Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Titanic Conspiracy: The Full Truth | Part Two" video.

  1. Conan-Doyle, through Sherlock Holmes, summed this up, when he wrote 'It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Inevitably one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.' However, I would go further. Where Conspiracists & Switchers are concerned, replace 'twist' with 'invent.'
    14
  2. 'And whilst ive not read any of Gardiners books I've read the more recent "RMS Olympic" by John Hamer, and there's TONS more evidence to support the switch theory that this smooth talker doesn't even mention to you here!' Really? Tell us what some of your 'evidence' is then. I look forward to seeing it. Aside from the fact that Mr. Hamer has never yet stumbled across a conspiracy theory he hasn't immediately swallowed whole, he seems generally simply regurgitate Gardiner's long disproven nonsense. 'JPMorgan used the event (which oddly enough was much more publicised than Olympic's maiden voyage) to attract & bump off all the 3 billionaires who objected to his forming of the US Federal Reserve.' Firstly, Olympic's maiden voyage was a much more celebrated affair than Titanic's. Haven't you thought to ask why there is no contemporary footage of Titanic leaving Southampton, for example? Or that there is precisely no newsreel footage of Titanic in her completed state? Secondly, the claim of any connection with the Fed. only appeared with the rise of Social Media in the 1990s. Were you to take the time & effort to look into the careers of Astor & Guggenheim, you would be shocked to discover that neither had expressed any opinion about the Fed. Straus is easier to check, as his speech in support of the Federal Reserve concept, made in October, 1911, was reported in the New York Times and can still be read. I can give you the details if you wish. 'In fact one of the propellers dropped off on one NY crossing, which required another return to Belfast,. and another chance to switch the ships!!' No, it didn't. One propellor blade was damaged when it struck an underwater object. Olympic returned to Belfast, and a new blade was fitted, before Olympic left, some three or four days later. 'A chance to switch the ships?' Only in your fevered imagination. 'Oh, and it doesnt matter if there were a million workers at that shipyard who all knew about "the switch" or how many were drunkenly talking about it in bars.' There is no record of any such claims by anyone, and Ulstermen are not noted for being either particularly secretive, or being cowed by authority. If you think that your comment is true, please supply a source. By the way, the term source refers to a contemporary record, such as a newspaper, not to some nonsense you read in a switcher video. 'And how after the Cunard rescue ship dropped the "Titanic" lifeboats off at White Star NY pier terminal, they noticed how the names had been chiselled off of them but so badly they could still tell they were "Olympic" ' Who are these 'they' and why is none of this documented? You evidently are unaware that lifeboats did not have the names of the ship to which they were allocated carved into their sides, largely because they were often transferred between other ships of the line. The most any lifeboat would have had might have been a plate attached by a couple of screws. Why have none of these plates survived, either? Furthermore, the US Inquiry began on 19 April, 1912. The boats languished in New York harbour for months. How was it that this dramatic evidence of the switch never reached Senator Smith, nor anyone else connected with it? Sorry, owd lad, but you seem to have swallowed whole most of the nonsense excreted by switchers over the years. I would suggest that you try to think for yourself, but I doubt that you would dare. Still, any 'evidence' you can produce would be fascinating to me.
    9
  3.  @jritechnology  No you don't. You have to look at the information surrounding the sinking of Titanic, and make a rational judgement based on that. The rational conclusion in that case being that Titanic collided with an iceberg and sank.
    8
  4. Whereever did you get this drivel from? White Star had attempted to claim for repairs to Olympic following her collision with HMS Hawke, but a court held that the fault was that of the Solent Pilot in charge of Olympic at the time. As a result, though White Star could not claim, neither were they held liable for repairs to HMS Hawke. Consequently, they paid Harland & Wolff £25,000 and the repaired Olympic was back at sea in Late November, 1911. A nuisance, but as the company had posted profits in the region of £1 million in the previous financial year, not a serious one. Indeed, also in November 1911, White Star confirmed with H & W their order for the third Olympic, RMS Britannic. There was never the remotest suggestion that Olympic was a 'write off' as inspection teams fro the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and White Star themselves had already confirmed. '1. Irrelevant due to the fact that they were going into receivership if they didn't somehow get the insurance money for the Olympic, given that it was crippled.' Nonsense. White Star were a successful company. I have already told you of their trading strength, and their order for a third Olympic. Does that sound like a company on the brink? Seriously? '2. There is no such thing as bad publicity, and it could be spun to cover any possible bad consequences.' Do explain how anyone could 'spin' the loss of 1500 lives and a huge liner as anything other than a bad thing! 'I believe that the sinking of the ship at sea where it could not be recovered or inspected, would cover up any obvious proof of the switch. I'm still keeping an open mind.' This may come as a shock to you, but when ships sink, it is always at sea! After posting such nonsense, you claim to be keeping an open mind? As a famous tennis player was wont to say 'You cannot be serious!'
    7
  5. It I had a pound for every piece of credible evidence which suggested that the ships had been swapped, I would still be totally skint.
    7
  6. But nor does it apply to the Titanic sinking.
    6
  7. Where ever do you get these notions? Did you simply watch a conspiracy video & swallow it whole? 'It is very interesting that Morgan was booked on the maiden voyage of Titanic, but cancelled at the last minute. Very interesting.' It would indeed have been interesting, had it been true, but Morgan had already, in March, 1912, announced that he intended to be at an event in Venice before Titanic could have returned from New York. He hadn't sailed on Olympic for her maiden voyage in 1911, either. Do you consider that suspicious, by the way? Actually, checking Morgan's returns from Europe from 1904 to 1912 reveals that only twice (1908 and 1910) in those years did he return to New York from Europe before July, and in one of those years (1908) he returned so early only to attend a family wedding, before heading back to Europe a few days later and staying there until late August. By the way, those occasions when he returned early were in June - never as early as April. Even more conclusively, 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 to New York on April 10, when he was due in Venice by April 23, given that the transatlantic voyage at the time was at least 5 days long, and therefore he could not have made it back in time. 'I don't think Gardner ever thought the workers in Belfast even knew or were complicit in the switch.' Really? You don't think that H & W's workers were bright enough to realise that they were suddenly carrying out modification to the ships to alter their identities? You have a much lower opinion of the intelligence of those workmen than is warranted, just as you seem to assume than most of the office & management staff of H & W were complicit in the plot. Where is there any anger about Gardiner's book? It is simply, and accurately, proven to be the entertaining nonsense that it was.
    5
  8.  @pinkypie0751  There is no 'unequivocal proof' at all that what is being said in this video is untrue. I assume your 'several documentaries' are the usual conspiracy theory nonsense which began being created after the rise of social media, and following Robin Gardiner's entertaining, but evidence free, book, in the 1990s? There is plenty of evidence, by the way, at the wrecksite, such as the window pattern on 'B' deck and the cast number on the propellor blade. Both of which prove that the wreck is that of Titanic, of course.
    5
  9. The Admiralty report, with which teams from White Star and the Board of Trade concurred, referred to damage to propeller shafting, but not to the propeller itself. Only propeller shafting intended for Titanic was used, not the propeller itself. This idea was, simply, an invention of enthusiastic switch fanatics who simply could not bring themselves to accept the facts about the number discovered on the blade at the wrecksite. The collision with HMS Hawke did not involve keel damage, again as the Admiralty synopsis, which made no reference to any such thing, confirmed. The first suggestion of keel damage was made in the 1990s by Robin Gardiner. Although a court case did place the blame for the collision on Olympic, and thus White Star could not claim from Lloyds, it also placed the blame on the Solent Pilot who had charge of Olympic at the time, George Bowyer, and not on Smith.
    5
  10. Oh dear, another one who watched a conspiracy video and swallowed it whole. If Morgan got off the ship, how was it that the New York Times contained an article about hime in March 1911, stating that he intended to be in Venice on 22 April, to attend at event at St. Mark's? It can still be read. Details available on request. The Rothchilds were of course different. Are you referring to all of them, by the way? Actually none of them were ever booked to travel in Titanic. Astor & Guggenheim had never expressed any opposition to the Federal Reserve, by the way. Straus had expressed his view in October, 1911, when he gave a speech in favour of it. Would you like me to give you details of the account of this speech in the NYT, or would you prefer to remain ignorant?
    4
  11.  @Tozzpot500  I regret that you are being dragged into this nonsense. Sadly, when trolls like these appear, the actual subject tends to be left far behind. If anything, I regret the adverse effect the antics of these people is having on the video itself. Mr. Brady clearly has gone to a considerable effort, only to see these people degrading his work.
    4
  12. Had there been the slightest credibility in the claim that Olympic was damaged beyond repair, then the craftiest way to claim back the two thirds of the building costs for which she was insured would have been, with the covert agreement of Harland & Wolff, a sad but accidental dockyard fire. No deaths, and an enormous amount of sympathy for both companies. However, as Olympic had been repaired and returned to sea from late November, 1911, I doubt anyone will be writing a book about the fire anytime soon!
    4
  13. 15,000 men worked for Harland & Wolff by 1911-1912.
    4
  14.  @alexandros4703  'That's almost the exact same text as Lovey Dovey's aka Albert Einstein's. Are you sure you're not both the same nerd?' Perhaps it is the same because it is a fact? Hadn't you considered that possibility?
    4
  15.  @alexandros4703  'In addition to your Budgie syndrome you also use the word "fact" incessantly in your commentary, like you have the sole monopoly on the word.' Then feel free to explain which of Tozzpot's facts are not actually facts. Are you saying that Olympic was not repaired and returned to sea, as described? That the order for Britannic was not placed in the same month, or that repairs did not cost £25,000 Which of those statements are not facts? I use the word 'fact' frequently because it is an accurate use of the word. Much to be preferred to vague insults of a personal nature, I suggest. Oh, and which of my 'facts' other than the error about Titanic's single-ended boilers, which I have freely accepted, are actually made up?
    4
  16.  @alexandros4703  'Word for word? same lexicon? Will you be bringing out your Dizzy one today?' I use the word 'fact' frequently because it is an accurate use of the word. Much to be preferred to vague insults of a personal nature, I suggest. As you have just demonstrated once again. Why not try to discuss events surrounding Titanic on a civilised level? It isn't all that difficult if you try really hard.
    4
  17. If you really believe that the ships were switched, how would you explain the fact that in April, 1912 both Olympic and Titanic were at sea, and both steaming at 20+ knots?
    4
  18.  @eliel_360  It isn't even good CGI by the standards of 2000, when it emerged from nowhere.
    4
  19. Equally interesting is :- "Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories' by Edward Flaherty, an academic economist. Which examines Griffin's thesis, and rather dismantles it as "amateurish" and "highly suspect."
    4
  20.  @calvinbeachy7902  You recommended a book. I recommended a response to that book. Now you write :- 'Most economists are on the federal reserve’s payroll.' Isn't that the usual response of the Conspiracist? 'It's all a vast plot by 'them.'
    4
  21. I presume you prefer conspiracy fantasies to documented evidence?
    4
  22. Feel free to mention them in order to have them corrected.
    4
  23. When the ice compromises five or six compartments, and the 'steel structure' compromises two, yes.
    4
  24. 'Well researched?' Are you really serious? Gardiner's book was thoroughly evicerated, well before his death in 2017, by every Titanic historian & researcher on the planet. Even his own co-author, Dan van der Vat, a genuine naval historian, rapidly distanced himself from it.
    4
  25. Olympic was in Belfast for four days in easly March, 1912, to replace a she propeller blade What do you consider 'unfactual' about the video?
    4
  26. The switch nonsense is a myth invented by an amateur writer, Robin Gardiner, in the 1990s, and later propagated by a number of conspiracist fantasists, to whom everything is part of a series of huge and evil plots conceived and operated by 'THEM! In the real world, Olympic was returned to Harland & Wolff, repaired by them in about seven weeks, at a cost to White Star of £25,000, and sent back to sea from late November, 1911.
    4
  27. Feel entirely free to state what information has been left out. Please don't leave us all on tenterhooks!
    4
  28.  @luigicorvi1661  It still doesn't make the idea any less of a fantasy, given that Astor & Guggenheim's opinions were never expressed, and that Straus supported the idea of the Fed. Or the fact that the votes in the US Senate & House of Representatives which created the Fed. in December 1913 were hardly knife-edge affairs.
    4
  29. The video to which you refer was actually originally released around 12 years ago as ' "Titanic - The Shocking Truth." It was widely ridiculed then, and age has hardly improved it. If you seek well-researched and accurate videos about the nonsense that is the Titanic conspiracy fantasy, stick to Mr. Brady's productions.
    4
  30. Your comments made more sense before I hit the translate button. At least then I was unaware of how nonsensical they really were.
    4
  31. This is what I, and anyone who actually knows anything about Titanic, makes of it:- 1). Olympic was not 'beyond repair.' In fact, she had been repaired, and returned to sea from 20 November, 1911, when Titanic was still some five months from completion. The cost to White Star was about £25,000 (at 1911 monetary values), or 1.67% of Olympic's building cost. Morgan didn't pay anything out to have anything scrapped, as he had been dead since 1913. When Olympic was withdrawn from service, in 1935, after the merger of Cunard & White Star, and at the same time as her old rival Mauretania, she was purchased, for £97,500 and went first to Jarrow for partial dismantling, and then to Inverkeithing, where her hull was broken up. Cunard/White Star did not pay anyone to scrap her. Quite the reverse. 2). Titanic, not Olympic, had around 2,220 people aboard when she sank, which included a full crew of around 900. Nor, of course, was she deliberately sunk. 3). 'Gain about ten million quid from the exercise.' Hardly. The sinking cost White Star a major asset, a record for safety, and £500,000 because Titanic was only insured for £1 million, against her building costs of £1.5 million, again at 1912 monetary values, of course. The only people who might perhaps have gained anything from the sinking, albeit indirectly, could have been Cunard.
    4
  32.  @DakotaFord592  Perhaps he could also make a video about the Cottingley fairies? Just as believable as 'white privilege'.
    4
  33.  @gjustg1540  Which ships 'sat waiting?' Don't you think that both the Manhattan Project & Bletchley Park involved issues of far greater import than the sailing of an ocean liner? Or that things like the Official Secrets Act, or the US equivalents, may have been relevant? Furthermore, many of Harland & Wolff's staff were made redundant after the end of WW1, only six and a half years later. What induced them to keep silent, and, anyway, what was 'compartmentalised' about the work they did? Moreover, those crew members who escaped Titanic's sinking never, for the rest of their lives, made any suggestions about anything suspicious about either the ship or the sinking. Indeed, no one at all did, until an amateur historian, Robin Gardiner, wrote a largely fact-free book about it in the 1990s.
    3
  34. If any moderators are checking this site, I urge them to have a really good look, as some of the comments currently appearing fall well below the standard we have come to accept.
