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

  1.  @iwanaGoFast2010  No, your 'great great grand brother' didn't imagine anything. However, you did, when you made him up.
    25
  2.  @danielkirkland3366  Who ' literally had no money left?' White Star, who had posted profits in excess of £1 million in the financial year to 31 December, 1911? Or White Star, who confirmed their order for the third Olympic in November, 1911?
    23
  3.  @Speckled_Jim69  So, in your view all the overwhelming amount of evidence proving that there was no switch can be put down to 'corruption?' You might perhaps read up on Occam's Razor?
    12
  4.  @StuartRyan-yi5ok  Actually, there is no evidence at all that Olympic developed a permanent two degree list. She made five Atlantic round trips between late November 1911 & April, 1912. No such comment seems to have been made about her during any of these. However, a temporary slight list is not unusual, even for modern ships, and can be due to several factors. In Titanic's case, it was likely due to improper ballasting--too much on the port side or too little on the starboard, or even as a consequence of using the coal from the affected bunker first. To use this as evidence that Titanic was actually the Olympic is certainly jumping to an extreme conclusion, especially with such a lack of supporting evidence, and the vast amount of evidence to the contrary.
    10
  5.  @foxymetroid  The forced merger of Cunard & White Star saw both the end of Old Reliable, and her old rival Mauretania, at the same time. There are photographs of the two laid up in Southampton.
    7
  6.  @JerryDayton  Why don't you simply look up Astor, Straus (and Guggenheim) for yourself, rather than swallowing a myth invented in the 1990s? Aside from that, no one was given any free tickets.
    7
  7. Oh dear, there is no such proof at all. 'Go to wiki to see the two ships side by side and you will see there names are both painted over you can read the tug boats name that is pushing the titanic easly in the pic.' Aside from the fact that White Star ships had their names engraved into the steelwork of the bows, the names of the tugs were scratched out because the port of registry was also shown. As that port was 'New York' seeing it would have instantly discredited any claim that the ship was Titanic, because Titanic never reached New York, of course. Actually, the footage is of Olympic, and was hastily adjusted so that the makers could pass it off as Titanic at a time when, after the sinking, there was little or no footage of the real thing and there was a considerable demand for it. 'Sea trails in that pic you will find a square hold just above the round port holes. you will find this square hole dissappares in march 1912. now go find a picture of titanic in dry dock underconstrution you will see it has no such hole but the hole shows up latter after march 1912.' I won't comment on that as it doesn't seem to be in any recognisable language. You might wish to explain one or two more obvious problems, such as why does the wreck have a window pattern at the forward end of 'B' deck which accords with that of Titanic & differs from the Olympic of 1912, and why was the number 401 observed on the blade of a propellor at the site?
    6
  8.  @Dizzy19.  Asking a switcher for proof? That is the very soul of optimism!
    6
  9. Indeed. Van der Vat later distanced himself from the whole nonsense.
    6
  10.  @FakeMoonRocks  How fortunate, thewn, that there was no bent keel until Gardiner invented it in the 1990s.
    5
  11. The idea came from an imaginative book by one Robin Gardiner from the mid 1990s. There is precisely no evidence to support his claim, but his nonsense did help him to sell quite a lot of books.
    5
  12. You didn't watch the video at all, did you?
    5
  13. Try to understand my comments. I have kept them simple, for even the most gormless of switchers to understand. Olympic was returned to sea on 20 November, 1911, after repair by Harland & Wolff. At that time, Titanic was around five months from completion. There are even photographs of the two together in October, 1911. Titanic is the partially painted one, with only one funnel in place. By the time Titanic left Southampton on 10 April, 1912, Olympic had completed five further Atlantic round trips since returning from repair, and was in New York Harbor, halfway through her sixth. In order to return to sea, her insurance (for two thirds of her building costs) had been renewed, and she had full Board of Trade certification. Is this clear enough for you to understand? You could easily have verified all this for yourself, but I appreciate that switchers cannot usually cope with mere facts.
    5
  14. Perhaps it the late Robin had bothered to look at the photograph of Olympic & Titanic together in October, 1911, when Olympic returned to H & W's yard for repairs following the Hawke collision, he might never have written his book? I doubt it, as verifiable facts never seem to have had much importance for him.
    5
  15. How would swapping the identities speed up the repair of a damaged ship? The window pattern certainly does prove the identity of the wreck. It matches known photographs of the Titanic of 1912, and differs from those of Olympic od the same period.
    5
  16. By 'evidence' you presumably mean switcher videos? Actually, the only 'evidence' of this mysterious 'M' (and a 'P') is in a short video which appeared, without any provenance at all, in the year 2000 or thereabouts. The problem with it is that no exploration team has ever claimed it, nor even referred to it, despite the fact that such 'incontravertible' evidence would make headlines all over the world. Moreover, even the father of the myth, Robin Gardiner, denounced it as a fake. Still, if you really can be taken in by what is clearly CGI imaging, and poor quality imaging at that, then that seems to say rather more about you than it does about the images.
    5
  17. You didn't actually watch it, did you?
    5
  18. Which, however interesting, is entirely irrelevant. The myth of any connection between the sinking of Titanic and the creation of the Federal Reserve was an invention of the rise of Social Media in the 1990s, without a shred of supporting evidence.
    4
  19. Good point. Sinking a major asset, and losing £500,000 (at 1912 values) as well as a reputation for safety, would really help White Star out of their (imaginary) financial difficulties. Perhaps that was why it was suggested to the Board of White Star? By the Board of Cunard, perhaps?
    4
  20. The number of people coming from the shallow end of the gene pool and posting such comments is quite remarkable.
    4
  21. The window pattern of the forward end of 'B' deck matches that of Titanic, but differs from the (unmodified) pattern of the Olympic of the same period.
    4
  22. Part one efficiently exposed how silly the switch theory really was. Didn't you watch it?
    4
  23. Will you be supplying an English translation of this comment in the near future?
    4
  24.  @gtt8428  Where did he write that? I must have missed it.
    4
  25. Don't you realise that Mr. Brady's video demonstrated exactly how absurd the 'switch' fantasy is?
    4
  26. Sorry. I still believe in facts, not fantasies. Lusitania was sunk for one reason only, which was because Germany had instituted a policy of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, in February, 1915. Didn't you know that? Your silly claim about the Olympics is totally devoid of any evidence.
    4
  27. Perhaps because, fortunately, most people base their judgements on facts rather than on absurd switcher videos lacking any?
    4
  28. Where did you get that idea from? No-one, least of all Astor, Guggenheim, or Straus, were given complimentary tickets, Mind you, Astor & Guggenheim had never commented about the Federal Reserve either, whilst in October, 1911, Straus had made a speech in favour of the concept. Ever thought of actually checking the conspiracist video you swallowed for accuracy, or do you prefer to remain ignorant?
    4
  29.  @MegaDavyk  If you seek for evidence that Astor and Guggenheim were 'outspoken opponents' of the Federal Reserve, you will search in vain. Whatever their opinions might have been , they both kept them to themselves. If you believe anything to the contrary, please feel free to provide evidence. Straus is easier. He came out as a supporter of the concept of the Fed. in Ocrober 1911, and his speech appeared in the New York Times. Twice, in fact. Would you like to know the dates so that you may check the archives for yourself? Oh yes, of course. The M & P letters on the wreck. The letters which appeared, without provenance, in 2000 or thereabouts. The letters which no exploration team has ever claimed, and to which no team has ever even referred. The letters which were even denounced by the founder of the switch myth, Robin Gardiner, as 'fake'. Would you like me to post a copy of his denunciation post? Have you ever asked yourself why no Titanic researcher or historian has ever given this nonsense house room?
    4
  30. Since when is the stating of facts putting 'spin' on a subject? Was the creator of the myth, Robin Gardiner, skilled in either of those fields?
    4
  31. The problem you will find is that, to switchers or conspiracists, mere facts are meaningless. They know what they need to believe, and nothing will deflect them.
    4
  32. A couple of passengers reported a slight list later in the voyage. Probably due to the use of coal from the bunker affected by a small fire, or even due to slightly incorrect stowage on a new ship. No survivor from the crew made any such claim.
    4
  33.  @phluphie  A fiction book, I assume?
    4
  34. Wherever did you get this nonsense from? There was never a 'conspiracy' to cripple, still less sink, Titanic, and certainly not through smouldering fires, which evidence from surviving stokers has proven were extinguished around 24 hours prior to the collision. Moreover, Olympic had made several further transatlantic crossings since returning to sea in late November, 1911, and at the time of Titanic's sinking was around 500 miles from her, returning to Southampton from New York. Thus, there were two Olympics at sea, both steaming in excess if 20 knots. If one was already seriously damaged, how did anyone manage that? Captain Lord was never knighted, and SS Californian was almost ludicrously unsuited for the task of rescue ship, given that she was a small freighter already laden with a full, 'mixed, general' cargo. At least according to the Boston shipping papers when she docked there on 19 April. 'Confusion' by the way? Californian's officers saw Titanic's flares, and notified Lord. He simply failed to respond. If the rescue was already planned, why might that have been? 'Captain Smith and some of this lieutenants were aware of the plan and that is why Murdoch gave a nudge to the iceberg (the iceberg could had been avoided easily) ... That is why the boats were lowered half empty/full.' Sorry, but that is simply too idiotic, and too insulting to the memory of decent men who, whatever mistakes any of them may or may not have made, died honourably on the night of the sinking. It is simply unworthy of comment. 'The insurance fraud - switch theory is very compelling and has many confirmed facts behind it to make it real.' What 'confirmed facts' might those be? Please educate us all by elucidating.
    4
  35. Nonsense. Olympic's repairs took around six weeks, and cost about £25,000. She was back at sea from 20 November, 1911. In the same month, White Star confirmed their order with H & W for the third Olympic class liner. Does that really sound like a company approaching bankruptcy?
    4
  36. You have, of course, some credible evidence to support your assumption that Harland & Wolff did not know how to build and/or repair ships? What, you don't? How sad.
    4
  37.  @gokulgopan4397  He cannot. I write as someone who has read the minutes of both Inquiries, which clearly he has not. As to insurance fraud. Olympic and Titanic, in 1911 terms, both cost £1.5 million to build, and both were insured for £1 million. I an not an accountant, but perhaps someone could explain how losing £500,000 a major asset and a safety record, all at the same time, benefitted anyone? Except, perhaps, Cunard?!
    4
  38. Perhaps you should actually watch the video before commenting upon it?
    4
  39. Good idea' When you do, you will find thatTitanic was only insured for two thirds of her building costs. In other words, when she sank, White Star lost £500,000 as well as a major asset and their safety record.
    3
  40. Actually, known facts will decide what is the truth and what isn't.
    3
  41. Yes. Over three years later.
    3
  42.  @fred6319  Didn't you even watch the video?
    3
  43.  @gokulgopan4397  Give the lad time! I am sure that he will have an unimpeachable source which has been lost to everyone else since 1913.
    3
  44.  @StandWithRussia  But the ship was far from a write off. She was repaired by Harland & Wolff and returned to sea on 20 November, 1911, when Titanic was several months short of completion. By the time Titanic left Southampton on 10 April, 1912, Olympic had completed five Atlantic round trips since returning to sea, and was in New York harbor, half way through her sixth. Not bad, I suggest, for a eritted off cripple. The fact is, without the false 'broken keel' claim, the whole idea of any switch collapses. Have you considered looking at Olympic's actual service record yourself, or have you simply not got the integrity? You might also look in more detail at HMS Hawke. She did not have a reinforced. ram, bow, but had simply a ram style bow. By the time she was built, ramming was no longer a feasible method of naval warfare. Indeed, her repairs saw her fitted with a more modern, straight, bow. The collision, by the way, was at low speed (eight knots), and despite your convction to the contrary, Hawke's damage was nor severe, as the bow was not even crushed as far back as the hawse hole.
