Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Was The Titanic Sunk On Purpose?" video.

  1. Just a minor point about HMS Hawke. She was a ship of the 'Edgar' class, of nine First Class Protected Cruisers' built between 1889 & 1894. The class did not have actual ram bows, but ram-style, or inverted, bows, which simply meant that the most forward point of the bow was at the waterline, rather than at the top. This was intended to maximise the length of the ship, in order to increase speed, provide better hydrodynamic drag, and make the ship more fuel efficient. It was not intended to enable the Edgars to ram other ships to sink them. The Edgars carried 2 x 9.2 inch guns and 10 x 6 inch guns for the purpose of doing that. The bow was not heavily reinforced in the manner of earlier ships, such as the 1881 built HMS Polyphemus, designed from the outset as a 'torpedo ram' or indeed the Danish Tordenskjold, commissioned in 1882. There is an excellent photograph available of Polyphemus in dry dock, which shows what a real ram bow, intended for that purpose, looks like. The proof of this may be seen in the photographs of HMS Hawke after the collision, showing her badly crumpled bow. Something which would not have happened had she actually been fitted with a bow designed for ramming. Just one of a myriad of errors to be found in Robin's imaginative, but largely fact free, book. I fear.
    29
  2. You really shouldn't believe unquestioningly every conspiracy fantasy video you encounter.
    5
  3. 1). It wasn't an insurance scam. 2). The ships were not 'switched.' 3). There was no 'battle' over insurance.
    5
  4. No it isn't. Neither in French nor in English.
    4
  5. 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
  6.  @paulf2529  That is your proof? Oh dear.
    4
  7. What makes you think that Conspiracy Fantasies are right wing in origin?
    4
  8. Not a theory. Simply a conspiracy fantasy.
    4
  9. You mean the poor quality CGI which appeared from nowhere in around the year 2000? It it really was a 'sting in the tail' how is it that no credible Titanic historian, researcher, or explorer has ever taken it remotely seriously?
    4
  10. You don't accept facts or evidence, then? Good on you for confessing that you are the quintessential Conspiracy fantasist. Oblivious to rationality. At least you are open about it.
    4
  11. I fear that you heard wrongly.
    4
  12. Those 'several key individuals that opposed the formation of The Federal Reserve Bank' actually did nothing of the sort. Two had never stated their opinions, whilst the third had spoken openly in support. You have swallowed a myth invented in the 1990s.
    4
  13. As you say that you haven't watched the video, what makes you feel able to express any opinion at all?
    4
  14. His company lost a major asset, their safety record, and £500,000 What sort of payment was that?
    4
  15. Isn't it odd how people who urge others to 'care to research' generally seem to have done the least themselves? You know that watching a switcher video, and swallowing it whole, does not count as research. I assume?
    4
  16. Only if you swallow whole a myth created in the 1990s.
    3
  17. The H & W workforce was almost entirely Protestant. Indeed, in 1911, it was probably 100% Protestant. Not, of course, that that makes the idea of any switch any less barking mad.
    3
  18. Why comment when you have nothing to say?
    3
  19.  @shahmanz  Yes, I have seen, and responded, to them elsewhere. Your blind unquestioning belief in the Switch, the Federal Reserve Conspiracy, and the vast all embracing plot orchestrated by 'them' in total defiance of any supporting evidence, would be amusing were it not so sad. Still, I imagine you enjoy any Conspiracy Fantasy videos you stumble across? Much easier than thinking, I suppose.
    3
  20.  @shahmanz  I don't make videos, but I do study histories, archives, records, and eye witness accounts. You should try it, instead of simply posting meaningless comments.
    3
  21. No, it doesn't.
    3
  22. Tell your friend that the allegation that the sinking was deliberate, to get rid of opponents of the Federal Reserve, is a conspiracist fantasy invented in the 1990s. The three supposed opponents were Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus. The first two never expressed any opinions about the Fed., whilst the third had spoken in favour of the idea in October, 1911. Simply do a search for them yourself, or tell your friend to do such a search.
    3
  23.  @DaveDench  Most people who refute the imaginings of Conspiracy Fantasists actually do so on the basis of provable facts. 'The fact the white star line and other wealthy components involved, irregardless of 90% of eyewhitness statements saying she broke up but had it recorded as sinking of the ship as whole alone reeks or corruption. And is in fact insurance fraud! And that cant be argued.' In fact, 90% of eye witnesses did not make such a claim. 13 did, 4 did not, and the remaining witnesses were unsure. Moreover, from an insurance viewpoint it was irrelevant. Titanic was insured for £1 million against total loss, not against 'total loss only if she sinks in one piece.' The salient fact as far as Lloyds were concerned was that she sank.
    3
  24. What might this 'evidence' be?
    3
  25.  @isnamthere4690  No answer then?
    3
  26. In that case, how will you ever know if the video is credible or not? In this case, it certainly is.
    3
  27. 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
  28. A long disproven myth which arose in the 1990s with the growth of social media.
    3
  29.  @isaactodd3485  Feel completely free to explain how Jekyll Island and Titanic are connected.
    3
  30. Unfortunately, if he did, the conspiracists and switchers would immediately throw their arms into the air about the lack of evidence presented.
    3
  31. How many transatlantic voyages had Olympic completed before Titanic left Southampton for the first time?
    3
  32. Oh dear. Not another subscriber to the long disproven myth about Astor, Guggenheim, Straus, and the Federal Reserve, I hope?
    3
  33. Perhaps you should have watched the video before commnting upon it?
    3
  34. Olympic was damaged, but not seriously. Harland & Wolff repaired her and had her back to sea by late November, 1911, at a cost to White Star of £25,000
    3
  35.  @MrTwon1610  Good to see the old Conspiracy fantasy being given a fresh airing. - The fact that there is no evidence at all for the conspiracy proves that it was true, and that 'THEY!' hid all the evidence. Exactly how was it ' easy to sweep under the rug?'
    3
  36. You are. It has been there since the mid 1930s, when Olympic was partially dismantled at Jarrow.
    3
  37. @MichaelCampin Alas. I live a bit too far to get there. Perhaps in 2025, if I can talk my wife into it?
    3
  38. @MichaelCampin I will need to work on it. Last time she looked at what I was typing about, she said, 'Bloody hell. You're not on about that damned ship again, are you?'
