Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Biggest Titanic Mysteries Still Unanswered Today" video.

  1. It isn't compulsory to watch them, you know.
    4
  2.  @Goaner89  He has covered it in almost forensic detail, and had thoroughly destroyed the entire nonsensical idea.
    3
  3. How do you know that he is deleting your comments?
    2
  4. I really do not understand why people get so fascinated by a mere detail.
    2
  5. What purpose do you think would be served by faking such a document?
    1
  6. An odd one, where the perpetrators lose £500,000 a major asset and their safety record, I suggest.
    1
  7. Olympic was repaired and back at sea, with BoT certification and Lloyds insurance in place, from late November, 1911.
    1
  8. No. A few people reported 'rumblings.' Probably heavy machinery breaking loose as the ship's bow sank lower into the water. Lots of people, however, reported the iceberg.
    1
  9. Thank you for your answer. However, an alleged comment by a crew member hardly alters the fact that neither White Star nor Hatland & Wolff even mafe the unqualified claim that the Olympics were 'unsinkable' until, ironically, Philip Franklin, in New York, made the comment in an emotional, and quickly revised, statement to the press, after receiving of the sinking. A booklet about the Olympics from 1910 stated that 'As far as it is possible to do so, these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable.' The first half of the sentence being the relevant one here. Harland & Wolff had been building ships since 1861. Do you really think that they were unware that even the best and most technically advanced were able to sink?
    1
  10. The inrention was to determine whether a three or a four bladed central propeller would be more efficient. The two ships were intended to operate in parallel for a limited period, in order that comparisons could be made. As that, of course, was not possible, Olympic operated for a time with a three bladed propeller, before reverting to four. Of course it made business sense to determine the most economical method of propulsion.
    1
  11. It would be just one more nail in the already thoroughly nailed switch coffin.
    1
  12.  @zombiedoggie2732  I don't think they do claim that.
    1
  13. The question of the Mount Temple was raised by Senan Molony, and was nothing more than a Red Herring created to help sell his book.
    1
  14. What arrogance, and what 'showing off?'
    1
  15. No mystery at all. The vessel was SS Californian.
    1
  16. 'The decisions made by the scrub crew insured its demise.' What does that even mean?
    1
  17. But the descendants of the current crop of switchers will then claim, 'Ah, but the centre propeller must have been swapped by 'THEM!'
    1
  18. What 'hot metal?' The bunker fire had been extinguished some 24 hours before the collision.
    1
  19. Actually, Lord stopped CaliforniaN because he encountered sheet ice.
    1
  20.  @TJD656  Perhaps because Californian was a small freighter, not a ship equipped with a reinforced bow designed for icebreaking? Why do I need to explain so obvious a fact?
    1
  21. Really? Where did this money come from? Moreover, why?
    1
  22. The Lusitanias had four turbine driven propellers, and were some 4 knots faster. No record for Titanic was ever possible.
    1
  23. Feel free to educate us.
    1
  24. No survivors testified that there was an explosion. Do stop making things up.
    1
  25. De rigueur ' required by etiquette or current fashion.'
    1