    3
  45.  @SteepSix  There are no such letters. It is simply a poor quality CGI image which suddenly emerged from nowhere in the year 2000 or thereabouts. No exploration team has ever claimed the images, nor even commented upon them. Even the inventor of the Switch myth, Robin Gardiner, denounced them as fakes.
    3
  46. Brilliant! The first U-Boat with a diesel engine and anything like the range even to get to Newfoundland was U19, commissioned in 1913. Even in WW2, by the way, U-Boats struggled to get anywhere near to any ship steaming at 21 knots or more. Next, the three men to whom you refer were Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus. The first two had never expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst the third had spoken openly in favour. A word of advice. Don't watch conspiracy fantasy videos and swallow them whole. It really does make you look rather silly when you do.
    3
  47. How many of you are out there who have swallowed without question a myth invented in the 1990s?
    3
  48. The propellers actually had blades bolted on on all three Olympics. The only number found on a propeller at the Wrecksite is 401. The hull number Harland & Wolff gave to Titanic. Quad erat demonstrandum.
    3
  49. Oh dear, not another! You mean the video which appeared, from nowhere and without provenance, in the year 2000 or thereabouts? The one which no exploration team has claimed, or even commented about? The video which even Robin Gardiner, the founding father of the switch myth, denounced as fake? That video? Didn't you stop to ask yourself why, if this was such conclusive proof, not one credible Titanic researcher or historian has even given it the time of day?
    3
  50.  @Tozzpot500  Just a small point. The repairs cost $125,000 not £125,000 At 1911 rates of exchange, (4.86) that came to around £25,700 Which, of course, makes your argument even more valid.
    3
  51. White Star could not claim from Lloyds for the repair, because a court deemed that Olympic was at fault for the collision. However, repairs were carried out by Harland and Wolff in around 6 - 7 weeks, and she was back at sea by late November. The cost was some £25,700 which equated to around 1.85% of her building cost of £1,500,000 For a Company which had shown profits of over £1million in the last financial year, that was a minor inconvenience at most. Indeed, in the same month that Olympic returned to sea, White Star placed an order with Harland & Wolff for the third Olympic class liner. As to the imaginary insurance scam, Olympic was insured with Lloyds for £1 million, which would mean that White Star would lose £500,000 their safety record, and a major asset. Perhaps the Board of Cunard suggested the 'scam' to White Star? You might perhaps fill in the gaps yourself, instead of simply swallowing whole a switcher video?
    3
  52.  @Tozzpot500  No problem. As I said, the reduction in the amount actually strengthens your comment. Not that any switcher or conspiracist will take the slightest bit of notice of a mere fact, anyway.
    3
  53.  @zillahwells4063  'The article quotes transcripts from the inquiry.' Sorry to be pedantic, but the US Inquiry only ended on 25 May, 1912. Moreover, Barrett gave his evidence on the 18th, and last, day, from RMS Olympic. His statement is headed :- 'Testimony of Frederick Barrett BY SENATOR WILLIAM ALDEN SMITH, ON SATURDAY, MAY 25, IN THE FIREROOM ON BOARD S. S. "OLYMPIC," NEW YORK.' His statement was a very short one, with no reference to fire damage. Congratulations to the DuPage County Register, having access to a time-travelling reporter in 1912!
    3
  54.  @dennissalisbury496  I assume you have looked? Perhaps you don't understand that White Star LIne was one of the great shipping companies of the day. Sending a ship to sea without full certification would not pass unnoticed by the authorities, and in particular by the Board of Trade. To quote from a newspaper report of a court case relevant to the collision with HMS Hawke :- 'On September 22 there was a letter from the officials of the Board of Trade handed to the manager of the White Star Line at Southampton, requiring the return of the Olympic's passenger and freeboard certificate, because she was not in a seaworthy condition, and the certificate was duly returned. The vessel then could not proceed as a passenger ship, as she was under the embargo of the Board of Trade, and she was only patched up sufficiently to get a certificate to enable her to proceed to Belfast and no further.' Thus, the Board were quick enough to react following the collision with HMS Hawke, yet you suggest that the same Board would not have reacted to her return to sea uncertified? In short. Don't be silly.
    3
  55. It would have been if it had been but it didn't happen. Titanic was insured for £1 million with Lloyds, and £1 million was what Lloyds paid out.
    3
  56. How is that relevant to the sinking?
    3
  57. Why not look at the facts instead? Olympic had been back at sea, after repair, since 20 November, 1911, and had completed five Atlantic round trips, at average speeds of around 20 knots, by the time Titanic sailed. Insurance pay out? For two thirds of the building costs, and at the same time losing a major asset and a reputation for safety? Who gained from that, except Cunard?
    3
  58. But nor does it apply to the Titanic sinking.
    3
  59. You have the advantage of me. I didn't even know that JFK was on the Titanic.
    3
  60. Nonsense. Unworthy of further comment.
    3
  61. The reference is to damage to RMS Olympic, following a collision with a Royal Navy cruiser, HMS Hawke, in September, 1911. The basis of the switcher claim was that Olympic was far more badly damaged than was stated. Despite, of course, the amount of evidence which proves this not to have been the case.
    3
  62. Nonsense. The first suggestion of any switch came with Gardiner's silly book in the mid 1990s. The flares Titanic used (Socket Signals, which were white with explosive heads) were correct for the period, and even approved by the Board of Trade. By the way, do you think the North Atlantic in April 1912 was full of ships firing off flares of all sorts of colours in all directions? Had there been any plan to deploy a 'rescue ship' a small, fully laden, freighter would be almost ludicrously unsuitable for the task. Stop watching conspiracy videos and swallowing them whole.
    3
  63. Indeed. That is what happens when you watch conspiracy fantasy videos and swallow them whole, I fear.
    3
  64.  @likeisaid1947  Which, whilst there is truth in it, had nothing to do with the insurance company, Lloyds, I suggest.
    3
  65. JP Morgan didn't invite anyone to 'join him' aboard Titanic. Astor, Guggenheim & Straus had all booked their own passages aboard her. In Guggenheim's case, as late as 8 April, well after it was known that Morgan was not sailing. In fact, between 1904 & 1912 Morgan had only sailed to New York twice before July. He hadn't sailed on Olympic's maiden voyage either. Was that suspicious, too? President Taft, King George V, & Tsar Nicholas II weren't aboard either. Were they also part of your cunning plot? No passengers ever claimed to have heard 'explosions' although one or two reported 'rumblings.' However, a far larger number reported the iceberg. If there had been no iceberg, what do you suggest that the International Ice Patrol has been monitoring for over 100 years? Large blocks of expanded polystyrene, perhaps? By the way, Astor and Guggenheim had never commented on the Federal Reserve, which Straus had spoken in support. Out of interest, where do people like you get your 'imaginative' notions from? Baaaaa!!
    3
  66. 'The 3 men most against the formation of the Federal Reserve and vocal about it died on Titanic.' Wrong. Astor & Guggenheim had never stated their views, whilst Straus had spoken in favour of the idea in October, 1911. His commewnts may be read in the NYT archives. 'The Federal Reserve was formed less than a year later.' Wrong. Titanic sank in April 1912. The Federal Reserve was created, by a large majority in both the US Senate & House of Representatives, in December, 1913. You really shouldn't simply swallow conspiracy fantasy videos whole. It does nothing for your credibility.
    3
  67.  @gtt8428  Or perhaps most people simply base their opinions on known facts rather than imaginative fantasises like the switch?
    3
  68. ' Olympic had to pay for its own damage, and they were already on the verge of bankruptcy, and so the insurance was doubled with documents, provided the value of Titanic and it just happened to sync a month later collecting on that kept white star line in service until 1930s when it was bought by Cunard.' Oh dear, where ever did you get this nonsense. White Star paid for Olympic's repairs, because the man in charge of her, a Solent Pilot, was deemed responsible for the collision with HMS Hawke. The cost was, in 1911 terms, £25,000. As White Star had posted profits in excess of £1 million in the previous financial year, it was simply a nuisance, which was why, when Olympic returned to sea in November, 1911, the Company confirmed their order for the third Olympic with White Star. The financial woes of White Star (and, by the way, Cunard) were the result of an enitirely different event, the 1929 Wall Street crash. As a result, both were rescued by the British government, with the requirement that they merge. As there were more ships available to the combined company than the market justified, the two oldest, Olympic & her old rival Mauretania, were sold for scrap. The insurance was not 'doubled' both Olympic & Titanic were insured for £1 million, or two thirds of their building costs, and £1 million was what Lloyds paid out after Titanic sank. 'How many people have totaled cars and switched identification numbers and drive the car for 5+ years nothing is impossible.' Don't you even realise how absurd that analogy really is? Similar cars are built in thousands. There were only two Olympics in existence at the time. Both took several years to complete, and required a workforce of some 15,000 men. How many cars fall into that category? The Olympics were never proclaimed 'unsinkable.' The nearest to that is a comment that they were 'as near to unsinkable as modern shipbuilding techniques can make them' which is rather a different thing. Olympic was painted either white or light grey for her launch because Cunard had done the same to Mauretania for her launch around four years earlier, and she had shown up impressively in early pictures & newsreels. Both ships rapidly acquired the black hulls of their respective companies, however. There was little celebration when Titanic was launched, because she was nerely the less glamorous younger sister. Titanic's became celebrated because of what happened to her subsequently.
    3
  69. Why do his dacts distress you so?
    3
  70. No, neither did. Morgan had announced that he would not be sailing. It was even reported in the NYT in March where he intended to be instead. Where did you get your odd notion about Rothschild. Neither President Taft nor King George V were aboard either. Don't you find that suspicious as well?
    3
  71.  @gtt8428  Isn't it odd how anything about Titanic attracts an unusual number of mentally ill people? As one yourself, perhaps you might give us your opinion on this?
    3
  72. No. Perhaps because he didn't. He was never booked to be aboard.
    3
  73. Unfair to normal idiots. The switch theory idiots are on a much higher level of idiocy.
    3
  74. Are you referring to yourself? You insult, without presenting a single counter-argument.
    3
  75. Really? Do try to explain why that might be.
    3
  76. No. Although Olympic was deemed at fault, the man in charge of Olympic was a Solent Pilot, not a White Star employee. Thus, whilst White Star could not claim for repairs to Olympic, neither were they required to pay for repairs to HMS Hawke,.
    3
  77. WHAT! Are you suggesting that Santa isn't real? How dare you?
    3
  78. Actually, at the time few, if any, of H & Ws employees were Catholics. But otherwise you are correct about the conspiracy. However, you should remember that, to conspiracists and switchers, it is not a matter of facts, but one of simple faith and belief. The last things they want are 'unsettling' facts.
    3
  79. A shame your wife was so ignorant.
    3
  80. Haven't you actually bothered tom watch the video at all? It efficiently demonstrates exactly what nonsense the conspiracy theory nonsense really is.
    3
  81. Congratulations on recommending one of the daftest videos about Titanic ever made. Which is something of an achievement, given how low the bar is set.
    3
  82. 'Apparently the chosen workers that were to change over the ships have their lively hoods threatened if they were ever to speak of it.' Really? Aside from the total lack of supporting evidence, are you aware that many H & W employees were made redundant after the end of WW1, less than eight years later? Don't you consider it odd that none of them ever mentioned your imaginary switch even then? You do realise that a cunning, nefarious, secret plan doesn't work all that well when everyone knows about it? I refer you to Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot, for further study!