    3
  39. @MichaelCampin And to you!!
    3
  40.  @primergoalhorns04  Thousands of people would need to have been involved, all of whom would have needed to have been induced to remain silent for the rest of their lives. Even after learning that their actions had led to 1500+ deaths. Is that really credible?
    3
  41. Who are these mysterious 'they' so beloved by your average conspiracy fantasist?
    3
  42. No. She didn't. The policies on Olympic and Titanic were exactly the same.
    3
  43. You mean the almost as many as had cancelled for Olympic's maiden voyage?
    3
  44. The 'fraud' actually cost White Star a lot, both financially and in terms of reputation.
    3
  45. 'Murderer?' Murder requires intent, doesn't it?
    3
  46.  @inttubu1  'Mens Rea' means 'Guilty Mind' and refers to Criminal Intent. What criminal intent did Smith have?
    3
  47. Who do you think did benefit from the deaths?
    2
  48.  @ABBATributeNZ  Why not simply look at the facts, instead?
    2
  49. What 'facts' as opposed to inventions of recent origin, do you believe 'prove the switch,' out of interest? Which member if the Royal Familt was involved? One thing about Mr.Brady that is immediately apparent is how polite and good mannered he is as he systematically demolishes the switch nonsense.
    2
  50. The three men to whom you refer were Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus. The first two never made public their opinions about the Fed., whilst the third openly supported it.
    2
  51. There is evidence. Olympic was stripped at Jarrow before the hull was broken up at Inverkeithing. Many interior fitments were auctioned off, including Restaurant furniture to a hotel in Alnwick, where it is still in use. A fraud which costs the fraudsters a major asset, their safety record, and £500,000 probably hasn't been thoroughly thought through.
    2
  52. Titanic, according to an Engineering Notebook which came to light comparatively recently, did have a three bladed centre propeller. At the time James Cameron made his movie, the notebook had not been rediscovered.
    2
  53.  @eliel_360  Agreed. ???
    2
  54. Don't be too shocked.as it isn't true.
    2
  55. ​ @shahmanz  How is simply writing 'You're controlling the media now eh?' either saying much, or saying anything 'to the point?'
    2
  56. Odd than there were no reports of such an explosion from any of the surviving stokers, yet plenty of reports of the collision with the iceberg.
    2
  57. What inspires you people to write such utter nonsense? Firstly, the Olympic was stripped of her fittings at Jarrow, before the hull went to Inverkeithing. Many of them were auctioned off, including restaurant furniture purchased for the White Swan Restaurant at Alnwick. It is still in use, in the 'Olympic' restaurant, and the original hull numbers are marked on some of the items. In every case the number is 400. There are no photographs of 'MP' in Titanic's hull. The pictures are poor quality fake images, which appeared, without provenance, in around the year 2000. No exploration has ever claimed them, nor even acknowledged them. Even the father of the myth, Robin Gardiner, denounced them as false, by the way. No Titanic propeller blade was ever used on Olympic, although parts of a shaft intended foir Titanic were. Because the blades for the outer propellers were bolted on, a n umber of spares were cast at the same time.
    2
  58. Aside from whether Titanic sank whole or not was totally irrelevant to any insurance claim, and that the claim itself was for only two thirds of her building costs, or that there is a wealth of evidence demonstrating that the 'switch' claim, which dated from the 1990s, is totally false, how can you write 'Btw i love your videos, so in depth and articulate 👌🏻 top work mate ' when you obviously haven't read it, as it demonstrates that everything you have posted is inaccurate?
    2
  59. Indeed. Especially fact-free conspiracy fantasies.
    2
  60. And I am Holy Roman Emperor. You show us your proof, and I will show you mine.
    2
  61. I suppose that the fact that the first diesel engined U-boat to be commissioned, U19, only did so around a year later, doesn't concern you?
    2
  62. Except that Titanic carried far more coal than was necessary to complete her crossing. Mr. Malony should always be taken with a pinch of salt. Or, perhaps, a large block!
    2
  63. How clever of them, given that the first U-Boat with the ability even to reach Newfoundland didn't commission until around a year later.
    2
  64. But the insurance paid out was £500,000 than the ship cost to build.
    2
  65.  @deeem2628  Upvoting your own post really is rather bad form, old chap.
    2
  66. I assume you refer to Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus? If you do, you have been misled by a conspiracy fantasy from the 1990s, concerning the Federal Reserve. In fact, neither of the first two ever expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst the third had spoken out in support in October, 1911.
    2
  67. A curious Jesuit, who was married in a Church of England Church, I suggest. You appear to be confusing Jesuits with WW2 Kamikaze pilots.
    2
  68. It wasn't a coincidence. Largely because there is no evidence concerning Astor & Guggenheim's opinions, whilst Straus is know to have been in favour of the Fed.
    2
  69. Simply not true. Why, for example, would an American Senator have any part in such a (non-existent) conspiracy?
    2
  70.  @stealthhumor  No. The sinking was simply a tragic accident. No-one 'did it.'
    2
  71.  @sabretooth1997  The myth of the switch originated in a book by one Robin Gardiner in the 1990s, and grew with the expansion of social media, used by lots of conspiracy fantasists, at around the same time. On their planet, everything which happens is all part of a vast and nefarious plot orchestrated by 'THEM!'
    2
  72.  @sonsofthewestredwhiteblue5317  Alas, you have been led astray by a conspiracy fantasy invented iun the 1990s.
    2
  73. Goog heavens! Atr you saying that it was CUNARD behind the plot?
    2
  74.  @Kolonol1  A more accurate answer might have been better, perhaps?
    2
  75.  @Kolonol1  Perhaps by knowing that White Star's parent company was the American IMM? Perhaps by knowing that Cunard was an entirely British owned company? Perhaps by knowing that the building of the Lusitanias were partly funded by the British Government?
    2
  76.  @Kolonol1  How does it do that, pray?
    2
  77. Why would Morgan have perpetrated an insurance fraud which cost his company a major asset, their safety record, and £500,000? Feel free to expand on your thesis
    2
  78.  @williamrae9954  So. No actual answer. Just an infantile insult instead? Why am I not surprised?
