Adriatic, Aquitania, Olympic, Scharnhorst, Roma, Prinz Freidrich Wilhelm, President Cleveland, or any of, literally dozens of others, have such fitments?
1
-
It would be, had it been even remotely true, but the fact is that the claim is a total invention, dating from the rise of social media in the 1990s.
If you have any credible proof that Astor or Guggenheim said anything in opposition to the concept of the Federal Reserve, or that the reports of Straus' support for it, as recorded in the New York Times' account of his speech of October, 1911, was false, please feel free to supply it.
You have, I fear, simply watched a conspiracy video and swallowed it whole.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The claim that there was the slightest connection between the Titanic sinking and the Federal Reserve was a product of the 1990s, when social media made it possible for people with little or no actual knowledge of a subject to invent conspiracy theories about almost anything and everything.
Prior to that, there had not been the slightest suggestion of any such link, largely because neither Astor nor Guggenheim had expressed their opinions about the idea of the Federal Reserve, whilst Straus had, in October, 1911, spoken in favour of it.
Oh, and Morgan, in March, 1912, had confirmed that he would be attending an event in Venice, which he could not have done had he sailed in Titanic. This was reported in the New York Times at the time.
The ships were, by the way, not swapped. At the time Titanic left Southampton, Olympic, bask at sea fully repaired since November, 1911, was in New York.
1
-
@grahamhill6340 I have the misfortune, as doubtless you would see it, to base my opinions on known and provable facts and evidence, not on strange fantasies. That is the accepted historical method.
Let me ask you about Pearl Harbor, for one. If the US had known about an impending attack, why not have their defences fully prepared? THe attack would still have taken place, but causualties in US men & materials would likely have been far less, and among the Japanese Task Force far greater.
Or would you propound the argument that the reaction in the United States to an unsuccessful, rather than a successful, sneak attack would really have been 'Well, the Japs. didn't really do too much damage. Let's not worry about it.'
Seriously?
1
-
1
-
1
-
The German 'warning' only appeared on the day Lusitania sailed. Frankly, the assumption in the US, France, Britain (and most of Germany) was that no civilised power would attack one of the Great Liners. The shock, and repercussions, were such that unrestricted submarine warfare, introduced on 22 February, 1915, was swiftly abandoned.
When it was re-introduced, in desperation, in February, 1917, the US declared war within two months.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@erictaylor5462 At the beginning of WW2, the RN had more carriers than the US Navy did. Four of them were large, fast, vessels, and a fifth was large but slower. You are misinformed if you think otherwise.
Whilst the German navy had gunnery radar, even if it fell apart when the guns fired, the Germans did not have anything to compare with the British Type 279 search radar, which HMS Suffolk used to track Bismarck, and which came as such a shock to Admiral Lutjens.
'I think a German carrier could have lasted quite a long time, even if it was unsupported, especially if it operated with sound tactics, such as maintain a constant CAP and using radar to pick up enemy shipping well outside of weapon's range.' The aircraft intended for the one carrier the Germans did almost build, Graf Zeppelin, were Bf109s and Ju87s. The undercarrige of the 109 was almost comically unsuited for carrier operations, and the Ju87 was an aircraft designed for close support of ground troops. The Germans had precisely no experience of carrier operations, and certainly no aircraft to compare with the Fairey Swordfish, or even the Fairey Fulmar. Moreover, they had no search radar, and nothing like the land based reconnaissance resources available to the British.
Perhaps you are allowing events in the Pacific to cloud your judgement. The much greater distances involved certainly made the carrier, as part of a battle group or task force, more important, but operations in the Atlantic were rather different, as there were often periods when aircraft operations were simply not possible. During the last attack on Bismarck by Ark Royal's Swordfish, the rise and fall of the flight deck of some 70 feet meant that no heavier aircraft could even have got off the deck.
Moreover, a carrier in the western war needed to be able to operate within range of land based aircraft for prolonged periods. The British carriers, with armoured decks as a trade off for smaller air groups, were able to do this. I wonder how long the more thin-skinned US or Japanese carriers might have survived in such conditions? As a US liaison officer aboard a British carrier in the BPF famously wrote, 'When a kamikaze strikes a US carrier, it is six months in Pearl. When one hits a Limey carrier, it's 'Sweepers, man your brooms.' '
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@willnill7946 No, he didn't. Smith gave the order of 'Women & Children first.' Moreover, Lightoller was only second in command of the boats on the port side (the even numbered boats) after Chief Officer Henry Wilde. Indeed, in view od Smith's present, he may well only have been third.
Of these boats, Lightoller was certainly not responsible for the loading of boats 10, 14, & 16, and at best only partly responsible, along with Wilde, for boat 12.
The tally of survivors in each boat was as follows :-
Boat 2 18. Boat 1 12.
Boat 4 30. Boat 3 32.
Boat 6 24 Boat 5 36.
Boat 8 27. Boat 7 28
Boat 10 57 Boat 9 40.
Boat 12 41 Boat 11 50
Boat 14 40 Boat 13 55
Boat 16 52 Boat 15 66
Col. B 28 Col. A 13
Col. D 20 Col. C 43
Collapsible B was the overturned boat upon which Lightoller and the rest stood, after Lightoller had managed to launch it five minutes before Titanic's final plunge. Several additional people from Collapsible B died of exposure during the night.
Lightoller's boats therefore, carried 99 people. Compared to 108 in their opposite numbers on the starboard side. In terms of numbers did Lightoller really do anything much different to Murdoch?
Moreover, both Smith & Wilde spent their remaining time on the port side of the ship. Lightoller had two superiors probably directing his actions.
Many people seem to think that Lightoller's greatest crime was in surviving at all, I suggest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
' ISMAY had full intentions of getting into a lifeboat from the moment he set foot on the deck that night.' William Carter did claim that he and Ismay were ordered into the boat. Certainly, Carter was probably attempting damage limitation, as I believe that his wife alleged that he had abandoned her and his children, and divorced him soon afterwards.
Ismay, however, made no such claim. Indeed, he specifically denied that any such order was given, in his testimony to the British Inquiry :-
18557. Did you see how many passengers were put into this collapsible?
- No, I did not see at the time.
18558. Did she appear to be full?
- She was very fairly full.
18559. Would you tell us what happened after you got the women and children in?
- After all the women and children were in and after all the people that were on deck had got in, I got into the boat as she was being lowered away.
18560. There was no order to you to get in?
- No, none.
18561. Did any other passenger get in?
- One.
18562. That is a Mr. Carter?
- Mr. Carter.
18563. Am I right, then, in this, that there were women and children and some members of the crew to man the boat and two passengers, yourself and Mr. Carter?
- Yes, and four Chinamen were in the boat.
18564. Four Chinamen who, we have heard, were discovered after the boat was lowered?
- Yes.
I submit that your assumption that Ismay always intended to get into a lifeboat is based on your personal opinion of him, rather than on any verifiable facts.
1
-
@charliefarley9658 Perhaps, then, you might answer a simple couple of questions?
1). If Ismay always planned to escape on a boat, why did he leave it until the last, almost full, collapsible?
2). When he was bowled an easy half volley outside off stump, by which I mean :-
'18560. There was no order to you to get in?'
Whey didn't he drive it to the boundary by saying something like :
' The officer supervising the loading, Mr. Murdoch I believe but I am not sure, told me to board the boat as there was still space.'
Instead of simply saying : 'No, none.'
Wouldn't the former answer, which could not be disproved, have shown him in a far more positive light than the latter? Moreover, wouldn't it actually have been the kind of answer 'a cowardly weasel and a clever cunning one at that' would really have given in an attempt to justify his survival?
The fact that there were many other passengers still aboard, alkthough not locked in steerage, doesn't really apply, as the boat was, apparently, in the process of being lowered. A collapsible had a capacity of 47. This one had 44 aboard when picked up by Carpathia.
In point of fact, I suggest that most people with much knowledge of Titanic no longer subscribe to the W. R. Hearst 'J. Brute Ismay' version of events.
1
-
1
-
@charliefarley9658 'Do you think that Murdoch was going to tell the boss of WSL to f off?'
No, but as Murdoch died, Ismay had a golden opportunity to justify himself by claiming, when asked a specific question, that Murdoch ordered, or at least, suggested, that he should board the boat as it was being launched.
No one could have gainsaid Ismay had he answered in the affirmative Yet, he specifically denied that any such suggestion had been put to him. Odd that, for such a devious individual, I suggest?
Moreover, as Murdoch knew that he had minutes left to live, I doubt that protocol would have meant much to him.
As Sherlock Holmes said '“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Inevitably one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
You are, frankly, twisting facts by attributing motives of your own devising, to suit your belief that Ismay was fundamentally wicked.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexandros4703 'OK Einstein, then tell us why there was no insurance paid out to WSL for that collision?'
Because a court held that RMS Olympic was responsible for the collision, even though she was not under the charge of a White Star officer, but of a Solent Pilot, at the time.
Thus, the insurance with Lloyds was invalidated. Fortunately, H & W were able to complete repairs in about seven weeks, and White Star paid them around £25,000 This was a nuisance, but hardly serious to a company as successful as White Star.Indeed, the order for Britannic was placed in the same month, November 1911, that Olympic returned to sea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexandros4703 ' "as successful" heee, that's funny 😅 next you'll be telling us they went on to become passenger cruise ship company of the year.'
Oh dear. Back to insults rather than debate, I observe. Sad.
The following is from Mark Chirnside :-
"The company’s surplus on the profit and loss account had risen from $48,585 in 1910 to $821,062 in the year ending December 31 st 1911. Even if the insurance would not pay out the $750,000, IMM would have remained in surplus. In 1910, IMM’s net profit was a mighty $4,849,580, and this slipped to $4,509,270 in 1911. As for the White Star Line itself, it was ‘the principal constituent’ of IMM and ‘enjoyed continued prosperity, its profit distribution for 1910 being 30 percent’ after depreciation. In fact, White Star’s profit and loss account for the year to December 31 st 1911 was in surplus by £1,102,756 – even higher than IMM’s."
£ 1,102, 756 in 1911 equates to just short of £110 million in 2024. I would say that was a successful company. Wouldn't you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sucharee801 Unfortunately, the findings of the Court are in the National Archives at Kew, but have not yet been digitised, and therefore cannot be reproduced on line, either in my 'usual cut and paste' form or any other.
However, to quote, yes, in cut and paste' form, a brief explanation, here you are:-
Olympic was operating under compulsory pilotage. When entering and leaving busy ports, a harbour pilot will board the ship to guide her in or out of port. Because the pilot is more familiar with the local waters, and the location of any hazards, the danger of an accident is, supposedly, reduced. The ship’s crew, including the Captain, are required by law to follow the pilot’s orders unless there are extenuating circumstances.
The harbour pilot aboard Olympic was a man named George Bowyer. He had been responsible for guiding Olympic out of Southampton on all of her previous voyages. This was to be her fifth voyage and she was booked almost to capacity. Unfortunately, Bowyer made a few critical mistakes in his handling of Olympic this time around. His first mistake was taking too wide of a turn into the channel. Olympic ended up too far south in the channel, leaving too little room for Hawke to maneuvre.