    3
  35. Why have you referenced a video which borders upon rampant insanity?
    3
  36. Stop annoying the conspiracy theorists. Sensible questions upset them and they are easily angered.
    3
  37.  @robiandolo  Don't rely on videos, as a fair number are made by conspiracy fantasists who tend to make things up as they go along. Try instead to find documentary records from the period. The minutes of the two Inquiries are useful as a start point. You could also look at some of the many books written by actual Titanic historians and researchers, who do tend to provide supporting evidence for their conclusions.
    3
  38.  @sologamer3122  I wasn't criticising, just adding to the strength of the point you made.
    3
  39. You wouldn't even need to do that. Assuming H & W were in on the plot, a sad but devastating fire could have been arranged in the shipyard, with no-one at all dying! But then, of course, all the unintentionally comic conspiracy fantasy videos would never have happened, and in times like these there would have been many less things about which to laugh. Read my book, 'How the Federal Reserve came into being through a staged dockyard fire.' Available soon in all charity chops, price 50 pence.
    3
  40. Equally, had only four compartments been compromised, she wouldn't have sunk.
    3
  41.  @alexandros4703  Oh dear, more insults instead of debate. Show me any evidence at all that either White Star or Harland & Wolff promoted the Olympics as 'unsinkable?'
    3
  42.  @Tozzpot500  Sorry that you are getting this abuse. It seems to be the default response from certain quarters. I have resolved to ignore Alexandros' insults from now on, in whatever of his incarnations he chooses to send them. Call it an early New Year's Resolution which, unlike the others involving visits to Health Centres, I am determined to keep!
    3
  43.  @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
  44. Then, oh superior one, kindly educate we lesser mortals about the true facts of the the Titanic affair.
    3
  45. 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
  46.  @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
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50.  @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
  51.  @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
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. What 'talk' did your grandparents remember?
    3
  55.  @jritechnology  'Oh, you have a simple mind. Sorry, other people with more outside the box thinking will understand my meaning.' Insults are a very poor excuse for debate. Please explain what leads you to your suggestion that my mind is 'simple?'
    3
  56. How does it do that, pray?
    3
  57. Don't you know exactly how many authorities about Titanic have taken Mr. Namer's nonsense to pieces? All this video has done is examined Gardiner's claims, and used actual facts to discredit them. You do seem to have a problem with facts, however indisputable they might be. Why is that, pray?
    3
  58. Feel free to post any source from the time which suggests that Astor or Guggenheim opposed the Fed. It is, of course, easy to post a source which shows that Straus supported the idea.
    3
  59.  @Andrew_on_tv  Fair enough. Sarcasm doesn't work in writing, however.
    3
  60.  @Dizzy19.  A noble effort, but I am sure that you realised early on that you were replying to someone who is at best a fantasist and at worst a total idiot.
    3
  61.  @Tozzpot500  Sometimes, a post appears which is so totally crazy that it is not worth replying. I found this one on another site, replied to the first half, and then gave up. I salute you for being more determined than I, even though I fear that your effort will be something of water off a duck's back. These berks do not respond to reason.
    3
  62. Morgan died less than a year after Titanic sank, and around six months before the Federal Reserve came into being. The ship was actually insured for only two thirds of her building costs. Not the smartest of insurance frauds, I suggest?
    3
  63.  @charliefarley9658  'Cameron got that scene from the transcripts of the disaster inquiry from NY. Although not reproduced in it's entirety it was a factual event as described by the witness in her testimony.' Sorry, but Mrs. Lines did not testify at either 1912 Inquiry. She did, however, provide evidence at the 1913 Limitation of Liability Hearing. She was actually quite specific in her claims, which were that Ismay commented to Smith that Titanic was performing better on her maiden voyage than Olympic had in the previous June.. She did not, however, claim that any reference was made to a speed increase, or that Ismay sought to order Smith to take such action. The concersation in the movie is an invented one.
    3
  64.  @ukraineunited5855  Oh dear, personal insults rather than discussion. I think I have deduced where you are coming from. The question on any thread was simply to ask you to expand on your original post, which I assumed was a genuine one. In view of the nature of your replies, it now appears that it was no such thing.
    3
  65.  @Dizzy19.  My thoughts exactly!
    3
  66. Congratulations! You have awakened the corpse of William Swithin, or expattaffy1, in a new guise of expattaffy1954. You will shortly find that you are a paid shill, and that Titanic sailed around for some 23 years with her name boldly displayed on her bow. I have had the good fortune to have been a paid shill for years. Welcome to the group.
    3
  67.  @gerardbonus5354  What 'more serious damage?' Parts of Titanic's starboard propeller SHAFT, not yet fitted to the incomplete ship, were used to replace the same damaged parts in Olympic in October ot November, 1911. The only other damage Olympic suffered prior to Titanic's sinking was the loss of a propeller blade in February, 1912. Replaced with a spare blade in Belfast early in March.
    3
  68.  @gokulgopan4397  The photograph is entirely genuine. The problem arises in Swithin's interpretation of it. He claims that it is of Titanic being dismantled in Harland & Wolff's yard in 1937, when actually it is of Titanic in Harland & Wolff's yard just prior to her completion, in February, 1912. You can tell Swithin until you are blue in the face that, after withdrawal, Olympic went first to Jarrow for partial dismantling, before the hull was towed to Inverkeithing for breaking up. In other words, she went nowhere near Harland & Wolff. Sadly, the old chap is far too far gone mentally to understand any of this. On his own site, of course, he will block you as a 'paid shill.'
    3
  69.  @gokulgopan4397  As the sad old chap has gone silent, I won't comment again about him unless things change. However, two years ago there was an interesting review about him which appeared as :- "ExpatTaffy" - the youtube Conspiracy theorist A review of his first Titanic video is part of it (by me) but other comments about his Apollo 'views, are worth reading, if only to give people an idea of his character.
    3
  70.  @coreyandsarahlynch  There is no 'porthole issue.' Titanic, like Olympic, was launched with 15 portholes on her starboard side forward, and 14 on her port side. Following Olympic's first few voyages, a number of recommendations for improvements were made. These included the addition of two extra portholes to Titanic's port side, giving her 16. There are numerous photographs showing Titanic on the slipway with 14, and, later, nearing and after completion, with 16. A ship at the time of launch is simply a work in progress, and improvements are frequently made. The 'mysterious porthole issue' is simply an invention thought up by enthusiastic switchers, trying to suggest that their fantasy was actually reality.
    3
  71. Perhaps that explains why the whole nonsensical idea did not exist until a Plasterer and amateur Historian, Robin Gardiner, invented it in the mid 1990s?
    3
  72.  @Dizzy19.  Perhaps the film had been damaged, and he is secretly swapping it for another film in order to claim the insurance?
    2
  73. No, they don't. Pictures of the wreck show a pattern of irregular, rectangular, windows. After the nodifications to Titanic, involving the addition of extra cabins and a Cafe Parisien, this precisely matches known photographs of the ship. Olympic, at the same time, had the original pattern of even, square, windows, until the similar upgrades were applied, during her later (post Titanic's sinking) refit. Again, as photographs of Olympic also prove.
    2
  74. 'The court cases where lots of witnesses and evidence were not allowed to be seen or heard.' What court cases might they have been? There were two major Inquiries, in the US and in Britain, which lasted 18 and 36 days respectively. Who do you suggest were 'not allowed' to be seen or heard at those? 'People do as they are told?' You think so, when events on a daily basis prove this not to be the case? Do you really believe that, had there been such a (totally evidence free) conspiracy, not one of the people involved in it would have been even slightly concerned about 1500+ deaths? Oh, and the coal strike had ended by the time Titanic sailed, and it applied only to Britain, not to the United States. Finally, who are these 'shady people' and what are these 'unexplained events.' Feel free to elaborate, and please don't hold back.
    2
  75. Certainly they built the Olympics to make a profit, as did Cunard with the Mauretanias. The number of lifeboats, on both classes, exceeded Board of Trade regulations. Neither H & W nor White Star stated that the Olympics were unsinkable.
    2
  76.  @alexandros4703  'Answer the question that you conveniently avoided - ''what part of - ''these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable'' Did you did not understand?' Conveniently avoided?? I replied a day ago, as follows :- 'Don't be disingenuous. The booklet actually reads :- 'AS FAR AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO, these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable.' Perhaps the question you should ask yourself is 'why did I deliberately avoid the first half of the sentence? Am I really so desperate to continue an argument which I am losing?' Alternatively, it might be simply down to ignorance on your part. In which case, you might look at the pamphlet again, perhaps? I doubt it has changed much in the last 110+ years. There is an old adage which says that, 'When you are in a hole, you should stop digging.' Perhaps, are you are about fifteen feet down, you might consider how wise it is?
    2
  77.  @likeisaid1947  No. Actually, an event which was totally unanticipated killed a lot of people, whilst at the same time actually costing White Star a lot of money.
    2
  78.  @Tozzpot500  I suspect that the number of people posting the same thing must have watched exactly the came conspiracy fantasy video. I did think of starting a new one. Because Tsar Nicholas II, King George V, and Kaiser Wilhem II were not aboard Titanic either, they were obviously in on the plot. Oh, and don't even mention President Taft!
    2
  79. But Olympic had not been 'seriously damaged.' She had been involved in a collision with a Royal Navy cruiser, and had survived it with damage which was repaired by H & W within 6 - 7 weeks, meaning that she was back in service by late November, 1911. She had never been in any danger of sinking, and if anything the collision was seen at the time as proof of how robust the Olympic design really was.
    2
  80.  @mlgmounted9599  Then visit the 'White Swan Hotel' in Alnwick, Northumberland. In their 'Olympic restaurant' you can see furniture purchased at auction when the RMS Olympic was being dismantled at Jarrow in 1935/6. Some of these items have the yard number 400 marked on them. Needless to say, no number 401 has ever been found. Will that do you? You could, of course, simply look at the photograph of the propeller blade at the wrecksite. That has 401 on it. The 'big piece' was simply a piece from the hull.
    2
  81. Indeed, but not so much a theory as a fantasy, which appeared with the rise of Social Media in the 1990s. The claim was that three prominent financiers, Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus, all opposed the proposal for the establishment of the Federal Reserve, and were lured aboard Titanic in order to dispose of them. The fact that neither Astor nor Guggenheim had ever voiced their views about the Federal Reserve, or that in October 1911 Straus had spoken in favour of it, was, of course, totally ignored by the conspiracy fantasists who made the allegations. Sadly, many people have seen these absurd claims, and simply swallowed them whole and unquestioningly.
    2
  82.  @Tozzpot500  Friedrich Schiller summed the typical conspiracy fantasist up quite well' 'Against stupidity, the very Gods themselves, contend in vain.'
    2
  83.  @ashinanto  The lightship sinking was in May1934.At the time, Captain Smith would have been around 87 years old. If, of course, he hadn't died in April, 1912. White Star appealed against a finding that Olympic was at fault. The appeal went to court, and White Star lost. The court arguments can be read. Smith was not responsible for the collision. Olympic was in the charge of a Solent Pilot, George Bowyer, at the time.
    2
  84. Not since he died in 2017.
    2
  85. Not correct. Excluding children, there were 197 survivors from First Class, and 245 from Second & Third. Moreover, most of the technical details concerning the sinking came from crew survivors, who in many cases were far better placed to know them.
    2
  86. Believe me, I have tried. Where to average switcher is concerned, one or more of four things happens: 1). They get angry. 2). They get abusive, 3). They accuse me of being a paid agent of 'them'. 4). They go away.
    2
  87. You could look this up for yourself, bu you probably won't as you won't like what yo find. Olympic returned to Belfast for repairs following the Hawke collision on 11 October, 1911. She left, fully repaired, on 29 November, 1911. After that, she made several more Atlantic crossings, and was in New York, when Titanic left Southampton in April, 1912. The two ships were together for around 44 days, and were even photographed together. In the photos. Olympic is the one in full White Star livery, whereas Titanic is in base paint, with parts of her superstructure and three funnels still not in place.
    2
  88.  @jeanie6936  Alex. lad, using this false name to pretend to be an idiot support of yourself convinces no-one, and simply makes you look more asinine. Still, if you wish to continue this childish behaviour, direct me to any occasion when I have disagreed with actual evidence. Indeed, you might start with my earlier post :- 'Olympic returned to Belfast for repairs following the Hawke collision on 11 October, 1911. She left, fully repaired, on 29 November, 1911. After that, she made several more Atlantic crossings, and was in New York, when Titanic left Southampton in April, 1912. The two ships were together for around 44 days, and were even photographed together. In the photos. Olympic is the one in full White Star livery, whereas Titanic is in base paint, with parts of her superstructure and three funnels still not in place.' Please direct me to any error in that?
    2
  89.  @ukraineunited56  Not at all. I merely posted the reply to give you an opportunity to expand on the comment. A technical mindset is not really needed to know about the Titanic sinking.
    2
  90.  @alexandros4703  There was no 'unsinkable mindset' as the claim that the Olympics were described in such terms is not correct. The Board of Trade regulations should have been updated, of course, but they were not responsible for the collision, and there would have been the problem of how many extra lifeboats could have been launched in the available time.
    2
  91.  @alexandros4703  Who did the promoting then, Santa Clause, was it? Well, you appear to think it was, or you would have answered the simple, straightforward, question which I posted earlier. Just to remind you, ' Show me any evidence at all that either White Star or Harland & Wolff promoted the Olympics as 'unsinkable?' ' Rather as I anticipated, answer comes there none. Only a rather childish insult.
    2
  92.  @goinsouth5187  'You were asked "who did the promoting, then?", and you couldn't or wouldn't answer. I was not asked the question. I actually asked it, as follows :- 'Show me any evidence at all that either White Star or Harland & Wolff promoted the Olympics as 'unsinkable?' ' So far, I have attempted to be polite to you, whichever of your alter egos you feel the need to use. This ends from now. Goodbye. Oh, Happy New Year as well, by the way.
    2
  93.  @PointNemo9  In Olympic's case, about £25,000 at 1911 values. Or, 1.67% of her building cost.
    2
  94.  @sandymacdonald2838  'it was either a documentary on the titanic or a TV interview.many years ago.theirs photos that show the letters engraved on the ships hull.that fact also is true you would have to look these things up.google it.' Just to put you right, Cameron has never, ever, said such a thing. If he really had, don't you think the fact might have received a little publicity?
    2
  95.  @Dizzy19.  Careful, don't poke the bear. You might reach a situation which results in every comment you make being the subject of a reponse which is replete with insults, as I have. What makes this more entertaining is that these responses don't usually actually relate to the comment or subject at all. Whilst this is extremely amusing, it does lead to my considerable misgivings about the mental state of the person (or now, it seems, people) concerned. A pity there don't appear to be any qualified psychiatrists interested in Titanic, as I would welcome their opinion. I now propose to refrain from replying to any of these people, as it was considered, as early as the 18th century, to be rather bad form to poke the residents of Bedlam with a stick. Of course, actual, genuine, comments, even if silly on occasion, will still receive a response.