    3
  83. 'But who am I to judge your respect?' Precisely, you are nobody. Had you actually read the posts, you would had noticed his reference to 24 April, but evidently it escaped your attention. Do you consider that you are, in some way his employer, and seek to impose a deadline?
    3
  84.  @Vicus_of_Utrecht  The 'power brokers' against the Federal Reserve did not actually exist, until invented by conspiracists in the 1990s. You can confirm this fact for yourself simply by reading up about Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus. I doubt that you will, of course.
    3
  85. No propeller intended for Titanic was ever fitted to Olympic, although parts of a propeller SHAFT were.
    3
  86.  @theoriginalmungaman  Feel free to prove me wrong by drawing my attention to a credible source from the time. By the way, Conspiracy fantasy videos do not come into that category.
    3
  87. The pattern of windows on the wreck match the known pattern of those on the (modified) Titanic, and differ from those of the unmodified Olympic of the time.
    3
  88. Basically, because the court determined that Olympic's size caused a large amount of water to be displaced and created a suction effect that drew Hawke off course, and into Olympic's starboard quarter.
    3
  89. Then feel free to state what has been left out, in order to enlighten the rest of us.
    3
  90.  @MarvelMTs  Generally, switchers respond in one, or a combination, of three ways :- 1). Get angry. 2). Get abusive. 3). Call you a paid agent of 'them.'
    2
  91. There is a Polish proverb :- “Nie chwal dnia przed zachodem słońca” (“Don't praise the day before the sunset”). In your case, don't comment on a video until you have actually watched it.
    2
  92. The Solent is not a 'giant ocean.'
    2
  93. Who wanted to kill off 'rich people' and why?
    2
  94. But sinking a ship to lose assets, reputation, and money (£500,000, at 1912 rates) isn't really a smart move, is it? Why do you believe that White Star might have done it?
    2
  95. There is a simple explanation for Gardiner's books. He made the whole thing up.
    2
  96. The Court found that erroneous decisions by the PIlot, combined with the suction effect of Olympic's large draught, brought about the collision. Hawke was only one sixth the displacement of Olympic, and was drawn into her side.
    2
  97. The unavoidable problem with the 'switch' idea is that the suggestion only first appeared in a book by a writer called Robin Gardiner in the 1990s. Prior to that, there was never the slightest suggestion that anything of the sort had happened. Gardiner did not help his cases by including a host of errors in his book, of course.
    2
  98. The insurance figure for Titanic was never raised above the original £1 million. J. P. Morgan had announced in March that he would be attending an event at St. Mark's in Venice before Titanic could have returned from New York. The fact of his intention had been mentioned in the New York Times in March.
    2
  99.  @Tozzpot500  He didn't need to book a ticket. He owned the Company. Just out of interest, Morgan was not a passenger on Olympic's maiden voyage either. I wonder why the conspiracists don't seem to find that suspicious??
    2
  100.  @Tozzpot500  It is what these people do when faced with actual facts. 1). Get angry. 2). Get insulting. 3). Go silent. Or a combination of the three.
    2
  101. Did you actually watch the video?
    2
  102. But that presupposes that there even was any damage to Olympic's keel. There is a considerable amount of evidence that there wasn't, and no evidence, apart from the late Robin Gardiner's vivid imagination, that there was.
    2
  103. No, it hasn't. Unless of course, you can provide some convincing proof? I await it with interest.
    2
  104. Really? Britain & France certainly didn't. Still less Germany & Russia. Although how this relates to Titanic is tenuous at best.
    2
  105. Firstly, get the names right. Olympia is a US navy protected cruiser, now a museum ship. Titanic's older sister was named Olympic. Both Olympic & Titanic coat, at 1912 rates, £1.5 million to build. Both were insured for £1 million. This information is widely available. The inxurance documents were not forged, and Lloyds paid out the £1 million at once. Neither, of course, were the ships swapped.
    2
  106. You mean the one which had nothing to do with the Titanic tragedy?
    2
  107. But the Olympics were only insured for two thirds of their building costs, which means that the idea of an insurance fraud was never a credible one.
    2
  108. Oh dear! Watched a fact-free conspiracy fantasy video and swallowed it whole, have you?
    2
  109.  @Danne76  So, do you believe that the fact there is no evidence to support any such connection, and plenty to disprove it, is in itself proof that it must be true? Remarkable!
    2
  110.  @Tozzpot500  Sometimes, it really isn't worth bothering with these people. They are not interested in facts, nor in evidence. They believe simply because they have a need to believe.
    2
  111. One thing J. P. Morgan did not do was 'die penniless.' When he died in Rome in March, 1913, his fortune was estimated to be around $80 million. In 1913, I believe that that was rather a lot.
    2
  112.  @Dizzy19.  And, in the case of Isidor Straus, documentary evidence to prove the opposite.
    2
  113. The red flag is an invented one. Morgan did not 'back out' of the voyage at the last minute. The NYT on 28 March carried an article about him, stating that he intended to be at St. Mark's in Venice on 23 April, which would not have been possible had he sailed in Titanic. Moreover, he wasn't aboard Olympic for her maiden voyage either. Was that equally suspicious? The claim that there were opponents of the Fed. aboard Titanic is equally invented, and originated with the rise of Social Media in the 1990s. The opinions of Astor and Guggenheim were never expressed, whilat Straus had spoken in support of it in Ocrober 1911. Morgan, by the way, did not build the Fed. By the time it was created, in December, 1913, he was too busy being dead, as he had been for over six months.
    2
  114. Photographs of the wreck, and in particular of the forward ends of 'A' & 'B' decks, match exactly known photographs of Titanic, and differ from known photographs of the Olympic of the same period. Morgan had no need to book a trip, as he owned IMM, White Star's parent company, and thus did not need to reserve anything. As it was, he had already announced in March that he intended to be at St. Mark's in Venice before Titanic could have returned from New York. The article stating this may be read in the archives of the New York Times, had the gumption to look. There was no 'mystery' all. Morgan didn't sail on Olympic's maiden voyage either. Do you think that that was suspicious, as well? As to 'insurance', White Star were insured for only two thirds of Titanic's building costs, which meant that when she sank, the company not only lost a major asset and a reputation for safety, but also £500,000 at 1912 monetary value.
    2
  115. As the supposed 'Federal Reserve connection' was an invention of the 1990s, with no evidence at all to support it, it would be very disappointing if a serious historian did give it house room.
    2
  116. I think that his videos on the subject have made his opinions abundantly clear.
    2
  117.  @justinlynch3  Simply compare photographs of Californian and Mount Temple. Two single funnelled freighters, with four tall masts. Something that the 'documentary' intent on promoting a questionable 'theory' unaccountably failed to mention. The 'documentary' should be taken not with a pinch of salt, but with a whole cellar.
    2
  118.  @russcooke5671  Sorry. I am a naval and maritime historian, not a conspiracy fantasist. Perhaps my answers hven't pleased you? That doesn't make them any the less accurate.
    2
  119. Where do you people get your ideas from? IMM (White Star's parent Company) had regulations which required daily inspection of the bunkers of their ships. A smouldering fire caused by spontaneous combustion was discovered during one of these when Titanic was in Southampton. Joseph Bell set a team to work, and the fire was dealt with at least 24 hours before the collision. According to testimony of stoker survivors, the only damage was to bunker paintwork. Cleaely, you find thinking difficult, but please try. Is the following scenario even vaguely credible? Joseph Bell reports to the Bridge :- 'Captain Smith, sir. There is an uncontrollable fire raging below decks, and the hull is being weakened! ' Edward Smith: 'Never mind, Joe. We'll sail anyway. It's only the North Atlantic in April. What could possibly go wrong?' As to the men aboard Titanic who opposed the Fed., Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus, neither of the first two had expressed their views either way. Straus, however, had. In October 1911 he made a speech in favour of it, which was recorded in the New York Times. The first suggestion of anything different was a myth invented in the 1990s. You should check these facts for yourself. 'Just a day after Titanic sank, both systems were started.' You seriously think so? Titanic sank on 15 April, 1912. The Federal Reserve Act was passed on 23 December, 1913. Which was, by the way, 9 months after J. P. Morgan's death. You are one of astonishingly gullible, astonishingly ignorant, or astonishingly stupid. I leave it to you to work out which.
    2
  120. ' "TITANIC" just happens to be the only ship in history to sink from hitting an ICEBERG! ' Whereever did you get that odd idea from? A number of ships have sunk following such collisions. One, MV Explorer, as recently as 2007. Truth about Pearl Harbor? What have you convinced yourself that that was?
    2
  121. For the same reason that MY Explorer was sunk in a dimilar manner as recently as 2007. When a 50,000 ton ship sideswipes at 20+ knots an iceberg which displaces between 180,000 and 300,000 tons. There is only one winner. Compare the sinking of Empress of Ireland around two years later, A liner displacing 14.000 tons was struck by a collier displacing 6,000 tons, and sank in 14 minutes.
    2
  122.  @sofachrome  Not being a 19th or early 20th Century seafarer, I haven't. However, I can give you a list of ships which were sunk in such a manner if that helps. AS recently as 2007, MV Explorer was one such.
    2
  123. I would point out that he has already found his answer, which is that Titanic really was Titanic.
    2
  124. I as confident that he will, given his impressive level of actual knowledge.
    2
  125.  @Tozzpot500  Moreover, what have the International Ice Patrol been monitoring since then? Blocks of expanded polystyrene, perhaps?
    2
  126. The verdict of the court was that suction from RMS Olympic drew HMS Hawke into her starboard quarter. The Solent Pilot in charge of Olympic, and therefore by extension Olympic herself, was at fault, although White Star were not required to pay for Hawke's repairs.
    2
  127. Perhaps J. P. Morgan swapped the original iceberg for another one with engines?
    2
  128. How do they show that? The main photo of Titanic shows the partly enclosed 'A' deck, and the modified end of 'B' Deck, exactly as found at the wrecksite. Ths 'portholes' bit has been shown by every expert to be a mistake on the part of those who published it, as the bottom two images have, oddly, been transposed. You can even see the accurate porthole configuration on the large photo. Didn't you bother to look first?
    2
  129.  @Tozzpot500  Good for you. The recent flak I have been receiving includes an allegation that I am, apparently, 'getting rattled.' The last time I can actually recall getting rattled (although 'bloody terrified! might be more accurate) was when opening the batting in a club cricket semi-final, in a cup competition. The opposition turned up with a Professional fast bowler who had played a serious number of international matches, and delivered the ball, very accurately, at 85+ mph. I, somehow, and more by luck than judgement, managed to get to the mid 20s before my off stump vanished. We were hammered, by the way! I suggest that arguments over a half-forgotten, at least to most people, event, discussion of which is, at most, an interesting hobby, do not really come close. As to the recent fracas, I see no point in replying to insults as opposed to debates about facts. Hopefully, these people, or at least the one I believe is overseeing their antics, well begin to realise that it takes a lot longer for them to post their comments than it does for me to press a delete button. i regret, of course, the degrading effect their behaviour is having on the quality of discussion on the two main sites, however. Oh, Merry Christmas, by the way!
    2
  130.  @Tozzpot500  'Merry Christmas to you too my friend, i hope the holidays treat you well and i look forward to seeing you around on here, your comments are always fun to read.' The same to you. I have to be careful when I post, these days, or I hear my wife's voice, as she looks over my shoulder. 'Not bloody Titanic AGAIN?!!'