He also misjudged the relative speed of the two ships. Olympic’s speed had dropped during her turn into the channel because the port engine was running astern to assist in the turn. When Hawke was first sighted by Bowyer, she appeared to be passing Olympic, which meant that by law she had to yield right-of-way to Olympic. He apparently ceased paying attention to Hawke after that. When Olympic began picking up speed again, she began to pull ahead, and that was when the suction from her wake pulled Hawke into her side.
As a side note, Captain Smith saw that a collision was going to happen and tried to warn Bowyer, but Bowyer reacted too slowly to avoid it. The subsequent court case ruled that Olympic was at fault, but the White Star Line was not liable because she was operating under compulsory pilotage. The court record shoes the conversation to have been as follows:-
'Captain Smith: “I do not believe he will go under our stern Bowyer.”
Bowyer: “If she is going to strike let me know in time to put our helm hard-aport.”
Smith did not reply immediately, and a few seconds later Bowyer asks: “Is she going to strike us or not, sir?”
Smith: “Yes Bowyer, she is going to strike us in the stern.”
Bowyer calls out: “Hard-aport!” and helmsman QM Albert Haines just manages to get Olympic’s wheel over hard to his right when Hawke struck.'
Bowyer, in court, was questioned over his seamanship in navigating Olympic in those waters. He argued that the new vessels were getting too but he, was found responsible for the incident.
Bowyer also wrote about the Olympic collision in his memoirs, "Lively Ahoy - Reminiscences Of 58 Years In The Trinity House Pilotage Serviice.'
Through the "Olympic" - "Hawke" case, the late Capt. E. J. Smith, the officers, and I told the truth and nothing but the truth. It was taken to the House of Lords, but the verdict was not altered, the "Olympic" losing the case. However, the company thought we were right, and I have piloted the "Olympic," the "Homeric," and the "Majestic," hundreds of times, up to my retirement on December 31st, 1929.
The Court records are very dry, and phrased in the legalistic language of the time. They are stored in five full document boxes.
The above is a brief synopsis of the findings.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
'Mount Temple' A journalist, Senan Molony, made the claim in a supposed 'documentary' from late 2020, called 'Titanic: A Dead Reckoning''
The show repeated some old claims about Mount Temple and its role in the disaster, and made some new ones. Among these claims, it was said that Mount Temple was much closer to Titanic when the SOS was received, that Mount Temple approached to within five miles (8.0 km) of Titanic when Captain Moore decided to retreat after encountering the ice field in an attempt to avoid risk to his own ship, and that Mount Temple matched the appearance of the "mystery ship" that was being observed from Titanic because of the distance between her four masts, as later observed by the commander of the raider which sank Mount Temple in World War I.
Unfortunately, Mr. Molony did not bother to mention that the generally-accepted 'mystery ship' SS Californian, was very similar in appearance to Mount Temple. Just look up photographs of the two. Obviously, he wouldn't have mentioned that, as it rather scuppered his claims.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thegreatdominion949 Perhaps you should not simply believe everything you view in a video? I have come across no such 'directive' in the Admiralty archives at Kew, and I use them regularly for research purposes. As two previous encounters had resulted in captains being admonished for standing off and, supposedly, using too much ammunition, I question whether totally opposite instructions would have been applied in Sydney's case.
Moreover, Sydney was not on patrol searching for raiders, but simply returning to Fremantle after delivering a troopship to the Sunda Strait. I am not trying to justify Burnett's actions which were certainly foolish. I am simply suggesting that he should not be demonised by the suggestion that he disobeyed orders.
As a overflight by his Walrus was likely to have told him nothing, given that Kormoran's armament was well concealed, his only means of identifying Kormoran/Straat Malakka was by visual inspection, interrogation, and signal. He had attempted these, but of course whilst the ship's identity was uncertain, closing the range was indeed an unwise thing to do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@502days Just out of interest, how can someone 'talk sense and shut the fk up while your at it' as that is a physical impossibility.
Instead of resorting to insults and obscenities, why not simply look at what the Admiralty Inspection Report, with which the Board of Trade and White Star, both of whom had separation inspection teams, concurred? The summing up of the damage was as follows :- “Two major watertight compartments were flooded, hull plating gashed from the Orlop deck to E deck, and the starboard propeller shafting damaged.”
No mention of keel damage at all. Or, at least, not until Robin Gardiner invented some in his book from the 1990s. Indeed, how could Olympic's keel have been damaged, given that Olympic's draught was 34' 7" and HMS Hawke's was 24' ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
She was carrying small arms ammunition, authorised by US Customs. She was not flying a US flag, and, as in WW2, the big liners were not excorted because of their high speed.
She sank in 18 minutes, right outside a fishing port containing many fishing boats.
You really want to know why Lusitania sank? Because the Germans had recently introduced unrestricted submarine warfare, and because no-one, American, British, French, or, indeed, most Germans, thought thaone of the great liners of the day would really be attacked without warning.
1
-
1
-
@1968-Camaro-SS Had you known much, or indeed anything, about the subject, you would know that neither in WW1 or in WW2 were the big liners, such as Mauretania. Aquitania. Olympic, Queen Mary, or Queen Elizabeth, given escorts, except close to Britain in WW2, when they were joined by AA destroyers or cruisers. Their defence was their speed. Moreover, until depth charges became available, and that was some four months after the sinking, exactly what purpose would an sort of escort have served?
I will ignore your ramblings about other subjects as you appear to be merely a conspiracy theorist fool. However, neither flying foreign flags, as German vessels also did in both wars, was not illegal, nor was the use of Q ships. Perhaps you weren't aware that something which was illegal was the sinking of marchant vessels without warning?
Of course the British & French wanted Allies for their war against the Central Powers. In fact, Italy declared war only 16 days after the sinking of Lusitania. Can't you come up with a conspiracy theory about that as well?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TaylorMade223 'Not publicly commenting on the FR, doesn't mean no connection to the FR, the wealthy in favor spoke in support, the wealthy opposed, didn't speak.' Quite correct, but nor does it mean that either Astor nor Guggenheim opposed the Fed., either, does it? Indeed, the idea of any connection between the two events only appeared with the enthusiasm for 'conspiracy' which arose with the growth of social media in the 1990s.
Ever heard of The statement that "silence means agreement" or "Qui tacet consentire videtur.'
"he who is silent seems to consent". In other words, the fact that neither Astor neither Guggenheim expressed any opposition suggests that, at the very least, they did not oppose the idea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@N1gel I am more than ever convinced that you are writing through your posterior. Who has ever suggested that the draft of an Olympic was as you bizarrely state, when as rational people are well aware it was 36 feet.
Perhaps you have either misunderstood completely, simply do not understand the mechanics behind Titanic's sinking, which was a rusult of several watertight compartments being compromised, or you do not know why Titanic sank. The flooding had precisely nothing to do with compression, and everything to do with iceberg damage to the hull.
Were you to watch the video again, perhaps you might appreciate the point he is making?
Oh, and the location of Molony's alleged burn mark has never been questioned by anyone, although the nature of the mark has been, and by many.
I really do not understand why you think compression played any part at all in the sinking. The point made in the video was that a coal bunker was not designed to withstand the weight of water it would receive from a flooded compartment.
You do understand that there is no suggestion that the bulkheads themselves failed, but that the compartments they protected were flooded as a result of a line of holes punched into them by the iceberg.
Again, compression is not a relevant factor. I am perplexed that you have, assuming you actually viewed it, misunderstood the argument being presented in the video.
I will not waste any further time and effort replying, by the way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DerpyPossum This is from the 'Washington Times' of 16 April, 1912.
'That Captain Smith believed the Titanic and the Olympic to be absolutely unsinkable is recalled by a man who had a conversation with the veteran commander on a recent voyage of the Olympic.
The talk was concerning the accident in which the British warship Hawke rammed the Olympic.
"The commander of the Hawke was entirely to blame," commented a young officer who was in the group. "He was 'showing off' his warship before a throng of passengers and made a miscalculation."
Captain Smith smiled enigmatically at the theory advanced by his subordinate, but made no comment as to this view of the mishap.
"Anyhow," declared Captain Smith, "the Olympic is unsinkable, and the Titanic will be the same when she is put in commission."Why," he continued, "either of these vessels could be cut in halves and each half would remain afloat indefinitely. The non-sinkable vessel has been reached in these two wonderful craft."
"I venture to add," concluded Captain Smith, "that even if the engines and boilers of these vessels were to fall through their bottoms the vessels would remain afloat." '
So the allegation is based upon something an unnamed individual claimed Smith had said, which only came to light after the sinking. The last two paragraphs alone amply demonstrate how much credibility the claim had.
Atill, as we know, if it was in a newspaper it must be true, mustn't it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@theblackwidowchronicles 'the Merida, the Cingetorix, the Blue Bonnett, the Hope, the Silver Spray, the Sechelt, the essie Smith. These all vanished in 1911 in the North Atlantic. Bye Bye......Mic Drop.' I suspected that there was something wrong with you, unless you simply have an odd sense of humour.
Merida - Collided with Admiral Farragut on 11 May, 1911 off Cape Charles, Florida. People taken off by the Farragut.
Cingetorix - Ran aground Hartland Point, 2 March, 1911.
Blue Bonnett - Barge ran aground in Long Island Sound 2.8.11.
Hope - Schooner collided with Hattie S. Heckman in Massachusetts harbor, 14.3.11.
Sechelt - Sank in a storm in Juan de Fuca Strait. 24.3.11.
Essie Smith Actually, Bessie Smith, by the way. The 127-gross register ton sternwheel paddle steamer burned at Parkersburg, West Virginia.
Whether you are a comedian or merely an idiot. Do go away!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeanie6936 Show me one occasion when I have defended Captain Lord's inactions. I look forward to reading it.
I simply explained what Franklin said. Show me where I have supported his comments. I look forward to that as well.
As to White Star line and Harland & Wolff, I have not defended them because, whatever you might wish to believe, there is no evidence that either Company did anything wrong. If you think there is, please show me what the nature of this evidence is, and why my comments are inaccurate.
I have simply, on the subject of Captain Smith's actions, reported accurately to you, and to others, what a number of Captains & Master Mariners stated in evidence at the British Inquiry. Again, were you to make the effort to read the Minutes, you would already know this.
Why are you so antipathetic towards debate, and why do you prefer confrontation and insult?
1
-
@jeanie6936 'Just guessing are you?'
No. I am relating what Carlisle said in his evidence, when he stated that, during the course of a four hour meeting with Pirie, Sanderson, and Ismay, the lifeboat topic occupied some five to ten minutes.
The final decision, again as Carlisle stated, was made by Harland & Wolff, after Carlisle had retired in June 1910. As the BoT had not updated their regulations, H & W stayed with 14 lifeboats, 2 cutters, and 4 collapsibles.
As I write on almost every occasion when I reply to your confrontational comments, read the minutes of the British Inquiry if you really do wish to inform yourself.
1
-
@jeanie6936 Or, it means that Sanderson and Ismay were far more concerned about the 'decorations' within Olympic, and agreed with Carlisle and Pirie that the final number of lifeboats was a decision for the builders, not the operators, as Harland & Wolff were experienced shipbuilders, whilst Sanderson and Ismay were not.
As Carlisle testified, the final decision was made by H & W, after the BoT had not amended their regulations, and, indeed, after he had retired and handed over the completion of the design to Thomas Andrews. Who, by the way, was happy enough to sail in both Olympic & Titanic.
