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

  1. 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
  2.  @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
  3.  @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
  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 They were outdated, I agree, but they were the regulations which applied when the Olympics (and the Mauretanias) were designed and built.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
  5. No it isn't. Neither in French nor in English.
    4
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.
    4
  11.  @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
  12. The number of people coming from the shallow end of the gene pool and posting such comments is quite remarkable.
    4
  13. Most were hauled aboard Carpathia, unloaded in New York harbor, and then disposed of.
    4
  14.  @anthonylowder6687  Why are you so angry about the issue? Or are you simply making mischief?
    4
  15. 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
  16. Part one efficiently exposed how silly the switch theory really was. Didn't you watch it?
    4
  17. Will you be supplying an English translation of this comment in the near future?
    4
  18. 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
  19. It isn't compulsory to watch them, you know.
    4
  20.  @anthonylowder6687  Why don't you listen to the video. Or simply look at images of the engineering hotebook?
    4
  21. 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
  22. “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
  23. 15,000 men worked for Harland & Wolff by 1911-1912.
    4
  24. 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
  25.  @pinkypie0751  There is no 'unequivocal proof' at all that what is being said in this video is untrue. I assume your 'several documentaries' are the usual conspiracy theory nonsense which began being created after the rise of social media, and following Robin Gardiner's entertaining, but evidence free, book, in the 1990s? There is plenty of evidence, by the way, at the wrecksite, such as the window pattern on 'B' deck and the cast number on the propellor blade. Both of which prove that the wreck is that of Titanic, of course.
    4
  26.  @paulf2529  That is your proof? Oh dear.
    4
  27.  @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
  28.  @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
  29.  @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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32.  @gtt8428  Where did he write that? I must have missed it.
    4
  33. Don't you realise that Mr. Brady's video demonstrated exactly how absurd the 'switch' fantasy is?
    4
  34. 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.
    4
  35. 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
  36.  @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
  37. I presume you prefer conspiracy fantasies to documented evidence?
    4
  38. Olympic's keel was not 'ruptured' or even touched, in the Hawke collision. Her repairs were completed in 6-8 weeks.
    4
  39. 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
  40. Perhaps because, fortunately, most people base their judgements on facts rather than on absurd switcher videos lacking any?
    4
  41.  @waynedaub1889  No-one 'claimed' Titanic sank. She did sink.
    4
  42.  @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
  43. 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
  44.  @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
  45. 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
  46. What makes you think that Conspiracy Fantasies are right wing in origin?
    4
  47. Not a theory. Simply a conspiracy fantasy.
    4
  48. 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
  49. They were not 'under his care.'
    4
  50.  @fmyoung  He was the Chairman of White Star, but aboard Titanic he was simply a VIP passenger, with no authority over the operation of the ship.
    4