Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Breaking Down Iconic TITANIC Scenes" video.

  1. To be fair, the Harland & Wolff engineering record confirming that Titanic had a three bladed centre propellor only seems to have come to light after Cameron had made his movie.
    3
  2.  @NikaNakaidze  He was acting on the best available information around at the time. Researchers also accepted that Titanic had a four bladed propellor on her centre shaft until the engineering notebook came to light. There are far more serious errors which could have been avoided, such as the false suggestions that Titanic was deemed 'unsinkable' for one.
    2
  3. The Mauretanias were powered by turbines, which did cause vibration at high speed. White Star chose to operate slower, more stylish ships, which were more comfortable.
    1
  4. In one word, NONSENSE.
    1
  5. Nothing Rostron said was 'angry.' The fact was that Olympic was over 500 miles away, and never in a position to help.
    1
  6. You must really have enjoyed the switcher video you swallowed whole.
    1
  7. Why do you think that Titanic sinking intact would have meant White Star might have avoided the need for compensation, whereas if she broke they might not? Perhaps you have missed the relevant point, which was the ship sank? The rest is detail. Oh, and 'War Criminal?' Are you completely deluded?
    1
  8. Because the 'Mount Temple' claim is dubious, to say the least. Whereas no-one disputes that Californian's lookouts saw Titanic's rocket signals, and alerted Lord, who chose to ignore them.
    1
  9. She was scrapped at the same time as her old rival, Olympic. In the straitened economic situation of the mid 1930s, the newly merged Cunard-White Star could not afford such thoughts.
    1
  10.  @NikaNakaidze  Yes, but at the time the movie was made the Engineering Record had not come to light, and he assumed that Titanic, like Olympic, had a four bladed centre propellor.
    1
  11.  @NikaNakaidze  Do you really think that this particular assumpton mattered a damn?
    1
  12.  @NikaNakaidze  Because no-one has seen the centre propellor since 1912. It is buried deep in the silt on the sea bed.
    1
  13.  @NikaNakaidze  I really do not know how much simpler I can make the explanation in order to get you to understand it. The notebook confirming that Titanic had a three bladed central propellor came to light in 2007. The movie was made ten years earlier.
    1
  14.  @NikaNakaidze  A shame that you don't like facts. Do you always get so obsessed with minor details of no importance?
    1
  15.  @NikaNakaidze  But not important enough to get a few simple facts correct?
    1
  16. The keel was not bent. The collision was a low speed one, according to HMS Hawke's captain. Ay around eight knots, in fact. Hawke's bow penetrated around six to eight feet into Olympic's starboard quarter. As the Olympics had beams of ninety two feet, then her keel was never remotely in danger of damage. At least, not until an amateur hisrorian, Robin Gardiner, wrote a silly book, 'Titanic - The Ship That Never Sank?' which was published in 1998. To make the claim of the imaginary swap, Gardiner invented the keel damage, despite the fact that in reality White Star paid Harland & Wolff around £26,000 (1911 values) to repair Olympic, which took them around seven weeks, and led to her returning to sea in later November, 1911, when Titanic was still around five months from completion. By the way, the company which you suggest was likely to 'go under' had generated a profit in excess of £1 million in the year to 31 December, 1911, and were so far from bankrupt that in the same month that Olympic returned to sea the order for the third ship in the class, Britannic, was confirmed with H & W. Certainly, Harland & Wolff do not seem to have known of this alleged keel damage. In fact, no-one with any actual knowledge of the facts gives it the slightest credence, although enthusiasts for conspiracy theories, usually after watching one or two switcher videos, do tend to go overboard on it. Pardon the pun, by the way! One or two points, which aren't necessary anyway as once the keel damage nonsense is discarded the entire argument collapses. :- 1). When Californian docked in Boston on 19 April, she was reported as carrying a 'mixed, general' cargo. No reference at all to any cargo of sweaters, which was another, much later, invention. 2). There were a number of structural differences between the two ships. They were sisters, but not twins. The forward end of Titanic's 'B' deck was different from that of the Olympic of 1912. The wreck matches the known configuration of Titanic, and differs from that of Olympic. 3). There was little wrong with Olympic when she was scrapped in the 1930s, except her age.Perhaps you are unaware that the newly merged company also scrapped her old rival Mauretania at the same time? The reason for the scrappings was a simple, commercial. one. With the decline in transatlantic traffic, and in the middle of the Great Depression, they were both simply surplus to requirements. In short, you would lose your $100 when you allow facts and reality intrude on your charming fantasy.
    1
  17. Ok then. You are wrong. Olympic was in a collision in the Solent, when she was in the charge of a Solent Pilot, and not Captain Smith. As, indeed, a subsequent legal hearing confirmed. You are corrected.
    1