    2
  131. Which losr White Star a major asset, their safety record, and £500,000 Did no one ever tell you that scams are supposed to be profitable?
    2
  132.  @kylesanders8276  I don't think that the idea of 'compartmentalisation' really can be applied to thousands of Ulstermen working in a shipyard before WW1.
    2
  133. You can hardly expect a self-employed Plasterer to have known much about shipbuilding. To give him credit, however, he was almost as imaginative as J. R. R. Tolkien. Just like Tolkien, of course, he made the whole thing up.
    2
  134. 1). Why should it seem odd that the two ships were together at the dockyard which built them, when one was being repaired after collision damage, and the other was in the final stages of construction? 2). What 'cash paid?' 3). What word 'got out?' 4). Which opponents to the 'Central Bank?' Certainly not Astor & Guggenheim, whose opinions were never known. Nor Straus, who was known to have supported the idea. 5). Indeed Morgan didn't. It was known from late March that he wasn't intending to sail in Titanic. Just as he hadn't sailed in Olympic in 1911. Indeed, from 1904 to 1912 only twice (1908 and 1910) did Morgan 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, heading back to Europe a few days later and staying there until late August. President Taft, King George V, and Kaiser Wilhelm II were not aboard either. Do you think that significant as well? The fact that he intended to be in Venice instead had even been mentioned in the New York Times, late in March. I expect that you didn't know that? 6). Actually, there were plenty of reports of ice on deck, although that would not be significant anyway, where a glancing impact was involved. 7). Exactly how many more facts do you need to disprove the nonsense? 8). Your Caps Lock needs to be repaired, as it makes you look like an idiot. 9). As do your comments, of course!
    2
  135. 'Imo the fire in the coal bunker contributed to the damage and the sinking.' No, it didn't. At least stoker survivors never suggested that.
    2
  136.  @zillahwells4063  'The 12 surviving stokers says you are incorrect.' Really? What di the other thirty three say? At least 45 survived. Oh well. If it is in the DuPage County Register of 26 April, 1912, I suppose it must be true. I hope you detect the whiff of sarcasm.
    2
  137.  @zillahwells4063  The problem with the claims made by Senan Molony about the bunker fire are that, in order to have any effect at all on any steelwork, it would need to reach between 1000 ans 1800 degrees Farenheit. By chance, the affected bunker was directly below Titanic's swimming pool. Such temperatures would have caused the water in the pool to boil, but no survivor ever reported anything of the sort happening. Certainly, the deck at the forward edge of the pool would have been searing hot, paint would have been bubbling off, and the hull plates outside the pool would likely also have been deforming from the incredible heat. Survivor testimony from first class passenger Archibald Gracie and surviving photographs of the Titanic’s pool show the pool area was undamaged and the water’s temperature was mildly heated to a comfortable warm rather than a scalding hot. It would, moreover, have taken men with protective gear to approach the bulkhead and fight the fire had it been as hot as Molony claimed, as the temperature would have been too hot for the exposed human body to handle, something which was never described by survivors. Actually, The impact of the bunker fire has been investigated and examined and dismissed long before Molony published his rendition of the theory. One such investigation into the matter was performed by Commander Brian Penoyer of the United States Coast Guard. Commander Penoyer re-evaluated the available evidence on the sinking of Titanic in 2006 for the television show Seconds From Disaster. When evaluating the possibility of fire damage to the ship’s structure from the coal bunker fire, Commander Penoyer consulted naval architect Bill Garzke. When Commander Penoyer asked Garzke what he thought regarding the fire theory, he replied, “It’s a good theory, but it doesn’t measure up to what we now know happened the ship” (Seconds From Disaster). Garzke further stated he believed the fire had little to do with the sinking as the sixth compartment was already flooding with water and being pumped dry shortly after the iceberg strike, meaning any fire damage to the bulkhead would have made little difference in the ship’s sinking as the iceberg damage had already gone passed the offending bulkhead.
    2
  138.  @zillahwells4063  'The article quotes transcripts from the inquiry.' The US Inquiry only ended on 25 May, 1912.
    2
  139.  @zillahwells4063  'My understanding of the bunker fire comes from reading the transcripts taken from the inquiry. I'm also aware the general academic consensus is often wrong.' Then try explaining why, if there was as serious a fire as you wish to believe, RMS Titanic sailed in the first place? Is a scenario like the following remotely credible? :- Joseph Bell rushes up to the bridge of Titanic in Southampton, as she is preparing to sail, and says to Captain Smith : 'Sir, I have to report a major coal bunker fire. It is out of control, and a bulkhead has been severely damaged.' Smith turns around to Bell and replies : 'You worry too much, Joe. After all, it is only the North Atlantic in April. With a bit of good fortune we might still get there. We'll sail anyway.' Seriously??
    2
  140.  @zillahwells4063  But didn't you claim that 'The article quotes transcripts from the inquiry.' That simply cannot be true.
    2
  141.  @zillahwells4063  Isn't it sad when people abandon courteous debate and resort instead to insults? Still, if you feel you must, so be it. No-one has ever disputed the fact of the bunker fire, only that it was not the calamitous disaster that it was subsquently, and falsely, proclaimed to be.
    2
  142.  @zillahwells4063  'It is true. I referenced a newspaper article so you could easily find it. The article accurately reflects transcripts.' Transcripts which were not available at the time? Feel free to post copies of the article.
    2
  143.  @zillahwells4063  'It was an observation.' An observation based upon what? It was an insult. Moreover, I did not write that you made the claim, only that the fire was falsely proclaimed to be so. Largely by a newspaper reporter with minimal actual knowledge, but a desire to make a quick buck from a sensationalist book.
    2
  144.  @zillahwells4063  Again, an insult. The book was written by one Senan Molony, called 'Titanic: why she collided, why she sank, why she should never have sailed.' Based on an article he had written, claiming to have discovered evidence of an uncontrolled coal fire. Which has been comprehensively proven wrong by every Titanic authority you care to name. That was the sensationalist book to which I referred. By the way, the minutes of the US Titanic Inquiry were released, along with the report, on 28 May, 1912. Feel free to explain how the reporter wrote an article based on minutes which did not yet exist.
    2
  145.  @zillahwells4063  Then how can you comment on the Titanic sinking if you choose not to look at the vast amount of information about it?
    2
  146.  @zillahwells4063  I did not reference a 'debunked book.' I wrote :- 'Then how can you comment on the Titanic sinking if you choose not to look at the vast amount of information about it?' Where in that comment have I referenced Molony's silly book? You do seem to have difficulties with the English language. Would you prefer to converse in a different one, perhaps? You haven't, by the way, provided a facsimile of the article from the DuPage County Register, 26 Apr 1912, despite requests.
    2
  147.  @zillahwells4063  Of course I have no idea what information you claim to have. Largely because you have so far been unable or unwilling to provide any of it. 'Look up the article yourself if you're capable. I am not required to prove anything to you.' Sorry, but that is not how things work. If a claim is made. allegedly based on specific information, then it behoves the individual making the claim to seek to substantiate it by providing the source of that information. Saying, as you have, 'It is true because I say that it is true' doesn't meet that requirement, and the fact that you seem to be getting more and more angry hardly adds weight to your case. My replies simply presented a host of facts about the reality of the bunker fire. I am sorry that I have, apparently, raised your blood pressure, but it seemed appropriate that one of us, at least, should deal in documented facts.
    2
  148.  @dylancloud97  Quite. The mark, whatever it really is, is well forward of the affected bunker, and well above the waterline. It really is so obvious that the inability of these people to understand these facts is quite remarkable.
    2
  149. Good idea. You mean the opponents who were not aboard Titanic?
    2
  150.  @Tozzpot500  With some of the people who are posting on here recently, I can only suggest that Friedrich Schiller was right :- 'Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.'
    2
  151. Good to see that you have a sense of humour, posting that ludicrous nonsense on here with, apparently, a straight face!
    2
  152. The 'cost' to ships like Titanic's sister Olympic? She sailed the North Atlantic with total success for 24 years. Perhaps you haven't seen the documentary from Wood's Hole which tested the type of rivets used in Titanic (and Olympic) and surprised even the examiners with how durable they were? I recommend viewing it.
    2
  153. At the time of the sinking, there was. Olympic subsequently received an additional two portholes on her starboard side forward, but only after Titanic had sunk.
    2
  154.  @clifford-n7x  Oh dear. I swear you clowns get dafter by the day.
    2
  155. Actually no. Plates, bowls, etc. did not usually carry the names of individual White Star ships. However, many larger items did. For example, internal fittings from RMS Olympic when she was being dismantled in Jarrow in 1935 were auctioned off by the shipbreakers. Some of them were purchased by a local hotel, the 'White Swan' in Alnwick, about 35 miles away. These items may still be seen in their 'Olympic Restaurant.' Some even have their original yard numbers marked on. Exclusively 400 (Olympic) by the way. Please don't tell a switcher about this, by the way, as such people tend to be volatile and easily upset!
    2
  156.  @gokulgopan4397  The more half-baked a comment is, the more it seems to rely on capital letters and exclamation marks.
    2
  157. It is just you. Why would anyone be sailing to New York for a meeting with J. P. Morgan when J. P. Morgan was in Europe? What 'special clauses?' Titanic was insured for two thirds of her building costs, and two thirds is what Lloyds paid out.
    2
  158. Perhaps, then, you shouldn't have swallowed the false claims about Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus? The first two never expressed their view, whilst Strau had spoken in support of the Fed. in October, 1911.
    2
  159. I won't be drawn about Apollo, but how much forensic evidence do you need about Titanic? The configuration of the wreck itself, the articles recovered from it, or even the fact that many of the material auctioned off when Olympic was dismantled in 1934-7 carry the H & W build number 400?
    2
  160.  @FLATSWISS  Do explain the rationale behind a conspiracy fraud which lost White Star £500,000 their safety record, and a major asset. I believe that the only people who thought it a good idea were the Board of Cunard.
    2
  161.  @eliel_360  I hope so, but given some of the comments about Titanic, I wouldn't bet on it.
    2
  162. "If [Cpt] Smith had believed there was anything to the suction theory, he would've hardly let it happen twice" Titanic was moving at very slow speed when one of New York's mooring cables parted. At the time of Olympic's collision with HMS Hawke, the ship was in the charge od a Solent Pilot, not Captain Smith. As the subsequent Court Case made completely clear. Moreover, the circumstances were totally different.
    2
  163.  @fmyoung  'The Olympic was under pilot but a captain is always responsible for his ship so Cpt Smith was no exception.' Why don't you simply read the text of the court judgement, which placed the responsibility for the collision on George Bowyer, the Solent Pilot, and exonerated Captain Smith?
    2
  164.  @fmyoung  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894. (In force in 1911) :- Compulsory pilotage. (1)Subject to any alteration to be made by the Board of Trade or by any pilotage authority in pursuance of the powers herein-before contained, the employment of pilots shall continue to be compulsory in all districts where it was compulsory immediately before the commencement of this Act, but all exemptions from that compulsory pilotage shall continue to be in force. (2)If, within a district where pilotage is compulsory, the master of an unexempted ship after a qualified pilot has offered to take charge of the ship, or has made a signal for the purpose, pilots his ship himself without holding the necessary certificate, he shall be liable for each offence to a fine of double the amount of the pilotage dues that could be demanded for the conduct of the ship. The Court determined that George Bowyer, who had piloted Olympic into and out of Southampton on several previous occasions, was in error. The judgement was that White Star, whilst unable to claim from Lloyds because the fault was Olympic's, were not required to fund the repairs to HMS Hawke because a White Star employee did not have charge of the ship at the time of the incident. Stop arguing and simply read the judgement of the court, unless you think you know better, of course?