    2
  79. Who were this mysterious 'they' and why would they seek to damage White Star?
    2
  80.  @of1300  Please do not be silly. There were a considerable number of American citizens aboard Olympic at the time, and Olympic was a ship registered in Liverpool, just as White Star was British, although with IMM, an American company, as overall parent. Do provide details of this 'shipping war' in 1911, of course.
    2
  81.  @eliel_360  And certainly one of the silliest ones yet.
    2
  82. Wxcept that Olympic returned to sea from late November, 1911, when Titanic was months away from completion, and had made several more crossings before Titanic first left Southampton. She was even in New York when that happened.
    2
  83. Not everyone commenting here is American.
    2
  84.  @pointmanzero  Which was Californian. Californian did not aid Titanic because her captain chose not to investigate the events unfolding around him. The idea that she was there to make sure Titanic went down is dimply silly.
    2
  85.  @pointmanzero  Perhaps Californian had been secretly fitted with concealed below water torpedo tubes, or even a battery of six inch guns? Or, there again, perhaps not?
    2
  86.  @pointmanzero  Absolutely not. Lloyds, and Icelandic, records show that Samson docked in Isafjordur on 6 April, & 20 April, which means she could not have been anywhere near Titanic's position. Damdon was a small ship, 148 feet long, dating from 1885, an elderly steam barque with an engine capable of driving her along at a maximum of seven knots. Why would there be VIPs aboard such a ship in the first place?
    2
  87. 'The only ones that boarded the ship was the bankers against the federal reserve and fiat currency switch.' It is a well known fact, which I have just invented, that as passengers boarded Titanic on that fateful day in April, 1912, armed White Star guards stood at every gangway, and asked each passenger in turn, 'do you support or oppose the Federal Reserve?' Those who supported it were refused access to the ship, of course. There you are. I can be even sillier than you!
    2
  88. Why would you say that? The video is completely correct.
    2
  89.  @TsaGo_1912  A fascinating exchange!! Isn't it odd, however, that those who urge others to 'do the research' are invariably the ones who appear to have done little or none themselves?
    2
  90.  @deeem2628  Quite true. The wreckage has the same window pattern as that of the modified Titanic, rather that that of the (at that time) unmodified Olympic. Oh, and don't forget the 401 on the propeller blade, of course.
    2
  91. The Marconi set was in use until power to it was lost, at around 0200. The three men to whom you refer were Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus. The first two never made public their opinions about the Fed., whilst the third openly supported it. Just look them up.
    2
  92.  @NatsocRevolutionary  Oh dear! Another one. Time to polish your unrivalled collection of SS daggers, is it?
    2
  93. They were similar, as sister ships generally are, but not identical.
    2
  94.  @Godric_71  My pleasure.
    2
  95. Good heavens! Next you will be saying that Kate Winslet wasn't aboard either.
    2
  96.  @LaserPossum  Haven't you heard that resorting to immediate abuse rather than ayyempting ordinary debate is seriously deleterious to any argument that you might think you have?
    2
  97. 'The story goes, and has been around for many decades, with lots of circumstancial evidence pointing towards it, that since it is a fact that all of the wealthiest opposers of a central bank being established in our country were all invited to sail on the titanic.' The story goes back to a myth invented with the rise of social media in the 1990s, when people with no actual idea about a subject could post their opinions, however silly they might be. No-one was 'invited' to sail in Titanic. Moreover, of the three prominent financiers who died, two, Astor & Guggenheim, had never expressed their opinions about the Federal Reserve, whilst the third, Straus, had spoken in support of it. The number of lifeboats was in accordance with Board of Trade regulations. Olympic carried a similar number, whilst the Mauretanias carried less. The Federal Reserve Act was passed in December, 1913. Harry Truman was 29 years old at the time. He first entered politics in 1922, when he became a judge.
    2
  98. Who do you suggest actually gained from the sinking?
    2
  99. Because, I suggest, someone who has designed a major, modern, ocean liner might just possibly have a relevany opinion?
    2
  100. But, far more likely, definitely not.
    2
  101. But even then, one would still need to explain how the Federal Reserve Act was relevant to Titanic.
    2
  102. If Olympic was not a well-built ship, how was it that she had a long and successful career? Californian's officers reported Titanic's flares (white, not red, by the way) to Captain Lord, but Lord simply failed to investigate. Red flares were not a requirement at the time, by the way. The 'A M' claim about the wreck has been disproven so often that it is unworthy of comment. Perhaps you might ask yourself why no exploration team has ever claimed it, or even acknowledged it? Or why the father of the myth, Robin Gardiner, denounced these images as false? 'I think that they staged the California in order to save the people on the White Star vessel and their navigational skills were so inept that they didn't get to where they were supposed to be.' Perhaps you might explain why a fully laden, but small, freighter like SS Californian was chosen to be the rescue ship? A vessel less suited to the job is hard to imagine. In short, you have watched one of the numerous conspiracy fantasy videos infesting the subject, and swallowed it whole, I suggest.
    2
  103.  @hertz_me  You have been taken in by a conspiracy fantasy from the 1990s.
    2
  104. How would White Star benefit from insurance fraud when Titanic and, come to that, Olympic, were both only insured for two thirds of their building costs? Add to that the loss to White Star's reputation, and the loss of a major asset, and the only possible beneficiaries from the fraud might have been Cunard.
    2
  105. It is only plausible if the facts are ignored.
    2
  106.  @inttubu1  Captain Smith was not on the bridge at the time of the collision. Legal intent refers to the purpose or desire of a defendant to cause a specific outcome. Are you saying that Smith desired to sink his ship and thus kill himself? I fear that you will struggle to make that argument stick.
    2
  107.  @inttubu1  It really doesn't matter what I think. Facts are what matters. 1). Other liners had sailed through the same waters, in the same manner, at the same time of year. 2). Why would he, then, be accused of 'murder' particularly by you? Captain Smith certainly died at the scene. 3). All they knew was that circumstances had arisen which required them to cancel their voyages. Just had previously happened with Olympic. You surely aren't suggesting that they had been told of a 'plot', and, after 1500+ people had died, staunchly kept quiet for the rest of their lives? Every one of them? Rescue would only be possible if there were ships in the vicinity of Titanic. There was only one, whose captain showed s remarkable lack of interest in events unfolding around him. 4).No, there isn't. Titanic's sister ship had been back at sea since late November, 1911. She was on her way from New York to Southampton when she received Titanic's distress signal, but she was over 500 miles away. 5). What 'safety privileges' did the prominent VIPs have?
