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

  1. 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
  2. You didn't actually watch it, did you?
    5
  3. Titanic sank because of a collision with an iceberg, and Britannic because she was mined in wartime. Neither cause suggested any flaw in design.
    4
  4.  @MacAdvisor  Nonsense. Were the Mauretanias a flawed design because 50% of them were sunk by torpedo? Stats. are meaningless without a reasonable number of subjects. Many ships sank following collisions with ice. One as recently as 2007. In WW1, over 500 British merchant ships, 44 warships, and 225 naval auxiliaries were sunk by mining. Please don't be such a fool.
    4
  5.  @MacAdvisor  The numbers you are talking about are statistically viable, in that they are in their thousands. Three is not a statistically viable number. Are you seriously too obsessed to grasp that?
    4
  6.  @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 They were outdated, I agree, but they were the regulations which applied when the Olympics (and the Mauretanias) were designed and built.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
  7. No it isn't. Neither in French nor in English.
    4
  8. Olympic left for her maiden voyage in mid June 1911. Titanic only launched about two weeks earlier, and was basically a steel shell at the time. The photograph of the two together was taken on or just after October 11, 1911, when Olympic returned to Belfast for repairs following the collision with HMS Hawke.
    4
  9. Oh dear, another one who watched a conspiracy video and swallowed it whole. If Morgan got off the ship, how was it that the New York Times contained an article about hime in March 1911, stating that he intended to be in Venice on 22 April, to attend at event at St. Mark's? It can still be read. Details available on request. The Rothchilds were of course different. Are you referring to all of them, by the way? Actually none of them were ever booked to travel in Titanic. Astor & Guggenheim had never expressed any opposition to the Federal Reserve, by the way. Straus had expressed his view in October, 1911, when he gave a speech in favour of it. Would you like me to give you details of the account of this speech in the NYT, or would you prefer to remain ignorant?
    4
  10. Which, however interesting, is entirely irrelevant. The myth of any connection between the sinking of Titanic and the creation of the Federal Reserve was an invention of the rise of Social Media in the 1990s, without a shred of supporting evidence.
    4
  11. Good point. Sinking a major asset, and losing £500,000 (at 1912 values) as well as a reputation for safety, would really help White Star out of their (imaginary) financial difficulties. Perhaps that was why it was suggested to the Board of White Star? By the Board of Cunard, perhaps?
    4
  12.  @Tozzpot500  I regret that you are being dragged into this nonsense. Sadly, when trolls like these appear, the actual subject tends to be left far behind. If anything, I regret the adverse effect the antics of these people is having on the video itself. Mr. Brady clearly has gone to a considerable effort, only to see these people degrading his work.
    4
  13. The number of people coming from the shallow end of the gene pool and posting such comments is quite remarkable.
    4
  14. Most were hauled aboard Carpathia, unloaded in New York harbor, and then disposed of.
    4
  15. Had there been the slightest credibility in the claim that Olympic was damaged beyond repair, then the craftiest way to claim back the two thirds of the building costs for which she was insured would have been, with the covert agreement of Harland & Wolff, a sad but accidental dockyard fire. No deaths, and an enormous amount of sympathy for both companies. However, as Olympic had been repaired and returned to sea from late November, 1911, I doubt anyone will be writing a book about the fire anytime soon!
    4
  16.  @anthonylowder6687  Why are you so angry about the issue? Or are you simply making mischief?
    4
  17. The window pattern of the forward end of 'B' deck matches that of Titanic, but differs from the (unmodified) pattern of the Olympic of the same period.
    4
  18. Part one efficiently exposed how silly the switch theory really was. Didn't you watch it?
    4
  19. Will you be supplying an English translation of this comment in the near future?
    4
  20. You obviously enjoy believing conspiracist videos. Titanic, like her sister, was only insured for two thirds of her building costs, which meant that White Star lost a major asset and £500,000 when she sank.
    4
  21. It isn't compulsory to watch them, you know.
    4
  22.  @anthonylowder6687  Why don't you listen to the video. Or simply look at images of the engineering hotebook?
    4
  23. At the time the movie was made, the notebook had not been found. The movie dated from 1998, whereas the notebook emerged in 2007. Cameron was using the information available to him at the time. Subsequently, it was found to be inaccurate. Much like assumptions about the fate of King Richard III's body, prior to the actual discovery.
    4
  24. “Titanic: the shocking Truth” is awful. Riddled with false facts and instantly debunkable claims. Only a totally gullible fool, or a switcher fanatic, would do anything other than laugh at the nonsense it excretes.
    4
  25. 15,000 men worked for Harland & Wolff by 1911-1912.