    2
  165. 2). Titanic had two further portholes added to her port side forward in later 1911, following recommendations from Olympic's first few voyages. The same change was made to Olympic in 1912. WW1 had nothing to do with it. 4). Hearsay without any supporting evidence, documentary or otherwise. 5). Ballard never reported anything of the sort. Source? 7). Again, mere hearsay. Provide a source. 10). Both ships had grey undercoat. Moreover, Ballard never to my knowledge has never reported that he came across any such anomaly. Olympic had been launched in white or light grey paint because it made her look more impressive in early photographs, as it had Mauretania, which was the inspiration for it. Olympic was immediately overpainted in black. Do you really think that shades of paint on a wreck which had been 13,000 feet down for 70 years could actually be discerned? 11). Olympic's bridge wings were extended simply to improve visibility for her officers when docking. The windows of 'B' deck forward were altered when Olympic received the same improvements that Titanic had previously received. 12). No Titanic propellers were ever fitted to Olympic, or vice versa. Parts of Titanic's propeller shaft were used to speed up Olympic's return to sea after the Hawke collision, at a time when Titanic was months from completion. The pitches of the blades on the two ships were different, by the way. 15). Pure nonsense. No item has ever been found at the White Swan with anything other than the number 400 on it. Seriously, if the owners 'do not like to be asked about the numbering issue' why refer to the restaurant as the 'Olympic Restaurant' at all. Moreover, think of the huge opportunity to be had if there really been anything with 401 on it. Who says the owners have said this? 16). Presumably a reference to the video which appeared, without provenance, in 2000 or thereabouts. The video which no exploration team has ever claimed, nor even mentioned, despite the fact that it would make worldwide news? The video which even Robin Gardiner denounced as a fake? 17). Again, mere hearsay with no actual evidence to support this claim. Furthermore, the lifeboat names were on plates screwed into the side, for easy removal if boats were re-allocated to another ship. Had such a momentous discovery been made, morever, why no photographs or contemporary accounts? Oh, and 'fateful night in 2012.'
    2
  166.  @pc_buildyb0i935  'taken as gospel by those with room temp IQ.' I disagree. Fridge temperature IQ, perhaps.
    2
  167. Perhaps it would be better if you did. A myth invented in the 1990s has no place here.
    2
  168.  @hoaxialcable  'You should look up "Futility, or The Wreck of the Titan" written in 1898.' Do you mean the 'Futility' written in 1898, or 'The Wreck of the Titan' as re-written in 1912? 1912? That rings a bell!!
    2
  169.  @barackobama9343  The subject was Titanic, wasn't it?
    2
  170.  @Faerie_nuff88  Isn't it odd how those who encourage other to 'do your own research' have actually done the least themselves? Why do you do that?
    2
  171. Have you watched this video? One thing it definitely doesn't do is make any conspiracy fantasy seem true.
    2
  172. Er, No. 'History' has origins in Old English istoria, from Latin, and from Greek. historia = ‘inquiry, narrative, account’, from histōr ‘learned, wise man’, from an Indo-European root shared by wit2; subsequently reinforced by French historie, histoire .
    2
  173. A Royal Navy cruiser was drawn into the starboard quarter of Olympic because of the suction created by Olympic's large size. The subsequent court case went into considerable detail.
    2
  174. HMS Hawke was pulled off course by Olympic, and the suction effect of her enormous displacement. Hawke displaced 7,700 tons. Olympic displaced 52,000 tons.
    2
  175. Actually, no, because the subsequent court case determined that Olympic, or more accurately the Solent Pilot who was in charge of her at the time, was at fault, thus invalidating the insurance cover. However, despite the nonsense spouted by switchers, White Star could comfortably afford to meet the repair costs. These took around six weeks, and cost around £25,000 (at 1911 values), when White Star had shown a profit of around £1 million in the most recent financial year.
    2
  176. Really? Which part of it, in your considered assessment?
    2
  177.  @iansinclair7581  Indeed. But doesn't the Video totally destroy the nonsensical conspiracy/switch theories which abound? Have you actually watched it?
    2
  178.  @iansinclair7581  'I know my way around a shipyard.' So did the people at Harland & Wolff, who repaired Olympic and sent her back to sea in seven weeks. I'm not sure what you are claiming, but if it is that there was no switch, then you are actually agreeing with the video.
    2
  179.  @iansinclair7581  There was no 'conspiracy' but what the video totally demolishes are the numerous conspiracy fantasises which pollute the internet. There are a number of those.
    2
  180. You presumably refer to the entertaining myth that Californian carried nothing but sweaters & blankets, so beloved by conspiracists. Unfortunately, the original manifest has long gone, but when she docked in Boston on 19 April, the shipping newspapers referred to her as carrying a 'mixed, general, cargo', as Leyland Line ships generally did. Seriously, if a ship which had been in the vicinity of Titanic when she sank had docked four days later (the day the US Inquiry began, incidentally) with so bizarre a cargo, isn't it just possible that one or two eyebrows would have been raised in the Boston Customs Office?
    2
  181.  @darrenlomax1283  No. I mean Californian. Not Carpathia.
    2
  182. 'The companies enemies'? Like Thomas Andrews, Bruce Ismay, & Captain Smith? How do you work that one out?
    2
  183. How many ships build before WW1 can you name which are still around today? Olympic was sold for scrap in 1935, after the merger of Cunard & White Star. Her old rival Mauretania was sold at the same time. Are you daft enough to think that suspicious as well?
    2
  184. You do realise that the switcher & conspiracy loons and quarter wits who have started to appear on here will take everything you have written as Gospel? Play your cards right, and there could be a book in it? After all, it worked for Robin Gardiner.
    2
  185. Actually, he died in 2017.
    2
  186.  @MightyoNe-MiT1  I have gained insight into what you are like from the quality of your posts. Or, rather, the lack of quality thereof.
    2
  187.  @Dizzy19.  or, come to that, which 'Hawk?'
    2
  188. Except Olympic was fully repaired and back at sea in seven weeks.
    2
  189. It cost White Star £25,000 or thereabouts to have Harland & Wolff repair Olympic, which they had done by 20 November, 1911. So short of funds were White Star, that in the same month they placed their order for the third Olympic, Britannic. When Olympic returned to sea, Titanic was some five months from completion. Photographs of the pair in Belfast in October exist. Titanic is the partly painted one with parts of her superstructure still not in place and three funnels still missing. It would be hard to confuse the two, and harder still to 'switch' them. How did White Star 'benefit greatly' by the loss of a major asset, a safety record, and £500,000?
    2
  190. No. You provide a source claiming that which pre-dates the social media of the 1990s. Then, simply look up Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus for yourself, in order to get rid of you sad gullibility.
    2
  191. Isn't it odd how people who demand 'do more reading' are those who, like yourself, have actually done the least? I assume you have watched one of the Conspiracy Fantasy videos about Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus? Well, whatever those videos might, falsely, claim, the opinions of Astor & Guggenheim were never made known, whilst Straus had, in October, 1911, spoken in favour of the Federal Reserve concept. You can still read accounts of this speech in the archives of the NYT. Assuming that, of course, you wish to 'Do more reading'. Of course, if you have credible evidence to the contrary which has been hidden for 110 years, you are entirely welcome to present it.
    2
  192. As far as I know, Morgan was under no compulsion to sail aboard Titanic. Neither President Taft, King George V, nor Tsar Nicholas II were aboard either. Were they part of your plot as well?
    2
  193.  @user-Rocket-Fest  Evidently, I have read rather more about Titanic than you have. Just to educate you, Joseph Bell was the Chief Engineer Officer on the RMS Titanic. His staff consisted of 24 engineers, 6 electrical engineers, two boilermakers, a plumber and a clerk. None survived the sinking. Stokers which did survive did give evidence. Perhaps that explains why no engineers were interviewed?
    2
  194.  @user-Rocket-Fest  Don't be a fool. How could I have deleted your reply? Moreover, why would I want to?
    2
  195. Actually, the determination of blame was made by an Court, not by the Royal Navy. The actual cost of the repairs was, moreover, tiny in terms of defence expenditure at the time. Oh, and White Star were not deemed at fault. A Solent Pilot, however, was. Which explains why White Star was not ordered to pay for HMS Hawke's repairs.
    2
  196. Who 'opposed the federal reserve' and why did no one notice these explosives, but many survivors noticed the iceberg?
    2
  197. You seem entranced by a poorly made CGI image, which even the inventor of the switch myth, Robin Gardiner, denounced as fake. Had it had the slightest credibility, who does no Titanic historian or reseracher take it seriously? Why had Bob Ballard only ridiculed it when asked about it? The title of the video sums up the accuracy of it. Neith ship was ever HMS.
    2
  198.  @Dizzy19.  It seems so. Incidentally, I hope you have been reading Alexandros' increasingly crazed comments to, and about me. Bizarrely, these all stem from a single post I made to him about Captain Lord contacting Captain Rostron offering Californian's assistance. I fear that he hasn't learned than insults are a poor substitute for facts, but I find his antics vastly entertaining.
    2
  199. Aren't frauds, in whatever form they take, intended to make money? If there was any fraud involved, White Star didn't benefit from it.
    2
  200.  @rickswineberg  Lloyds paid out the £1 million for which Titanic had been insured. Approximately $5 million. This is confirmed in their records.
    2
  201.  @rickswineberg  £5 million in 1912 is worth about $162.7 million in 2024.
    2
  202. The art works allegation is simply an invention. There was no requirement for Red Flares at the time. Titanic carried 36 state of the art Board of Trade recommended Socket Signals, which were white with explosive heads. No one aboard can be shown to have opposed the Fed. This is simply a conspiracy fantasy myth from the 1990s.
    2
  203.  @Tozzpot500  'The loss of Titanic has nothing to do with JP Morgan or the Fed.' Or, rather, it didn't until it was invented from nowhere by conspiracy theory obsessives with the growth of social media in the 1990s.
    2
  204. Harland & Wolff knew rather a lot about the construction & repair of large vessels. Their engineers and workers repaired Olympic, and put her back to sea, in some six-seven weeks. Moreover, the Admiralty inspection report, with which both separate inspectors from White Star & the Board of Trade, agreed, summarised the extent of the damage to have been :- “Two major watertight compartments were flooded, hull plating gashed from the Orlop deck to E deck, and the starboard propeller shafting damaged." The impact speed was not high, by the way. HMS Hawkes' commander estimated it to have been at eight knots.
    2
  205. Actually, as many people were aboard Titanic for her maiden voyage as had been for Olympic's in 1911. The coal strike, by the way, had ended a few days before Titanic sailed. The binoculars are a total Red Herring. They would have made no difference, except possibly, had the lookouts been using them instead of using their eyes, the result might have been a slight delay in the alarm being given. Simply read the comments made by a whole series of officers about them. The norm was that lookouts would warn the bridge officers of a sighting, and the officers, not the lookouts, would use their binoculars to determine what it was, and what action, if any, should be taken. How does the 'insurance scam' work when Titanic was only insured for two thirds of her building costs? Who thought it up? The Board of Cunard, perhaps? Which testimony can't be true? Is this the usual line followed by you conspiracy people, that the fact that there is no evidence for it is the best evidence of all that it happened? Exactly how much more does the video need to do to prove how foolish the conspiracy and/or switch theories really are?