Why are you so insistent upon ignoring a primary source like the Minutes of the Inquiry. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how historical research actually functions?
1
-
@stevemurphy470 You don't need to 'bet' you can check my comments for yourself. Indeed, I hope that you will do that at once.
Had you taken the trouble to have read my post to Dizzy (one of the polite, sensible, people on here, by the way) you would have observed that what I wrote was, in fact:
'I now propose to refrain from replying to any of these people, as it was considered, as early as the 18th century, to be rather bad form to poke the residents of Bedlam with a stick.
Of course, actual, genuine, comments, even if silly on occasion, will still receive a response.'
Does that, perhaps, make my attitude clearer?
1
-
@goinsouth5187 Unlike you, I have no particular problem with acknowledging any error I might make. The whole purpose of such sites is to make possible general discussion of these events, hopefully in a courteous and respectful manner. You, however, and those in your group, seem determined to reduce an excellent and informative video to a slanging match.
Why, by the way, would I feel any need to post 'lies?' Why would you believe that I feel any need to obsess about long ago events to the extent that I would make fabricated claims?
Indeed, the only error of which I am aware, and which I freely acknowledged, was my misunderstanding about the role of the five single-ended boilers. If you can point to others, preferably without the need to include more insults, feel entirely free to refer me to them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Tozzpot500 To be honest, I would question how serious the financial effects on White Star really were. The line operated over thirty liners of various sizes in 1914, and, whilst the loss of Titanic was a serious blow, financially, a replacement 'superliner' Britannic', was under construction.
A far greater problem was the Great War, which had a serious effect on White Star's business, and resulted in a loss of several ships, but immediately after it the Line purchased a number of second hand vessels, and in 1922 received as war prizes three large German vessels.
The US Immigration Act of 1924 had a detrimental effect on the line, which responded by introducing a 'tourist class' in many of their linerd to make up from the loss of revenue. I understand that the beginning of the line's serious problems should be more properly dated to arounf 1927, but the Great Depression from 1929 was the real cause of the eventual merger with Cunard. Indeed, the first financial deficit recorded by White Star was in 1930.
Intriguingly, a former head of the line did, in 1933, attempt to rescue the company by proposing to create, with the agreement of the government, a new company which would operate and would build other ships similar to the Britannic and the Georgic in order to become profitable.
One J. Bruce Ismay!
I haven't ever seen a detailed financial assessment of White Star after the Titanic sinking, but would be fascinated to read one should it exist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Matt..S 'You didn't get on the Titanic just to have a heated, lighted room with a meal.' Indeed. If you were 1st or 2nd class, you expected a fast crossing. Which is why an Olympic burned 600-800 tons of coal per day.
Surely you understand the correlation between speed and engine power?
Warspite, as built, generated 75,000 shp, on a displacement of 32,000 tons, with a maximum speed of 24 knots.
Hood, when built, generated 144,000 shp, on a displacement of 46,800 tons, at a maximum speed of 32 knots.
Both ships had four shafts, and similar armament and armour. The extra 69,000 shp, and the extra 14,800 tons, were almost entirely due to the huge extra engine power needed to generate the extra 8 knots.
Compare these figures with Titanic & Lusitania :-
Titanic :- Displacement 52,000 tons, 3 shafts, 46,000 shp, maximum speed 23 knots.
Lusitania :- Displacement 44,000 tons, 4 shafts, 76,000 shp, maximum speed 28 knots.
Thus Lusitania, with four turbines compared to two reciprocating engines and one low power turbine, still required 30,000 more shp, on a lower displacement, in order to achieve five extra knots.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brch2 So you mean that, with knowledge of what did happen, you would have acted differently than Murdoch did? With similar foreknowledge, the US commanders would have had their defences ready and waiting when Nagumo's fleet arrived.
Which is, of course, irrelevant. Just as Pearl Harbor did not have knowledge of the future, neither did Murdoch. He received warning of the iceberg, and acted as his instincts and training told him, by ordering a course correction which might have averted disaster.
What, by the way, is this nonsense about people being willing to die to protect history? Murdoch was not protecting history; he was involved in events which were rather more immediate than that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Except that Prinz Eugen used HE, not AP, shells through. One of the survivors, AB Tilburn, was on the boat deck when it was hit by a shell from Prinz Eugen, and his testimony at the Inquiry confirmed that, whilst the shell ignited ready use UP & 4 inch ammunition in lockers, it did no further damage. A second survivor, Briggs, was on the bridge at the time of the hit, and recorded Admiral Holland's last words, when informed of the boat deck fire, as 'Leave it until the ammunition is gone.'
Certainly, the destruction was undoubtedly caused by the 4 inch magazine triggering off the 15 inch magazine, but the idea that Prinz Eugen was responsible is a strange fantasy of comparatively recent origin.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Os that what you suspect? Oh well. Explain this, then :-
A New York Times newspaper article of Thursday 28th March 1912 reveals that in March "J. Pierpont Morgan has written a cordial letter to the committee, announcing that he will be in Venice on April 23 for the inauguration of the biennial International Art Exhibition, April 25, and dedicate the new Campanile of St. Mark's."
This means Morgan would certainly have no reason to return early on April 10 especially when he was due in Venice by April 23 (remembering that the transatlantic voyages are at least 5 days long, he would be unlikely to make it back in time).
None of his artworks were loaded aboard and then taken off. At the time he was negotiating their shipment with Customs. The artworks claim is total fabrication.
'Massive insurance fraud?' Do me a favour. Both Olympics cost £1.5 million to build, and both were insured for £1 million. Who would come up with an insurance scam which loses White Star, £500,000 a major asset, and their safety record? I can't think of anyone, except perhaps the Board of Cunard. Can you?
'This video also fails to mention the propeller damage that Olympic incurred when Smith ran over a wreckage in shallow waters near Cape Hatteras in 1911, and had to limp back to Dublin on one engine and have the propeller replaced but the collision had warped the propeller shaft itself, this was why it could not be operated it and would require quite expensive repairs.' It doesn't mention it because it didn't happen. Olympic lost a blade from her port propeller in February, 1912.She returned to Belfast (where do you get Dublin?) and the blade was replaced in four days. Neither the propeller, nor the shaft, were replaced.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the nonsense you have posted is simply a result of ignorance, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead those as ignorant as you are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@thetimetraveller6550 Do try to think. Are you seriously suggesting that Joseph Bell, Titanic's Chief Engineer, reported a fire to Captain Smith, and Smith, a Master Mariner since 1887, simply said ' never mind, it is only the North Atlantic in April. What could possibly go wrong?'
Do you really believe that the people of 1912 were half-wits?
Titanic, by the way, finished fitting out on 31 March, 1912, and carried out sea trials on 2 April, 1912. She had been out of dry dock for at least two weeks, and was subjected to an inspection by Board of Trade officials. Do you think that they are likely to have missed a serious internal fire?
The serious fire was a conclusion made by a journalist in 2017, on the basis of a smudge on a photograph. It has no credibility.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nickdanger3802 Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about.
You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India.
Still, if you are happier cutting and pasting something you probably found on google, then so be it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No. Your post is misinformation, probably entirely due to ignorance. Aside from the fact that as owner of IMM, White Star's parent company, Morgan didn't need to 'book a trip', it is documented in the NYT that he had already planned to visit St. Mark's in Venice before Titanic could have returned from New York.
He had, moreover, confirmed this well before Guggenheim, on 8 April, booked his own trip, which renders your reference to the 1990s created myth about the Federal Reserve equally invalid.
Although, as Astor & Guggenheim had never commented about the Fed., whilst Straus had already spoken in favour of it, such invalidation was hardly needed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeanie6936 But to those who were involved, by which I mean those at Harland & Wolff, at White Star, and within the Board of Trade, there were clear and obvious differences between the two ships.
The most obvious, although there were others, being :-
1). The partly enclosed 'A' deck on Titanic, as opposed to the open one on Olympic.
2). The totally different window pattern at the forward end of Titanic's 'B' deck, as opposed to the unmodified forward end, at least until after the Titanic sinking, of Olympic.
3). The projecting bridge wings on Titanic, as opposed to the flush ones on Olympic.
Why do you feel the need to argue with everything I post, apparently just for the sake of it? Strange behaviour, to say the least, especially since your original response to the post by catfishhunter was, unlike my own response, to ridicule it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexandros4703 I haven't backtracked on anything. If you can show me any advertising material from 1911 or early 1912 which refers to the Olympics as 'unsinkable' please refer me to it. The only single document researchers have found so far is a single reference, in a small circulation magazine. Specifically : 'Shipbuilder' magazine, which called the Titanic "practically unsinkable" in a special issue about the Olympic liners.
The key word here being 'practically,' I suggest. I admit to being wrong frequently, but only when someone has been able to show me that I am. If you seek someone who is unable to admit error, you might look closer to home?
By the way, it is, old chap, bad form to get someone else to open a new address, as it appears you have done about a week ago, then get them to post comments on your behalf, and even to upvote your own comments.
Not the done thing at all, I suggest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
'So you tell me what a ship would be doing in 1912 in the middle of the Atlantic with no passengers full crew and an excess amount of life belts?'
Good question. No ship would. However, neither did Californian. She was basically a freighter. She had room to take a small number of passengers, but she earned her corn by taking cargo (in this case, a mixed, general, one, according to the Boston shipping papers when she docked on 19 April) to the United States, then reloading with cotton from New Orleans.
The claim of the lifebelts, or blankets, or sweaters, or whatever, is simply made up. Moreover, had there been a shred of credibility in the allegations, why, when Lord was told about the flares from a large liner, did he do nothing. Wasn't that the entire reason he was there, in your theory?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ABBATributeNZ Actually, when Californian docked in Boston on 19 April, the shipping newspapers stated that she was carrying a 'mixed, general' cargo, as Leyland Line ships generally did.
Perhaps you might ask yourself if, when Boston customs processed her manifest, collective eyebrows might have been raised had a ship which had been in the immediate vicinity of a maritime disaster had been found to have been carrying so odd a cargo. Unless, of course, there was a desperate blanket shortage in the Boston area at the time?
Moreover, if a rescue ship really had been planned, Californian was almost totally unsuited to the task.
There was no 'fishing boat' in the area at the time. The claims about Samson were proven false long ago.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bpdbhp1632 Have you read the statements of the several Master Mariners and Liner Captains at the British Inquiry? All of who confirmed that they would have behaved in the same manner that Smith did?
Usually, lookouts were not provided with binoculars, as their role was to scan the whole of the horizon, not parts of it. Should anything be sighted, the lookout would immediately notify the bridge, where officers with binoculars would identify the object, and determine a course of action.
To explain this in more details, the dollowing is an extensive quote from the 'Encyclopedia Titanica' :-
Much was also made of a box in the crow’s nest – a small box in the port after corner (B11325) that could be used to hold binoculars. One of the enduring misconceptions in Titanic history is that this proves that binoculars were intended for the crow’s nest. In fact, they were not. The question was put to Charles Bartlett, Marine Superintendent of the White Star Line, at the British Inquiry:
21715. (Mr. Scanlan.) Why have you a bag or a box in the crow’s nest to hold binoculars if you do not think they are required?
That was not always for binoculars; that was for anything the men used in the look-out.
21716. It was not always for binoculars, but it was for anything a man might use on the look-out, you say?
Yes.