    4
  26. IMM regulations required that bunker condition be inspected on a daily basis, because of the possibility of spentaneous combustion. A smouldering fire was discovered in one (of 19) bunkers in Southampton. An engineering/stoker team were allocated to it, and it was extinguished around a day before the collision, causing damage only to the internal paintwork of the bunker, and none at all to the hull or the bulkheads. If extreme cold weakened the metal, how was it that Olympic was a successful liner for 23 years?
    4
  27.  @paulf2529  That is your proof? Oh dear.
    4
  28.  @alexandros4703  'That's almost the exact same text as Lovey Dovey's aka Albert Einstein's. Are you sure you're not both the same nerd?' Perhaps it is the same because it is a fact? Hadn't you considered that possibility?
    4
  29.  @alexandros4703  'In addition to your Budgie syndrome you also use the word "fact" incessantly in your commentary, like you have the sole monopoly on the word.' Then feel free to explain which of Tozzpot's facts are not actually facts. Are you saying that Olympic was not repaired and returned to sea, as described? That the order for Britannic was not placed in the same month, or that repairs did not cost £25,000 Which of those statements are not facts? I use the word 'fact' frequently because it is an accurate use of the word. Much to be preferred to vague insults of a personal nature, I suggest. Oh, and which of my 'facts' other than the error about Titanic's single-ended boilers, which I have freely accepted, are actually made up?
    4
  30.  @alexandros4703  'Word for word? same lexicon? Will you be bringing out your Dizzy one today?' I use the word 'fact' frequently because it is an accurate use of the word. Much to be preferred to vague insults of a personal nature, I suggest. As you have just demonstrated once again. Why not try to discuss events surrounding Titanic on a civilised level? It isn't all that difficult if you try really hard.
    4
  31. No lifeboats were ever taken off the ship. She carried more than the Board of Trade Regularions required. The only overheard conversation, allegedly between Smith & Ismay, included a comment by Ismay that Titanic was making better time than Olympic had on her maiden voyage. Claims about Ismay demanding an increase in speed appear to be simple inventions, and it is a matter of record that five of Titanic's boilers were never connected. By the way, murder requires deliverate intent. Even the most rabid critic of Ismay never suggested anything so ludicrous.
    4
  32. If you really believe that the ships were switched, how would you explain the fact that in April, 1912 both Olympic and Titanic were at sea, and both steaming at 20+ knots?
    4
  33.  @eliel_360  It isn't even good CGI by the standards of 2000, when it emerged from nowhere.
    4
  34. Perhaps you haven't grasped that the rules of tennis do not apply in war? If you have superior forces, you use them. Put simply, if you don't want to face these superior forces, don't make war on the British Empire, the Soviet Union, & The United States.
    4
  35.  @gtt8428  Where did he write that? I must have missed it.
    4
  36. Don't you realise that Mr. Brady's video demonstrated exactly how absurd the 'switch' fantasy is?
    4
  37. Equally interesting is :- "Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories' by Edward Flaherty, an academic economist. Which examines Griffin's thesis, and rather dismantles it as "amateurish" and "highly suspect."
    4
  38.  @calvinbeachy7902  You recommended a book. I recommended a response to that book. Now you write :- 'Most economists are on the federal reserve’s payroll.' Isn't that the usual response of the Conspiracist? 'It's all a vast plot by 'them.'
    4
  39. I presume you prefer conspiracy fantasies to documented evidence?
    4
  40. Olympic's keel was not 'ruptured' or even touched, in the Hawke collision. Her repairs were completed in 6-8 weeks.
    4
  41. Sorry. I still believe in facts, not fantasies. Lusitania was sunk for one reason only, which was because Germany had instituted a policy of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, in February, 1915. Didn't you know that? Your silly claim about the Olympics is totally devoid of any evidence.
    4
  42. Perhaps because, fortunately, most people base their judgements on facts rather than on absurd switcher videos lacking any?
    4
  43.  @waynedaub1889  No-one 'claimed' Titanic sank. She did sink.
    4
  44.  @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
  45. 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
  46.  @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
  47. If by 'shut down' you mean their conspiracy beliefs are proven wrong by use of facts and evidence, then what would you expect? The relevant point is that these people, once presented with actual argument, proptly disappear, generally of their own accord. If you question the arguments on this video, why not simply say why, instead of simply complaining?
    4
  48. What makes you think that Conspiracy Fantasies are right wing in origin?
    4
  49. Not a theory. Simply a conspiracy fantasy.
    4
  50. Since when is the stating of facts putting 'spin' on a subject? Was the creator of the myth, Robin Gardiner, skilled in either of those fields?
    4