    2
  206. 'please examine all the facts.' Indeed, you should. Start with the alleged keel damage, which wasn't mentioned in the Inspection Report published in November, 1911. The keel damage not noticed or mentioned by anyone until Robin Gardiner invented it for his switch theory book in 1995 or thereabouts. One third of the stern needed replacing? Really? It seems you have read Gardiner's imaginative book then. Harland & Wolff didn't seem to know about that. Perhaps you might then explain how, after returning to sea from 20 November, 1911, when Titanic was five months from completion, Olympic had made five further Atlantic round trips, and was in New York, halfway through her sixth, when Titanic left Southampton? Then you might explain how, at the time she hit the iceberg, the crippled and keel-damaged 'Olympic' had actually made better time than the real Olympic had on her maiden voyage. Alternatively, you might be wiser simply remaining silent?
    2
  207. How much effort do you think is involved in posting a few verifiable facts to the conspiracy fantasists who are ignorant of them?
    2
  208. Perhaps there was no mention of this in the video because it is totally false? There is absolutely no supporting evidence from the time. Indeed, Gardiner didn't explain, or try to explain, how a ship with her stern twisted by 45 degrees managed to return to Southampton under her own power, and nor did he choose to explain why no photographs of this remarkable degree of damage were ever produced. In short, he made the whole thing up, simply to justify his switch nonsense.
    2
  209. 'Lord Astor?' An insurance policy which only covered two thirds of the building costs? The half wits are out early today.
    2
  210.  @peetsnort  'lord astor didn't want to go along with morgan Stanley. His body was found with his head bashed in.the 85 percent in the payout is unusual. In the insurance industry. Silverstone got billions for the twin towers.he knew in advance. What a deeply strange little creature you are.
    2
  211. Drivel. Olympic never had a bunker fire. The 'opponents'of the Federal Reserve (Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus) were nothing of the sort. The first two never expressed their views about the Fed., whilst Straus had spoken in favour of it in October, 1911, his speech being reported in the NYT. You have simply swallowed a 1990s conspiracy myth. So, yes, you are a conspiracy theorist, and the 'truth' is alien to you.
    2
  212. If you mean Olympic, she was repaired and returned to sea from November, 1911. She then enjoyed a long, successful, career, until being withdrawn and scrapped as a result of the great depression in the 1930s.
    2
  213. Morgan had confirmed he would not be aboard Titanic in March. It was even mentioned in the NYT that he intended to be at St. Mark's in Venice instead. Where does Rothschild come into this, by the way?
    2
  214.  @lordhegamonster6931  Oh, you're one of those. You ought to have mentioned it at the start, as I don't usually waste my time conversing with neo half wits.
    2
  215. The stern which was hit by HMS Hawke was broken up in Inverkeithing in 1937, by Thomas Wards.
    2
  216. To be honest, there would be no need to change anything inside the ship as in 1912 no one would ever envisage saying the ship again. However, the amount of work needed on 'A' & 'B' decks, as well as the bridge wings, together with the impossibility of keeping such things secret, made the ludicrous switch idea a fantasy in any case.
    2
  217. You have received two excellent replies already, but just to add a further point, I would ask how it was possible for any switch to have been made, as you write, 'right before the voyage' when Olympic was in New York when Titanic left Southampton. After completing her repairs by late November, 1911, Olympic made a number of transatlantic voyages between then and April, 1912. The only time she met her sister was in early March, 1912, when she returned to Belfast to have a shed propeller blade replaced. She was there for around four-five days. As White Star lost a major asset, their safety record, and £500,000 when Titanic sank, I doubt that Morgan was laughing much about it.
    2
  218.  @Dizzy19.  Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, as well. Apart from visiting relatives and eating, I suspect mine will involve pretending to enjoy my wife's favourite films. It's a Wonderful Life and A Christmas Carol. Not just the Alastair Sim one, but the Seymour Hicks, George C., Scott, Patrick Stewart, & Muppet ones, as well, dammit! I daren't say it, but I really cannot see Patton as Scrooge, and as for 'Make it so, Mr. Cratchit.' I expect a visit from the Ghost of Christmas Past imminently.
    2
  219. There are more pressing concerns than trying to work out the precise details of how a large liner collided with an iceberg. Especially since the chain of events is already known.
    2
  220. Don't be such a fantasist.
    2
  221.  @ChrisSkinner-q8b  Oh good. I'll leave you to it then.
    2
  222. The stern section broke off when it rose into the air as the bow sank, and it was subjected to forces vastly greated than those for which it had been designed.
    2
  223. No one had any 'Golden Ticket.' Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus all paid for their passages. Two of them had never expressed their opinions about the Federal Reserve, whilst Straus had spoken in favour. The Fed/Titanic myth was an invention of the 1990s. Of course, had you done any research yourself you would have discovered this fact, but, as usual, people like you who urge others to 'do research' are invariably the ones who have done none themselves. Watching a conspiracy video and swallowing it whole, by the way, does not count as 'research.'
    2
  224. The original ship was not 'damaged beyond use'. It was repaired.at a cost of £25,000 (in 1911) and went back to sea in November, 1911. Olympic was then, with a brief interruption in WW1, as successful and, as 'Old Reliable', a much loved liner until withdrawal in the mid 1930s. Because Olympic, or, at least, the Solent Pilot in charge of her, was deemed at fault for the Hawke collision, her insurance was invalidated. There was no insurance scam, except in the fevered minds of conspiracy fantasists.
    2
  225.  @gamegrindtwopointo2169  Perhaps you should read the Court Case?
    2
  226. Morgan had no need to book a trip, as he owned IMM, White Star's parent company, and thus did not need to reserve anything. As it was, he had already announced in March that he intended to be at St. Mark's in Venice before Titanic could have returned from New York. The article stating this may be read in the archives of the New York Times, had the gumption to look. There was no 'mystery' all. Morgan didn't sail on Olympic's maiden voyage either. Do you think that that was suspicious, as well? Oh, and J. J. Astor never expressed his views about the Federal Reserve at the time. This was simply a false claim made by conspiracists, who also included Guggenheim, who similarly had never commented, and Straus, who was a known supporter of the Fed., in order to make up the numbers.
    2
  227. No, it doesn't seem like that at all. Unless you blindly believe a myth invented in the 1990s.
    2
  228. Unfortunately, the rise of Social Media from the 1990s onwards seems to have resulted in a whole host of conspiracy fantasy videos, particlarly about Titanic. Some people view them, and simply take them at face value. Only those who actually check a few facts come to realise that they are not credible, alas.
    2
  229.  @bazcar22  Oh dear. You really are far gone, aren't you?
    2
  230.  @Tozzpot500  It must be a common trait. I often get accused of being a 'paid shill' or something of the sort. I mentioned this very thing to George Smiley just the other day, and he told me to behave myself or I would be expelled from the Circus. Oddly, 'M' said something similar when he downgraded my Licence to Kill to a Licence to Annoy.
    2
  231. It has been looked at numerous times, Everything about it, from the structure of 'B' deck to the number on the propeller, reveals the astonishing fact that Titanic really is Titanic.
    2
  232.  @KINGSLEY-TV  No. There wasn't. The video appeared in around the year 2000, without any provenance. No exploration team has ever claimed it, nor even referred to it, despite the world wide sensation such a claim would make. Even the founding father of your myth, Robin Gardiner, denounced the images as fake. Exactly how much more non-evidence do you need?
    2
  233. Congratulations! Every time I start to think that posts dafter than the ones many people have already put on here are not possible, someone proves me wrong.
    2
  234. Oh dear. The plaintive lament of the conspiracy fantasist. 'Because there is no evidence to support the theory, obviously the actual evidence must all have been altered by 'THEM!'
    2
  235.  @zammich3649  No you've done it! All the switcher quarter wits will be putting that forward as a credible hypothesis.
    2
  236.  @tonyjones7372  When did I use block capitals, mon brave? As to trolling, I have posted a number of verifiable facts, and even offered you the opportunity to prove me wrong. You have, instead, merely resorted to insults. Again, would you like me to list the names of the able seamen survivors to help you with your response? Who actually knows something about the subject, and who is revealing himself for what he is with each post?
    2
  237. A number cast into the blade of one of the propellers at the wreck site has been identified. It is 401, Titanic's hull number. As no propeller, nor even a blade, was transferred from Titanic to Ulympic, then feel free to explain that inconvenient fact. 'they had another ship out in the ocean supposedly had no passengers only life jackets.' Absolute nonsense. When Californian docked in Boston on 19 April, the local shipping papers recorded that she was carrying a 'mixed, general' cargo. Seriously, had she been carrying 'life jackets' when she docked, on the same day that the US Inquiry began, don't you think an eyebrow or two might have been raised in the Boston Customs Office?
    2
  238. Did you actually watch the video? It seems not.
    2
  239. No. But it can puch holes in them.
    2
  240. It is a total fabrication. It first emerged in around 2000 or so. It has precisely no provenance, and no exploration team has ever claimed it, nor even referred to it. Even the founder of the switch myth, Robin Gardiner, denounced it as a fake.
    2
  241.  @tiktokmashupss7991  Why comment at al then, if you cannot be bothered checking a few facts first?
    2
  242. 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?
    2
  243. Odd, that. I think exactly the same every time the Australians retain the Ashes. All a vast conspiracy by 'THEM.' Of course, the idea that they might simply be better cricketers has never entered my head.
    2
  244. Perhaps you might read the assessments of the liner captains and Master Mariners who testified at the British Inquiry, before you rush to judgement?
    2
  245. 'Debunk vids.' as you call them have been appearing since the myths of the switch and of the Federal Reserve/Titanic connection first appeared. Both in the 1990s, when Social Media rendered actual knowledge obsolete. There never was any 'O' on Titanic's hull, unless you chose to be misled by amateurish CGI, which appeared in 2000 or thereabouts, which no expedition has ever claimed, or even acknowledged, and which even the founding father of the switch myth, Robin Gardiner, denounced as fake. The windows on 'B' deck of the wreck are of the modified uneven rectangular pattern, as seen on photographs of Titanic after the installation of additional cabins and the Cafe Parisien during building. Neither Astor nor Guggenheim ever voiced their opinions about the Fed. Straus did. He spoke in favour of it, in October, 1911. Either you genuinely didn't know that, or you, in common with every switcher or conspiracy theorist, simply choose to ignore known facts. 'Have to now wonder if a certain mini sub sinking was a wee warning ,stop looking to hard .' Odd, then, that a small tourist vessel should receive such treatment, when a whole host of real scientific and research vessels have gone unmolested, isn't it? Perhaps you might explain that?
    2
  246. Because Olympic's far greater size created a suction effect which drew HMS Hawke into her. Olympic displaced around 45,000 tons. HMS Hawke was about one sixth of that.
    2
  247.  @gtt8428  Whereas you evidently believe absolutely in every passing conspiracy theory you stumble across?
    2
  248. Why would anyone do that? Or, want to?
    2
  249. Then it must take a lot to surprise you.
    2
  250. She was broken up in 1935 - 1937, at Inverkeithing, after being largely stripped of internal fittings in Jarrow. Some of these fittings were auctioned off, and are still around. The elegant 'Olympic Restaurant' can still be visited at the White Swan hotel in Alnwick, Northumberland.
    2
  251. No, she didn't. HMS Hawke was a small ship, displacing 7,700 tons. Olympic was six or seven times larger. Put simply, the suction effect of Olympic's vastly greater bulk simply drew Hawke into he side.