21717. What do you mean by that?
His muffler, his clothes, and his oilskin coat and that sort of thing. There is generally a canvas bag put up there.
In order to understand why binoculars were not provided as standard equipment, we need to delve into some of the post-sinking testimony as to how the utility of binoculars by lookouts was regarded in 1912. When
we do so, we find that there appears to be a great difference of opinion.
Not a single captain voiced an opinion in favor of them, and some were quite outspoken against them:
Do you think it is desirable to have them?
No, I do not. Captain Richard Jones, Master, S.S. Canada (B23712)
We have never had them.
Captain Frederick Passow, Master, S.S. St. Paul (B21877)
I would never think of giving a man in the lookout a pair of glasses.
Captain Stanley Lord, Master, S.S. Californian (U. S. Day 8)
I have never believed in them. –
Captain Benjamin Steele, Marine Superintendent at Southampton
for the White Star Line (B21975)
Even the famed Antarctic explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton, presumably called to testify because of his extensive knowledge of ice and icebergs, said that he “did not believe in any look-out man having any glasses at all.” (B25058)
Why should this be? Surely a set of binoculars would be a useful asset if one’s job requires spotting things at a distance, as binoculars magnify things and bring them closer to view. The testimony of Captain Bertram Hayes, Master of the White Star Line’s Adriatic, points us to the answer:
21846. They are a source of danger, Sir. They spoil the look-out.
21847. How is that?
The look-out man when he sees a light if he has glasses is more liable to look at it and see what kind of a ship it is. That is the officer’s business. The look-out man’s business is to look out for other lights.
Having a set of binoculars in hand, then, might inadvertently take a lookout’s attention away from the “big picture” – scanning a large area ahead and to either side – or worse, causing him to delay a report while he examined the object more closely.
Second Officer Lightoller indicated much the same sentiment when he was asked if binoculars would not have helped the lookouts identify what they saw as an iceberg sooner: “He might be able to identify it, but we do not wish him to identify it. All we want him to do is to strike the bells.” (B14293)
He was referring to the bell in Titanic’s crow’s nest, which the lookouts were required to strike upon sighting an object: one gong of the bell called the Bridge Officer’s attention to something off the port bow, two gongs meant something off the starboard bow, and three gongs indicated something ahead. It must be emphasized that the Senior Officer on the Bridge would be keeping his own watch, not relying entirely on the lookout. If the lookout did see something that the officer had not seen already with his own eyes, he would then observe it – using his own set of binoculars if necessary – and decide on what action to take.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@heresjohnny7579 Certainly, the Olympics were not designed with an iceberg collision in mind, just as Leonard Peskett didn't design Lusitania ro survive a torpedo hit.
However, neither the rivets nor the steel hull of Titanic was in any way inferior to that of any other large liner in service at the time. Olympic, of course, was a successful liner for 23 years.
Recent tests on Titanic type steel and rivets manufactured with the same methods, have confirmed that Titanic's construction was not flawed.
They also confirmed than a ship designed to survive with four compartments compromised will not survive should five, or possibly six, meet that date.
But, of course, Alexander Carlisle & Thomas Andrews could have told them that at the time.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheLoneWolf_andCoyote Please don't be an idiot. I have read the findings of the Report produced by the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and White Star, all of whom appointed teams to look into the extent of the damage. Their agreed summary was “Two major watertight compartments were flooded, hull plating gashed from the Orlop deck to E deck, and the starboard propeller shafting damaged."
Do you see what is missing here? Any reference to keel damage, perhaps? Not surprising really, as the collision was at slow speed, eight knots according to Hawke's commander. Hawke was 20 years at the time of the collision, but still capable of 18 knots. Hawke penetrated 6-8 feet into Olympic's side. Olympic had a beam of 92 feet. Odd that none of this is ever mentioned by 'switchers' I suggest.
Oh, and the propeller was never transferred from Titanic to Olympic, only parts of the shaft. Or, at least, so Harland & Wolff's archives state.
The same archives which also confirm that the costs of repairs carried out to Olympic, in US dollars, was $125,000. Harland & Wolff completed the work in two months, although this did necessitate taking men off Titanic and delaying her completion.
The problem is, when the actual facts are investigated, the myth of of the crippled Olympic with the bent keel is exposed for what it is, and the whole reason for the switch drops away into irrelevance.
Switchers do rely on people reading or watching their products, and being either too gullible to question them, or too lazy, or lacking in interest, to bother. I suggest that you must fall into one of these categories.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marlonbrando9279 Titanic did list to port because of what was called Scotland Road After the collision and flooding, as she was sinking, the port list developed because the main passage on E Deck that ran fore and aft was to Port side (Scotland Road it was referred to). This allowed the water to flood along the port side faster than to starboard.
Your claim that the Titanic’s seacocks were deliberately opened to hasten the sinking has absolutely no evidence to support it. There is no evidence from any survivor testimony, or the wreck, that this was ever the case. Firstly, how do you explain that none of the 350 strong engineering and stoker crew noticed this water rushing into the ship, and secondly, the nearest responder to Titanic’s distress signal, Carpathia, was 2 hours too far away. So why would they want to hasten her sinking? Are you suggesting that they were Japanese Kamikaze sailors, getting into practice for 1944??!!
Where did the ice scattered around the foredeck come from? Was it cunningly concealed for use at the right time, or did it simply dislodge from the iceberg? Were the survivors who reported seeing the iceberg simply suffering from mass hallucination?
As to the insurance scam. Titanic & Olympic both cost £1.5 million to build.and both were insured for £1 million, which is the figure Lloyds subsequently paid out. I am not an economist, but setting up a scam which loses White Star £500,000 and a reputation for safety does not seem to be a successful one. I thought scams and frauds were supposed to make money?
Finally, the invented claims about Astor, Guggenheim & Straus as opposed to the Federal Reserve date back as far as the mid 1990s. In fact, neither Astor nor Guggenheim had ever expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst Straus was a supporter, as two articles in the New York Times from October, 1911 recording one of his speeches, which may still be read, prove.
Sorry. All you have proved is that, where Titanic is concerned, people are able to let their fanciful imagination run riot.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ukraineunited56 You haven't actually explained anything, and personal insults are a poor excuse for debate.
Let's see what there is to know. He was Chairman of a successful Shipping Line, and helped to drive through the creation of a class of large liner built in response to Cunard's Lusitania. He sailed on the maiden voyage of the second one, which was involved in a tragedy.
He is reported to have helped women passengers into lifeboats, before boarding one of the last boats as it was being lowered with spaces on it.
He was deeply traumatised by the sinking, withdrew almost entirely from public life, but, according to Paul Louden-Brown, "Ismay and the Titanic'" (Titanic Historical Society, 10 January, 2001), his work with the the Liverpool & London Steamship Protection & Indemnity Association Limited, an insurance company founded by his father, meant that 'Hundreds of thousands of pounds were paid out in insurance claims to the relatives of Titanic's victims; the misery created by the disaster and its aftermath dealt with by Ismay and his directors with great fortitude, this, despite the fact that he could easily have shirked his responsibilities and resigned from the board. He stuck with the difficult task and during his twenty-five-year chairmanship hardly a page of the company's minutes does not contain some mention of the Titanic disaster.'
Ismay maintained an interest in maritime affairs. He inaugurated a cadet ship called Mersey used to train officers for Britain's Merchant Navy, donated £11,000 to start a fund for lost seamen, and in 1919 gave £25,000 (approximately equivalent to £1.4 million in 2023)[35] to set up a fund to recognise the contribution of merchant mariners in the First World War.
The attacks made on him by W. R. Hearst, an influential press baron who was an enemy of Ismay on both a personal and a business level, and which involved Hearst's newspapers calling him 'J. Brute Ismay, seem to have rather swayed perceptions of him.
Feel free to check any or all of the above, of course.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Tomb-Wraith 'No. Red is, and has always been, the traditional standard for distress. Not white.' Not in 1912 it wasn't. Look up any book about the methods of distress signalling at sea in 1912. White flares were used because they were visible from a greater distance. You will not find any reference to the idea that distress flares must be red. Furthermore, you seem to be determined to ignore the anxieties of Lord's own crew.
Why would Lord have been vilified had he not got there in time? Rostron didn't get there in time either, and was saluted worldwide as a hero.
'She could hold 54 passengers.' Wrong. She had CABINS for 54 passengers. Californian was twice as big as the V & W destroyers which took part in rhe Dunkirk evacuation, and had much greater on board space that a warship. Many of those destroyers brought over 800 troops back from Dunkirk on each of several trips. Moreover, Californian could have expected other ships, such as Carpathia, to arrive in two or three hours, which could them take off the survivors from her.
' I don't really care who supported him.' Apart from you, you would struggle to find anyone who comes into that category, then or now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@stefanschnabel2769 'Why is this so difficult to understand?' I really don't know. Perhaps you have cognitive difficulties, or perhaps you simply have some perverse reason or other for not accepting the obvious?
You seem to know little about gunnery, either. The fact that a ship could fire a shell for 20 miles doesn't mean that it could hit anything at 20 miles. The longest known hit by a German 11 inch gun was on HMS Glorious, at a range of 26,000 yards, or 13 nautical miles. Graf Spee, at the River Plate action, opened fire at a range of 19,500 metres, or about 10.5 nautical miles. Don't you know anything?
The Adniralty honoured Captain Fegan because he sacrificed himself, his crew, and his ship, in defence of the convoy he was escorting. The Victoria Cross, unlike some other medals, is not awarded on a whim.
Oh, and 22 minutes during which Admiral Scheer was engaging Jervis Bay, was 22 minutes when she was unable to fire on other ships in the convoy, which were scattering in diverse directions in fading light. Hence, Admiral Scheer's failure to achieve much against the convoy. Good luck trying to find any naval historian or writer who agrees with you.
Either you are very young, very stupid, or very prejudiced. Whichever it is, I am done with you and your crass comments.
Do not expect any further responses to your inane remarks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
This wouldn't be mentioned in the video, because it is total invention on Gardiner's part. Had the stern of Olympic been displaced by 45 degrees, how was it that she returned to Southampton under her own power, and how was it that there were no photographs of this remarkable damage, or even accounts of it in reports or newspapers, at the time?
Perhaps you might explain the rationale behind the suggestion that the Admiralty would order a Royal Navy captain to ram one of the great liners, which was carrying over 2,000 passengers and crew, including numerous prominent Americans, to see if it sank? Gardiner was inventing things to sell his book. What is your excuse?
HMS Hawke was, by the way, where she was because she had just completed a short refit in Portsmouth, and was about to undertake sea trials. As Star Trek transporter technology was not around in 1911. in order to leave Portsmouth she was obliged to use the Solent. She had, therefore, every right to be where she was.
Commander Blunt, as both Robin Gardiner & you ought to have known, was cleared of any responsibility for the collision as part of the findings of the Hearing following the incident. He was in the zone which made him eligible for promotion to Captain, and received his appointment to HMS Cressy in January, 1912. After, the verdict of the Hearing had been handed down.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
'He stalked Marian Thayer on the voyage, wrote love letters to her, he cheated on his wife, etc.' Actually, after the sinking, he confided, in writing, to Mrs. Thayer, after His wife went so far as to ban any conversation about the Titanic from taking place in Ismay's presence, but Ismay still had a lot to say about it. So instead of confiding in his family, he turned to another survivor, Marian Thayer, an American who had lost her husband when the ship went down.