    2
  108.  @TheCountofToulouse  Captain Smith was White Star's senior captain, and had been since 1904. Since then, he had commanded every new White Star liner on her maiden voyage. The probability is that, unless he chose to retire, he would have taken Britannic out as well, had she been completed before the commencement of WW1. 'Further, you notion that 'no Titanic researcher or historian' takes is seriously? Do you understand that you just lied? Everyone that has looked into this is a HISTORIAN and a RESEARCHER, why do research and only look for the truth that supports your preconceived outcome? Don't be silly. Anyone can be interested in any subject, but only those with access to archive records and documents can really be considered genuine researchers or historians. Hence the manner in which the method of history is described. - Look at the evidence, and come to your conclusions based upon that evidence. Actually, many survivor accounts refer to the iceberg, as do accounts from surviving officers. 'Curious that the damage was in the EXACT places to ensure the ship would sink, too, huh? Again, don't be silly. When a ship designed to stay afloat has five, or, indeed, possible six, compromised, what do you expect to happen? As you seem wedded to your fantasy, perhaps you might explain who planted the explosives, when, and why?
    2
  109. To quote a proverb attributed to Jonathan Swift, “There's none so blind as those who will not see”
    2
  110. We have detailed images of the forward end of the wreck's 'B' deck, which match known images of the modified Titanic, and differ from images of the unmodified Olympic of the same period.
    2
  111. For 'theory' read 'made up fantasy from the 1990s.'
    1
  112. My money is on the great-grandfather of Feathers McGraw. If you have heard of 'Wallace & Gromit' you will understand.,
    1
  113. Have you actually watched the video?
    1
  114. No. Because she was deemed at fault for the collision. Or, at least, the man in charge of her was. Fortunately, the damage was repaired quickly, and she was back at sea by late November, 1911, for a cost of £25,000 which was 1,67% of her building coat.
    1
  115.  @MadisonCrawford-y1o  Whether you find it implausible or not, it is a fact. Olympic was launched on 20 October, 1910, and sailed on her maiden voyage on 14 June, 1911. Just under eight months. Those are documented facts, also. Do you find them equally 'implausible?'
    1
  116. He would struggle to set any record, when Cunard's Lusitanias were turbine driven, and 3 - 4 knots faster.
    1
  117. Alas, only if you believe a 'theory' created in the 1990s. There is no evidence about the opinions Astor & Guggenheim held about the Fed., whilst Straud had spoken in support in October, 1911.
    1
  118. No.
    1
  119. Sorry, but no it isn't.
    1
  120.  @theroadsnearyou...5088  So, you believe that, of 15,000 workers employed by Harland & Wolff in the building of Olympic & Titanic in 1910-12, not one ever mentioned the switch, not only at the time, but for the rest of their lives, even after receiving the news that the 'switch' had resulted in just over 1500 deaths? Nor did any of their family members?
    1
  121. Because of the suction effect of her much larger draught.
    1
  122.  @vociferon-heraldofthewinte7763  For a very detailed examination of events, read :- 'The Sting of the Hawke: Collision in the Solent.' By Mark Chirnside, a leading researcher into both Olympic & Titanic.
    1
  123.  @foxhoundms9051  'You overheard this personally?' Perhaps, instead, you might say where you got the idea of the 'opposition to the Federal Reserve' from? By which I mean, which conspiracy fantasy video did you swallow whole?
    1
  124.  @catchloe1989-k9l  'Maybe Ballard lied for the rewards that came with sticking to the party line. The White Star Line were in dire financial straits, & could not afford the bad publicity/delay & major repairs required to make the ship seaworthy.' White Star had just posted profits in excess of £1 million for the last financial year. Olympic had been repaired, and had been back at sea since late November, 1911, and White Star placed their order for the third Olympic class liner in the same month. Moreover, wasn't losing a liner, leading to 1500+ deaths, rather worse publicity than the need to repair one? Why would Ballard lie? What he had found, others would also soon inspect, and the discovery gave him as much celebrity status as he might (or, indeed, might not) have sought. As to 'THEM!!' still monitoring references to Titanic 70+ years after the event, and still doing the same today, compared to that notion the idea that Elvis, Princess Diana, and hitler are living in domes on the dark side of the moon has more credibility! Ask yourself why not one Titanic historian, researcher, or exploration team has ever given house room to the switch or conspiracy idiocies invented from the 1990s onwards.
    1
  125. A Court held that actions taken by the Solent Pilot in charge of Olympic, George Bowyer, led to the collision, as the much smaller HMS Hawke was drawn in by the suction effect of Olympic's great draught.
    1
  126. Isn't it simply a question being asked? A question given a comprehensive answer?
    1
  127.  @Nixontheman  Well, that will be your loss, if you are interested in Titanic, as he is one of the most erudite sources around.
    1
  128.  @CallmeJeffy1  Let us hope so!
    1
  129. No. The Inspection report only referred to damage to a propeller shaft, and it was only parts of a shaft intended for Titanic that were used, to reduce Olympic's downtime as much as possible.
    1
  130. Oddly, the more knowledge people have of events surrounding the sinking, the less they are likely to give house room to the absurd conspiracy myths.
    1
  131. Oltmpic was involved in a collision with a Royal Navy cruiser, but fully repaired and back at sea by the end of November, 1911.
    1
  132.  @yungfatalkain27  'Paying a lower rate company to sabotage an opposing company was not too far fetched in those days.' Actually, it was very far fetched.
    1
  133. What makes you think the ship was sunk on purpose?
    1
  134. If you mean that the Olympic and Titanic were similar in appearance, that is only to be expected of sister ships. The letters OP do not, by the way, appear on Titanic, except in a poor quality faked image from around the year 2000.
    1
  135. Although I agreew with your sentiment, Olympic was swiftly repainted in the usual White Star black after her launch.
    1
  136. A combination of errors on the part of the Solent Pilot, and the suction effect of Olympic's huge draught.
    1
  137.  @WowAndle  You can dare as much as you wish, but it doesn't lend the slightest credibility to you original comment.