    2
  96.  @goinsouth5187  Out of interest, where did you check it? Mrs.Lines gave evidence, not at either 1912 Inquiry, but at the 1913 Limitation of Liability Hearing. She was cross-examined fairly thoroughly, and gave convincing responses. Two things she did not say were:- 1). Ismay suggested a speed increase to Smith. 2). Ismay sought to use his position to influence Smith's decisions. Of course, you might have a further source of which I am unaware.If so, I would be eager to know it.
    2
  97.  @dodgeramsport01  1. 'you don't seem to be able to comprehend what you read! ' 2, 'I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person!'
    2
  98.  @luigicorvi1661  So if the Olympic, badly damaged and sailing as the Titanic, in your view. did leave Southampton, how was it that no-one, crew or passengers, ever noticed that they were aboard a crippled ship? How was it that the ship was, apparently, performing better than she had on her previous maiden voyage, as herself, the previous June? How was it that only one other ship had actually stopped? A small freighter, Californian. Which, by the way, was carrying a 'mixed, general, cargo' according to the Boston shipping newspapers when she docked on 19 April, and not your imagined cargo of blankets at all. The rest of your post is too crazed to be worthy of further comment, except for one more, of course. Pl;ease get your Caps Lock mended!
    2
  99.  @silveryuno  There was no 'insurance scam conspiracy.' unless White Star thought that a 'scam' which lost them a major asset, their safety record, and £500,000 (at 1912 monetary levels) was a good idea.
    2
  100. No he wouldn't. He simply made up story, which isn't illegal except in court, under oath.
    2
  101. Odd that Olympic, built of the same materials at the same time, experienced no similar problems, wasn't it? Ever considered the possibly that it wasn't faulty materials which sank Titanic, but a bloody great iceberg?
    2
  102.  @alexandros4703  Precisely. Thank you for your support. What you have just accepted is that Titanic was a perfectly seaworthy ship, until she encountered a situation which was completely unexpected and totally beyond the parameters within which she, or Olympic, had been designed. Olympic did not encounter a similar situation, and thus had a long and successful career. I doubt that anyone would accuse Leonard Peskett of any design flaws in Lusitania, because he had not anticipated that she might be torpedoed?
    2
  103.  @heresjohnny7579  'What's your point? The Olympic popped quite a few rivets when she got munced by Hawke. ' Did Olympic sink? That is my point.
    2
  104.  @alexandros4703  ' Bla, Bla, Bla, you're a scatterbrain, bud, Lusitania this, Olympic the other and Maritunai something else; And yeh, yeh, yeh, if my Aunty had a bollox she would have been my Uncle, etc etc, etc.' Oh dear. Were you intoxicated when you posted that?
    2
  105.  @heresjohnny7579  Oh dear. Insults rather than arguments. There is something of a trend developing on this thread. You might consider that aggressive confrontation is, at best, a poor substitute for civilised discussion? Try to understand. Titanic sank because she struck an iceberg (the iceberg didn't strike her, by the way) and her hull was subjected to stresses far beyond anything for which she had been designed. Olympic was not subjected to any similar incident, and was a successful ocean liner, as a result, for some 24 years. Thus proving that the Olympic design was sound. Would you seek to argue that the Lusitanias were poor designs, because Leonard Peskett didn't allow for the possibility that a war might break out several years later, and Lusitania herself might possibly be struck by a torpedo? I somewhat doubt it.
    2
  106.  @grahampilkington252  '@ one day you will see how gullible you are. I actually know the full Titanic story and the cover ups involved. You are just another brainwashed moron who thinks listening to these videos make you an expert. Put the time into the research.' You must not hold back. Tell everyone 'the full Titanic story and the cover ups involved.' Surely it is your moral duty?
    2
  107.  @likeisaid1947  ' Getting rattled now are we? would that be because you were caught out telling porkies?' That one, for example? 'Never mind, given your disposition, it's assumed the penny hasn't reached its destination.' Or that one? No, I don't see many people debating with me, but I see quite a number posting largely irrlevant comments, all conforming to a similar pattern, seemingly just for the sake of it.
    2
  108.  @carterglass1694  Well, you aren't actually presenting any facts to prove how nonsensical the video is. Very odd, but typical. You conspiracists never do.
    2
  109.  @carterglass1694  Didn't you write 'Failed TV presenter dressed as a banker telling you its all nonsense. HHHMMM.' Apparently attacking by that that a video arguing the conspiracy theory was false? But now you support such theories yourself :- 1) The ship was not poorly built. 2) The claim that three bankers who opposed the Fed. died on board is classic conspiracy fantasy nonsense from the 1990s. The views of two, Astor & Guggenheim, were never made clear, whilst the third, Straus, had spoken in support of the Fed. in October, 1911. His speech may still be read. 3) The Jekyll Island meeting took place in November, 1910. None of those present had anything to do with Titanic. 4) No Insurance scam could have worked because the Olympics were both only insured for two thirds of their building costs. When Titanic sank, White Star lost a major asset, their safety record, and £500,000 at 1912 values, Some scam 5). NDAs did not exist in 1912. Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) were first used in the 1940s in maritime law. But the reality is that the H & W workforce never spoke about the switch, because there was no switch.
    2
  110. Try again. There have been numerous expeditions to the wrecksite, generally involving expert oceanographers and researchers, over many years, without any problems. Yet when a jerry built submersible carrying a number of wealthy amateurs with, perhaps, more money than sense, implodes near the site, it suddenly becomes a vast conspiracy? Do you really wish to try to maintain that argument? If the video is part of the plot, please explain exactly which parts of it are wrong?
    2
  111.  @grahampilkington252  'All the evidence is suppressed to the point that only people who do the in depth research will know what constitutes the truth.' That's a good idea. You should try it, perhaps, instead of simply watching a conspiracy fantasy video and swallowing it whole?
    2
  112.  @Tozzpot500  Isn't it odd that the people who post these lunatic comments almost always, when challenged, flee for the hills and are never heard of again?
    2
  113. Careful now. Saying things like this is sure to result in 'them' coming to get you!
    2
  114. This video comprehensively gives the lie to all the idiotic conspiracy nonsense generated about the sinking over the years. Or, to be more accurate, since Robin Gardiner wrote his book in the mid 1990s. Had you actually watched the video before commenting upon it, of course, you would have understood that.
    2
  115. Very good. Except of course for the inconvenient fact that neither White Star nor Harland & Wolff ever claimed that the Olympics were unsinkable.
    2
  116.  @alexandros4703  No, I am quite well aware that you don't wish to know what I am 'on about'. The only person trying to claim black is white here seems to be you. Unless, perhaps ,you don't see the relevance of the word 'practically' before the work 'unsinkable?' Remember when you claimed that a publicity leaflet about the Olympics from 1910 said : 'These two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable' when it actually said 'As far as it is possible to do so, these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable?' Forgotten that, have you? I haven't.
    2
  117. Congratulations on two well-researched, well-presented, and erudite videos. I assume you are bracing yourself for the flood of posts from the numerous half- wits, quarter-wits, and conspiracy theory obsessives who know little of any such facts, but have swallowed a Switcher or Conspiracist video or two and have decided that they are instant experts on the strength of them?
    2
  118.  @Dizzy19.  Oh dear. Another one who thinks that capital letters and exclamation marks make daft comments more acceptable.
    2
  119. Which 'prominent men' would they be? In fact, almost as many people cancelled their bookings for Titanic's maiden voyage as had cancelled for Olympic's the previous June. Do you consider that suspicious as well?
    2
  120. Oh dear. Another myth swallower. It might amaze you, but Harland & Wolff really did know how to build large ships.
    2
  121. Would you feel able to expand on that comment, and the reasoning behind it?
    2
  122. Have you ever considered asking yourself why the idea that a Titanic propeller was fitted to Olympic was only suggested by rabid switchers after the 401 number had been detected on a blade at the wrecksite? Especially since the blades on Olympic and Titanic are known to have been set at different pitches, and the Admiralty Inspection Report of November 1911 only referred to damage to a propeller shaft, not to the propeller itself?
    2
  123. Just as you have failed to mention how that is relevant to the topic.
    2
  124.  @Carvello20  You mean, of course, that you can't.
    2
  125.  @jezedwards3858  'Youngster?' I am immensely flattered. Pl;ease re-read my post. I wrote 'every Titanic historian & researcher on the planet.' I don't recall referring to 'experts' at all. Although, of course, it was experts who actually proved that the world was not flat, nor to mention made almost every scientific advance in history.
    2
  126.  @PersephoneDaSilva  Then he deserves considerable credit. Unlike many of the half-witted and ignorant comments about the 'switch' or 'the conspiracy', his products, I have found, are well researched, well argued, and accurate.
    2
  127. No, but there is a hotel in Alnwick which contains fittings from Olympic after she was partly dismantled at Jarrow in 1935. Some even have the number 400 still visible.
    2
  128.  @DanMarin-lf7fe  Didn't you watch either video at all?
    2
  129. Bear in mind that Eva Hart was only seven years old at the time of the sinking. Her recollections might well have been influenced by things she read or heard later in life.
    2
  130. A simple fact you may wish to consider. The more someone actually knows about events surrounding the loss of RMS Titanic, the less he/she is likely to believe any of the conspiracy or switch nonsense which has appeared since the 1990s.
    2
  131.  @norfolkdash9  There was no need to persuade anyone about anything, as the myths about Titanic only began with Robin Gardiner's absurd book and the rise of social media, both in the 1990s. One single point. If there really was a devious plot created by White Star, what was Bruce Ismay doing aboard?
    2
  132. The fact that you haven't come across them doesn't mean that they don't exist. Again, as with your other posts, you feel the need to claim that some vast scheme is at work, rather than being able to bring yourself to accept the obvious.
    2
  133. 'Gizza job!' Anyone remember Yosser Hughes?
    2
  134. 'Recent tests of rail guns at sea?' You have a credible source, of course?
    2
  135.  @evelghostrider  No. I said a source. With chapter and verse.
    2
  136.  @evelghostrider  'Also two other nations have tested rail guns at sea.' Really? Again, I assume you have a source?
    2
  137.  @evelghostrider  You simply wrote 'The US Navy.' I asked for details, such as a date and a location. Simply naming an organisation is not evidence. Do you really not grasp that simple fact?
    2
  138.  @evelghostrider  As you seem to prefer claims to facts, allow me to give you a simple fact :- A world speed record of Mach 8.5 (6,416 mph / 10,325 km/h) was achieved by a four-stage rocket sled at Holloman Air Force Base on April 30, 2003, the highest speed ever attained by a land vehicle. I wonder what the relevance of that to anything might be? Let alone to Titanic?
    2
  139. 'There's no mention of the source of this article or the date, but the screenshot in the book looks legit to me and not something that someone has made up.' As your source is Mr. Hamer, and you want to believe him, firstly, of course there wouldn't be any supporting source information, this is Hamer, after all, and secondly' if you wished to believe in, for example, the Loch Ness Monster, of course you would believe in the authenticity of photographs. Back on earth, by the way, Bruce Ismay went on public record at the April 1912 United States Senate Hearings, and also it was reported in the official public findings, that the value of Titanic was "$7.5million" a figure independently verified by the New York Times and The Spectator ("$8 million") while insured at only "$5 million" (as reported at the Senate Inquiry, The New York Times and Lloyds itself). If indeed Titanic had been insured at the last minute at "$12.5 million," as is alleged by you conspiracy fantasists, would this not have raised serious alarm bells in the minds of the insurers at the time, especially if it was part of the public record that the value was "$7.5million"? The actual record, which is confirmed in Lloyds Archives, shows that the Insurers paid out $7.5 million (in US Terms) within 30 days. A shame Mr. Hamer didn't bother to check that inconvenient fact, isn't it? 'Maybe it's been removed from the site or hasn't been scanned. That's the problem with anything online, it can be easily removed if it contradicts the official story.' Here you go again. the world encompassing conspiracy maintained by 'THEM' and the claim that there being no supporting evidence is the best proof of all that it happened. Don't you realise how daft you sound?
    2
  140.  @Embracing01  'Attack him all you like, but why don't you email him and find out what he has to say?' Why should anyone do that? Are you suggesting that what he claims in his books, and what he actually might say, are two different things?
    2
  141. Only a small number of experienced personnel actually changed ship. Smith & Wilde being the two most prominent. Unless I missed it, WMDs were not mentioned in the video?
    2
  142. The usual explanation, as given by every conspiracist around. 'The fact that there is no evidence to support the theory, and a vast amount to prove it false, only shows that the photographs have all been changed, the documentary records all altered and the eye witness statements all doctored.' I wonder if these people have heard of Occam's Razor, or has that been doctored as well?
    2
  143. In 1911 or 1912 Belfast was in Ireland, and Ireland was part of the United Kingdom.
    2
  144.  @alexandros4703  You seem obsessively determined to pick a fight, despite what keeps happening. Are you a fan of the Black Knight in the 'Monty Python' movie? 'T'is but a scratch!' Please feel entirely free to explain to me which part of my brief comment :- 'In 1911 or 1912 Belfast was in Ireland, and Ireland was part of the United Kingdom' is, in your profound opinion, a terminological inexactitude? 'That's much like saying, ''Yes, I know, But in 1776 there was no such place as 'North America' was there?'' ' Actually, no it isn't. the term 'Northern Ireland' only came into being after the political division of the Island. The term Ireland, like the term 'North America' is a geographical, not a political, one. Seriously, in your obsessive determination to argue with me about anything and everything, I urge you to stop shooting yourself in the foot.
    2
  145. Why do you judge Ismay on the basis of a scene in a movie, out of interest?
    2
  146. A number of important figures also cancelled their bookings for Olympic's maiden voyage. That doesn't get mentioned either because it doesn't accord with the fantasy.
    2
  147.  @Tozzpot500  You are wasting your time. You cannot reason with this poor old chap, who has been raving like this since he has a stroke some years ago. All his earlier posts as expattaffy1 were suddenly removed about two weeks ago. Presumably he is starting again under this new title.
    2
  148.  @alexandros4703  Arguably. But if the iceberg was concealed by mirage conditions, how would that have helped? Moreover, how much room do you think there was in the Crow's Nest?
    2
  149.  @alexandros4703 'Or are you just displaying more of your silly boy factiousness?' Yet again. Insult after insult. Sad.
    2
  150.  @alexandros4703  'So far, you've made excuses for Smith, Lord, Ismay, the Olympic collision, boilers, the British Board of Trade, mirages, and now the crows next.' In point of fact. I haven't made excuses for anyone. I have simply explained why these people acted as they did, and why hindsight is not a reliable guide. Perhaps in your version of reality, a non-Alexandros opinion may not be permitted to be expressed? Fortunately, we do not live in your reality.