"[Thayer] wrote to [Ismay] gentle, forgiving letters and Ismay just poured his heart out to her," Wilson says. "So as his marriage was crumbling in England in the year after the Titanic went down, he was becoming more and more and more emotionally dependent on Marian Thayer."
Proof of infatuation, or of infidelity, Where? I am confident, of course, that you have a totally unimpeachable source. Haven't you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If that is what you heard, then your hearing is defective. Apart from you apparently, mishearing the name of the ship (actually, Olympic) the cruiser involved in the collision, HMS Hawke, did not have a 'bow designed for ramming' but simply a ram style bow. Look up 'Edgar class cruiser' for further information. The term applied to the shape of the bow, not the purpose of the bow.
Next, the Inspection Report, issued by the Admiralty in late 1911, and supported by teams from the Board of Trade and White Star, summarised Olympic's damage as “Two major watertight compartments were flooded, hull plating gashed from the Orlop deck to E deck, and the starboard propeller shafting damaged.” No reference, you observe, to any damaged propeller, only to a shaft, which was indeed replaced by one waiting to be installed in Titanic. The propeller swap claim was invented by switcher fanatics, as they sought to explain away the inconvenient Titanic (401) number on a propeller blade at the wrecksite.
Olympic was repaired by Harland & Wolff, and returned to sea in late November, 1911, with full Board of Trade certification, and her £1 million insurance, in place. Indeed, she had made several more Atlantic crossings before Titanic sailed in April 1912.
Swapping of namplates would not have been possible, as White Star ships had their names engraved into the hull, then painted in.
Any connection with the creation of the Federal Reserve was a fictional invention from the rise of social media in the 1990s, when actual knowledge of a subject was not necessary should fantasists wish to make bizarre claims about it. For example, the supposed three men who opposed the Fed., Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus, can be proven to have been nothing of the sort. The first two never expressed their opinions, and the third had actually spoken in favour of the Fed. in October, 1911. His comments can still be read in the archives of the New York Times, by the way.
A word of advice. Don't simply swallow whole any conspiracy fantasy video you stumble across. It makes you look such a berk when you repeat it!
1
-
1
-
1
-
Fact. Olympic was dully repaired and back at sea by later Novembeer, 1911. The cost? £25,000 or 1.67% of her origonal building costs.
Fact. Morgan had said in March that he was attending an event at St. Mark's in Venice on 23 April, whic he could not have done had he sailed in Titanic. This was even mentioned in the NYT of 28 March, 1912.
Fact. Of the three rich men, two, Astor & Guggenheim, had never expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst the third, Straus, had, in October 1911, given a speech in favour of the idea.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevinswinyer3176 The bunker fire was well aft of the mark seen on a photograph. No-one reported any heat forward of the bunker, and even areas close to the bunker, such as the swimming pool, were not affected.
Do you really think that Smith would have set sail in a ship with a damaged hull, still less one where you claim that the fire 'played a part in the overall weakening of the starboard side of the hull, due to the fact that the heat would have still weakened the entire area of the hull forward of the Bunker that had the fire.' Do you actually know how much heat would need to be generated? Sorry, no one seriously suggested that at the Inquiry, or for 80 years afterwards, until a journalist invented the idea.
Oh, and striking the iceberg head on would have caused far more damage than the alternative Murdoch intended, which was to avoid any collision at all.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Bilski86 'Mr Andrew’s said it best “she’s made of iron so. I assure she can.” ' Thomas Andrews is not known to have said any such thing, although Victor Garber did in a movie.
I believe Ismay himself said he turned his back to avoid watching the ship sink. But even so, the ship broke in half because, as the forward end slipped below the sea and the stern lifted, that stern was subjected to stresses far above anything for which the ship had been designed. A number of others, including Lightoller, also thought that the ship did not break. Perhaps because they had more pressing matters, like staying alive, to concern them at the time?
The Olympic design was not faulty. It simply was not expected that five, or possibly six, compartments would be compromised in one wholly unpredictable accident.
Neither White Star nor Harland and Wolff ever advertised the ship as 'unsinkable.' Had the suggestion ever been put to the real Thomas Andrews, then he might well have said “she’s made of iron. I assure you she can sink.”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
' i Always Knew It wasn't the Titanic
That set sail on April 12th, Especially with all the Damage to the Hull, The Fire in the Engine room, The Damage
to one of the Compartment doors, I knew all along they Switched the ships. And from then on it was Foul play.'
You knew all that, did you? Perhaps, then, you might explain how it was that Olympic returned to sea, fully repaired, from 20 November, 1911 onwards, when Titanic was around five months from completion?
Or how, by the time Titanic left Southampton on 10 April, 1912, Olympic had completed five Atlantic round trips, and was in New York, half way through her sixth? Not bad for a cripple, eh?
Or how stoker survivors testified at the British Inquiry that a spontaneous combustion fire in one (of 19) bunkers had been extinguished some 24 hours before the collision, having damaged nothing more than paintwork in the affected bunker?
Or what was the purpose of an 'insurance job' which cost White Star £500,000 (both Olympics were only insured for two thirds of their building costs), a major asset, and their safety record?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Au contraire, mon vieux. The forward end of 'B' deck on the wrecksite, with the irregularly spaced rectangular, windows, is diagnostic of the Titanic of 1912, and different from Olympic's appearance until after her post Titanic sinking refit, when she received the same uograde.
Do try to think. Had this not been the case, wouldn't someone, just possibly, have mentioned it?
By someone, of course, I mean a serious Titanic researcher or historian, or perhaps had bben involved in one of the many expeditions to the site?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kristelvidhi5038 The Japanese did not do 'great work' with their carriers. They crippled the US Pacific Fleet with a surprise attack on a neutral country, but the first time they faced a prepared US force at Midway they were heavily defeated, and their carrier force was permanently in retreat thereafter,
They did, however, operate aircraft specifically designed for carrier operations, and operated the carriers as part of a larger Task Group with a number of supporting battleships, cruisers, & destroyers.
The Germans knew nothing about carrier aviation, intended to use aircraft designed for land operations, such as the Bf109 and the Ju87, and lacked the essential support warships.
As for intellectual prowess, what sort of genius deliberately picks a war with the three greatest industrial powers on the planet?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nonsense. By the time Bismarck was sunk, she had lost her main armament and command staff, was settling by the stern and developing a steadily increasing list, and was a mass of internal fires. David Mearns, on of the leaders of the expeditions to inspect her, reported that any attempt to scuttle whould have speeded up the sinking by 'a matter of minutes, only.' Perhaps you consider that a scuttled ship is slightly less sunk?
Both the US & Royal Navies have a tradition that says, 'we fight the ship, not the men.' The fact is that a U boat report was given to Captain Martin of HMS Dorsetshire by a look out. His first duty, and that of any commander in wartime, was to his own ship and men. Are you suggesting that he should have trusted to the sporting instincts of the commander of the U-boat?
U74 was indeed in the area, reported seeing British heavy ships although she was not in a position to attack, and later surfaced amid a large number of bodies and wreckage. She did pick uo one or two survivors.
By the way, perhaps you are unaware that, when Scharnhorst & Geneisenau sank HMS Glorious, HMS Ardent, & HMS Acasta, off Norway in 1940, they left around 2,000 men in the water to die? A shame the Anglo-American tradition hadn't reached the Kriegsmarine, wasn't it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
'And he was far more thorough than Lord Mersey and the British Board of Trade, who were mostly invested in applying the whitewash brush.' Let's see. The British Inquiry last twice as long, and had a greater number of witnesses, from a much wider group of involved persons, than the American one. Perhaps you should read the minutes & the findings before commenting upon them?
In detail,
US Inquiry - 18 days, 86 witnesses. British Inquiry - 36 days, 98 witnesses.
Did the US Inquiry interview expert witnesses, such as Alexander Carlisle, designer of the Olympics, or Leonard Peskett, designer of the Lusitanias, or John Pritchard, retired Master of Mauretania, or Joseoh Ranson, Master of Baltic, or Harold Sanderson, Vice President of IMM, or Ernest Shackleton, or William Stewart, Master of Empress of Britain?
The British Inquiry was far more detailed, and far more exhaustive, involving people from all levels, from surviving Greasers to the Vice-Chairman of IMM.
By the way, what do you consider was 'whitewashed?'
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jeanie6936 I will simply repeat what Carlisle said at the Inquiry, which was that he expected the Board of Trade to amend their rules concerning lifeboats to take account of the much larger ships entering service. Mauretania entered service in November, 1907, two months after Lusitania.
Carlisle designed the Olympics to be capable of carrying an enhanced number of boats, but as he retired at the end of June, 1910, and Olympic was not even launched until late October, 1910, he was not in post to make any recommendations. However, you might find the following relevant, perhaps?
Question 21267 at the British Inquiry relates to a previous interview given by Carlisle which was as follows The questioner was Mr. Butler Aspinall, who was quoting from a statement Carlisle had given to a British newspaper which read :-
"When working out the designs of the 'Olympic' and the 'Titanic' I put my ideas before the davit constructors, and got them to design me davits which would allow me to place, if necessary, four lifeboats on each pair of davits, which would have meant a total of over 40 boats. Those davits were fitted in both ships, but though the Board of Trade did not require anything more than the 16 lifeboats 20 boats were supplied."
You might also wish to consider the following. The questions are from the Commissioner, and Mr. Aspinall, and the answers from Mr. Carlisle :-
21275. (The Commissioner.) Where did you get them (the davits) from?
- From the davit constructor. We made a rough design in Belfast ourselves, and then I sent it to him to draw the kind of davit he would recommend, seeing that prior to that he had designed one for the Union-Castle Line to carry two boats.
21276. Is that the same design as the smaller one?
- The first you have in your hand was got out about the middle of the year 1909. That was the original thing before the plan was made.
21277. Which was?
- That small one. That is the one for consideration which I put before Lord Pirrie and the directors of the White Star. Then when I pointed out that I expected the Board of Trade and the Government would require much larger boat accommodation on these large ships, I was authorised then to go ahead and get out full plans and designs, so that if the Board of Trade did call upon us to fit anything more we would have no extra trouble or extra expense.
21278. You would be ready to go on with it?
- Yes.
21279. How many boats does this represent?
- That represents 32 boats - 16 doubled. There they are as fitted in the Union-Castle Line. That was done in 1909. That was on the "Edinburgh Castle," I think. (The witness pointed on the plan.) When I saw that one I thought we would improve upon that, and this is the plan I got out.
(The witness explained the plan to the Commissioner.)
21280. (The Commissioner.) What I understand Mr. Carlisle to say is this: He was of opinion, or thought it possible, that, having regard to the size of the "Titanic," the Board of Trade might require greater lifeboat accommodation; and he mentioned this to Lord Pirrie and to other people connected with Messrs. Harland and Wolff, and he was then told to prepare plans for the instalment of larger lifeboat accommodation, and he accordingly prepared this plan. Now this plan provides for, as I understand, four boats upon one set of davits. (To the witness.) Is not that so?
- Yes.
21281. Later on he prepared another plan, which is this, which provides for two boats to each set of davits, instead of one, but neither plan was utilised because the Board of Trade did not require any increased accommodation beyond that which was originally contemplated before these plans came into existence. That is right?
- That is so.