    1
  138. Even better, if Harland & Wolff were in on this conspiracy, why not return Olympic to Belfast then stage an unfortunate fire aboard which destroyed the ship? Why allow the deaths of 1500+ people when you can get the same result without loss of life?
    1
  139. Do you seriously think that none of the H & W workforce would have noticed such events? Do you seriously think that not one would have mentioed them after the sinking? Seriousl;y?
    1
  140. Could I ask if those of you who post such comments have watched the same absurd video, and all swallowed it totally and unquestioningly?
    1
  141. So, your view is that the conspiracy theory is believable, because White Star lost a major asset, their safety record, and £500,000 when they perpetrated it? Could you explain exactly how that works?
    1
  142.  @laileleneirose7966  The CIA did not exist until 1947. Therefore I expect that the Conspiracy fantasists with no actual knowledge may well believe that it does.
    1
  143.  @theblackwidowchronicles  Perhaps you should have read what I actually wrote? The reference to 'Diesel Engined' for example. Prior to that U-boats had unreliable, smokey, petroleum engines, and operated in the North Sea almost exclusively. Certainly, none of the pre U19 boats had the faintest hope of reaching Newfoundland.
    1
  144.  @therewind6207  'I reckon you're right. The Germans were already looking to start something even before Titanic....Loads of ships vanished.' Really? Which for example?
    1
  145.  @therewind6207  'Who cares about diesel U-boats, they were using Oil engines in the earlier ones from 1905 onwards.' Well, the Germans cared, even if you don't. The earlier engines were unreliable, and gave off columns of white smoke. Moreover, the diesel boats had some 50% greater range than the earlier boats. This of course ignores the fact that there wasn't actually a war at the time, and wouldn't be for over two years. You aren't actually being serious, aren't you?
    1
  146.  @therewind6207  Put in words of one syllable which you might possibly understand - No, It Could Not.
    1
  147.  @theblackwidowchronicles  The Type II? Do you mean the IIA boat with a range of 1,600 nm, first built in 1934, or the IIB with a range of 3,600 nm, first built in 1935? Or even U2 of WW1, with a range of 1,600 miles? A boat used solely for training in WW1?
    1
  148.  @theblackwidowchronicles  'the Merida, the Cingetorix, the Blue Bonnett, the Hope, the Silver Spray, the Sechelt, the essie Smith. These all vanished in 1911 in the North Atlantic. Bye Bye......Mic Drop.' I suspected that there was something wrong with you, unless you simply have an odd sense of humour. Merida - Collided with Admiral Farragut on 11 May, 1911 off Cape Charles, Florida. People taken off by the Farragut. Cingetorix - Ran aground Hartland Point, 2 March, 1911. Blue Bonnett - Barge ran aground in Long Island Sound 2.8.11. Hope - Schooner collided with Hattie S. Heckman in Massachusetts harbor, 14.3.11. Sechelt - Sank in a storm in Juan de Fuca Strait. 24.3.11. Essie Smith Actually, Bessie Smith, by the way. The 127-gross register ton sternwheel paddle steamer burned at Parkersburg, West Virginia. Whether you are a comedian or merely an idiot. Do go away!
    1
  149.  @NikaNakaidze  Present aboard the U-Boat, was she?
    1
  150.  @Tozzpot500  Even U-boats of WW2 were unable to get anywhere near one of the Great Liners. Why else did the Queens carry thousands of troops, yet remained unescorted, except from AA protection from potential air attack when approaching port?
    1
  151.  @NikaNakaidze  Then her Great Grandad would have known, had he been involved, that the first diesel engined U-Boat, U19, commissioned on 6 July, 1913, having only even been launched on 10 October, 1912.
    1
  152.  @NikaNakaidze  If I were you I would keep that opinion to yourself, in order to avoid people laughing at you.
    1
  153. Lord was vilitied for his failure to act. What was 'corrupt' about the Judge?
    1
  154. He did. In the text right at the start.
    1
  155. HMS Hawke was an old ship, dating from 1893, and slower than Olympic. She was simply on trials after undergoing a refit. The original verdict of the Inquiry blamed RMS Olympic. White Star appealed, but the appeal, at a Court Hearing, failed. Responsibility was placed on the shoulders of the Solent Pilot, George Bowyer, in charge of Olympic at the time, with the suction effect of Olympic's draught playing a part. Hawke's captain did attempt to slow the ship, and she was down to about eight knots at the time of collision.
    1
  156. Why would he do that?
    1
  157. When Olympic collided with HMS Hawke, she was in the Solent, and in the charge of a Solent Pilot. This was determined in Court. Which are these other incidents involving Olympic & Smith?
    1
  158. It wasn't a 'holding pattern' whatever that is. It was simply a captain aboard Californian who dailed to respond to the concerns expressed to him by his officers, and was rightly later vilified for it.
    1
  159.  @eliel_360  I wonder what pleasure these strange people get from making up these bizarre claims?
    1
  160. If you have a full order book, sacking experienced men would not seem logical. Moreover, at the time, H & W were not prolific builders of warships.
    1
  161. The ship was, without reasonable doubt, the freighter 'Californian.' The flares from Titanic were reported to her Captain, but he showed a remarkable unwillingness to investigate what was happening.
    1
  162. Except the first German U-boat with a diesel engine, and even the theoretical ability to get to Newfoundland, let alone catch and torpedo a liner moving at 20+ knots, was U19, only commissioned a tear later.
    1
  163.  @Whiteshell204  Aren't the conspiracy fantasy videos you have swallowed whole such FUN?! Why spoil them by actually checking a fact or two?
    1
  164.  @Whiteshell204  I am impressed that you can tell that, given that I am not a US citizen. If you are typical, then thank God for small mercies. But, of course, you are not typical.
    1
  165. Aside from your mistaken belief that HMS Hawke did not have any 'battering ability' your Machiavellian suggestion is entertaining, but unworthy of further comment.
    1
  166.  @scatteredrustyprojects  How wouold you know what I am or am not qualified to comment upon? Simply look up Edgar Class cruisers, or 'Inverted bow' for yourself. You might learn something, perhaps?
    1
  167.  @Yisrael_Teshuvah  Attributed to whom, by whom?