    2
  151.  @sucharee801  Please leave Tozzpot out of this. Tozzpot simply, like me, expresses an opinion. As I now know where you are really coming from, I will add you to my delete list. Goodbye.
    2
  152. There was no damage to RMS Olympic in New York harbor. The damage to the tug, O.L. Hallenbeck, one of twelve tugs nursing Olympic into position, occurred when Olympic's starboard propeller was put into reverse. The tug was sucked into the liner, cutting off the Hallenbeck’s stern frame, rudder, and wheel shaft. Apart from. perhaps, scuffed paintwork, Olympic was undamaged, That was on 21 June, 1911. This event had no connection at all to the repairs following the Hawke collision, which took place on 20 September, 1911, as Olympic left on her fifth voyage. No-one aboard Titanic can be shown to have been opposed to the creation of the Federal Reserve. Of the three 'suspects' Astor and Guggenheim had never made their opinions known, whilst Straus had spoken in favour of the concept in October, 1911. Possibly, members of the general public might not have been clear about the differences between the two ships, but experts at the time, and every researcher or historian working in the field since were and are. The details of the wreck, and the fact that items auctioned off when Olympic was scrapped in 1935-7, which are still around and in many cases still carry the yard number 400, prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the wreck is that of Titanic. Any insurance fraud is totally implausible, by the way, as the ship was only insured for two thirds of her building cost. The boilers and engines for the Titanic were installed over the 10-month period following the ship's launch in late May 1911.
    2
  153. Smith did exactly what any other Liner Captain of the time would have done. Maintain course and speed (not full speed, by the way) and warn lookouts of the need for particular vigilance. This is not me saying this, but every Master Mariner and Liner Captain who testified at the British Inquiry. You should read the minutes.
    2
  154.  @alexandros4703  I am not saying it, but several Master Mariners did, at the British Inquiry. As I keep suggesting, clearly without getting it into your skull, simply read the minutes, which may be found with ease, on line. Actually, a whole host of captains sailed their liners through the same areas at the same time of year. in the same manner. For further details, you might look up the voyage dates of Mauritania, Lusitania, & Olympic among the big liners, and any of the smaller liners traversing the same waters. But, of course, I assume you won't?
    2
  155. I don't recall him ever suggesting anything about any 'switch.'
    2
  156. Do you mean that the conspiracy theories surrounding them are also false?
    2
  157.  @olafberend8837  You don't consider that the October, 1911 photograph of Olympic in Belfast in full White Star paintwork, whilst her sister has parts of her superstructure still not fitted, only one funnel in place, and is nowhere near ready to receive her final coat of paint, might be something of a clue? What is contradictory about any of that?
    2
  158.  @ashinanto  You are on a loser trying to use that to support your opinion. It is simply a repeat of a video posted some years ago, which was, and continues to be, widely ridiculed by anyone with any actual knowledge of the subject.
    2
  159. The Olympics cost, in 1911 terms, £1.5 million each to build, and were insured for £1 million each. White Star lost, therefore, a major asset, their safety record, and £500,000 when Titanic sank.
    2
  160.  @gokulgopan4397  No-one has yet mentioned the White Swan hotel in Alnwick, Northumberland. When Olympic was partly scrapped in Jarrow in 1935, many fittings were auctioned off. Some were purchased by the then owner of the hotel. They are still in use in the restaurant to this day. Several bear the yard build number, 400. None bear any 401 number. Interestingly, it is called the 'Olympic Restaurant.'
    2
  161. Having debated (if it may be called that!) with many, it seems simply to be a matter of faith with them. They watch a Conspiracy or Switch video, swallow it whole, and then remain impervious to any fact, argument, or evidence presented to them.
    2
  162.  @ElGibby  That claim about the Official Secrets Act was made by one James Fenton, aka 'Paddy the Pig' who does not appear to have been anywhere near Titanic, but was a good teller of tall tales. There is no other confirmation of the claim. Furthermore, in 1912, the Official Secrets Act in force at the time was not applicable in any case. The Official Secrets Act of 1911 was specifically concerned with espionage that would benefit enemy military use. Basically it was intended to apply to private individuals passing state or military secrets to a foreign power. Germany, of course.
    2
  163. What did someone say in a movie 'The truth? You can't handle the truth.'
    2
  164. Titanic was launched on 31 May, 1911. The alterations to the forward end of 'B' deck were made after comments following Olympic's early voyages, the first of which was from 2 June, 1911. Photographs of Titanic's launch show her with the original, Olympic style, forward end to 'B' deck. The modifications were made later in 1911.
    2
  165.  @paulboyce8537  Olympic's propellor was never damaged, although her propellor SHAFT was, and in order to speed up her return to sea a propellor shaft intended, but not yet fitted, for Titanic was installed instead. As the summary of the damage sustained by Olympic, as detailed in the inspection report published by the Admiralty in November 1911, and supported by teams from White Star & the Board Of Trade stated :- “Two major watertight compartments were flooded, hull plating gashed from the Orlop deck to E deck, and the starboard propeller shafting damaged.” Do you see any reference to any propellor damage? It hardly seems worth mentioning, in addition, that the blades of the propellors of Titanic & Olympic were set at different pitches, meaning that a propellor from one would not have functioned efficiently on the other. Isn't it odd that switchers only 'discovered' the supposed switch after the 401 casting had been found on the blade at the wrecksite, and they were stuck for an explanation? 'Also the changes would have been labelled as upgrades for the workers. They wouldn't have been no wiser.' Nonsense. Aside from the fact that, when Olympic returned to sea, Titanic was largely unpainted, had parts of her superstructure still not installed, and only one funnel in place, you are still insulting the intelligent of the workers. Do you really think that they arrived for work on Monday morning, looked at the ships, and thought, 'Must have been windy last weekend. Three funnels and all the paint have blown off' Please don't be an idiot. It must have been a remarkable insurance plan which thought it a good idea to sink a ship which had cost £1.5 million to build in order to claim £1 million from the insurers, whilst losing the asset itself, as well as a reputation for safety. Who came up with it? Cunard?! There was no other ship in the area, except Californian, by the way. 'I see the fraud very viable and fooling the workforce.' Perhaps you do. But there again, similar fools believe in the Cottingley fairies. 'I have to say all the ignorance that went on in the ship and reasons given why there was no help also doesn't feel right.' The only ignorance I have ever seen about this subject is that excreted by switchers like you.
    2
  166.  @gokulgopan4397  It really isn't worth trying with these people. They believe because they want to believe, and mere things like facts and evidence are meaningless to them.
    2
  167. Morgan had already announced in March that he was attending an event in Venice, at St. Mark's, which he could not have done had he sailed in Titanic. It was even mentioned in the New York Times at the time. There is no evidence either way about Astor's opinions concerning the Fed. Nor is there about Guggenheim's, who only booked his tickets at the last minute. The third individual, Straus, had openly spoken in favour of the Fed. in October, 1911.
    2
  168.  @gokulgopan4397  Good luck trying to debate with Mr, Swithin. You will be blocked at once, if previous performance is any guide.
    2
  169.  @gokulgopan4397  No. I understated it. Actually, it is far worse.
    2
  170.  @Embracing01  Hamer is not a 'Researcher,' he is a conspiracist who has never yet encounted a conspiracy theory he didn't swallow whole. Just because he 'said' something doesn't make it true. Indeed, almost everything he claims about Titanic is lifted straight from Gardiner's book, with some imaginative embellishments. Here is a quote from 'General Knowledge Podcast BONUS CONTENT SHOW Teaser 5 - The Titanic Conspiracy, May 13, 2021' direct from Hamer :- "I've spoken to quite a few people who've been obliquely involved in it. For example, I spoke to Bertie Lightoller, who was second officer, the most senior surviving officer. I spoke to his nephew and he had some interesting titbits to tell me about various different things. That didn't quite follow the official narrative." Lightoller died in December, 1952. Hamer was born in 1952. It must have been an in-depth conversation. Unless, of course, Hamer was being less than truthful?
    2
  171. Not quite but close. My own recent research has revealed that Titanic was switched with the Hindenburg... I feel a book coming on.
    2
  172. Nonsense. Both ships were insured and had full Board of Trade certification. Olympic was actually in New York when Titanic left Southampton.
    2
  173.  @expattaffy1954  Oh what joy! The old idiot expattaffy1 is back, after all his earlier creations disappeared.
    1
  174.  @Dizzy19.  I assume you know Mr. William Swithin, or expattaffy1? If you don't, prepare to discover the most unintentionally entertaining ravings yet produced about Titanic.
    1
  175.  @Dizzy19.  As long as he is around, it cannot be said that the great days of stand-up comedy have passed.
    1
  176.  @Dizzy19.  Word of warning. Don't hold any liquids anywhere near your laptop when/if you watch Mr. Swithin's magnum opus. You will almost certainly be reduced to a mixture of laughter and pity at it, and spilling fluids onto the keyboard might well ruin it.
    1
  177.  @expattaffy1954  'Well done, you wont be disappointed let me assure you.' Alas, Dizzy will be as deeply disappointed, though doubtless as amused, by your sad ravings as I, and everyone else, have been over the years. One thing, though, this isn't your site so you won't be able to block all and sundry, will you?
    1
  178.  @Dizzy19.  Sometimes, I feel that I shouldn't really make comments about the demented old geezer, as it is akin to visiting Bedlam just to poke the inmates with a pointed stick. But then I read his posts again, and think 'Oh, soddit' and comment anyway.
    1
  179.  @Dizzy19.  I must confess that, after reading some of my 'conversations' with Mr. Swithin before he blocked me, it was my wife who suggested that I was doing the equivalent of poking a Bedlam inmate with a sharp stick. Therefore, I cannot claim all the credit.
    1
  180.  @Dizzy19.  I have just finished ploughing through the 'Brilliant Expattaffy's' latest video. All 1 hour 30 minutes of it. Comment is unnecessary, except to refer to 'Hamlet' Act IV Scene 1 :- "Mad as the sea and wind, when both contend, which is the mightier" I must confess to being flattered by a few references to myself, albeit not by name. It seems I am a liar, of course. By the way, don't watch the video, when you come across it, in one go. After around 15 minutes, you will experience a damp sensation down both sides of your neck. That is your brain dissolving and seeping out of your ears. Otherwise, enjoy.
    1
  181. As the sad old chap has gone silent, I won't comment again about him unless things change. However, two years ago there was an interesting review about him which appeared as :- "ExpatTaffy" - the youtube Conspiracy theorist A review of his first Titanic video is part of it (by me) but other comments about his Apollo 'views, are worth reading, if only to give people an idea of his character.
    1
  182.  @Dizzy19.  I have tried to send the link twice so far, without success as best I can tell.
    1
  183. Try this as an alternative :- @William-jj4jk Alternatively, go down a few posts to one with 28 replies. The link sent to Tozzpot500 by Expat does seem to work. At least that was where I viewed it, although I haven't been able to copy it.
    1
  184.  @Dizzy19.  Did you try the @William-jj4jk address? When I searched for it, I got a heading 'William' saying 3 subscribers 1 video. Under that it said 'Home' & 'Video.' I clicked video, and got it. All 1 hr 30 mins of it. I did need to go off this site, however, as I initially got two separate soundtracks.
    1
  185.  @expattaffy1954  Yes, I have. I have also read your demented ravings. I am just as convinced as I ever was that you are at best mentally deficient, or at worst clinically insane.
    1
  186.  @Dizzy19.  I don't like it, Carruthers. It's very quiet out there!' I agree, Carstairs. Too damned quiet!' No link as yet, I assume?
    1
  187. Are you serious? Three of the richest men in America died. Two of which had not expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst the third had spoken in support in October, 1911. Do you know precisely how many professional expeditions have visited Titanic's wreck over the years? What exactly do you think a group of wealthy individuals in a jerry built submarine might possibly have found? In short, are you allowed out on your own?
    1
  188.  @larebear1902 ' hmmm, r u an algorithm bot?' No, I am a naval & maritime historian. Don't be a fool. No expedition has ever found any 'O' on the hull of Titanic. If one had, don't you think that, just possibly, it might have been mentioned? There was a fake CGI video claiming something similar, which appeared from nowhere around the year 2000. It has precisely no provenance, no expedition has ever claimed it, and even the father of the Switch myth, Robin Gardiner, denounced it as fake. Except in the eyes of the fantasist, it isn't even particularly good CGI, by the way.
    1
  189.  @alexandros4703  'Careful Bro, Einstein7033 here gets his rocks off by denigrating and insulting people when he gets corrected.' How is telling someone who called me an 'algorithm bot' that if he believes in the 'letters on Titanic' CGI nonsense he is a fool insulting? It is simply stating a fact. By the way, I haven't been corrected. Not by larebear, and certainly not by you. I refer you to Tozzpot's equally accurate reply. Is that wrong as well?
    1
  190. That assumes that the Inquiry was a 'whitewash' of course. What exactly leads you to such a conclusion? By the way, Lusitania sank three years later.
    1
  191. You would need to be paid very handsomely indeed to be willing to die.
    1
  192.  @alexandros4703  Quite! My mistake! Duly altered.
    1
  193.  @alexandros4703  Don't be disingenuous. The booklet actually reads :- 'AS FAR AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO, these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable.' Perhaps you simply haven't actually seen the booklet? After all, one wouldn't want one to appear less than truthful would one? I have seen it, by the way. If either Ismay or Pirie made such claims, provide proof, rather than your vague 'reported to have uttered.' I know what Franklin said, but this was after the sinking, in a traumatic moment of denial. Furthermore, there is no evidence that he, or anyone else, made such a claim about either Olympic class ship prior to June, 1911, when Olympic left on her maiden voyage. Good attempt at misleading. But, alas, no CEEGAR!
    1
  194.  @heresjohnny7579  Murdoch gave the correct order. Titanic, and every other British & US merchantman of the time, still used 'Tittler Steering' orders. No sea officer of the time, or even today, would have allowed a collision when swift action could have avoided it. A 'full astern' order would not have prevented the collision, whilst a swift course change might have. Easy to criticise from a comfy chair, 112 years later, isn't it?
    1
  195.  @alexandros4703  Isn't the question which should be asked, 'why did you only quote part, rather than the whole, of the statement in the leaflet? By which I mean 'AS FAR AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO, these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable.' What part of 'AS FAR AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO SO,' evaded your cognitive abilities, and, of course, WHY? There is no shame in your being in error. There is shame, to a degree, in refusing to admit it.
    1
  196.  @alexandros4703  'Are you sure you're not getting confused about the difference between Icebergs and Lifeboats again, lol.' Indeed, an entertaining typing error on my part, and it amused me greatly when I re-read it. I did, of course, immediately admit it when it was brought to my attention. I submit that it is less worthy of criticism than posting part, rather than the whole, of a reference to the desigh of the Olympics, in order, falsely, to try to make a point.