    2
  252. As Sherlock Holmes would also say, '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.' As you have done, examples being :- 1). Titanic's insurance value was never increased. It was, and remained, two thirds of her building cost of £1.5 million. 2). The first reference to 'keel damage' appeared in 1995 with Robin Gardiner's little book. The Inspection report compiled by the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and White Star made no such reference. Harland & Wolff certainly knew nothing about it, and Olympic returned to sea on 20 November 1911, when Titanic was five months from completion. 3). Most, if not all, ships had an initial coat of grey primer. Certainly, Titanic was so painted. Olympic had, in addition, a temporary coat of white, or of light grey, paint added before launch, because similar paint applied to the earlier Mauretania had made her stand out well in photographs and newsreels during her launch. Olympic was repainted in normal black after the launch. 4). When Titanic sank, White Star lost a major asset, their reputation for safety, and one third of her building costs. Exactly which financial losses did that recoup? Or, as Watson would probably have commented, 'Good heavens, Holmes, stop reading ill-informed rubbish written by a simpleton. Direct your attention to this instead. A Dr. Mortimer is worried about a big dog apparently wandering around Dartmoor.'
    2
  253. Stop believing conspiracy myths from the 1990s and simply look up Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus for yourself, if you seek a few facts.
    1
  254.  @Cantconvinceanidiotlikeyou  RMS Olympic, coming out of Southampton Water, was making a turn to port around the West Bramble buoy. At the same time, HMS Hawke was making a turn to starboard around Egypt Point, a prominent landmark on the north end of the Isle of Wight. As the two vessels completed their respective turns they steadied on what appeared to be almost parallel courses with Olympic accelerating rapidly towards her full ahead speed for restricted waters. The Solent is not at all wide. Have you been there? To quote a review of a recent book on the subject, 'The Sting of The Hawke: Collision In The Solent – The Full Story Behind The Collision Between HMS Hawke And RMS Olympic On 20 September 1911,' '‘After careful assessment of all available evidence – some of it not previously published – the authors find that an “adverse hydrodynamic reaction” between the ships, created by each’s relatively high speeds in narrow and shallow waters, and their initially converging courses, caused the collision.
    1
  255.  @Cantconvinceanidiotlikeyou  Most accidents are. That is why they are called accidents.
    1
  256.  @kirstyb90  What claims might they be? That Gardiner made his 'facts' up? Very few people would disagree with that.
    1
  257.  @kirstyb90  Gardiner sought to argue the 'switch' theory, which was nothing more or less than his own invention. Without the 'keel damage' the theory falls apart, and the Admiralty/White Star/Board of Trade inspection report made no reference to any such think. Thus, there was never the slightest problem about Board of Trade Certification for either ship.
    1
  258. Then you are wrong in your belief.
    1
  259. It was a decision determined by a court in 1911. Olympic's size effectively created a suction effect which drew HMS Hawke into her side.
    1
  260. Odd, then, that so many survivors reported seeing an iceberg, isn't it?
    1
  261.  @Goofydownrange  'who cares?' Why bother commenting then?
    1
  262.  @Goofydownrange  Morgan was not a passenger on Olympic's maiden voyage either. Do you find that suspicious?
    1
  263.  @Goofydownrange  'Another person who can not read.' Were you to follow your own advice, you might read the 'New York Times' of 28 March, 1912, which reveals that: "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." By the way, between 1904 & 1912, Morgan only twice returned to the United States from Europe before July, and one of those occasions was to attend a wedding. Tsar Nicholas II wasn't aboard Titanic either. Neither was President Taft, nor KIng George V. In your entertaining world, does that make them part of the plot as well?
    1
  264.  @Goofydownrange 'no shit Sherlock.' Certainly not, mon vieux. I always deal exclusively in demonstrable facts. Have you ever thought of trying the same thing?
    1
  265. Don't be silly. As swallowing unquestioning conspiracy fantasy videos does tend to make you appear.
    1
  266.  @TheMightyCookieShow  As the video efficiently demolishes the whole nonsense, I really don't know what you did or didn't watch.
    1
  267. The decision on liability was made in court.
    1
  268.  @kari34b54  'And later (years) it was admitted that Hawke was at fault.' Really? The judgement from the time stands to this very day. I assume you have a credible source?
    1
  269. 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.
    1
  270.  @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
  271. I always enjoy reading educated comments from people who thoroughly know and understand the subject. Sadly, you aren't one of those.
    1
  272. Have you ever considered that unquestioningly swallowing every conspiracy video you encounter might explain you ignorance about the imaginary Federal Reserve/Titanic connection? Or, you incorrect ideas about Olympic & Titanic?
    1
  273.  @gtt8428  I merely asked (without reply, of course) for evidence of the switch theory which pre-dated the social media growth of the 1990s.
    1
  274.  @gtt8428  Er. The subject is the Titanic Switch Theory, remember?
    1
  275.  @FeraNelia  No. You are being unfair. It may simply be someone who has stopped taking the medication and managed to sneak the laptop out without the carers noticing. That would explain the contents of the posts.
    1
  276. Really? When and by whom?
    1
  277.  @TotalFreedomTTT-pk9st  'i.e Federal Reserve machinations.' You must mean the spurious claims about links between the Fed. and Titanic? The claims invented in the 1990s?
    1
  278.  @throttlegalsmagazineaustra7361  Of course. Ulstermen are notoriously obedient of authority figures and noted for their secrecy!
    1
  279. Remove what damaged engine? The Admiralty/White Star/Board of Trade Inspection Report refers only to :- “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 mention of a 'damaged engine?'
    1
  280.  @kitgin4504  Really? Wherever did you read that? Moreover, if so, why did it pass the US House of Representatives by 298 - 60, and the Senate by 43 to 25?
    1
  281.  @GavachoToro  'if you say so.' No, that is what the facts tell us.
    1
  282. Except that, such was the 'financial state' of White Star (with profits of £1 million in the last financial year) that in the same month Olympic returned to sea, the Company placed their order for the third ship in the class with H & W.
    1
  283. Not really. The suction effect might have suggested that HMS Hawke turned into RMS Olympic.
    1
  284. Admit it. You haven't actually watched the video, have you?
    1
  285.  @elliottgregory9539  Perhaps you might explain why no-one suggested such a switch until Robin Gardiner produced his fact-free though entertaining book 70 years after the event. What you seem to be trying to say is that you think such a switch might have been possible only if every document, every eye witness account, and every report by every exploration team, had been falsified, Oh, and everyone involved in it had been immediately silenced. Do you really think such an argument tenable?
    1
  286.  @ChaadFairservice20022  The only slight problem here is that the person who made this claim did not appear on any list of survivors, or even of passengers. Not to put too fine a point on it. He made the whole thing up.
    1
  287.  @markbailey6051  .' The submarine took pictures that showed one of the 4' by 4' steel plates fell off revealing a partial MP.' Absolute nonsense. This so-called footage appeared out of nowhere in 2000 or so. No expedition has ever claimed it, or even referred to it. Even Robin Gardiner denounced it as fake. The CGI quality isn't even that good. Seriously, has it had any credibility whatsoever, wouldn't it have been world news within 24 hours?
    1
  288. If you believe that there is a 'major chassis and shaft' involved in shipbuilding, please post details of any ship with which you have been involved, in order that I might avoid it. Actually, I believe that two passengers claimed to have noticed a slight list. Something which does happen if the stowage is slightly wrong or if coal is used from one side of the ship first, as was the case with Titanic.
    1
  289. The court held that it was the result of the suction effect caused by RMS Olympic's large hull, which the much smaller HMS Hawke was powerless to counteract.
    1
  290.  @likeisaid1947  Good question, and frankly I don't know the answer. Perhaps, just like George Bowyer, piloting Olympic, he was simply unprepared for the suction effect of Olympic's 34' 7" draught, and could do nothing to avoid what happened.
    1
  291.  @likeisaid1947  I didn't suggest that he did. Only that, like Williams, he was taken aback by events which neither could control. Williams did actually do his best, as Hawke had slowed significantly, and was down to eight knots, when she struck Olympic.
    1
  292. Why would there be any mention of the Federal Reserve in this video, as it was simply a false connection, invented in the 1990s, with no credibility whatsover? The truth, that Titanic sank after an iceberg collision, has been known since 1912. People can, aside from conspiracy theory fools, handle that fact now as well as they ever have. You perhaps haven't viewed the video you describe as 'well researched and presented' or you would have realised that it rejects the conspiracy myth? Largely because it is well researched and presented.
    1
  293. Ine thing Harland & Wolff definitely did not do was build 'crappy boats.'
    1
  294. Oh dear, yet another ignoramus who isn't aware that the supposed connection with the Federal Reserve was invented in the 1990s, or that Astor & Guggenheim never actually expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst Straus had spoken out as a supporter. Why not just look them up for yourself?
    1
  295. Oh dear, yet another ignoramus who isn't aware that the supposed connection with the Federal Reserve was invented in the 1990s, or that Astor & Guggenheim never actually expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst Straus had spoken out as a supporter. Why not just look them up for yourself?
    1
  296.  @CranialExtractor  Tell you what then? Provide any evidence at all in support of your 'Opposition to the Federal Reserve Theory' which involves Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus, and which is earlier than the Social Media explosion of the 1990s. I look forward to your response with some anticipation. Actually, I am writing to you as I would any other gullible fool. Prove me in error if you can.
    1
  297. The claim that there was the slightest connection between the Titanic sinking and the Federal Reserve was a product of the 1990s, when social media made it possible for people with little or no actual knowledge of a subject to invent conspiracy theories about almost anything and everything. Prior to that, there had not been the slightest suggestion of any such link, largely because neither Astor nor Guggenheim had expressed their opinions about the idea of the Federal Reserve, whilst Straus had, in October, 1911, spoken in favour of it. Oh, and Morgan, in March, 1912, had confirmed that he would be attending an event in Venice, which he could not have done had he sailed in Titanic. This was reported in the New York Times at the time. The ships were, by the way, not swapped. At the time Titanic left Southampton, Olympic, bask at sea fully repaired since November, 1911, was in New York.
    1
  298.  @grahamhill6340  I have the misfortune, as doubtless you would see it, to base my opinions on known and provable facts and evidence, not on strange fantasies. That is the accepted historical method. Let me ask you about Pearl Harbor, for one. If the US had known about an impending attack, why not have their defences fully prepared? THe attack would still have taken place, but causualties in US men & materials would likely have been far less, and among the Japanese Task Force far greater. Or would you propound the argument that the reaction in the United States to an unsuccessful, rather than a successful, sneak attack would really have been 'Well, the Japs. didn't really do too much damage. Let's not worry about it.' Seriously?
    1
  299. Do you seriously base all your opinions on animations? Oh dear!
    1
  300.  @click-ue3kc  'a picture says a thousand words.' Perhaps, but an animation doesn't. Read Tozzpot500's explanation, as he has saved me the trouble of explaining for myself. I assume you haven't read the text of the Court case which determined liability? I wonder if you even knew that there had been a court case?
    1
  301. No it wasn't.
    1
  302. The Inspection Report, produced by the Admiralty, but supported by independent teams from both White Star & the Board of Trade, summarised the damage to Olympic as :- “Two major watertight compartments were flooded, hull plating gashed from the Orlop deck to E deck, and the starboard propeller shafting damaged.” ( Admiralty Inquiry Findings dated 10 November, 1911). There was no reference at all to Keel Damage until Gardiner invented it in the 1990s.
    1
  303. The switch theory is an invention of an author, Robin Gardiner, in the 1990s. THe idea of a grand plot to eliminate opponents of the Fed. is a conspiracy fantasy, evidence free, myth started by fanatics on social media. Try finding a few actual factys, I suggest.