    1
  168. Actually, they can.
    1
  169.  @lordhegamonster6931  The reasoned opinions of a respected academic on sites like this are always much appreciated. How sad, then, that you clearly are not one.
    1
  170. White Star appealed the original conclusion and went to court, but lost their appeal.
    1
  171.  @Blackfoxparadox  I fear you have fallen for one of Mr. Molony's creations. Mount Temple was not in the immediate vicinity of Titanic. I saw his video as well. Absolute nonsense, just like his claim of burn marks on the hull. Sadly, in entirely the wtong location. You also seem to have fallen for the Californian blanket myth. Odd, then, that the Boston shipping newspapers said that he cargo was a 'mixed, general' one when she docked on 19 April. I suggest?
    1
  172. No, but it can puncture the hull and create flooding conditions. I refer you to MV Explorer, as recently as 2007.
    1
  173. How do you switch namplates when the names of both ships were etched into their hulls?
    1
  174. Why sink either, after Olympic had been repaired for around 1.67% of her initial building cost?
    1
  175. Well, It is more credible than the switch theory, I suppose!
    1
  176. Lloyds paid out £1 million. The ship cost £1.5 million to build. Scams do not usually lose the scammer £500,000 not to mention a major asset & a safety record. Do they?
    1
  177.  @Kolonol1  I have merely pointed out that Cunard was a British owned company, whilst White Star's parent company was an American one. Which of those claims is factually inaccurate?
    1
  178.  @Kolonol1  No. The point you made was "what kind of company would put itself under that kind of scrutiny" a company that had the backing of the royal family and the richest people on earth.' You haven't, subsequently, made a single argument to support it, have you?
    1
  179. 'So you tell me what a ship would be doing in 1912 in the middle of the Atlantic with no passengers full crew and an excess amount of life belts?' Good question. No ship would. However, neither did Californian. She was basically a freighter. She had room to take a small number of passengers, but she earned her corn by taking cargo (in this case, a mixed, general, one, according to the Boston shipping papers when she docked on 19 April) to the United States, then reloading with cotton from New Orleans. The claim of the lifebelts, or blankets, or sweaters, or whatever, is simply made up. Moreover, had there been a shred of credibility in the allegations, why, when Lord was told about the flares from a large liner, did he do nothing. Wasn't that the entire reason he was there, in your theory?
    1
  180.  @johnperrybarlowdeclaration4702  Indeed it was. Now take your medication and stop annoying the normal folk.
    1
  181.  @ABBATributeNZ  Actually, when Californian docked in Boston on 19 April, the shipping newspapers stated that she was carrying a 'mixed, general' cargo, as Leyland Line ships generally did. Perhaps you might ask yourself if, when Boston customs processed her manifest, collective eyebrows might have been raised had a ship which had been in the immediate vicinity of a maritime disaster had been found to have been carrying so odd a cargo. Unless, of course, there was a desperate blanket shortage in the Boston area at the time? Moreover, if a rescue ship really had been planned, Californian was almost totally unsuited to the task. There was no 'fishing boat' in the area at the time. The claims about Samson were proven false long ago.
    1
  182.  @of1300  So what you are actually claiming is that the lack of any evidence is the best proof of all that what you are claiming is true, because 'THEY!!' either destroyed or concealed it all. I am still looking forward to your evidence of this 'shipping war.'
    1
  183. The way the obsessive conspiracy loons explain it seems to be that the absence of evidence is the biggest proof of all that it really happened, and that all the actual evidence was systematically destroyed, or altered by 'THEM.'
    1
  184. Really? A £1 million payout wouldn't have funded many arms, would it, given that it cost £1.5 million to build each Olympic, and £2.5 million to build a single Queen Elizabeth class battleship?
    1
  185. My abiding memory of that 'documentary' now re-released under a new name and attacting a new group of fools, is 'That poor sod needs a few good meals.'
    1
  186. That would only be the case if, after the facts had been explained, they still insisted in believing in the fantasy.
    1
  187. Yes, he is rather impressive. Especially since her really knows his subject.
    1
  188.  @dylancloud97  White Star appealed, but a Court found against them. However, the Court did not require White Star to finance HMS Hawke's repairs.
    1
  189. 'Suspicious behaviour?' feel free to elaborate.
    1
  190.  @bpdbhp1632  Have you read the statements of the several Master Mariners and Liner Captains at the British Inquiry? All of who confirmed that they would have behaved in the same manner that Smith did? Usually, lookouts were not provided with binoculars, as their role was to scan the whole of the horizon, not parts of it. Should anything be sighted, the lookout would immediately notify the bridge, where officers with binoculars would identify the object, and determine a course of action. To explain this in more details, the dollowing is an extensive quote from the 'Encyclopedia Titanica' :- Much was also made of a box in the crow’s nest – a small box in the port after corner (B11325) that could be used to hold binoculars. One of the enduring misconceptions in Titanic history is that this proves that binoculars were intended for the crow’s nest. In fact, they were not. The question was put to Charles Bartlett, Marine Superintendent of the White Star Line, at the British Inquiry: 21715. (Mr. Scanlan.) Why have you a bag or a box in the crow’s nest to hold binoculars if you do not think they are required? That was not always for binoculars; that was for anything the men used in the look-out. 21716. It was not always for binoculars, but it was for anything a man might use on the look-out, you say? Yes. 21717. What do you mean by that? His muffler, his clothes, and his oilskin coat and that sort of thing. There is generally a canvas bag put up there. In order to understand why binoculars were not provided as standard equipment, we need to delve into some of the post-sinking testimony as to how the utility of binoculars by lookouts was regarded in 1912. When we do so, we find that there appears to be a great difference of opinion. Not a single captain voiced an opinion in favor of them, and some were quite outspoken against them: Do you think it is desirable to have them? No, I do not. Captain Richard Jones, Master, S.S. Canada (B23712) We have never had them. Captain Frederick Passow, Master, S.S. St. Paul (B21877) I would never think of giving a man in the lookout a pair of glasses. Captain Stanley Lord, Master, S.S. Californian (U. S. Day 8) I have never believed in them. – Captain Benjamin Steele, Marine Superintendent at Southampton for the White Star Line (B21975) Even the famed Antarctic explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton, presumably called to testify because of his extensive knowledge of ice and icebergs, said that he “did not believe in any look-out man having any glasses at all.” (B25058) Why should this be? Surely a set of binoculars would be a useful asset if one’s job requires spotting things at a distance, as binoculars magnify things and bring them closer to view. The testimony of Captain Bertram Hayes, Master of the White Star Line’s Adriatic, points us to the answer: 21846. They are a source of danger, Sir. They spoil the look-out. 21847. How is that? The look-out man when he sees a light if he has glasses is more liable to look at it and see what kind of a ship it is. That is the officer’s business. The look-out man’s business is to look out for other lights. Having a set of binoculars in hand, then, might inadvertently take a lookout’s attention away from the “big picture” – scanning a large area ahead and to either side – or worse, causing him to delay a report while he examined the object more closely. Second Officer Lightoller indicated much the same sentiment when he was asked if binoculars would not have helped the lookouts identify what they saw as an iceberg sooner: “He might be able to identify it, but we do not wish him to identify it. All we want him to do is to strike the bells.” (B14293) He was referring to the bell in Titanic’s crow’s nest, which the lookouts were required to strike upon sighting an object: one gong of the bell called the Bridge Officer’s attention to something off the port bow, two gongs meant something off the starboard bow, and three gongs indicated something ahead. It must be emphasized that the Senior Officer on the Bridge would be keeping his own watch, not relying entirely on the lookout. If the lookout did see something that the officer had not seen already with his own eyes, he would then observe it – using his own set of binoculars if necessary – and decide on what action to take.
