Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "The Only REAL Footage of Titanic: An Analysis" video.

A brilliant one, in which the perpetrators lost a major asset, a reputation for safety, and £500,000 Do you really think that?
5
It may be your gut feeling. It is certainly not supported by any facts.
5
@waynedaub1889 No-one 'claimed' Titanic sank. She did sink.
4
Given the number of half baked and idiotic videos which appear fairly regularly about Titanic, claiming switches, Federal Reserve Plots, and all sorts of nonsense, a video like this, which shows actual knowledge and understanding of the subject, is truly a breath of fresh air.
3
Er. No!
3
No, he really doesn't. As you would know if you knew anything about either ship.
3
Or, as is the real reason, cameras of 1912 were not quite as capable as they are today. You will find numerous photographs of the big four British liners in which the names are difficult to determine.
2
No. It actually isn't.
2
@thorstenh.5588 Well, the speed issue was dealt with long ago, by a number of Master Mariners and Liner Captains who gave evidence at the British Inquiry, and testified that Smith's actions were in accordance with the normal practice of the day. As to the 'unsinkable' claim, that is an oddity, in that the allegation that this had been said only began to appear after the sinking. Neither Harland & Wolff nor White Star ever made such a claim.
2
I think it is a case of newsreel people being a little 'imaginative' in order to meet demand. After the sinking, people wanted to see footage of the tragic ship. As there was virtually none, footage of Olympic in New York was used instead, with the port of registry of the tugboats removed. It just goes to show how things haven't really changed much, where the media are concerned.
2
The ship was photographed in February, 1912, before completion. I think that this was mentioned in the video.
2
Probably her career would have mirrored Olympic's. Wartime service as a trooper, then years of service until the Great Depression, when she, along with Olympic & Mauretania which historically were, would be sold for scrap after the forced merger of Cunard and White Star.
2
Please don't call him a Brit., as it may upset him. He is an Australian, and I have played cricket against enough of them to know how annoyed they get at being subjected to such a perceived 'slur'.
2
Amazing how idiots seem to get everywhere these days, isn't it? No pictures of Titanic's maiden voyage exist because, after her older sister, she really wasn't that interesting. Had she not sunk, she would have been the maritime equivalent of Princess Margaret to Queen Elizabeth. Olympic had actually returned to sea after repair from 20 November, 1911, when Titanic was still several months from completion. In fact, by the time Titanic left Southampton on 10 April, 1912, Olympic had completed five further Atlantic round trips since returning to sea, and was in New York, half way through her sixth. Not bad for a crippled, uninsurable, wreck, I suggest. The investigations proved nothing of the sort, as you would know if you had acually read the Minutes of either. By the way, the three bankers, Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus, were only alleged to have opposed the Fed. in conspiracy myths from the 1990s. Back on earth, there is precisely no evidence either way about the views of the first two, who never expressed them. Straus, however, spoke in favour of the Fed. in October, 1911, and accounts of his speech may be read in the archives of the New York Times. I hope that you are not this erratic when carrying out your medical duties!
2
Oh dear! As is explained in the video, the footage is of Titanic in February 1912, before 'A' deck was partially enclosed.
1
@502days Just out of interest, how can someone 'talk sense and shut the fk up while your at it' as that is a physical impossibility. Instead of resorting to insults and obscenities, why not simply look at what the Admiralty Inspection Report, with which the Board of Trade and White Star, both of whom had separation inspection teams, concurred? The summing up of the damage was as follows :- “Two major watertight compartments were flooded, hull plating gashed from the Orlop deck to E deck, and the starboard propeller shafting damaged.” No mention of keel damage at all. Or, at least, not until Robin Gardiner invented some in his book from the 1990s. Indeed, how could Olympic's keel have been damaged, given that Olympic's draught was 34' 7" and HMS Hawke's was 24' ?
1
6.04 shows the Titanic as she was in early 1912, when approaching completion. 6.53 shows her over six months earlier. The additional portholes were added late in 1911, following recommendations from Olympic's first voyages. What do you think was 'filled in on the right side, by the way. The porthole layout on the starboard side of Titanic, like Olympic, involved fifteen portholes, and was different from the 14 (later 16) of the port side. In short, a ship at the time of her launch is far from complete, and is simply a work in progress.