    1
  197.  @heresjohnny7579  'I don't see anything misleading. It was H & W Pirrie who insisted as did WSL's Bruce Ismay on having only 16 Lifeboats when Alexander Carlisle stated that the davits which he had designed were purposed for three per davit. (48 lifeboats)' Again, I suggest that you read the Minutes of the British Inquiry. Carlisle was clear enough, in that he stated that he expected the BoT to amend their regulations concerning the number of lifeboats. Thus he designed the Olympics to be capable of carrying the extra boats. When the regulations were not amended, the number of boats was left at 20, or 14 lifeboats, two cutters, and four collapsibles. He even stated that discussion of the boats took up five to ten minutes of a four hour meeting. Nor did he at any time refer to any 'insistence' from Lord Pirie, still less, Bruce Ismay. Please, just read the minutes instead of simply believing exciting myths.
    1
  198.  @likeisaid1947  Hey Albert, You should apply to go on Mastermind - your chosen subject - ''How White Star Lost a Lot of Money'' Mae eich neges wedi ei nodi.
    1
  199. The proverb doesn't apply if people invent the smoke when in reality it wasn't there.
    1
  200.  @Embracing01  You appear to accept that the Titanic switch theory has been destroyed.
    1
  201. Rather late. He died in 2017.
    1
  202. It didn't actually cost a great amount to repair Olympic. The costs appear to have been around £25,000 or $125,000 which amounted to 1.67% of Olympic's building costs. Harland and Wolff took a series of photographs of the damage, which may still be seen, and the ship was returned to sea on 20 November, 1911, when Titanic was around 4 months from completion. Actually, what there isn't is the slightest evidence to suggest that any 'switch' was ever contemplated, still less executed.
    1
  203.  @alexandros4703  Mae eich neges wedi ei nodi.
    1
  204.  @charliefarley9658  Mae eich neges wedi ei nodi.
    1
  205.  @Embracing01  The minutes of both Inquiries are available on line. I have read them, you clearly haven't. No need to visit the Bodleian, or even to spell it correctly. Where is Hamer's evidence about Astor, Guggenheim & Straus? The only actual evidence in existence confirms that Astor and Guggenheim never expressed their opinions, whilst Straus had gone on record as a supporter. I'm sure you can provide statements made by these descendents of H & W workers, of course. Can't you? The earliest of Hamer's efforts date back to 2012, by the way. He has simply reproduced Gardiner's book, with imaginative additions, such as :- "I've spoken to quite a few people who've been obliquely involved in it. For example, I spoke to Bertie Lightoller, who was second officer, the most senior surviving officer." Quite an achievement, given that Lightoller died in December, 1952. The same year that Hamer was born. Do you think that, as well as never having encountered a conspiracy theory he didn't swallow whole, Hamer is also a maestro of the Ouija Board?
    1
  206. As usual, the dafter a post is, the more it is festooned with capital letters and exclamation marks. You have some evidence, I suppose? As the saying goes, put up or shut up.
    1
  207. Which might perhaps explain why this nonsense only appeared in the 1990s, when a silly and fact-free book alleged a 'switch' and the rise of social media resultied in people with no knowledge of subject becoming able to post idiotic conspiracy fantasies about them.
    1
  208.  @Embracing01  Nonsense. Aside from the fact that the allegedly 'crippled' ship steamed at close to full speed until the time of collision, and, indeed, was making better progress on her maiden voyage than Olympic had in June 1911, which messages did not, in your opinion, get through? If Californian had indeed been the planned rescue ship, why did Lord, presumably a key part of your imaginary plan, ignore the concerns of his officers about the flares being fired by 'a large steamer?' How many large steamers do you think there were wandering about the North Atlantic at the time, happily firing off distress flares? Moreover, if there had indeed been a planned rescue ship, a fully laden, slow, small, freighter was almost ludicrously unsuited for the job. Oh, and Lord was never blamed for the sinking, but he was blamed for his failure to investigate the reason for the flares, and for thus ignoring the concerns of his deck officers. He did, by the way, give detailed evidence at both Inquiries, but the fact that his evidence actually changed over time hardly aided his case. You are clearly interested in the subject. Perhaps you should read a book or two about it?
    1
  209.  @ashinanto  Look up the Pilotage Act, 1887, which was the one in force at the time. On every previous occasion when RMS Olympic had entered or left Southampton, she had used a Solent Pilot. On more than one occasion, that Pilot had been the same George Bowyer.
    1
  210.  @alexandros4703  'OK Einstein, then tell us why there was no insurance paid out to WSL for that collision?' Because a court held that RMS Olympic was responsible for the collision, even though she was not under the charge of a White Star officer, but of a Solent Pilot, at the time. Thus, the insurance with Lloyds was invalidated. Fortunately, H & W were able to complete repairs in about seven weeks, and White Star paid them around £25,000 This was a nuisance, but hardly serious to a company as successful as White Star.Indeed, the order for Britannic was placed in the same month, November 1911, that Olympic returned to sea.
    1
  211.  @ashinanto  Abject apologies. My fault entirely for replying from memory and not before checking! The relevant act was the Merchant Shipping Act 1894.
    1
  212.  @Tozzpot500  'Thats a matter of opinion. You could argue yes as he was not present on the bridge at time of collision or no because the crew would most likely have been maintaining orders that had been given to them before he retired for bed. It is really up to you to decide which angle you prefer.' The fact is that the Master is always responsible for the safety of the ship, but that said it was simply not possible for any Master to on the bridge for every minute of a long voyage. In the case of a Transatlantic one, of five-six days. That was why such ships carried duly qualified Watchkeeping Officers. In Titanic's case:- Henry Wilde had held an Extra Master's Certificate since July, 1900. William Murdoch since September 1896 (aged 23, by the way). Charles Lightoller a Master's Certificate since 1899., and Extra Master's in 1902. Herbert Pitman a Master's Certificate since August, 1906. Joseph Boxhall his Master's & Extra Master's Certificate in September, 1907. Indeed, all the officers down to Sixth Officer Moody held such Certificates. I haven't any details on anyone beyond that point.
    1
  213.  @alexandros4703  ' "as successful" heee, that's funny 😅 next you'll be telling us they went on to become passenger cruise ship company of the year.' Oh dear. Back to insults rather than debate, I observe. Sad. The following is from Mark Chirnside :- "The company’s surplus on the profit and loss account had risen from $48,585 in 1910 to $821,062 in the year ending December 31 st 1911. Even if the insurance would not pay out the $750,000, IMM would have remained in surplus. In 1910, IMM’s net profit was a mighty $4,849,580, and this slipped to $4,509,270 in 1911. As for the White Star Line itself, it was ‘the principal constituent’ of IMM and ‘enjoyed continued prosperity, its profit distribution for 1910 being 30 percent’ after depreciation. In fact, White Star’s profit and loss account for the year to December 31 st 1911 was in surplus by £1,102,756 – even higher than IMM’s." £ 1,102, 756 in 1911 equates to just short of £110 million in 2024. I would say that was a successful company. Wouldn't you?
    1
  214.  @alexandros4703  The verdict was given in a Court of Law, following evidence given by a number of independent people. The minutes of the Case, five boxes in the National Archives at Kew, still not digitised alas, do not agree with you.
    1
  215.  @sucharee801  No. It was the fault of George Bowyer, the Solent pilot. Although he, like the commander of HMS Hawke, was powerless to do anything about the suction effect caused by RMS Olympic's much greater draught. Perhaps you might look up the findings of the Court?
    1
  216.  @sucharee801  Unfortunately, the findings of the Court are in the National Archives at Kew, but have not yet been digitised, and therefore cannot be reproduced on line, either in my 'usual cut and paste' form or any other. However, to quote, yes, in cut and paste' form, a brief explanation, here you are:- Olympic was operating under compulsory pilotage. When entering and leaving busy ports, a harbour pilot will board the ship to guide her in or out of port. Because the pilot is more familiar with the local waters, and the location of any hazards, the danger of an accident is, supposedly, reduced. The ship’s crew, including the Captain, are required by law to follow the pilot’s orders unless there are extenuating circumstances. The harbour pilot aboard Olympic was a man named George Bowyer. He had been responsible for guiding Olympic out of Southampton on all of her previous voyages. This was to be her fifth voyage and she was booked almost to capacity. Unfortunately, Bowyer made a few critical mistakes in his handling of Olympic this time around. His first mistake was taking too wide of a turn into the channel. Olympic ended up too far south in the channel, leaving too little room for Hawke to maneuvre. He also misjudged the relative speed of the two ships. Olympic’s speed had dropped during her turn into the channel because the port engine was running astern to assist in the turn. When Hawke was first sighted by Bowyer, she appeared to be passing Olympic, which meant that by law she had to yield right-of-way to Olympic. He apparently ceased paying attention to Hawke after that. When Olympic began picking up speed again, she began to pull ahead, and that was when the suction from her wake pulled Hawke into her side. As a side note, Captain Smith saw that a collision was going to happen and tried to warn Bowyer, but Bowyer reacted too slowly to avoid it. The subsequent court case ruled that Olympic was at fault, but the White Star Line was not liable because she was operating under compulsory pilotage. The court record shoes the conversation to have been as follows:- 'Captain Smith: “I do not believe he will go under our stern Bowyer.” Bowyer: “If she is going to strike let me know in time to put our helm hard-aport.” Smith did not reply immediately, and a few seconds later Bowyer asks: “Is she going to strike us or not, sir?” Smith: “Yes Bowyer, she is going to strike us in the stern.” Bowyer calls out: “Hard-aport!” and helmsman QM Albert Haines just manages to get Olympic’s wheel over hard to his right when Hawke struck.' Bowyer, in court, was questioned over his seamanship in navigating Olympic in those waters. He argued that the new vessels were getting too but he, was found responsible for the incident. Bowyer also wrote about the Olympic collision in his memoirs, "Lively Ahoy - Reminiscences Of 58 Years In The Trinity House Pilotage Serviice.' Through the "Olympic" - "Hawke" case, the late Capt. E. J. Smith, the officers, and I told the truth and nothing but the truth. It was taken to the House of Lords, but the verdict was not altered, the "Olympic" losing the case. However, the company thought we were right, and I have piloted the "Olympic," the "Homeric," and the "Majestic," hundreds of times, up to my retirement on December 31st, 1929. The Court records are very dry, and phrased in the legalistic language of the time. They are stored in five full document boxes. The above is a brief synopsis of the findings.
    1
  217. I'm not sure that they are invented by stupid people. Only that stupid people believe them.
    1
  218.  @alexandros4703  The official statistics are clear about survivors:- First Class : 197 (122) Second Class : 94 (167) Third Class : 151 (476) Crew :- 212 (696) Children :- 57 ( 52) Totals :- 711 (1513) The bracketed figures are the numbers lost. These are from :- Btitish Parliamentary Papers : Shipping Casualties (Loss of the Steamship 'Titanic' 1912. What 'damning testimony?' Survivors who testified simply gave evidence of their experiences.
    1
  219. The repair was not weak. Olympic was a successful liner for a further 23 years.
    1
  220.  @alexandros4703  Mae eich neges wedi ei nodi.
    1
  221.  @sandymacdonald2838  'Yes.have you ever heard of James cameron,director of titanic who said he couldn't explain in an interview given many years ago about this very subject.by the way mr.cameron dived to the titanic about a dozen times.' I must admit I haven't been monitoring him, but I am advised that James Cameron has visited the wreckage of the Titanic 33 times, between 1995 and 2005. Yet not once, after all those visits, has he made the slightest suggestion that Titanic is anything other than Titanic. Odd, that, don't you think?
    1
  222.  @stevemurphy470  Mae eich neges wedi ei nodi.
    1
  223. Were you to read the minutes of Alexander Carlisle's testimony to the British Inquiry, you would perhaps be surprised that Bruce Ismay played no part in the decisions about the number of lifeboats fitted to the Olympics.
    1
  224.  @jeanie6936  Show me one occasion when I have defended Captain Lord's inactions. I look forward to reading it. I simply explained what Franklin said. Show me where I have supported his comments. I look forward to that as well. As to White Star line and Harland & Wolff, I have not defended them because, whatever you might wish to believe, there is no evidence that either Company did anything wrong. If you think there is, please show me what the nature of this evidence is, and why my comments are inaccurate. I have simply, on the subject of Captain Smith's actions, reported accurately to you, and to others, what a number of Captains & Master Mariners stated in evidence at the British Inquiry. Again, were you to make the effort to read the Minutes, you would already know this. Why are you so antipathetic towards debate, and why do you prefer confrontation and insult?
    1
  225.  @jeanie6936  'Just guessing are you?' No. I am relating what Carlisle said in his evidence, when he stated that, during the course of a four hour meeting with Pirie, Sanderson, and Ismay, the lifeboat topic occupied some five to ten minutes. The final decision, again as Carlisle stated, was made by Harland & Wolff, after Carlisle had retired in June 1910. As the BoT had not updated their regulations, H & W stayed with 14 lifeboats, 2 cutters, and 4 collapsibles. As I write on almost every occasion when I reply to your confrontational comments, read the minutes of the British Inquiry if you really do wish to inform yourself.
    1
  226.  @jeanie6936  Or, it means that Sanderson and Ismay were far more concerned about the 'decorations' within Olympic, and agreed with Carlisle and Pirie that the final number of lifeboats was a decision for the builders, not the operators, as Harland & Wolff were experienced shipbuilders, whilst Sanderson and Ismay were not. As Carlisle testified, the final decision was made by H & W, after the BoT had not amended their regulations, and, indeed, after he had retired and handed over the completion of the design to Thomas Andrews. Who, by the way, was happy enough to sail in both Olympic & Titanic. Why are you so insistent upon ignoring a primary source like the Minutes of the Inquiry. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how historical research actually functions?
    1
  227.  @stevemurphy470  You don't need to 'bet' you can check my comments for yourself. Indeed, I hope that you will do that at once. Had you taken the trouble to have read my post to Dizzy (one of the polite, sensible, people on here, by the way) you would have observed that what I wrote was, in fact: 'I now propose to refrain from replying to any of these people, as it was considered, as early as the 18th century, to be rather bad form to poke the residents of Bedlam with a stick. Of course, actual, genuine, comments, even if silly on occasion, will still receive a response.' Does that, perhaps, make my attitude clearer?
    1
  228.  @goinsouth5187  Unlike you, I have no particular problem with acknowledging any error I might make. The whole purpose of such sites is to make possible general discussion of these events, hopefully in a courteous and respectful manner. You, however, and those in your group, seem determined to reduce an excellent and informative video to a slanging match. Why, by the way, would I feel any need to post 'lies?' Why would you believe that I feel any need to obsess about long ago events to the extent that I would make fabricated claims? Indeed, the only error of which I am aware, and which I freely acknowledged, was my misunderstanding about the role of the five single-ended boilers. If you can point to others, preferably without the need to include more insults, feel entirely free to refer me to them.