    1
  191. 'Lost the Olympic?' When did that happen?
    1
  192. Then you are on a loser where the average conspiracy fantasist is concerned!
    1
  193.  @ABBATributeNZ  Actually, when Californian (you forgot the 'N') docked in Boston on 19 April, the shipping newspapers stated that she was carrying a 'mixed, general' cargo, as Leyland Line ships generally did. Perhaps you might ask yourself if, when Boston customs processed her manifest, collective eyebrows might have been raised had a ship which had been in the immediate vicinity of a maritime disaster had been found to have been carrying so odd a cargo. Unless, of course, there was a desperate blanket shortage in the Boston area at the time? Olympic responded to Titanic's signals,but was over 500 miles way when she received them.
    1
  194. They weren't.
    1
  195. Would perpetrating an insurance fraud which cost the fraudsters a major asset, their safety record, and £500,000 really be the result of a series of bad decisions? Or would it, more correctly, have required the entire board of White Star to have been clinically insane?
    1
  196. It is simply not possible to make a credible argument for the swap without ignoring the vast amount of available evidence. Sorry!
    1
  197. Well, Olympic managed quite well.
    1
  198. Who is this mysterious 'they?'
    1
  199.  @eliel_360  A fascinating exchange!! Isn't it odd, however, that those who urge others to 'do the research' are invariably the ones who appear to have done little or none themselves?
    1
  200.  @sommesoul33  Odd, that. You appear to think that my post was specifically aimed at you, rather than it being merely a general comment. I wonder why that might be? However, now that you have approached me direct, please feel free to explain to me who did fund WW1 & WW2, what that has to do with Titanic, and why you should accuse, in advance, of 'bullying' anyone who might disagree with you?
    1
  201.  @sommesoul33  Which I interpret to mean ' I cannot answer any of your questions.' Oh well. However, perhaps you might consider something one of my tutors told us at university some years ago? 'When people resort to insults rather than argument, it suggests that they haven't actually got any argument.'
    1
  202. Where do you think you have read that?
    1
  203. Except that Captain Smith was no more a Jesuit than you are. He was a member of the Church of England, and married in a C of E church. Although the Jesuits were not involved, what would they have to gain if they had been?
    1
  204.  @eliel_360  We can but hope!
    1
  205. 'there's information not being mentioned plain and simple...' Really? Like the fact that neither Astor nor Guggenheim had ever expressed their opinions about the Fed? Or the fact that Straus was known to be a supporter?
    1
  206.  @Whiteshell204  Is that the best you can do? Insults as a first response simply demonstrate that the person posting the insults isn't actually sure of his facts. Still, I expect you enjoyed the conspiracy fantasy video you swallowed whole, did you?
    1
  207.  @1112223333111  'the opposition to the creation of the federal reserve. Aston, Gugganheim and Straus. look it up.' Indeed you should. When you do, you will find that neither Astor nor Guggenheim ever expressed their views about the Federal Reserve. Straus did, however. In October, 1911, he give a speech in favour of it, which can still been read in the NYT archives.
    1
  208. Fact. Olympic was dully repaired and back at sea by later Novembeer, 1911. The cost? £25,000 or 1.67% of her origonal building costs. Fact. Morgan had said in March that he was attending an event at St. Mark's in Venice on 23 April, whic he could not have done had he sailed in Titanic. This was even mentioned in the NYT of 28 March, 1912. Fact. Of the three rich men, two, Astor & Guggenheim, had never expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst the third, Straus, had, in October 1911, given a speech in favour of the idea.
    1
  209. Not really.
    1
  210. The French, nor anyone else, made any such claim. The 'images' appeared, out of nowhere, in around the year 2000. No-one has ever claimed them. Perhaps because they are not very good CGI, even by 2000 standards?
    1
  211. In his defence, it does seem to have worked for him. Although I often wonder if, secretly, even he took what he wrote seriously.
    1
  212. I have 'proof' that by rights I should be Holy Roman Emperor. Just like 'your dad' I also made it up.
    1
  213. Basically, conspiracy fantasy extremists to whom everything is a gigantic plot perpetrated by 'THEM!'
    1
  214. So, you believe an invented claim from 1990s social media?
    1
  215.  @joshuawilke4672  I didn't say that you did believe it. I simply asked if you did. Hence the ? at the end of my comment.
    1
  216. Why don';t you look into the same people? Astor & Guggenheim never made their opinions known, which Straus had spoken strongly in favour of the Fed. in October, 1911. Morgan had said in March 1912 that he intended to be in Venice on 23 April. This was evewn mentioned in a newspaper article in the NYT in late March. You have been taken in by a fact-free conspiracy fantasy video.
    1
  217.  @primergoalhorns04  No. Only sections of a propeller shaft waiting to be installed in Titanic.