1
@zibbezabba2491 There is no evidence that any portholes were filled in. There are still photographs of Titanic's port side in that area, taken at the same time,which show the pattern of portholes in the same area to have been unchanged since her launch.
1
Rampant insanity, old man. Do your carers know you have managed to get hold of the laptop again?
1
A Graving Dock is a similar construct to a dry dock. It can be pumped out for work to be undertaken on the area of a ship normally below the water line.
1
In which aspects do the ships not match?
1
Brilliant! Both Olympics cost £1.5 million to build, and both were insured for £1 million. When Titanic was lost, it cost White Star a major asset, their safety record, and £500,000 I am an innocent where these things are concerned, but I had always thought that such frauds were intended to make money, not lose large amounts of it.
1
'It goes to learn that you cannot sail that deep underwater to view the old titanic.' You can, and many have. But only in a properly constructed craft.
1
@Tozzpot500 Indeed. When Titanic received her final coat, the letters of her name would be painted in in yellow.
1
The ship at 9.17 is Titanic in early (February) 1912. 'A' deck was partially enclosed in March, 1912.
1
Because the stern also carried the Port of Registration, in this case 'New York.' The newsreel people were trying to pass off footage of RMS Olympic in New York as of RMS Titanic in Southampton, because of the public demand for pictures of Titanic after her sinking.
1
Quite correct. The ships at 7.53 & 10.15 are different vessels. As it clearly states on the video.
1
Look in the top left hand corner of the video. It states that the ship is Britannic.
1
Perhaps you might explain what you mean by 'rope holes?' Or what preserved US Navy cruiser has to do with anything?
1
' i Always Knew It wasn't the Titanic That set sail on April 12th, Especially with all the Damage to the Hull, The Fire in the Engine room, The Damage to one of the Compartment doors, I knew all along they Switched the ships. And from then on it was Foul play.' You knew all that, did you? Perhaps, then, you might explain how it was that Olympic returned to sea, fully repaired, from 20 November, 1911 onwards, when Titanic was around five months from completion? Or how, by the time Titanic left Southampton on 10 April, 1912, Olympic had completed five Atlantic round trips, and was in New York, half way through her sixth? Not bad for a cripple, eh? Or how stoker survivors testified at the British Inquiry that a spontaneous combustion fire in one (of 19) bunkers had been extinguished some 24 hours before the collision, having damaged nothing more than paintwork in the affected bunker? Or what was the purpose of an 'insurance job' which cost White Star £500,000 (both Olympics were only insured for two thirds of their building costs), a major asset, and their safety record?
1
'A' deck was partly enclosed very late on in the building process. Pehaps as late as March, 1912.
1
You don't consider that facts count for more than 'gut feelings?'
1
Please don't! The berks and switcher/conspiracy quarter-wits will swallow it whole, as they do every other such production.
1
The statement was 'footage'. This short piece is the only newsreel of Titanic. There are a number of photographs, which are a different matter.
1
'Story is, that White Star Line was lacking funds, and had to strip some parts from Titanic in order to get Olympic sailing.' No. The nearest to that is the use of propeller shaft parts from the incomplete Titanic on Olympic to get her back to sea more quickly. A sensible commercial decision on the part of Harland & Wolff, not White Star.
1
@justinlangley9522 Alas, you don't recall correctly. Olympic, after losing a blade, returned to Belfast to have a replacement one fitted. There were already replacement blades for both ships available, as they were of different pitches. Nothing was sourced from Titanic, although her completion was slightly delayed by the need to remove her from dry dock so that Olympic's replacement blade could be fitted, and then return her in dock after Olympic left.
1
Alternatively, perhaps it was a result of a collision with an iceberg brought about by abnormal weather conditions.
1
@Sebadee80 Titanic had 14 portholes on the port side of C deck, at the bow, when launched, but in the following months she received 2 extra for better light and air. In fact both Olympic and Titanic were launched with 14 portholes on the port side forecastle on C-Deck and 15 portholes on the starboard side of the same area. However, in December 1911, during Titanic's fitting out, she had 2 added to improve light to the crews galley and wash room which resulted in a total of 16 as seen in the maiden voyage photographs. A similar modification was made to Olympic when she was refitted.
1