At 21288, Carlisle continued : I came over from Belfast in October, 1909, with these plans that were worked out, and also the decorations, and Mr. Ismay and Mr. Sanderson and Lord Pirrie and myself spent about four hours together.
21289. Did Mr. Sanderson discuss those plans?
- Mr. Sanderson, I think, never spoke.
21290. Did he sit for four hours without speaking?
- No; but that was over the whole of the decorations; we took the entire decorations of that ship.
21291. Never mind about the decorations; we are talking about the lifeboats?
- The lifeboat part I suppose took five or ten minutes.
21292. Then, am I to understand that these plans which you are now producing were discussed, at this four hours interview for five or ten minutes?
- That is so.'
'What do you have to say about that, Albert?' I assume that is addressed to me? If so, I have nothing to say, because I have left the talking to Alexander Carlisle,
Seriously, why do you not simply read the minutes, or is it that you prefer argument to debate?
1
-
1
-
'A 1st class, passenger, Elizabeth Lindsey Lines, cabin D-28, overheard a conversation between Cptn. Smith and Bruce Ismay in the ship's lounge that went something like this:
JBI: So you've not yet lit the last four boilers?'
Mrs. Lines was, doubtless, an honest and accurate witness. To quote the relevant section of her testimony, it went from question 41 onwards :-
41. Are you able to state from your recollection the words that you heard spoken between Mr. Ismay and Captain Smith on that occasion?
- We had had a very good run. At first I did not pay any attention to what they were saying, they were simply talking and I was occupied, and then my attention was arrested by hearing the day's run discussed, which I already knew had been a very good one in the preceeding (sic) twenty-four hours, and I heard Mr. Ismay - it was Mr. Ismay who did the talking - I heard him give the length of the run, and I heard him say "Well, we did better to-day than we did yesterday, we made a better run to-day than we did yesterday, we will make a better run to-morrow. Things are working smoothly, the machinery is bearing the test, the boilers are working well". They went on discussing it, and then I heard him make the statement: "We will beat the Olympic and get in to New York on Tuesday."
42. In your last statement, Mrs. Lines, were you giving the substance of the conversation or the exact words which were used?
- I heard "We will beat the Olympic and get in to New York on Tuesday" in those words.
43. If there were any particular words spoken that you can remember, I should be glad to hear them.
- Those words fixed themselves in my mind: "We will beat the Olympic and get in to New York on Tuesday."
44. Do I understand you to say that the other things that you stated were the general substance of what you heard and not the exact things or words used?
- No, I heard those statements.
45. What was said by Mr. Ismay as regards the condition of the performances, of the engines, machinery and boilers?
- He said they were doing well, they were bearing the extra pressure. The first day's run had been less, the second day's run had been a little greater. He said "You see they are standing the pressure, everything is going well, the boilers are working well, we can do better to-morrow, we will make a better run to-morrow."
There was, in Mrs.Lines' testimony, no reference to lighting ' the last four boilers' at all. Moreover she was adamant about the exact words used.
Whatever influence Ismay may or may not have had over Smith, if Mrs.Lines is indeed a credible witness, then no such reference was made. At least, not within the earshot of Mrs.Lines.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@HaremScarem1762 The 'copy and paste' quote was from the minutes of the Inquiry. I simply quoted from the text, which you would know, had you actually read it.
'What do you deduce from - (Ismay to Smith) ''So you've not yet lit the last four boilers'', and we'll do better tomorrow''? ' What I deduce from that is that you haven't actually read Mrs. Lines' deposition. Had you done so, you would have known that she made no reference to any such comment, by Ismay or by anyone else. Therefore, further response on my part is not necessary. I note, however, that you actually made it up :- 'A 1st class, passenger, Elizabeth Lindsey Lines, cabin D-28, overheard a conversation between Cptn. Smith and Bruce Ismay in the ship's lounge that went something like this:
JBI: So you've not yet lit the last four boilers?' In your original post
Hoist by your own Petard, mon vieux?
'Maybe you'll tell us that Mrs Lines had cognitive and dementia issues as well just like you suggested Eva Hart had.' I made no such reference about either person. I have never doubted the accuracy of Mrs. Lines' deposition, and all I remarked about Eva Hart was that it was probable that her account was influenced by things she heard later in life. What her seven years old self remembered is unknown, as her first, short, account of the sinking dated from August, 1980. You can listen to the British Library recording if you like. She recorded a second interview in 1993. You can listen to that, too.
She subsequently, in 1994, wrote an autobiography, 'Shadow of the Titanic – A Survivor's Story' Thus, her first, very brief, account of what happened was given when she was seventy five years old. Are you seriously suggesting that she had not read or heard anything at all about Titanic since the ship sank in April, 1912.
'ps, is your book worth a read?' Well, according to reviews from several noted naval historians, yes it is. Not that it is appropriate for me to express any opinion.
By the way, I will ignore any further comments from you, as you aren't actually worth my time and effort.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nickdanger3802 Actually, the Bengal Famine had a number of causes, among which were the number of refugees from Japanese held areas, the inability to import food from those same areas, stockpiling by hoarders and, perhaps worst of all, the Bengal administration, which tried to minimise the crisis. The worst that could be said of Churchill was that he should have known what was taking place, but didn't. After all, in 1943, he had little else to worry about.
You could also add the refusal of FDR to allow the transfer of merchant shipping, by the way. What is without dispute, except by those who choose to blame Churchill for everything since the Black Death, is that once he did find out, he transferred food distribution to the British Indian Army, and had grain convoys diverted from Australia to India.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@user-li2yv5je5e Indeed, it is important that facts should be correct.
In this case, after the initial Admiralty Inquiry, which did indeed determine that Olympic was at fault, the White Star Line took the issue to court. In the 'Oceanic Steam Navigation Company versus Commander William Frederick Blunt, Royal Navy,' the White Star Line maintained that the Hawke was the guilty party. The Royal Navy countered by going on record that the Olympic did not signal the Hawke of her turn, when in fact she did.
There was the question of speed. Captain Smith estimated that his speed at the time of the collision was 16 knots and denied that his ship was doing 20 as the Royal Navy suggested. A naval architect who examined the damage estimated that the two vessels were traveling at about the same speed at the moment of impact.
The lawyers for the Royal Navy brought up another interesting theory, that of suction. They claimed that the suction from the Olympic’s huge propellers pulled the Hawke into the liner’s side.
This theory was tested in a laboratory setting at the National Physical Laboratory at Teddington. There, wax models of the Olympic and the Hawke were constructed and placed in a water tank. A small motor was used to operate the “Olympic," and the two models were put on parallel courses at speeds in which the two ships were traveling at the time of impact.
The results of the experiments bore out the Admiralty’s theory. In the first experiment, the model of the cruiser swerved toward the liner. In the second, the helm of the “Hawke" was put over 20 degrees, yet she still swerved toward the model of the liner.21 Present at the nine experiments was naval constructor David Watson Taylor of the U.S. Navy. He concluded that if the positions of the two ships were as the witnesses from the cruiser had stated, the “vessels would develop a strong suction tending to draw the Hawke toward the Olympic. The sheering of the Hawke’s bow would be against the helm, and would rapidly become irresistible, so that no hard-to-port helm of 35 degrees could stop it.”
Taylor further went on to say that it would have been impossible for the cruiser to overtake and pass the liner even if she were the faster ship. He stated, “the tendency to sheer in as she got up toward the Olympic would become stronger and stronger, and in my view she would not be able to get her stem abreast of the center of the Olympic. She would fast get into the position of the maximum sheering tendency.”
Professor John Biles, a naval architect at Glasgow University who was present at the experiments, agreed. “Assuming the vessels to be parallel,” Biles concluded, “1 do not think the Hawke could come through the danger zone and get bridge to bridge at a lateral distance of 100 yards. She would turn in.”
Others disagreed. The pilot of the Olympic said that in all of his years of piloting, he never heard of the theory'. Captain Smith stated, “I don’t know anything about it, but it might do so.” The captain of the Mauritania testified that he never experienced this phenomenon.
In the end, the court agreed with the Admiralty. The president of the court did not openly use the word “suction” but concluded that the Hawke was “carried towards the Olympic in a swerve beyond her control.” The court also ruled that “the Olympic had ample room and water in the channel to the northward. She came too close to the cruiser on the south side of the channel. She did not take proper steps to keep out of the way.”
Don't trouble to apologise for your initial rudeness. I will simply attribute it to ignorance of White Star's appeal, and the court case which resulted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The keel was not bent. The collision was a low speed one, according to HMS Hawke's captain. Ay around eight knots, in fact. Hawke's bow penetrated around six to eight feet into Olympic's starboard quarter. As the Olympics had beams of ninety two feet, then her keel was never remotely in danger of damage.
At least, not until an amateur hisrorian, Robin Gardiner, wrote a silly book, 'Titanic - The Ship That Never Sank?' which was published in 1998. To make the claim of the imaginary swap, Gardiner invented the keel damage, despite the fact that in reality White Star paid Harland & Wolff around £26,000 (1911 values) to repair Olympic, which took them around seven weeks, and led to her returning to sea in later November, 1911, when Titanic was still around five months from completion.
By the way, the company which you suggest was likely to 'go under' had generated a profit in excess of £1 million in the year to 31 December, 1911, and were so far from bankrupt that in the same month that Olympic returned to sea the order for the third ship in the class, Britannic, was confirmed with H & W.
Certainly, Harland & Wolff do not seem to have known of this alleged keel damage. In fact, no-one with any actual knowledge of the facts gives it the slightest credence, although enthusiasts for conspiracy theories, usually after watching one or two switcher videos, do tend to go overboard on it. Pardon the pun, by the way!
One or two points, which aren't necessary anyway as once the keel damage nonsense is discarded the entire argument collapses. :-
1). When Californian docked in Boston on 19 April, she was reported as carrying a 'mixed, general' cargo. No reference at all to any cargo of sweaters, which was another, much later, invention.
2). There were a number of structural differences between the two ships. They were sisters, but not twins. The forward end of Titanic's 'B' deck was different from that of the Olympic of 1912. The wreck matches the known configuration of Titanic, and differs from that of Olympic.
3). There was little wrong with Olympic when she was scrapped in the 1930s, except her age.Perhaps you are unaware that the newly merged company also scrapped her old rival Mauretania at the same time? The reason for the scrappings was a simple, commercial. one. With the decline in transatlantic traffic, and in the middle of the Great Depression, they were both simply surplus to requirements.
In short, you would lose your $100 when you allow facts and reality intrude on your charming fantasy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PeterPete 'Olympic returned to service in Nov 1911 after her repair, she would have under gone a B of Trade inspection then to establish her seaworthiness.
how do you know this to be true?'
Because at the time, Olympic, along with Cunarders Lusitania & Mauretania, was one of the most famous ships in the world. Don't you think that the Board of Trade might have noticed had she sailed when still uncertified? or that her insurers, Lloyds of London, might have done more than simply raised a quizzical eyebrow?
Any such action by White Star would have led to huge financial punishment, probable imprisonment, and total loss of credibility for the White Star brand. Cunard would have thought all their Christmases had arrived early.
just possibly, a dodgy small company operating a few small tramps might have chanced it. One of the most prestigious shipping companies in the world, NEVER. Please don't be so silly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PeterPete Unfortunately for your argument, no Titanic propeller was ever transferred to Olympic. Or, at least, if one was it must have happened when Harland and Wolff weren't looking. Their archives detail the work carried out to repair Olympic, and confirm that parts of the partially completed Titanic's propeller SHAFT were used, but there is no suggestion that the propeller itself was removed.
