Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Oceanliner Designs" channel.

  1. Read about HMS Neptune in the Mediterranean in 1941. She was mined only a few miles off Tripoli. Crew of 765. One survivor.
    82
  2.  @hudsonball4702  Wrong. Furious did indeed put to sea with an 18 inch gun. As did HMS General Wolfe, and HMS Lord Clive, WW1 monitors.
    46
  3. 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
  4.  @iwanaGoFast2010  No, your 'great great grand brother' didn't imagine anything. However, you did, when you made him up.
    25
  5.  @wrichard11  Nonsense. Lightoller left on the last collapsible, which floated away, upside down, when Titanic sank.
    24
  6.  @danielkirkland3366  Who ' literally had no money left?' White Star, who had posted profits in excess of £1 million in the financial year to 31 December, 1911? Or White Star, who confirmed their order for the third Olympic in November, 1911?
    23
  7.  @luciacastellanos5248  Isn't brilliant how adept people are at making draconian judgements, on a laptop, from a comfy chair, 110 years after the event? Have another biscuit with your coffee.
    13
  8. Conan-Doyle, through Sherlock Holmes, summed this up, when he wrote '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.' However, I would go further. Where Conspiracists & Switchers are concerned, replace 'twist' with 'invent.'
    13
  9.  @Speckled_Jim69  So, in your view all the overwhelming amount of evidence proving that there was no switch can be put down to 'corruption?' You might perhaps read up on Occam's Razor?
    12
  10. No. The ship with the problem Engineer was the old battleship Canopus, which was not at Coronel, but played a small part at the Falklands.
    11
  11.  @StuartRyan-yi5ok  Actually, there is no evidence at all that Olympic developed a permanent two degree list. She made five Atlantic round trips between late November 1911 & April, 1912. No such comment seems to have been made about her during any of these. However, a temporary slight list is not unusual, even for modern ships, and can be due to several factors. In Titanic's case, it was likely due to improper ballasting--too much on the port side or too little on the starboard, or even as a consequence of using the coal from the affected bunker first. To use this as evidence that Titanic was actually the Olympic is certainly jumping to an extreme conclusion, especially with such a lack of supporting evidence, and the vast amount of evidence to the contrary.
    10
  12.  @timtnr.6177  'This of course caused Titanic to travel faster by using more fuel rapidly.' Whereever did you get that idea from? Titanic's boilers worked ar 215 psi. All that enthusiastically shovelling coal into one or more rapidly would do would be to raise the pressure above that, at which point the safety valves would lift in order to bring it back down to the safe operating level. For similar reasons, however keen an amateur fireman on a Heritage Railway might be, he would never be able to get a tank engine to proceed along it at 100 MPH. Oh, and there was no fog. It was an exceptionally clear, exceptionally calm, night.
    9
  13.  @timtnr.6177  Sorry, but no, it wasn't. Do you have a credible source?
    9
  14.  @luciacastellanos5248  My comment, unaltered in any way, is still appropriate as it stands.
    8
  15. '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.
    8
  16.  @jritechnology  No you don't. You have to look at the information surrounding the sinking of Titanic, and make a rational judgement based on that. The rational conclusion in that case being that Titanic collided with an iceberg and sank.
    8
  17.  @foxymetroid  The forced merger of Cunard & White Star saw both the end of Old Reliable, and her old rival Mauretania, at the same time. There are photographs of the two laid up in Southampton.
    7
  18.  @JerryDayton  Why don't you simply look up Astor, Straus (and Guggenheim) for yourself, rather than swallowing a myth invented in the 1990s? Aside from that, no one was given any free tickets.
    7
  19. Olympic had been back at sea since her repairs had been completed in November, 1911. At that time, Titanic was nowhere near completed. Both ships were each insured for £1 million, having each cost £1.5 million to build. When Titanic sank, White Star lost £500,000 and their reputation for safety. Would you care to reconsider your asinine comments?
    7
  20. 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
  21.  @ryancraig9352  Sue him for what, exactly? Being Chairman of the Company, or just looking like a villain?
    6
  22.  @haredr6511  Titanic was simply maintaining the same speed as Olympic habitually did during her crossings, that of 21 knots. Titanic could have made a little more, had five boilers not been left unconnected. The ohly other ship in the area which stopped was Californian, by the way.
    6
  23.  @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.
    6
  24. 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!'
    6
  25. Careful now! Molony made a lot of money out of his nonsense, I expect.
    6
  26.  @Dizzy19.  Asking a switcher for proof? That is the very soul of optimism!
    6
  27. Indeed. Van der Vat later distanced himself from the whole nonsense.
    6
  28. It I had a pound for every piece of credible evidence which suggested that the ships had been swapped, I would still be totally skint.
    6
  29.  @nikaluss5946  How brave and self-sacrificing you are. Sitting in front of your lap top 110 years after the event.
    5
  30.  @FakeMoonRocks  How fortunate, thewn, that there was no bent keel until Gardiner invented it in the 1990s.
    5
  31. The idea came from an imaginative book by one Robin Gardiner from the mid 1990s. There is precisely no evidence to support his claim, but his nonsense did help him to sell quite a lot of books.
    5
  32. So all the survivors who reported it were the victims of a mass hallucination, were they?
    5
  33. You didn't watch the video at all, did you?
    5
  34. 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
  35. The Olympics were at least three knots slower than the turbine driven Lusitanias.
    5
  36. You really shouldn't believe unquestioningly every conspiracy fantasy video you encounter.
    5
  37.  @NamNguyen-sz4yq  Please don't be silly, and make such false claims. When did the Admiralty ever refer to the KGVs, or Vanguard, as 'battlecruisers'
    5
  38. Perhaps it the late Robin had bothered to look at the photograph of Olympic & Titanic together in October, 1911, when Olympic returned to H & W's yard for repairs following the Hawke collision, he might never have written his book? I doubt it, as verifiable facts never seem to have had much importance for him.
    5
  39. But nor does it apply to the Titanic sinking.
    5
  40. A brilliant one, in which the perpetrators lost a major asset, a reputation for safety, and £500,000 Do you really think that?
    5
  41. Have you ever noticed that those who say 'do your research' are invariably the ones who have done the least themselves? Unless, of course, watching a conspiracist video and swallowing it unquestioningly can be considered 'research' perhaps?
    5
  42.  @OceanlinerDesigns  Trying to persuade these people to accept facts is futile. They have their fantasies, and cling to them unthinkingly.
    5
  43. No. It referred to the sinking of the Japanese light carrier Shoho, at the Coral Sea.
    5
  44. Really? You have, I assume, evidence to support your post? What? You haven't? Oh dear.
    5
  45. 1). It wasn't an insurance scam. 2). The ships were not 'switched.' 3). There was no 'battle' over insurance.
    5
  46. How would swapping the identities speed up the repair of a damaged ship? The window pattern certainly does prove the identity of the wreck. It matches known photographs of the Titanic of 1912, and differs from those of Olympic od the same period.
    5
  47. It may be your gut feeling. It is certainly not supported by any facts.
    5
  48. Titanic & Olympic were never 'switched' at all. It is a myth concocted by an author, Robin Gardiner, in the 1990s, and latched onto by a number of barmpots.
    5
  49. 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
  50. You didn't actually watch it, did you?
    5