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

  1.  @dennissalisbury496  I assume you have looked? Perhaps you don't understand that White Star LIne was one of the great shipping companies of the day. Sending a ship to sea without full certification would not pass unnoticed by the authorities, and in particular by the Board of Trade. To quote from a newspaper report of a court case relevant to the collision with HMS Hawke :- 'On September 22 there was a letter from the officials of the Board of Trade handed to the manager of the White Star Line at Southampton, requiring the return of the Olympic's passenger and freeboard certificate, because she was not in a seaworthy condition, and the certificate was duly returned. The vessel then could not proceed as a passenger ship, as she was under the embargo of the Board of Trade, and she was only patched up sufficiently to get a certificate to enable her to proceed to Belfast and no further.' Thus, the Board were quick enough to react following the collision with HMS Hawke, yet you suggest that the same Board would not have reacted to her return to sea uncertified? In short. Don't be silly.
    3
  2.  @dungeonsanddobbers2683  Odd, then, that the 'impetuous' Captain Smith didn't have five of Titanic's boilers even connected, then. Indeed, where in his record is there any suggestion of impetuosity?
    3
  3.  @luigicorvi1661  Nothing anyone says would make any difference at all to the events. But in this case, your last comment, 'HOW VOULD HE MAKE SUCH A STATEMENT....WHEN THIS WAS IT'S....1ST VOYAGE?' expressed doubt that Titanic was really on her maiden voyage, and thus that you believed in the switch fantasy. I simply asked you to explain one of the many facts which prove that to have been utter nonsense. Please feel entirely free to correct me, of course.
    3
  4. Not by anyone sane. The U-boat commander himself claimed the sinking.
    3
  5.  @thomaslinton5765  Perhaps you don't quite understand that 'horrific' is not a comparative term. The death of a single person can be 'horrific' if the circumstances are unfortunate enough. Or perhaps you simply like trying to pick pointless quarrels on line?
    3
  6. Then, oh superior one, kindly educate we lesser mortals about the true facts of the the Titanic affair.
    3
  7.  @anthonylowder6687  Why would it be a fake, and why would anyone feel the need to produce it?
    3
  8. I don't object to conspiracy theories per se, but require them to have some credible arguments, or evidence, behind them. The Switch Fantasy has neither.
    3
  9.  @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
  10. Er. No!
    3
  11.  @Tozzpot500  'One of them has tried to argue that the real Titanic still exists and is working government covert operations or something along the lines.' Really? Well, I'm convinced!!!!
    3
  12. He probably used DDD or something similar. Which was simply a request to leave the frequency clear. In his testimony, Californian's operator stated that he did not regard the signal as insulting.
    3
  13. It would have been if it had been but it didn't happen. Titanic was insured for £1 million with Lloyds, and £1 million was what Lloyds paid out.
    3
  14.  @harryshuman9637  The British never had a battlecruiser named Vanguard.
    3
  15. How is that relevant to the sinking?
    3
  16. You presumably refer to the three financiers who died, Astor, Guggenheim & Straus? Who were supposed to have opposed the Federal Reserve? Well, Astor & Guggenheim never expressed their opinions, either way. Straus did. In a speech in October, 1911, he pronounced himself a supporter.The speech was recorded in the New York Times, and may be read in their archives. Perhaps that is why the claim of a Federal Reserve/Titanic link was only invented in the 1990s?
    3
  17. What might this 'evidence' be?
    3
  18. The OSA in force in Britain in 1912 related only to the passing of information to 'Foreigh Powers' i.e., Kaiser Bill's lot. It was not applicable to the events surrounding Titanic at all. Which perhaps explains why the only person who ever referred to it was Paddt the Pig, aka James Fenton, who doesn't seem to have been anywhere near Titanic.
    3
  19.  @isnamthere4690  No answer then?
    3
  20. Smith did not have a 'history of accidents.' Do you think that a working class lad from Stoke could have reached the exalted rank of Senior Captain of the White Star line if he had?
    3
  21. You don't actually know a lot about WW2, do you?
    3
  22. Why would you ask such a discourteous question? Perhaps he is simply interested in the subject and, unlike many, has actually bothered to research it?
    3
  23.  @ronaldschultenover8137  Then why even bother to comment at all?