As the pitches of the propeller blades of the two ships were different, one from Titanic would not have worked efficiently on Olympic, and vice versa. Indeed, had the blades been identical, there would have been no need for them to be specifically numbered in the first place.
The report issued by the Admiralty following an inspection of Olympic carried out jointly by them, the Board of Trade, and the White Star Line, summarised the damage to Olympic as “Two major watertight compartments were flooded, hull plating gashed from the Orlop deck to E deck, and the starboard propeller shafting damaged.”
There was no reference to propeller damage or, come to that, to the mythical keel damage so beloved of switchers. Indeed, contemporary reports remarked on the robust nature of the Olympic design.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PeterPete Reading back through the myriad posts, mainly between you and 'Cornelius,' a number of facts may be observed.
1). It took you a month to correct your lightship error, and only then after being told about it.
2). Your response to everything critical of your fantasy seems to be 'How do you know? You weren't there.' This statement usually falls out of fashion with people once they get past fourteen years or so of ager.
3). You get rather aggressive and insulting when challenged.
4). You demand evidence from others, but haven't produced a single credible piece yourself.
Incidentally, when/if you reply, don't simply send a reference to a book or two, but send an actual, credible, argument which I can examine.
I don't mind trying to educate you on this subject, but don't feel inclined to undertake all the work myself.
1
-
1
-
@PeterPete How is this relevant to any of my previous posts? However, as I have read H & W records on the matter, and you obviously have not, I will correct you. H & W, and White Star, by the way, only record the loss of a blade once in 1912.
Olympic lost a blade from her port wing propeller on 24 February, 1912, on her way from New York to Southampton. She completed the voyage, vibrating somewhat, on 29 February, returning to Belfast on 1 March. and completing repairs on 5 March.
The blades on the wing propellers of the Olympics, by the way, were bolted on, unlike the centre propeller, which was a one piece casting, three bladed in the case of Titanic, and four bladed, at the time, on Olympic. There is, by the way, a photograph of the dry docked Olympic, clearly showing the damaged, or rather, missing, blade. Oddly, in view of your convictions, this photograph doesn't seem to show any keel damage, by the way!
As Olympic had left the yard, some of the team working to complete Titanic had to be transferred back to Olympic to repair her as quickly as they did.
This, by the way, doesn't seem to be relevant to my earlier posts, and certainly isn't my unsupported 'opinion.'
1
-
1
-
@PeterPete I see. You cannot argue reasonably, so you resort to the old 'the sources have been doctored' argument, the classic last refuge of the conspiracy theorist who has no actual evidence of his own.
Why would anyone bother to 'doctor' such a record? Whether Olympic lost one blade or two in 1912, what possible relevance might that have? There is no record of Olympic returning to Belfast after her departure in early March, 1912 in any newspaper archive known to me, nor in H & W's records, until 9 October, 1912, when she was docked for a refit to incorporate lessons learned from the Titanic sinking.
The refit involved increasing the number of lifeboats carried by Olympic from twenty to sixty four, and extra davits were installed along the boat deck to accommodate them. Also, an inner watertight skin was constructed in the boiler and engine rooms. Five of the Watertight Bulkheads were extended up to B-deck, and an extra bulkhead was added to subdivide the electrical dynamo room, bringing the total number of watertight compartments to 17. These modifications now meant that the Olympic could survive a collision similar to that of the Titanic in that her first six compartments could be breached and the ship could remain afloat.
At the same time, Olympic's B Deck was refitted with extra cabins and public rooms, this necessitated deleting her B-Deck promenades – one of the few features that separated her from her sister ship. With these changes, Olympic's gross tonnage rose to 46,359 tons, 31 tons more than Titanic's. All this is documented by H & W.
She returned to sea in March, 1913.
Still, enlightening to observe that you have abandoned attempting to argue on the basis of facts, and now choose to restrict yourself to vague generalities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Perhaps Lightoller, who had been a seaman since 1887, might possibly have known more about things than Senator Smith, who was an expert on Railroad Law?
Smith achieved some notoriety for being more colourful than knowledgeable, even being called "Watertight Smith" by the British press for asking whether watertight compartments, actually meant to keep the ship afloat, were meant to shelter passengers.
In addition to this, Smith also asked the ship's fifth officer Harold Lowe what an iceberg was made of, to which Lowe responded, "Ice, I suppose, sir?".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
'There’s several photos of Titanic shortly after launch with the enclosed B Deck. These books are easily the most comprehensive set on Titanic.'
'B' Deck on Titanic was, at the time of her launch, exactly the same as that of Olympic, in that the window patterns matched those of Olympic. Thus, 'B' deck was enclosed at the time of launch on both ships, as far as a point between the third and fourth funnels.
However, you originally claimed that 'there are photos of Titanic being launched with exterior B Deck modifications already made'. Which is simply not correct.
Any debate has been about the subsequent modifications, which, externally on Titanic, resulted in a revised, irregular, window pattern at the forward end of the deck, when compared to Olympic, or, indeed, to the original Titanic configuration, because of internal modifications which involved improvements and extensions to first class staterooms and the installation of the Cafe Parisien. These modifications appear to have been undertaken in late 1911.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Prinz Eugen, Scharnhorst, and Gneisenau were able to flee through the Channel in February, 1942, because there was no longer a threat of invasion, and the British had relocated their heavy naval rsources to other areas, specifically to the north in order to provide a screen for Russian convoys against potential attacks by the Tirpitz, which had just been sent to Norway.
Operations against the German ships in Brest had been left to the RAF, with unfortunate results, but even then the German strategic reverse which was the Channel Dash still came as a welcome surprise to the RN, as if effectively demonstrated that the German surface fleet had abandoned plans to operate in the Atlantic.
Gneisenau & Scharnhorst were both damaged by mines, by the way. Gneisenau was later further damaged in harbour and never sailed again. Scharnhorst sailed in one further action, where she was sunk, and Prinz Eugen spent the rest of the war wandering around the Baltic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@screeny_ What is this 'Big Lie' of which you speak? Had I chosen to write about WMDs, I would have used an appropriate site.
On the subject of your actual question, firstly, the names were erased because the newsreels were supposed to represent Titanic in Southampton, when they were actually of Olympic in New York. Hence, the port of registry, 'New York' might have been something of a giveaway.
Secondly, the evidence-free Federal Reserve/Titanic connection was an invention of the 1990s. No suggestion of it at all predates the growth of social media. Passengers aboard were on their way to the US because that was were the ship was going. Had they been heading for Cairo, then that might have been suspicious.
Finally, if you refer to cognitive dissonance you should first find out how ro spell it, and then find out what the term means. It is actually 'the discomfort a person feels when their behaviour does not align with their values or beliefs'.
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when a person holds two contradictory beliefs at the same time. Something which certainly does not apply to me, and never has.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@screeny_ I know damned well it was you, because I know equally damned well it wasn't me. Perhaps sarcasm is not a word in your vocabulary?
I assess the concept of the 'big lie' on my assessment of whether there is, or is not, any credible evidence to support the allegation. As everyone should, although few Conspiracy Theorists ever do.
In the case of my opinion about Titanic, it is based on a host of factors, the main ones being the total lack of credible evidence to support the idea, the vast amount of evidence which supports the contention that the wreck really is Titanic, and the fact that the claims of a conspiracy date back no further than the 1990s and the rise of social media, when it became unnecessary to have any knowledge in order to present a theory, however absurd.
Still, feel free to avoid the issue, as you appear to be intent upon doing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@darkmath100 Except that have you any proof at all that anyone aboard Titanic knew where Californian was at the time? The only ship actually known to be making for Titanic was Carpathia. I accept that Titanic's officers probably knew about her, certainly her command staff did, but no one at all knew about Californian.
"a small cargo/passenger liner with space for 47 passengers" You mean accommodation for 47 passengers which is far different than temporarily holding 1500 passengers on her deck.' I don't mean anything at all. I simply describe what sort of ship Californian was. If, however, the rescue was part of the fantastical plot you seem fixated upon, she was hardly the right sort of ship for the task.
'If he didn't file a cargo manifest because there was no cargo then why would she be sailing across the Atlantic?' Because he was carrying a cargo, and the ship was on her regular route. The Leyland line were what was known as 'Common Carriers,' in that they would transport anything and everything that earned money.
By the way, you presumably haven't read the evidence that Ernest Gill, of Californian gave on Day 8 of the US Senate Inquiry :- "I turned in, but could not sleep. In half an hour I turned out, thinking to smoke a cigarette. Because of the cargo, I could not smoke 'tween decks, so I went on deck again."
Californian may have been carrying literally hundreds of 'parcels' of general cargo [just about everything ever traded] on hundreds of bills of lading; all collated on a 'ship's report outward/inward' otherwise known as the 'manifest'. Copies of this document would be lodged inter alia with the custom house at Liverpool or London and Boston and should be in either archive. When you say that no such manifest was lodged, I simply do not believe you, because such documents were essential in order to determine the level of duties payabler.
This, by the way, may be of interest :- A reference to Californian in a newspaper The steamer was loaded with a miscellaneous cargo and berthed at the B & A docks in East Boston." Boston Traveller, April 19, 1912, p.7. "B & A docks" stands for "Boston and Albany docks."
1
-
@darkmath100 'If the crew was in on it then of course there would be no other proof?' So now you believe the crew were involved? Was anyone alive in 1912 actually not part of the plot, in your mind?
Interestingly, I have a copy of Edith's first account of the sinking, published only a year later. What she actually writes is :- 'Just then, I spied an officer, and said to him, “Tell me, Mr. Officer. Shall I leave in a lifeboat? Is there any danger?” to which he answered, “I do not think there is any immediate danger, but this boat is damaged, and she certainly cannot proceed to New York. She may be towed into the nearest harbor. We expect the Olympic along in the next two or three hours.' Care to comment?
When Californian arrived in Boston, the following report appeared in the local newspaper :- 'The Californian was loaded with a miscellaneous cargo and berthed at the B & A docks in East Boston." Boston Traveller, April 19, 1912, p.7. "B & A docks" stands for "Boston and Albany docks." ' Does that suggest a cargo of blankets?
As has often been said 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' I wonder if anyone has ever seriously looked for the manifest, given that this bizarre theory didn't come to light until the mid 1990s? There would be no reason to keep such documents indefinitely, especially once all relevant duties had been paid.
'The Olympic and Titanic were side by side in Belfast for over two weeks just to replace a broken propeller. That's an awfully long time for something so simple, no?' Actually, NO.
After Olympic lost a propeller blade on her way from New York to Southampton, she was able to complete the voyage before returning to Belfast for repairs. The blade was lost on 24 February, she arrived in Belfast on 1 March, and she left Belfast on 4 March. Two Weeks?
By the way, please don't dissemble. Your original post said 'The Olympic was hit by the HMS Hawke and was written off by some very clever "accounting".' That doesn't read like someone who doesn't have a preconceived view, does it?
1
-
@darkmath100 ' "The Californian was loaded with a miscellaneous cargo" I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm saying no one knows what the cargo was including the Boston Traveler in 1912.'