    1
  229.  @goinsouth5187  Then if either he or you aren't willing to read Dizzy's comments, then you are missing out on the views of someone whose posts are both well-informed and accurate, as well as invariably clearly stated and polite. Your loss, not Dizzy's, I suggest.
    1
  230.  @stevemurphy470  Mae eich neges wedi ei nodi.
    1
  231.  @alexandros4703  Make your mind up. Who is it that is really my alter ego, Tozzpot or Dizzy? I submit that if anyone is capable of multiple identities, you should look closer to home. Just think, your rampant insanity began simply because of a minor comment of mine stating, correctly, that Lord contacted Rostron the morning after the Titanic sinking to ask if Californian could be of any help. Quite remarkable!
    1
  232.  @alexandros4703  I still haven't quite worked out why the comment upset you so. Of course it was after the event, but it still happened, didn't it? My original post contained no other implication, and certainly wasn't an attempt to justify Lord's (in)action.
    1
  233.  @alexandros4703  Then perhaps you might explain why such a harmless, and accurate, comment triggered you and your coterie of assistants?
    1
  234. Which doesn't actually apply when there is no secret to hide.
    1
  235.  @dodgeramsport01  How do you hide a secret when there is no secret to hide?
    1
  236.  @dodgeramsport01  You don't seem able to answer rationally the alternative, which was that nothing was done because there was nothing to do. Olympic was Olympic throughout. Just as Titanic was Titanic.
    1
  237.  @dodgeramsport01  Oh dear! Insults are the last resort of people who have either run out of arguments, or never really had any. Moreover, the idea of 'hiding a secret in plain sight' only applies if there is any secret to hide in the first place. Can you really not grasp something so obvious?
    1
  238. The relevance of Military History to the Titanic sinking being?
    1
  239. Of course people do. Equally, people with any actual knowledge also know that it is a total Red Herring, as it had no relevance to the sinking.
    1
  240.  @heresjohnny7579  Just out of interest, assuming that you aren't all the same person, how many of you does alexandros have on his string?
    1
  241.  @heresjohnny7579  Thanks for the confirmation. At least it confirms that I needn't read any more of your insults. Or, indeed, any more of your e-mails, either.
    1
  242. Had you watched the videos, you would know.
    1
  243. Except there were significant differences in the exteriors of the two ships. For a start, Titanic had a modified forward end to 'B' deck, resulting in a different window pattern. The same one seen on the wreck, by the way. At the same time, Olympic retained the original unaltered 'B' deck, and the original window pattern. The forward end of Titanic's 'A' deck was enclosed. Olympic's remained open. The bridge wings on Titanic projected outwards, whereas Olympic's were flat to the hull side. Not to mention the number 401 found on a propeller blade at the wrecksite.
    1
  244. Fake news!! There never was a B17 base on the moon. The base was for B24s. These days, the domes where Princess Diana, Elvis, and Hitler still live are near to it. I feel a book coming on.
    1
  245. Which is, Mr, Swithin, what you have been doing for years with your insanity.
    1
  246.  @likeisaid1947  This is the first occasion I have been taken to task for acknowledging that someone's intelligence is greater than mine.
    1
  247.  @likeisaid1947  What penny might that be?
    1
  248.  @likeisaid1947  I would ask you what you know of my 'disposition' but given that you appear to be working from a script, it would serve little purpose. If you wish to debate the circumstances surrounding the loss of Titanic, perhaps you might try doing it more on the basis of debate, and less on the basis of posting mere insults?
    1
  249.  @stevemurphy470  Mae eich neges wedi ei nodi.
    1
  250.  @ReapersKid07  He is being sarcastic, I hope.
    1
  251. What was covered up, how, and why?
    1
  252.  @jeanie6936  But to those who were involved, by which I mean those at Harland & Wolff, at White Star, and within the Board of Trade, there were clear and obvious differences between the two ships. The most obvious, although there were others, being :- 1). The partly enclosed 'A' deck on Titanic, as opposed to the open one on Olympic. 2). The totally different window pattern at the forward end of Titanic's 'B' deck, as opposed to the unmodified forward end, at least until after the Titanic sinking, of Olympic. 3). The projecting bridge wings on Titanic, as opposed to the flush ones on Olympic. Why do you feel the need to argue with everything I post, apparently just for the sake of it? Strange behaviour, to say the least, especially since your original response to the post by catfishhunter was, unlike my own response, to ridicule it.
    1
  253.  @jeanie6936  'And BTW, on the matter of ridicule and insults, it wasn't I who called a commenter on another thread a ''moron'' that was you, remember?' Oh dear. You are struggling, aren't you? Have you abandoned all pretence of trying to debate anything? If you have, please let me know, as it relieves me of the need to reply to you.
    1
  254.  @jeanie6936  'There you go again with the history lessons, endeavouring to insult people's intelligence.' Followed, as usual, by an insult, of course. As the events took place over 110 years ago, isn't any discussion at all likely, and, unavoidably, to involve something of a 'history lesson?' If I recall correctly, the original comment made no reference whatsoever to whom it did or did not refer? Upon what actual grounds did you deduce this? :- 'Any intelligent person would know that the reference referred to the wider public.'
    1
  255.  @likeisaid1947  Mae eich neges wedi ei nodi.
    1
  256.  @alexandros4703  Indeed. His personal belief, ironically after Titanic had sunk, and, obviously, quickly withdrawn. If you can show any contemporary evidence that, at the time, the Olympics were portrayed as unsinkable, please do so. The nearest you will find is a statement that 'The Olympics are as near to unsinkable as modern shipbuilding techniques can make them.'
    1
  257.  @alexandros4703  I haven't backtracked on anything. If you can show me any advertising material from 1911 or early 1912 which refers to the Olympics as 'unsinkable' please refer me to it. The only single document researchers have found so far is a single reference, in a small circulation magazine. Specifically : 'Shipbuilder' magazine, which called the Titanic "practically unsinkable" in a special issue about the Olympic liners. The key word here being 'practically,' I suggest. I admit to being wrong frequently, but only when someone has been able to show me that I am. If you seek someone who is unable to admit error, you might look closer to home? By the way, it is, old chap, bad form to get someone else to open a new address, as it appears you have done about a week ago, then get them to post comments on your behalf, and even to upvote your own comments. Not the done thing at all, I suggest.
    1
  258. A bit cruel. Probably he was fed up with his plastering job, and saw a way of using his vague interest in Titanic as a way of making a few quid by writing an 'imaginative' book on the subject. I expect he was rather taken aback by the response.
    1
  259.  @HaremScarem1762  The last one was a few years ago, but it was about a major episode in the Naval History of WW2. Nothing to do with Titanic. Sales, and thus royalties, have been rather good. Thank you for asking.
    1
  260. What good would a 'brown envelope' have been to him? Didn't he die in the sinking? What gives you the idea that Ismay ever ordered 'full speed ahead?'
    1
  261.  @charliefarley9658  'What gives you the idea he didn't?' Perhaps the fact that five boilers were never connected?
    1
  262.  @alexandros4703  Please don't talk to me about dyslexia. 'Five boilers were never connected.' Titanic, like Olympic, was equipped with 24 double-ended boilers and 5 single-ended boilers. The single ended boilers were never connected.
    1
  263.  @likeisaid1947  No. I was simply in error, None of us is perfect. However, what is known beyond doubt is that Titanic was actually steaming at some two knots short of her maximum speed at the time of the collision. We learn by our mistakes, of course.
    1
  264.  @jeanie6936  What is untruthful about my comment that ''Five boilers were never connected.' Are you claiming that they were? I have no difficulty about accepting that I was wrong about the purpose for which those boilers were used. Particularly because it was entirely irrelevant to the causes of the sinking.
    1
  265.  @jeanie6936  Oh dear. More insults. I must be getting forgetful, as I really do not recall writing that, nor even thinking it. Perhaps you would divert me to my post where I did?
    1
  266.  @jeanie6936  How was it ignorant? Were the boilers actually connected? Oh, Don't bother posting a response. As I have already chosen to do with the posts under the other name, I will now disregard the insults from you as well. Have a lovely Christmas.
    1
  267.  @charliefarley9658  Mae eich neges wedi ei nodi.
    1
  268.  @stevemurphy470  Mae eich neges wedi ei nodi.
    1
  269. The whole nonsense about the switch is that there was not the slightest suggestion of any such thing until the 1990s, when a plasterer and amateur historian by the name of Robin Gardiner wrote a book 'Titanic - The Ship that Never Sank?' It was poorly researched and easy to disprove, but Conspiracy Fantasists eagerly latched on to it. As I rough rule of thumb, the less someone knows about the events, the more likely he/she is to swallow the idea.
    1
  270.  @dylancloud97  Who do you think that might have been?
    1
  271. No, it is not a 'theory' but a fantasy invented with the rise of social media in the 1990s.
    1
  272.  @heresjohnny7579  Not correct. Recent tests on both the steel and the rivets, using both steel and rivets manufactured in the same manner as the originals used for the Olympics demonstrated that neither steel nor rivets were inferior to those used on large ships at the time. Have you considered that a damned great iceberg punching a series of holes into five (possibly six) compartments, might have been involved?
    1
  273.  @heresjohnny7579  Certainly, the Olympics were not designed with an iceberg collision in mind, just as Leonard Peskett didn't design Lusitania ro survive a torpedo hit. However, neither the rivets nor the steel hull of Titanic was in any way inferior to that of any other large liner in service at the time. Olympic, of course, was a successful liner for 23 years. Recent tests on Titanic type steel and rivets manufactured with the same methods, have confirmed that Titanic's construction was not flawed. They also confirmed than a ship designed to survive with four compartments compromised will not survive should five, or possibly six, meet that date. But, of course, Alexander Carlisle & Thomas Andrews could have told them that at the time.
    1
  274.  @heresjohnny7579  What 'short cuts?' Mauretania took 39 months from lay down to Maiden voyage. Titanic took only three months less. Why would Harland & Wolff cut corners? They were a prestigious shipbuilder, with a record vircually unparalled. White Star were not involved in the building process, and were hardly likely to demand a sub standard product. Smith had held an Extra Master Mariner's certificate since February 1888, and been White Star's Senior Captain since 1904. He was from a working-class family from Staffordshire. He had no 'influence' and any incompetence on his part would have quickly been found out. Captain Lord's inactivity had no relevance to the sinking, although, possibly but not certainly, he might have saved a few more lives. The minimum number of lifeboats was dictated by Board of Trade regulations. The Olympics exceeded that number. The rivets were.as recent studies have shown up to the task. It seems you have fallen for the exciting myths, when there are many sources available which reveal the real facts.
    1
  275. ​ @heresjohnny7579 'Sure, and neither were it's not up to scratch wrought iron rivets popping like champagne corks'. I won't waste time with someone who posts flippant comments and continues to argue from a state of ignorance. Look up the research and the facts about the construction of the Olympics.and educate yourself.
    1
  276.  @heresjohnny7579  You could look up the facts for yourself, as they are freely available in a host of sources, if you choose not to believe me. Captain Lord's role relates to his inactivity after the iceberg collision, but not to the circumstances of the sinking itself. Are you really so ill-informed?
    1
  277.  @jeanie6936  Yet the experts at Wood's Hole did exhaustive tests, on both the rivets and the steel used to build Titanic, and expressed it as their considered opinion that neither was responsible for the sinking. Perhaps you might say ' popped like candy sticks', but would a scientist? No, I am not a forensic scientist, but I will take thge word of people who are. Like the specialists at Wood's Hole. How do you know what I will say? Psychic, are you?
    1
  278.  @heresjohnny7579  I am indeed. I don't have a problem accepting the role of the five single ended boilers. I was wrong in suggesting that they were the reason for the fact that Titanic was not at full speed. However, I was not wrong in stating that Titanic was not at full speed. Therefore my wrong assumption does not alter the facts at all. Only the reason for them. As to research, you seem to have done little yourself and, like others on here, you seem to prefer personal attacks to discussion. Odd, that.
    1
  279.  @heresjohnny7579  The pattern established by Alexandros, Are you actually him, or are you paid so much per post by him?
    1
  280.  @alexandros4703  Mae eich neges wedi ei nodi.
    1
  281. Why did Ismay deserve vilification?
    1
  282.  @ukraineunited56  You haven't actually explained anything, and personal insults are a poor excuse for debate. Let's see what there is to know. He was Chairman of a successful Shipping Line, and helped to drive through the creation of a class of large liner built in response to Cunard's Lusitania. He sailed on the maiden voyage of the second one, which was involved in a tragedy. He is reported to have helped women passengers into lifeboats, before boarding one of the last boats as it was being lowered with spaces on it. He was deeply traumatised by the sinking, withdrew almost entirely from public life, but, according to Paul Louden-Brown, "Ismay and the Titanic'" (Titanic Historical Society, 10 January, 2001), his work with the the Liverpool & London Steamship Protection & Indemnity Association Limited, an insurance company founded by his father, meant that 'Hundreds of thousands of pounds were paid out in insurance claims to the relatives of Titanic's victims; the misery created by the disaster and its aftermath dealt with by Ismay and his directors with great fortitude, this, despite the fact that he could easily have shirked his responsibilities and resigned from the board. He stuck with the difficult task and during his twenty-five-year chairmanship hardly a page of the company's minutes does not contain some mention of the Titanic disaster.' Ismay maintained an interest in maritime affairs. He inaugurated a cadet ship called Mersey used to train officers for Britain's Merchant Navy, donated £11,000 to start a fund for lost seamen, and in 1919 gave £25,000 (approximately equivalent to £1.4 million in 2023)[35] to set up a fund to recognise the contribution of merchant mariners in the First World War. The attacks made on him by W. R. Hearst, an influential press baron who was an enemy of Ismay on both a personal and a business level, and which involved Hearst's newspapers calling him 'J. Brute Ismay, seem to have rather swayed perceptions of him. Feel free to check any or all of the above, of course.
    1
  283.  @charliefarley9658  Mae eich neges wedi ei nodi.
    1
  284.  @stevemurphy470  Mae eich neges wedi ei nodi.
    1
  285.  @stevemurphy470  Mae eich neges wedi ei nodi.
    1
  286.  @barbarajackson7824  I have no particular thoughts on that. I simply stated a fact, which appears to have annoyed you. You might consider how much credence would be given to the unsupported testimony of a seven years old child in a Court of Law, however.
    1
  287.  @DANIELLE_BREANNA_LACY  Fine, but could she, or anyone else, be sure that she was not, influenced, whether knowingly or not, by things she heard in later life? I am not, by the way, disparaging anything that she said, only pointing out potential problems.