    1
  218.  @primergoalhorns04  15,000 Ulster shipworkers realise, after the sinking, that they had been involved in an action which resulted in the deaths of 12500+ people, yet not one of them, nor any members of their families, mentions it for the rest of their lives? Is such an idea really credible?
    1
  219.  @Lady.B0420  Insurance fraud doesn't work when the alleged perpetrators lost a major asset, their safety recird, and £500,000
    1
  220.  @BrinJay-s4v  Put simply, the 401 number is the blade at the wrecksite because the wreck is that of Titanic.
    1
  221. Really? What might it be?
    1
  222. Except that Olympic had been crossing the Atlantic regularly since returning to sea, after repair, in November, 1911.
    1
  223. The original novel, or the one altered to align more closely with the Titanic sinking?
    1
  224. She wasn't damaged beyond repair. She was actually repaired and back at sea by the end of November 1911. White Star could not claim from Lloyds because Olympic was deemed at fault for the collision.
    1
  225.  @blaineobrien4720  Not to worry. The question is often asked.
    1
  226. Thwy were sister ships and, like Lusitania & Mauretania, were similar to each other. But there were certainly obvious differences.
    1
  227. She was also used as trooper during WW1, and even sank a U-Boat. She had been back at sea since late November, 1911, of course. However, shhhhh!!! Don't tell the switchers, as it tends to upset them!
    1
  228. Only if you are gullible to believe a conspiracy fantasy which appeared with the rise of social media, in the 1990s. Prior to then, you will not find the slightest suggestion of any connection between the two events.
    1
  229. HMS Hawke had a ram style bow, not a ram bow as such. Her bow crumpled upon impact, in a similar manner to the 'crumple zone' on modern cars. The Admiralty, White Star, & the Board of Trade produced a detailed inspection report which disagrees with you, by the way.
    1
  230. Does it? How is that comment even relevant here?
    1
  231. 'The Jews sunk it as they created the federal reserve behind Americans backs . Everyone who could oppose them just happened to be on the titanic.' Really? Were they herded together from all over Europe and forced at gunpoint onto the ship? I never knew that. Nor, of course, did anyone else.
    1
  232. 50,000 ton liners, or even 8,000 ton cruisers, tend to behave and respond rather differently from your average motor car.
    1
  233.  @SamanthaDavies1536  White Star's appeal was heard in Court, after the Company disagreed with the findings of the Admiralty board.
    1
  234. You presumably haven't heard of the suction effect caused by Olympic's large draught? I recommend an article from a US Naval Institute publication from August, 2007. 'Naval History,' Volume 21, Issue 4, by John Protasio, which cites statements given by naval architects at the time, and comes out strongly in favour of it.
    1
  235. I suspect you probably would if you were referring to New Amsterdam/New York prior to 1664. A similar example might be the sacking of York by American forces during the War of 1812. Only later, from 1834, did York change name to the modern one, of Toronto.
    1
  236. It isn't a credible insurance fraud when it costs the fraudsters £500,000, a major asset, and their safety record.
    1
  237. Generally, the publicity materials used artist's picture of a generic Olympic class vessel, rather than photographs.
    1
  238. Only of you believe a fact-free myth invented in the 1990s.
    1
  239. Perhaps he was simply bored of plastering, and looked for another income stream?
    1
  240. No, she didn't. Seriously, do you really believe in a conversation something like this took place? :- Joseph Bell (Chief Engineer) to Captain Smith : 'Sir, there is a massive coal fire raging below decks!' Smith : 'Never mind Joe, we'll sail anyway. It's only the North Atlantic in April. With a bit of luck, we might get to New York.'
    1
  241. Olympic was not repaired 'to a degree' but was fully repaired and back at sea from late November, 1911.
    1
  242. How would the Germans have benefitted? Cunard might have, but were not involved, and how would an accident at sea affect Harland & Wolff?
    1
  243. No, they weren't. The case between White Star and the RN had been settled several months earlier.
    1
  244. Astor & Guggenheim never made their opinions known, which Straus had spoken strongly in favour of the Fed. in October, 1911.
    1
  245. It is a fact, although the hotel, the White Swan, is in Alnwick, Northumberland. Near to Jattow, where most of Olympic's internal fittings were removed, and many auctioned off.
    1
  246. More likely, Gardiner was fed up with working as a plasterer, and was looking for another source of income. I would not be surprised if even he was taken aback by the success of his entertaining, but factually wildly inaccurate, book.
    1
  247. Feel entirely free to explain your theory about an American transatlantic shipping war on British shipping, as every maritime historian working in the field seems to have missed it. Had the British found a way of attaching engines to an iceberg in 1912? What absolute bounders and cads!
    1
  248.  @of1300  Of course RMS Olympic was deliberately attacked by a warship. In 1916, when she was hit by a torpedo frpm a U-boat, which failed to explode. No rational person at all believes that the collision with HMS Hawke im September, 1911 was anything other than accidental.
    1
  249. Harland & Wolff used the same materials for Titanic that they had for Olympic, and the Lloyds insurance was never altered. It was for £1 million (two thirds of building cost) and £1 million was what Lloyds duly paid out.
    1
  250. Who actually gained from the Titanic sinking? Apart, possibly, from Cunard?
    1
  251. Well, we have been waiting over 110 years, the wreck has been inspected countless times, and all the evidence available shows that Titanic is really Titanic.
    1
  252.  @grumpyoldman-21  That wasn't an inspection. That was a quick visit by people with more money than sense, aboard a jerry-built excuse for a DSV.
    1
  253. Have you ever thought to ask yourself why, if this poor quality CGI image from 2000 was authentic, the expedition which found it never mentioned it, no Titanic researcher or historian has ever taken it seriously, and even the father of the switch myth himself declared it to be fake?
    1
  254.  @TheCountofToulouse  He wasn't in command of Olympic when she collided with HMS Hawke. The ships were in the Solent, and Olympic was in the charge of a Solent Pilot, George Bowyer. Olympic did not run aground at all when Smith was her Master. Repair costs following her collision were £25,000 or 1.67% of her original building costs, and she was back at sea by late November, 1911. Whereever do you get your ideas from?
    1
  255. No, it isn't.
    1
  256. Do you not know how totally Molony's book has been discredited? Why would the 'break up' have been 'covered up, by the way. Surely the point was the sinking, not the manner of it?
    1