Indeed. So why do you simply assume that Californian was carrying nothing but blankets? Don't you think that, had a ship known to have been in the immediate vicinity of Titanic when she sank, arrived in Boston with a full load of blankets, apparently with no consignee in the States, someone might have asked a few questions? Was the press in the US at the time so unquestioning? Or was it because Californian, like every other Leyland Line ship before or after, was simply carrying a typical mixed cargo of odds and sods?
' "Was anyone alive in 1912 actually not part of the plot, in your mind?" You lose credibility when you insult your opponent.' I didn't realise you regarded me as your 'opponent.' I believed this was an exchange of opinions. Oh, well.
Charles Payne, H & W's yard manager, recorded in his journal the times taken to build various stages of both ships. He shows that work on Titanic started faster than work on Olympic, but Titanic soon fell behind and when framing was finished she was one month behind. By the time plating was finished, the gap was 2.5 months. In the time between framing and launching, Titanic lost another 1.5 months to finish four months behind.
It appears that some of the slippage may simply have been due to weather. Olympic's plating was done at the height of summer, but Titanic was plated in winter.
Slippage in construction times was not uncommon, then or now. For example, the battleship King George V, when laid down in January, 1937, was intended to be ready for sea trials by July, 1940. In fact, due to slippage, she was not ready to sail until October. As far as I know, no-one has yet suggested that she was switched, although I live in hope.
'Now, however, the delay would make perfect sense if the two ships had been swapped. Those three weeks were to build in some superficial changes so the ships didn't look alike.'
Would you suggest that the large numbers of Harland & Wolff employees who had worked on both ships then carried out small cosmetic changes on Titanic, and loyally remained silent even after their ship sank?
Moreover, they still remained silent after many had been made redundant after WW1 ended? Isn't that taking loyalty rather to extremes?
Moreover, why do you find Occam's Razor so unacceptable where this subject is concerned?
Look, it is fairly clear that you wish to believe the switch theory, as you reject every obvious reasonable answer in favour of an improbable or, at best, debatable, one.
If you wish to believe in the switch fantasy feel free, but don't pretend otherwise.
1
-
@darkmath100 What you might regard as 'snide' I would regard as sarcasm. You would have gone down a ball at the old Glasgow Empire!
I know all about J. P. Morgan. I also know, whereas you clearly do not, that Captain Smith was not found responsible for the Hawke collision. Olympic was in restricted waters at the time, and under the command of a Harbour Pilot, one George Bowyer. Bowyer had piloted Olympic into and out of Southampton previously, but on this occasion made a mistake. Or, at least, a Court determined that he had.
Smith was angry that 'his' ship had been blamed, but no responsibility was attached to him personally. Look up George Bowyer for yourself if you don't believe me. It really does pay to check the old court reports before making erroneous statements.
Smith was Commodore of the White Star Line, and had commanded the maiden voyage of every White Star Liner since 1904. Look up Baltic (1904), & Adriatic (1907), for further information. Evidently, you didn't know that either. J. P. Morgan had bigger interests than appointing ship captains, especially ships under the control of a company which had made over £1 million in profits in the financial year 1910-1911.
Smith, by the way, had informed White Star (actually, Bruce Ismay) that he wished to retire when Titanic returned to Southampton. I suppose I should assume that you didn't know that either?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Tozzpot500 I have just finished ploughing through the 'Brilliant Expattaffy's' latest video. All 1 hour 30 minutes of it. Comment is unnecessary, except to refer to 'Hamlet' Act IV Scene 1 :-
"Mad as the sea and wind, when both contend, which is the mightier"
I must confess to being flattered by a few references to myself, albeit not by name. It seems I am a liar, of course.
By the way, don't watch the video, when you come across it, in one go. After around 15 minutes, you will experience a damp sensation down both sides of your neck.
That is your brain dissolving and seeping out of your ears.
Otherwise, enjoy.
1
-
@gokulgopan4397 I have just finished ploughing through the 'Brilliant Expattaffy's' latest video. All 1 hour 30 minutes of it. Comment is unnecessary, except to refer to 'Hamlet' Act IV Scene 1 :-
"Mad as the sea and wind, when both contend, which is the mightier"
I must confess to being flattered by a few references to myself, albeit not by name. It seems I am a liar, of course.
By the way, don't watch the video, when you come across it, in one go. After around 15 minutes, you will experience a damp sensation down both sides of your neck.
That is your brain dissolving and seeping out of your ears.
Otherwise, enjoy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mr. Brady can answer for himself, should he so choose. However, I am sure that he will have read the minutes of the British Inquiry, the relevant sections being from this part of Ismay's testimony :-
18387. With whom would you discuss this question of driving her at full speed on the Monday or Tuesday?
- The only man I spoke to in regard to it was the Chief Engineer in my room when the ship was in Queenstown.
18388. Is that Mr. Bell?
- Yes.
18389. The Chief Engineer?
- Yes.
18390. Can you tell me on what day it was that she first made the 75 revolutions on this voyage?
- I think it would be on the saturday.
18391. And when was it that you discussed the question of putting her at full speed on the Monday or the Tuesday?
- On the thursday when the ship was at anchor in Queenstown Harbour.
18392. Will you explain that. It is not quite clear why you should discuss the question in Queenstown?
- The reason why we discussed it at Queenstown was this, that Mr. Bell came into my room; I wanted to know how much coal we had on board the ship, because the ship left after the coal strike was on, and he told me. I then spoke to him about the ship and I said it is not possible for the ship to arrive in New York on Tuesday. Therefore there is no object in pushing her. We will arrive there at 5 o'clock on Wednesday morning, and it will be good landing for the passengers in New York, and we shall also be able to economise our coal. We did not want to burn any more coal than we needed.
18393. Never mind about that, that does not answer the question I was putting to you. I understand what you mean by that, that you did not want to get there till the wednesday morning at 5 o'clock, and that therefore it was not necessary to drive her at full speed all the time?
- No.
18394. But the question I am putting to you is this, when was it that you discussed putting her at full speed on the Monday or the Tuesday?
- At the same time.
18395. You have not told us about that?
- That was when Mr. Bell was in my room on Thursday afternoon, when the ship was at anchor at Queenstown.
18396. But what was said about putting her at full speed?
- I said to him then, we may have an opportunity of driving her at full speed on Monday or Tuesday if the weather is entirely suitable.
18397. Then you did know on the Sunday morning that in the ordinary course of things between that and the Monday evening you might be increasing your speed to full speed?
- I knew if the weather was suitable either on the Monday or the Tuesday the vessel would go at full speed for a few hours.
18398. And I suppose you knew that in order to get the full speed of the vessel, the maximum number of revolutions, it would be necessary, presumably, to light more boilers?
- I presume the boilers would have been put on.
18399. Do you know in fact that they were lighted on the Sunday morning?
- I do not.
Where in that is there any suggestion that 'he told Joseph Bell at Queenstown how fast he wanted the ship to go every day?'
Indeed, where in that is there anything which contradicts anything Ismay said at the American Inquiry?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gokulgopan4397 Well, Lloyds shipping records demonstrated that the whaler Samson was nowhere near.
Californian, a small, fully laden, freighter, was almost ludicrously unsuited for the role of the imaginary rescue ship. Lord was certainly criticised in court, not for cowardice but for his failure to react to the concerns of his officers, and for not seeking to investigate even to the extent of waking his wireless operator.
Lusitania was not 'sent to be sunk.' She was lost because the Germans had recently instituted a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare.
AS to the M & P letter claim. This appeared, with no provenance, in 2000 or thereabouts. No exploration team has ever claimed it, nor even referred to it, despite the sensation it would have made if one had. Moreover, even the creator of the myth, Robin Gardiner, denounced it as fake.
You need to be a total fanatic to oppose the opinion of the creator of the fantasy to which you cling!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Embracing01 Unfortunately John Hamer has form, in that he never stumbled across a conspiracy fantasy he didn't swallow whole and unquestioningly. In this case he repeated, more or less parrot-fashion, the contents of Robin Gardiner's utterly discredited book, written in the 1990s. To give you an example of his trustworthiness, I quote the following statement he made in an interview as recently as 2021. :-
"I've spoken to quite a few people who've been obliquely involved in it. For example, I spoke to Bertie Lightoller, who was second officer, the most senior surviving officer." That was quite an achievement, given that Lightoller died in December, 1952, and Hamer was born in the same year. Oh well, I suppose he might have been precocious!
So, three 'independent families' came forward, but sadly he never managed to produced confirmatory evidence. How unfortunate!
Do you seriously suggest that some shadowy body is policing the internet and monitoring comments about the Titanic sinking? Seriously?
If the families didn't want to be filmed, why did they allegedly come forward in the first place?
You ask me not to insult you, but you feel able to insult the integrity of several thousand Belfast shipyard workers and their descendants?
1
-
@Embracing01 Quotation, followed by source, little chap :
Hamer: "I've spoken to quite a few people who've been obliquely involved in it. For example, I spoke to Bertie Lightoller, who was second officer, the most senior surviving officer. I spoke to his nephew and he had some interesting titbits to tell me about various different things. That didn't quite follow the official narrative." (General Knowledge Podcast BONUS CONTENT SHOW Teaser 5 - The Titanic Conspiracy, May 13, 2021)
'Maybe the families who contacted John initially wanted to be interviewed but later decided not to or didn't want the video or audio to be published, or maybe they did but John decided to not upload it.' Lots of 'maybes' there, aren't there, but a serious dearth of solid fact. Just how John likes to do things, actually. So, you now suggest that Hamer allegedly found these people, but decided not to upload what they said. Really? You get dafter by the post.
'How do you not know they're not policing the internet about the Titanic conspiracy?' Perhaps 'they' are also 'policing the internet' checking for unguarded comments about the War of the League of Augsburg, but I doubt that as well. Who are the mysterious 'they' by the way?
You do know that the argument which says that 'the fact that there is no evidence of a conspiracy is the strongest evidence of all that there is a conspiracy' is the last refuge of the crazed conspiracy fantasist, do you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scottysgarage4393 Critical thinking skills involve assessing the available information, and making judgements based upon that information.
Perhaps you haven't studied history?
In this case, the first, silly reference to any switch, was made by one Robin Gardiner in the mid 1990s. Unfortunately, he failed to provide any credible evidence to support it.
Studies of the wreck are critical, as the layout of 'A' & 'B' decks, as well as the cast number 401 on the propeller blade, simply supported what everyone knew already, which is that the wreck was that of Titanic.
You might also not be aware that items auctioned off when Olympic was being dismantle in 1934-1937, and which may still be examined to this day, have the yard number 400 (Olympic) marked upon them?
I am perfectly capable of discussing Titanic with you at any time. Shall we see who actually ends up looking foolish?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Of course, in German eyes, she was a legitimate target. After February 1915, when the Germans declared a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, sho was every other ship.
She was, legally, carrying openly manifested small arms ammunitions. Had there been anything else, why has no trace of it every been found?
The British have never, except perhaps at the time, suggested that more than one torpedo was used, and detailed investigations have proven beyond any doubt that the second explosion was coal dust in an almost empty bunker.
'Q' ships were legitimate naval vessels. The Germans used a similar concept in both world wars.
Flying the flag of a neutral nation is hardly 'a violation of the rules of war' when done by a merchant ship, by the way.
1
-
1
-
1