    1
  288.  @ratchaneechompoon2849  How do you know that her recollections in later life reflected those of her seven years old self? Her first interview on the subject appears only to have been given in 1980, when she was 75. If you wish, you can seek it out in the Audio Catalogue at the British Library. It was broadcast on 17 August, 1980. At the time, Jack Grimm was carrying out an (unsuccessful) attempt to locate the wreck, and Eva Hart was interviewed for her opinion. There was a much more detailed interview in 1993. 'Perhaps your opinions are influenced by a history of dementia and cognitive decline in your own family?' Or perhaps I will simply not rise to your attempted baiting, and simply point out instead that it is inconceivable that, in the 80+ years of her life after Titanic sank, she had not read or heard a single comment on the subject which might have affected her opinion. Out of interest, are your views now exactly the same as they were when you were seven?
    1
  289. ​ @ratchaneechompoon2849  'How do you know they didn't?' Put simply, I don't. Just as you don't know that they do. I simply suggest that, as the first account Eva Hart is known to have given was in 1980, it is just possible that, in the 68 years between 1912 & 1980, she might have read or heard a few things about the sinking which were unknown to her seven years old self? Short enough for you?
    1
  290.  @VanJohnson-m8m  'The same ones which crashed into another ship? The crew did not crash into anything. RMS Olympic collided with HMS Hawke whilst in the charge of a Solent Pilot. Perhaps you might look up 'Solent Pilot' in order to educate yourself?
    1
  291.  @VanJohnson-m8m  'The idea is putting a Captain in charge of another ship, just after a huge crash of own vessel. Captain's are always ultimately held responsible.' 1). The captain is not in command of a ship when she is in the charge of a Solent Pilot. Or, any other pilot in an area of compulsory pilotage. 2). Titanic had an almost entirely new crew, because she was on her maiden voyage. 3). Only a small number of the crew, mainly officers, transferred from Olympic.
    1
  292. So, in effect what you are claiming is that the fact that the overwhelming number of people who worked on the moon landings, or on Titanic for that matter, believed them to be genuine, is your evidence that they were not? Try it in court: 'M'Lord, there is no evidence at all that this person perpetrated the crime.' 'Isn't there? Then he must be guilty.'
    1
  293. The fact is that, in the midst of the Great Depression people had more pressing concerns than whether an old liner could be preserved. Her old rival, Mauretania, went the same way at the same time, after the Cunard/White Star merger.
    1
  294. The one of 1911 didn't apply in any case, as it related to espionage.
    1
  295.  @alexandros4703  Yes, I know, of course. But in 1911-1912 there was no such place as 'Northern Ireland' was there?
    1
  296.  @alexandros4703  When someone shows me that I am in error, I freely acknowledge. It is what educated people do, the idea is called either a conversation, or a debate. Clearly the idea has passed you by? I will amend my comment if you can demonstrate why my original comment, which was ' But in 1911-1912 there was no such place as 'Northern Ireland' was there?' is favtually inaccurate.
    1
  297.  @alexandros4703  Are you really reduced to picking at a typing error? How desperately sad. Still, easier than trying to answer the question, I suppose.
    1
  298.  @alexandros4703  Why are you even bothering? You have left the subject of Californian and Titanic a long way astern, and seem to have embarked on a mad personal crusade.
    1
  299. He had been a self-employed plasterer for around 20 years. Presumably, he simply sought an easier method of earning his corn?
    1
  300. Does it?Apart from the inconvenient facts that :- 1). White Star lost £500,000 together with a major asset, and their safety record. 2). Olympic had been back at sea since November, 1911. 3). The order for Britannic was confirmed in November, 1911.
    1
  301.  @expattaffy1954  That you admit that you have been raving for years must be considered a good sign.
    1
  302. You have plenty of such videos, all made by conspiracy fantasists. What you do not have is a single piece of evidence for this nonsense.
    1
  303. Perhaps because the 1911 Act didn't. It related to espionage only.
    1
  304.  @pabmusic1  The Official Secrets Act 1911 (1 & 2 Geo. 5. c. 28) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It replaced the Official Secrets Act 1889. The Act was introduced in response to public alarm at reports of wide-scale espionage, some of them fomented by popular novels and plays that dramatized the threat, supposedly from Germany, at a time of a rapid naval expansion. Its provisions were extensive, with heavy penalties for any reporting or sketching of military, naval or air defence installations, or the harbouring of people suspected of gathering such intelligence. Nothing of the sort applied to the survivors of Titanic's crew. Not that it matters anyway, as the reference to the Official Secrets Act was made only by Paddy the Pig, who was never a member of the crew in any case.
    1
  305. I expect he has the same approach as I do. Examine the evidence and documentation, and arrive at your conclusion based upon those.
    1
  306. @32ModB 'maximum speed, eyes 👀 closed into an 🧊 iceberg takes a lot of planning😀' Have you consided the unusual weather conditions which existed at the time? Which may have created mirage like conditions, obscuring the iceberg? Whether you give it any credibility or not, it is fascinating to read the discussions about this possibility.
    1
  307.  @heresjohnny7579  No, we aren't. We are simply two people who both have considerable knowledge about the Titanic sinking, and are not taken in by the myths about a conspiracy dating from the 1990s, as you have been. Still, as one of my old tutors used to say, 'When people resort to insults, it is proof that they are losing the argument.' Thanks for confirming what Professor Foot said.
    1
  308. You have already received one answer which covers the second half of your comment. As to the insurance pay out, Titanic was insured for two thirds of her building costs. So you are correct. There was no way that anyone would seek any insurance pay-out which lost them £500,000 as well as a major asset and their safety record.
    1
  309.  @stevemurphy470  Do I? Thanks for telling me. I thought that my information came from Mike Brady, the Minutes of the Inquiries and Hearings, and 'The Titanic Switch Theory - Exposed.' Oh, and the archives of my University, on occasion. Still, I suppose you know better, although your standard of insult is well below that of some of your 'colleagues.'
    1
  310.  @likeisaid1947  No, but I did study Modern History at Manchester, specialising in 20th century Naval History. Emerged with a First. One of my Professors was quite eminent, the late M. R. D. Foot. Titanic was and is a hobby I acquired after coming across Gardiner's silly book. Oddly, in a Tramway Museum. I have had books & articles published on Naval History, by the way. Doubtless, you will not believe that either, but frankly, what someone like you believes or does not believe is of little or no interest to me.
    1
  311.  @likeisaid1947  Actually, you commented on my education, and I simply told you the facts. I did not raise the subject. There really isn't much point posting if you don't seek a response, although I think that you are fully aware of that already. 'Ranting?' No, I leave that to you and your group of associates.
    1
  312. Olympic had been repaired, and returned to sea, by 20 November, 1911, when Titanic was still around five months from completion.
    1
  313.  @MikeyYoung-g6n  It depends whether those you define as 'regular people' are those who are simply interested, or the obsessive conspiracy fantasists who are eager to believe every fact free nonsense video they stumble across. Personally, I meet far more of the former than the latter.
    1
  314. 'A 1st class, passenger, Elizabeth Lindsey Lines, cabin D-28, overheard a conversation between Cptn. Smith and Bruce Ismay in the ship's lounge that went something like this: JBI: So you've not yet lit the last four boilers?' Mrs. Lines was, doubtless, an honest and accurate witness. To quote the relevant section of her testimony, it went from question 41 onwards :- 41. Are you able to state from your recollection the words that you heard spoken between Mr. Ismay and Captain Smith on that occasion? - We had had a very good run. At first I did not pay any attention to what they were saying, they were simply talking and I was occupied, and then my attention was arrested by hearing the day's run discussed, which I already knew had been a very good one in the preceeding (sic) twenty-four hours, and I heard Mr. Ismay - it was Mr. Ismay who did the talking - I heard him give the length of the run, and I heard him say "Well, we did better to-day than we did yesterday, we made a better run to-day than we did yesterday, we will make a better run to-morrow. Things are working smoothly, the machinery is bearing the test, the boilers are working well". They went on discussing it, and then I heard him make the statement: "We will beat the Olympic and get in to New York on Tuesday." 42. In your last statement, Mrs. Lines, were you giving the substance of the conversation or the exact words which were used? - I heard "We will beat the Olympic and get in to New York on Tuesday" in those words. 43. If there were any particular words spoken that you can remember, I should be glad to hear them. - Those words fixed themselves in my mind: "We will beat the Olympic and get in to New York on Tuesday." 44. Do I understand you to say that the other things that you stated were the general substance of what you heard and not the exact things or words used? - No, I heard those statements. 45. What was said by Mr. Ismay as regards the condition of the performances, of the engines, machinery and boilers? - He said they were doing well, they were bearing the extra pressure. The first day's run had been less, the second day's run had been a little greater. He said "You see they are standing the pressure, everything is going well, the boilers are working well, we can do better to-morrow, we will make a better run to-morrow." There was, in Mrs.Lines' testimony, no reference to lighting ' the last four boilers' at all. Moreover she was adamant about the exact words used. Whatever influence Ismay may or may not have had over Smith, if Mrs.Lines is indeed a credible witness, then no such reference was made. At least, not within the earshot of Mrs.Lines.
    1
  315.  @Dizzy19.  Quite correct. The snippets of conversation Mrs. Lines heard, or recalled, undoubtedly took place and were probably accurate. They did not, of course, include any reference to increasing speed. The conversation as you describe it, and as it appeared in 'Titanic' was undoubtedly the work of a scriptwriter working to a theme, which was 'Bruce Ismay must be seen to be a dastardly villain' and the alleged conversation is unsupported by any evidence.
    1
  316.  @charliefarley9658  'I must correct you by stating that the scene between Ismay & Smith was actually factual according to the transcripts that James Cameron obtained from Mrs Lines's deposition at the Limitation of Liability Hearings.' The deposition Mrs. Lines made is readily accessible. However, nowhere within is any reference to speed, or any increase in speed. The conversation in the movie certainly is artistic licence. Which is simply another way of saying that it is not necessarily factually accurate.
    1
  317.  @charliefarley9658  Mae eich neges wedi ei nodi.
    1
  318.  @alexandros4703  Mae eich neges wedi ei nodi.
    1
  319.  @HaremScarem1762  I actually wrote, with reference to the testimony of Mrs. Lines, that 'The snippets of conversation Mrs. Lines heard, or recalled, undoubtedly took place and were probably accurate. They did not, of course, include any reference to increasing speed.' Thank you for agreeing with me.
    1
  320.  @HaremScarem1762  What part of my accurate comment that 'The snippets of conversation Mrs. Lines heard, or recalled, undoubtedly took place and were probably accurate. They did not, of course, include any reference to increasing speed' suggests any such thing? Where have I backtracked, by the way? 'Very odd.' Indeed, you certainly are.
    1
  321.  @HaremScarem1762  The 'copy and paste' quote was from the minutes of the Inquiry. I simply quoted from the text, which you would know, had you actually read it. 'What do you deduce from - (Ismay to Smith) ''So you've not yet lit the last four boilers'', and we'll do better tomorrow''? ' What I deduce from that is that you haven't actually read Mrs. Lines' deposition. Had you done so, you would have known that she made no reference to any such comment, by Ismay or by anyone else. Therefore, further response on my part is not necessary. I note, however, that you actually made it up :- 'A 1st class, passenger, Elizabeth Lindsey Lines, cabin D-28, overheard a conversation between Cptn. Smith and Bruce Ismay in the ship's lounge that went something like this: JBI: So you've not yet lit the last four boilers?' In your original post Hoist by your own Petard, mon vieux? 'Maybe you'll tell us that Mrs Lines had cognitive and dementia issues as well just like you suggested Eva Hart had.' I made no such reference about either person. I have never doubted the accuracy of Mrs. Lines' deposition, and all I remarked about Eva Hart was that it was probable that her account was influenced by things she heard later in life. What her seven years old self remembered is unknown, as her first, short, account of the sinking dated from August, 1980. You can listen to the British Library recording if you like. She recorded a second interview in 1993. You can listen to that, too. She subsequently, in 1994, wrote an autobiography, 'Shadow of the Titanic – A Survivor's Story' Thus, her first, very brief, account of what happened was given when she was seventy five years old. Are you seriously suggesting that she had not read or heard anything at all about Titanic since the ship sank in April, 1912. 'ps, is your book worth a read?' Well, according to reviews from several noted naval historians, yes it is. Not that it is appropriate for me to express any opinion. By the way, I will ignore any further comments from you, as you aren't actually worth my time and effort.
    1
  322.  @Embracing01  'it's a subject which he was fascinated with as a child.' Indeed. I believe he calims to have met Charles Lightoller, even though Lightoller died before Hamer was one year old. Sorry, but if Hamer is a serious researcher, then I am an International Cricketer.
    1
  323. You should have watched both videos. Or have you simply perfected the art of fact denial?
    1
  324. If these people want to believe in every passing conspiracy fantasy they stumble across, that is fine by me. However, if they then choose to post comments in support of these fantasies, then they must expect to be challenged, and to be asked to provide evidence. At which point, they generally become angry, become abusive, or simply disappear. Because their evidence does not exist.
    1
  325.  @AB-ov1zm  I can't really answer that comment, as it doesn't seem to be in any known form of English.
    1
  326.  @alexandros4703  You do seem eager for an argument, despite lacking the intellectual tools to sustain one. What is 'fantastical' about the almost universally held acceptance that Captain Lord should have acted on the concerns of his officers, but that even if he had, the suggestion that he might have rescued the 1500+ who died is, at best, unproven?
    1
  327. Your problem however, is that you are merely a rational, reasonable person. Thus disqualifying you on two counts in the 'mind' of the average Titanic Conspiracy Theorist.
    1
  328. @user-li2yv5je5e No. The responsibility was determined by a court, which concluded that Olympic's bulk created a suction effect which drew HMS Hawkr into her side.