    3
  24. You don't actually know much about White Star, Harland and Wolff, or, indeed, the circumstances in general, do you?
    3
  25.  @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
  26.  @alternativebassist  I find that conspiracy fantasists tend to react in one (or a combination) of three different ways:- 1). Get angry. 2). Get abusive. 3). Flee for the hills.
    3
  27. The ships were similar, but far from identical. Similar is what sister ships tend to be. Titanic was insured for £500,000 less than it cost to build her. Aren't insurance scams supposed to make money, not lose it?
    3
  28. Why would a coal strike which lasted for 37 days, ending in early April, 1912, affect the quality of rivets used in a ship which had been launched in late May, 1911? Moreover, why wasn't 'Old Reliable' (Olympic) similarly affected?
    3
  29. Why not look at the facts instead? Olympic had been back at sea, after repair, since 20 November, 1911, and had completed five Atlantic round trips, at average speeds of around 20 knots, by the time Titanic sailed. Insurance pay out? For two thirds of the building costs, and at the same time losing a major asset and a reputation for safety? Who gained from that, except Cunard?
    3
  30. What part of the term 'Unrestricted Submarine Warfare' is too complex for you? At the time, every allied ship was deemed a legitimate target.
    3
  31. In that case, how will you ever know if the video is credible or not? In this case, it certainly is.
    3
  32. No. You watched a switcher video, not a documentary. Were you to bestir yourself sufficiently to check their 'facts' you would find them wanting.
    3
  33. She sank because six of the watertight compartments were compromised.
    3
  34. 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
  35. But nor does it apply to the Titanic sinking.
    3
  36. No. That fantasy was an invention created on Social Media in the 1990s by those to whom everything is a cunning plot perpetrated by 'THEM!!' You will not find the slightest suggestion of any such nonsense prior to then.
    3
  37.  @fmyoung  I've been more than usually patient, but finally have had enough of you. Go away.
    3
  38. A long disproven myth which arose in the 1990s with the growth of social media.
    3
  39.  @isaactodd3485  Feel completely free to explain how Jekyll Island and Titanic are connected.
    3
  40. You have the advantage of me. I didn't even know that JFK was on the Titanic.
    3
  41.  @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
  42. Nonsense. Unworthy of further comment.
    3
  43. The reference is to damage to RMS Olympic, following a collision with a Royal Navy cruiser, HMS Hawke, in September, 1911. The basis of the switcher claim was that Olympic was far more badly damaged than was stated. Despite, of course, the amount of evidence which proves this not to have been the case.
    3
  44. You think that Stanley Lord was a member of the aristocracy? Lord was born on 13 September 1877 in Bolton, Lancashire, England. He began his training at sea when he was thirteen, aboard the barque Naiad, in March 1891. He later obtained his Second Mate’s Certificate of competency and served as Second Officer on the barque Lurlei. Do you see anything aristocratic there?
    3
  45. Nonsense. The first suggestion of any switch came with Gardiner's silly book in the mid 1990s. The flares Titanic used (Socket Signals, which were white with explosive heads) were correct for the period, and even approved by the Board of Trade. By the way, do you think the North Atlantic in April 1912 was full of ships firing off flares of all sorts of colours in all directions? Had there been any plan to deploy a 'rescue ship' a small, fully laden, freighter would be almost ludicrously unsuitable for the task. Stop watching conspiracy videos and swallowing them whole.
    3
  46. Indeed. That is what happens when you watch conspiracy fantasy videos and swallow them whole, I fear.
    3
  47.  @Tozzpot500  Don't you just love these people who watch a conspiracy theory about Titanic, swallow it whole, and then immediately pronounce themselves authorities on the subject? I love the idea of the bomb in the hold. Far more entertaining than the idea of an attack by Black Ops Wright Flyers led by J. P. Morgan himself. I personally thought that one up. Perhaps the basis for a book?
    3
  48.  @likeisaid1947  Which, whilst there is truth in it, had nothing to do with the insurance company, Lloyds, I suggest.
    3
  49. Remarkable! 259 comments and counting. Furthermore, not one from an expert which says :- 'Dat's the Olympic down there, innit? Do your reesearch.' I wonder how long this happy situation will endure, however?
    3
  50. 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