    1
  329. @user-li2yv5je5e Indeed, it is important that facts should be correct. In this case, after the initial Admiralty Inquiry, which did indeed determine that Olympic was at fault, the White Star Line took the issue to court. In the 'Oceanic Steam Navigation Company versus Commander William Frederick Blunt, Royal Navy,' the White Star Line maintained that the Hawke was the guilty party. The Royal Navy countered by going on record that the Olympic did not signal the Hawke of her turn, when in fact she did. There was the question of speed. Captain Smith estimated that his speed at the time of the collision was 16 knots and denied that his ship was doing 20 as the Royal Navy suggested. A naval architect who examined the damage estimated that the two vessels were traveling at about the same speed at the moment of impact. The lawyers for the Royal Navy brought up another interesting theory, that of suction. They claimed that the suction from the Olympic’s huge propellers pulled the Hawke into the liner’s side. This theory was tested in a laboratory setting at the National Physical Laboratory at Teddington. There, wax models of the Olympic and the Hawke were constructed and placed in a water tank. A small motor was used to operate the “Olympic," and the two models were put on parallel courses at speeds in which the two ships were traveling at the time of impact. The results of the experiments bore out the Admiralty’s theory. In the first experiment, the model of the cruiser swerved toward the liner. In the second, the helm of the “Hawke" was put over 20 degrees, yet she still swerved toward the model of the liner.21 Present at the nine experiments was naval constructor David Watson Taylor of the U.S. Navy. He concluded that if the positions of the two ships were as the witnesses from the cruiser had stated, the “vessels would develop a strong suction tending to draw the Hawke toward the Olympic. The sheering of the Hawke’s bow would be against the helm, and would rapidly become irresistible, so that no hard-to-port helm of 35 degrees could stop it.” Taylor further went on to say that it would have been impossible for the cruiser to overtake and pass the liner even if she were the faster ship. He stated, “the tendency to sheer in as she got up toward the Olympic would become stronger and stronger, and in my view she would not be able to get her stem abreast of the center of the Olympic. She would fast get into the position of the maximum sheering tendency.” Professor John Biles, a naval architect at Glasgow University who was present at the experiments, agreed. “Assuming the vessels to be parallel,” Biles concluded, “1 do not think the Hawke could come through the danger zone and get bridge to bridge at a lateral distance of 100 yards. She would turn in.” Others disagreed. The pilot of the Olympic said that in all of his years of piloting, he never heard of the theory'. Captain Smith stated, “I don’t know anything about it, but it might do so.” The captain of the Mauritania testified that he never experienced this phenomenon. In the end, the court agreed with the Admiralty. The president of the court did not openly use the word “suction” but concluded that the Hawke was “carried towards the Olympic in a swerve beyond her control.” The court also ruled that “the Olympic had ample room and water in the channel to the northward. She came too close to the cruiser on the south side of the channel. She did not take proper steps to keep out of the way.” Don't trouble to apologise for your initial rudeness. I will simply attribute it to ignorance of White Star's appeal, and the court case which resulted.
    1
  330. 'i did hear a rumour some of the furniture removed from the Olympic after her scraping did contain titanic code numbers possibly swoped at a fitting stage ,the propellers should have been in Olympic numbers because they were swoped with titanics damaged set.' No item of furniture removed at Jarrow when Olympic was stripped has ever been found to carry any number other than 400. There is a restaurant in Alnwick where some may still be inspected. No Titanic blade was ever fitted to Olympic. Parts from a shaft were, but had any Olympic blade needed replacing, there were already spare Olympic blades available. As, indeed, was precisely what happened in March, 1912.
    1
  331.  @ashinanto  'People know when you start calling names.'Who is actually losing.' Please read my comment again. I simply suggested that using that particular was a losing argument. For anyone who may be interested, that video was released, originally, around 12 years ago as ' "Titanic - The Shocking Truth." It was widely ridiculed then, and certainly hasn't aged well. HMS Hawke was repaired by the Royal Navy, of course. A new, straight, bow was fitted instead of the original, outmoded, ram style one.
    1
  332.  @ashinanto  'Who paid for the repairs why was there a court hearing. If Olympic was at fault. Why didn't White star lines pay for it?' Because the court found that, whilst Olympic was at fault, the primary blame was attributed to a Solent Pilot, not to a White Star employee. Thus, although White Star could not claim from Lloyds for Olympic's damage, neither were they required to pay for repairs to Hawke. Thus, the Royal Navy did.
    1
  333. Samson displaced 506 tons. I doubt you average liner would even notice that she had run over her. However, Lloyds' records, and those of the port of Isafjordur, prove that she was nowhere Titanic.
    1
  334.  @Embracing01  Do you seriously believe that every fact which proves your fantasy false is part of some vast conspiracy?
    1
  335.  @Tozzpot500  Sit back and enjoy his ravings. If a new site in his name emerges however, there is no point in replying, as you will receive abuse and then be blocked. This has happened to me on several occasions. Indeed, I view it as a badge of honour!
    1
  336.  @Tozzpot500  Has he not invited you to a Zoom meeting yet? That happens on a regular basis as well.
    1
  337.  @Tozzpot500  Indeed he does. He also accuses them of being in the pay of the security services, and/or of being liars. He then posts comments, occasionally obscene, about them, and then blocks them from his videos.
    1
  338.  @veselisaonichar8875  'Does it make sense to answer before translating the answer? What are you going to do?' Perhaps you have no concept of sarcasm? As I wrote, only when I read the translation did I realise how silly your comments truly were.
    1
  339.  @veselisaonichar8875  Who else thinks sarcastically?' When the original comment is as bizarre as yours was, the only reasonable response is sarcasm.
    1
  340.  @veselisaonichar8875  Actually, I am not going to do anything, apart from chuckle quietly at the utter inanity of your comments. I doubt that I will be alone in such a response, of course.
    1
  341.  @veselisaonichar8875  'Wait, you laugh at yourself - when you make a mistake? Well, look, it's not bad, but then it's not strange that you laugh at others when they make mistakes. A good sign. It appears that you are beginning to realise your mistakes.
    1
  342. You haven't watched the video, have you? One thing it definitely doesn't do is support any conspiracy fantasy.
    1
  343.  @flyboy152  But didn't you write ' This guy has defamed thousands by pulling complete nonsense out of his nether regions.'
    1
  344. Perhaps because icebergs do not carry lifeboats?
    1
  345. The Inquiries were to ascertain the course of events which led to her sinking. Whether she sank in one piece of broke apart was simply a detail.
    1
  346. Just out of interest, 33% of first class male passengers survived. 34% of third class children, and 46% of third class women.
    1
  347.  @eliel_360  Alas, I fear so. His videos are totally crazy, but (unintentionally) hugely amusing at the same time.
    1
  348.  @Tozzpot500  I believe that his previous efforts were removed from YouTube. He has, it seems, started again. Oh joy!
    1
  349.  @Tozzpot500  'Unique' is one word for his posts. I'll grant you that, but when you have explained to him for the umpteenth time that the evil discussions between White Star directors about Olympic's broken keel were not actually filmed as they actually happened, or that a photograph taken in 1912 was really not taken in 1937, I can think of other terms. Indeed, as my wife said on one occasion, 'Stop using language like that. You're scaring the cat.'
    1
  350.  @Tozzpot500  I have heard about his opinions regarding Apollo, and read a number of reviews, the best one being in the 'Articles' section of :- 'The Titanic 'Switch' Theory: Exposed' I haven't actually read the book, largely because I don't know enough about the Moon Landings, and find one lunatic theory more than enough to be going on with.
    1
  351.  @Tozzpot500  The 'irrefutable' new evidence is generally yet another comment about portholes.
    1
  352.  @devinmorrison2993  Well, you certainly should 'do more research.' The cost of £25,000 is correct. If you disagee, what do you think it was, and provide your source, please. The 'damage' in February 1912 was very minor. Merely the loss of a propellor blade which was replaced in a few days. Isn't it odd, by the way, that those who urge others to do their research are usually, like you, the ones who have done the least themselves?
    1
  353.  @devinmorrison2993  'A simple google search will show you the estimated cost for repairs from collision with hawke were $100,000-$125,000.' Very good, little chap. Except that the pound to dollar exchange rate in 1911 was $4.87 to £1. In other words, £25,000 was the same, essentially, as $121,750 I suggest that you go away now and stop bleating about 'research' as I have just shown you the depth of your own. No need for you to apologise. I will take that for granted.
    1
  354.  @devinmorrison2993  'my comments keep getting removed cause you cant include links.' Perhaps your comments are being removed because someone else thinks you are as silly as I do?
    1
  355. Olympic was fully repaired, and a successful liner for 23 years. If there had been a cunning plan, surely an accidental fire in dock would have been the way to go?
    1
  356. To the best of my knowledge, the crew were not 'sworn to secrecy' although those whose evidence was to be given at the Inquiry were asked not to speak about the events publicly until they had done so. Much the same thing happens to this day.
    1
  357.  @gunstargizmo  I have no idea what you are seeing, or how accurate the capitions are. I only know that Titanic was modified only after feedback from Olympic's first few voyages, which was, obviously, only available well after Titanic had been launched. Thay is why photographs of her launch clearly show that at the time her 'B' deck window pattern matched that of Olympic. There are numerous books which confirm this. Perhaps you might acquire one or two and read them?
    1
  358. 'There’s several photos of Titanic shortly after launch with the enclosed B Deck. These books are easily the most comprehensive set on Titanic.' 'B' Deck on Titanic was, at the time of her launch, exactly the same as that of Olympic, in that the window patterns matched those of Olympic. Thus, 'B' deck was enclosed at the time of launch on both ships, as far as a point between the third and fourth funnels. However, you originally claimed that 'there are photos of Titanic being launched with exterior B Deck modifications already made'. Which is simply not correct. Any debate has been about the subsequent modifications, which, externally on Titanic, resulted in a revised, irregular, window pattern at the forward end of the deck, when compared to Olympic, or, indeed, to the original Titanic configuration, because of internal modifications which involved improvements and extensions to first class staterooms and the installation of the Cafe Parisien. These modifications appear to have been undertaken in late 1911.
    1
  359.  @gunstargizmo  There is no doubt that the modifications were made, but only late in 1911. Don't you think if the changes to 'B' deck had been made before launch, Mike Brady, Mark Chirnside, or every other Titanic historian might have noticed? Or do you consider that you alone are correct? I am not complaining, by the way. I am simply 100% sure of my facts.
    1
  360.  @DakotaFord592  Why do you think I would be even remotely interested in American history? You must joking when you fantasise about this 'white privilege' invention.
    1
  361. Congratulations for demonstrating, very effectively, what absolute barmpots you conspiracy theorists really are.
    1
  362.  @expattaffy1954  'Be honest What Wilk you say when I show you a ship being broken up 25 years later bearing the name TITANIC etched into its bow.' Well I, and everyone else, will say that the photo. of the ship being broken up 25 years later is actually of Titanic in Belfast in February, 1912, prior to completion.
    1
  363.  @Tozzpot500  'well it has now been around 24 hours.' Perhaps 'they' have intercepted it. One of his recurring themes is that there is a vast conspiracy at work, intent on preventing his 'facts' from becoming known. I have history with him, and have been accused of being an agent of these people. I mentioned this to 'M' just the other day. He said I should deny everything. My Licence to Kill has been withdrawn, I have been ordered to hand in my Walther PPK, and even my Licence to Annoy has been suspended. Miss Moneypenny won't even speak to me. There! It is all out in the open now. I feel much better. A chap called George Smiley has invited me for lunch at the Circus, whatever that is. I wonder what he wants?
    1
  364.  @Tozzpot500  I have just finished ploughing through the 'Brilliant Expattaffy's' latest video. All 1 hour 30 minutes of it. Comment is unnecessary, except to refer to 'Hamlet' Act IV Scene 1 :- "Mad as the sea and wind, when both contend, which is the mightier" I must confess to being flattered by a few references to myself, albeit not by name. It seems I am a liar, of course. By the way, don't watch the video, when you come across it, in one go. After around 15 minutes, you will experience a damp sensation down both sides of your neck. That is your brain dissolving and seeping out of your ears. Otherwise, enjoy.
    1
  365.  @gokulgopan4397  I have just finished ploughing through the 'Brilliant Expattaffy's' latest video. All 1 hour 30 minutes of it. Comment is unnecessary, except to refer to 'Hamlet' Act IV Scene 1 :- "Mad as the sea and wind, when both contend, which is the mightier" I must confess to being flattered by a few references to myself, albeit not by name. It seems I am a liar, of course. By the way, don't watch the video, when you come across it, in one go. After around 15 minutes, you will experience a damp sensation down both sides of your neck. That is your brain dissolving and seeping out of your ears. Otherwise, enjoy.
    1
  366.  @Tozzpot500  As the sad old chap has gone silent, I won't comment again about him unless things change. However, two years ago there was an interesting review about him which appeared as :- "ExpatTaffy" - the youtube Conspiracy theorist A review of his first Titanic video is part of it (by me) but other comments about his Apollo 'views, are worth reading, if only to give people an idea of his character.
    1
  367. Yes, of course your 'friend' said that. We totally believe you, don't we?
    1
  368.  @Embracing01  Don't write such utter nonsense. Thousands of Belfast men worked in the Harland & Wolff yards. Are you really trying to say that not one of them ever mentioned this to friends or family for the rest of their lives, even after the Titanic sinking and the fact many were made redundant at the end of WW1? Grow up.
    1
  369.  @Embracing01  Unfortunately John Hamer has form, in that he never stumbled across a conspiracy fantasy he didn't swallow whole and unquestioningly. In this case he repeated, more or less parrot-fashion, the contents of Robin Gardiner's utterly discredited book, written in the 1990s. To give you an example of his trustworthiness, I quote the following statement he made in an interview as recently as 2021. :- "I've spoken to quite a few people who've been obliquely involved in it. For example, I spoke to Bertie Lightoller, who was second officer, the most senior surviving officer." That was quite an achievement, given that Lightoller died in December, 1952, and Hamer was born in the same year. Oh well, I suppose he might have been precocious! So, three 'independent families' came forward, but sadly he never managed to produced confirmatory evidence. How unfortunate! Do you seriously suggest that some shadowy body is policing the internet and monitoring comments about the Titanic sinking? Seriously? If the families didn't want to be filmed, why did they allegedly come forward in the first place? You ask me not to insult you, but you feel able to insult the integrity of several thousand Belfast shipyard workers and their descendants?
    1
  370.  @Embracing01  Quotation, followed by source, little chap : Hamer: "I've spoken to quite a few people who've been obliquely involved in it. For example, I spoke to Bertie Lightoller, who was second officer, the most senior surviving officer. I spoke to his nephew and he had some interesting titbits to tell me about various different things. That didn't quite follow the official narrative." (General Knowledge Podcast BONUS CONTENT SHOW Teaser 5 - The Titanic Conspiracy, May 13, 2021) 'Maybe the families who contacted John initially wanted to be interviewed but later decided not to or didn't want the video or audio to be published, or maybe they did but John decided to not upload it.' Lots of 'maybes' there, aren't there, but a serious dearth of solid fact. Just how John likes to do things, actually. So, you now suggest that Hamer allegedly found these people, but decided not to upload what they said. Really? You get dafter by the post. 'How do you not know they're not policing the internet about the Titanic conspiracy?' Perhaps 'they' are also 'policing the internet' checking for unguarded comments about the War of the League of Augsburg, but I doubt that as well. Who are the mysterious 'they' by the way? You do know that the argument which says that 'the fact that there is no evidence of a conspiracy is the strongest evidence of all that there is a conspiracy' is the last refuge of the crazed conspiracy fantasist, do you?
    1