    1
  304. She didn't 'barely survive.' She returned to Southampton on an even keel, and after temporary repairs went to Belfast for full repairs, which took only around six weeks.
    1
  305.  @fmyoung  What is the 'statement' that you think implies this. Olympic actually returned to Southampton on an even keel, under her own power.
    1
  306. Indeed. The forward end of Titanic's 'B' deck had been modified to include extra cabins and the cafe Parisien. As a result, Titanic had a pattern of irregular, rectangular windows, as may be seen on photographs on the wreck. At the time Titanic sank, Olympic still retained the regular, square, windows of the original design.
    1
  307.  @Tigerrfeet  Nonsense. Made up claims like that count for precisely nothing. If there were such 'words' where are they documented?
    1
  308.  @charlesburns1572  Actually, Smith was not responsible. Olympic was in the Solent, and thus in the charge of a Solent Pilot. That was why, although Olympic was deemed at fault by the court, White Star were not required to pay for the repairs for HMS Hawke, although of course their own insurance with Lloyds was invalidated.
    1
  309. You do realise that a fraud is generally intended by the fraudsters to make them money, not lose it, don't you? Apparently not.
    1
  310.  @helenstillman-dk7jm  Morgan had already announced in March that he intended to visit St. Mark's in Venice, to attend the dedication of a Campanile. This had been reported in the NYT, and can still be read in the Archives. He had not sailed on Olympic's maiden voyage either. Was that suspicious as well. or have you simply swallowed whole a conspiracy myth from the 1990s?
    1
  311.  @helenstillman-dk7jm  You were told 'this is true?' Who by, as a matter of interest. It is a general rule about Titanic, that 'the less someone knows of the facts, the more that someone is likely to swallow any outlandish conspiracy theory stumbled across.'
    1
  312.  @helenstillman-dk7jm  No, you don't need to prove anything to me, or to anyone else for that matter. It is entirely obvious precisely what you are.
    1
  313. The video does not support the conspiracy video at all.
    1
  314. That would be something of an achievement, given that the first U-boat with a diesel engine, and even the theoretical range to reach Newfoundland, was U16, which commissioned around a year after the sinking. Prior to her, German boats had unreliable & smoky paraffin engines, and were restricted to short range operations only. Moreover, how would such an attack have been of any benefit to Kaiser Bill and his lads?
    1
  315.  @nikosatsaves3141  Actually, Britannic was mined.
    1
  316.  @zephyr8072  Which is why specialist firms such as Harland & Wolff, Dennys, John Browns, and Cammell Laird, among many others existed, to build, modify, and repair such large liners.
    1
  317.  @TaylorMade223  Whatever his religion, why don't you read his speech from October, 1911, which was reported in the New York Times, and can be seen in their archives.
    1
  318.  @TaylorMade223  'Not publicly commenting on the FR, doesn't mean no connection to the FR, the wealthy in favor spoke in support, the wealthy opposed, didn't speak.' Quite correct, but nor does it mean that either Astor nor Guggenheim opposed the Fed., either, does it? Indeed, the idea of any connection between the two events only appeared with the enthusiasm for 'conspiracy' which arose with the growth of social media in the 1990s. Ever heard of The statement that "silence means agreement" or "Qui tacet consentire videtur.' "he who is silent seems to consent". In other words, the fact that neither Astor neither Guggenheim expressed any opposition suggests that, at the very least, they did not oppose the idea.
    1
  319.  @Tozzpot500  Just out of interest, I have had over 20 replies from this Alexandros person in the last 24 hours. None of them questioning any fact I have posted, all but one of them insulting. The saddest thing of all is that he doesn't seem to have noticed that I have stopped replying to him.
    1
  320.  @Tozzpot500  Indeed. It is perplexing to me also, although I now only intend to respond at all if I disgree with a point of fact in any further post, as arguing against insults is generally counterproductive. I also noticed the civility in the final responses to you, which is why I didn't think my first, fairly innocuous, comment to him would trigger off a Vesuvius like eruption! It won't, of course, stop me commenting. I have a fairly hard carapace!
    1
  321. White Star couldn't, but Harland & Wolff certainly could.
    1
  322. Sadly, with the advent of social media, many people will believe absolutely anything they see on it.
    1
  323. You miss the first rule of Titanic commentary, which is 'The less someone actually knows about the Titanic sinking, the more certain they are that there was a huge, but still secret, conspiracy'.
    1
  324. Jack the Ripper? Probably J. P. Morgan!!!!!!
    1
  325. Who would make these millions? Certainly not White Star. How do you keep thousands of H & W workers quiet for the rest of their lives?
    1
  326. Who do you think made this money?
    1
  327.  @Tozzpot500  To be honest, I would question how serious the financial effects on White Star really were. The line operated over thirty liners of various sizes in 1914, and, whilst the loss of Titanic was a serious blow, financially, a replacement 'superliner' Britannic', was under construction. A far greater problem was the Great War, which had a serious effect on White Star's business, and resulted in a loss of several ships, but immediately after it the Line purchased a number of second hand vessels, and in 1922 received as war prizes three large German vessels. The US Immigration Act of 1924 had a detrimental effect on the line, which responded by introducing a 'tourist class' in many of their linerd to make up from the loss of revenue. I understand that the beginning of the line's serious problems should be more properly dated to arounf 1927, but the Great Depression from 1929 was the real cause of the eventual merger with Cunard. Indeed, the first financial deficit recorded by White Star was in 1930. Intriguingly, a former head of the line did, in 1933, attempt to rescue the company by proposing to create, with the agreement of the government, a new company which would operate and would build other ships similar to the Britannic and the Georgic in order to become profitable. One J. Bruce Ismay! I haven't ever seen a detailed financial assessment of White Star after the Titanic sinking, but would be fascinated to read one should it exist.
    1
  328. Before you comment, you should actually watch the video, perhaps?
    1
  329. You will probably never convince your friend. Where switchers and conspiracy theorists are concerned, it is less a matter of facts and evidence than a matter of faith and belief.
    1
  330. We aren't. But enthusiastic conspiracy fantasists do.
    1
  331. If they change their minds when the facts are explained, then fair enough. But when they insist upon still believing their fantasy after being told, then they deserve no sympathy!
    1
  332. You mean Astor, Guggenheim & Straus? Straus had spoken in favour of the Federal Reserve in a speech, recorded in the New York Times, in October, 1911, whilst the other two had never expressed their views. You have been taken in by a myth created on social media in the 1990s. Look up the three for yourself.
    1
  333.  @bleduramstat8062  Congratulations on finding a copy of the revised, post Titanic, version of the novel. They aren't easy to come across these days. By the way, 'The Titanic was sunk to aid the establishment of the Fed in 1913. It was murder not an accident.' Actually, Astor & Guggenheim had never voiced any views about the Fed., whilst Straus had spoken, in October, 1911, in favour. Unless you believe unquestioningly the fact-free claims dating from the 1990s of course.
    1
  334.  @bleduramstat8062  Not one for facts are you, I observe? Feel free to try to prove me wrong about Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus, by the way. Good Luck. The Civil War, by the way, was a dispute over who should rule, King or Parliament. It led to the end of the concept of the 'Divine RIght of Monarchs' and to the establishment of a republic, or 'Commonwealth'.
    1
  335.  @bleduramstat8062  Oh, THAT Civil War! You should have been more specific. Captain Smith was a member of the Church of England. He was married at St Oswald's Church in Winwick, Lancashire, England on January 13, 1887. Does that sound like a hotbed of Jesuitical fanaticism? Moreover, MARRIED. As I wrote earlier. No one for facts, are you?
    1
  336. No-one got free tickets. Mind you, no one on the ship was known to be opposed to the Federal Reserve either. Congratulations, two falsehoods in one sentence. Well done!
    1
  337.  @PirateSnacks  Irrelevant. First you need to prove that Astor, Guggenheim, & Straus actually opposed the Federal Reserve. Which of course you cannot. Largely because the allegation is a creation of the 1990s.
    1
  338. No they weren't and no he wasn't. These posts are getting dafter & dafter!
    1
  339. What 'who & why' do you mean?
    1
  340. Then prove us all wrong by providing concrete evidence relating to Titanic.
    1
  341. The Olympics had two propellers driven by reciprocating engines, and a centre one using a low power turbine. The Mauretanias, although older, were more advanced in that they were turbine driven. They were, as a result, faster, although apparently prone to vibration at speed.
    1
  342. No, Morgan didn't. He had already announced his intention to be at St. Mark's in Venice, at the dedication of a new Campanile, befor Titanic could have returned to Southampton. This was even announced in the NYT in March, and the article may still be read. Swallowing whole every conspiracy fantasy you stumble across does make you look rather silly, you know.
    1
  343. Did they also believe in cunning insurance scams which would lose their company a major asset, a reputation for safety, and £500,000, at 1912 monetary values? Morgan had announced in March that he intended to visit St. Mark's in Venice before Titanic could have returned from New York. It was even in the New York Times. Perhaps you missed it? Your caps lock is malfunctioning, by the way.
    1
  344. Why not?
    1
  345.  @enjoyyoursleep1  But the idea of a vast secret conspiracy, with precisely no evidence to support it and dating from the 1990s, does?
    1
  346. Give him time.
    1
  347. Wrong. After a collision with a RN cruiser, Olympic suffered a bent propeller shaft, which was replaced by parts from the incomplete Titanic. Photographs of the wreck show beyond doubt that it really is the Titanic.
    1
  348. Os that what you suspect? Oh well. Explain this, then :- 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). None of his artworks were loaded aboard and then taken off. At the time he was negotiating their shipment with Customs. The artworks claim is total fabrication. 'Massive insurance fraud?' Do me a favour. Both Olympics cost £1.5 million to build, and both were insured for £1 million. Who would come up with an insurance scam which loses White Star, £500,000 a major asset, and their safety record? I can't think of anyone, except perhaps the Board of Cunard. Can you? 'This video also fails to mention the propeller damage that Olympic incurred when Smith ran over a wreckage in shallow waters near Cape Hatteras in 1911, and had to limp back to Dublin on one engine and have the propeller replaced but the collision had warped the propeller shaft itself, this was why it could not be operated it and would require quite expensive repairs.' It doesn't mention it because it didn't happen. Olympic lost a blade from her port propeller in February, 1912.She returned to Belfast (where do you get Dublin?) and the blade was replaced in four days. Neither the propeller, nor the shaft, were replaced. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the nonsense you have posted is simply a result of ignorance, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead those as ignorant as you are.
    1
  349. Did you actually watch the video?
    1
  350. I assume you can point us to articles in the Belfast newspapers from the time? What? You cannot? Oh dear. Still, never mind.
    1
  351.  @hoaxialcable  No. Simply pointing out that the re-write of 1912 differed somewhat from the original of 1898. Perhaps because of the influence of certain recent events?
    1
  352.  @barackobama9343  So. You can't explain any relevance to Titanic after all? I am, of course, not surprised.
    1
  353.  @barackobama9343  Yes. Of course you did. Why not simply repeat your reply?
    1
  354.  @barackobama9343  Oh dear. 'I know but I'm not telling' is really rather immature.
    1
  355.  @Faerie_nuff88  Oh sorry. You are a neo. Had I known I wouldn't have wasted time replying, as you people are too far gone to bother with. I hope you keep your collection of SS daggers nice and shiny, of course.
    1
  356. Or stage a catastrophic, and totally 'accidental' fire whilst in dock? The various conspiracy fantasies make no sense at all.
    1
  357.  @Tozzpot500  The article was written by John Hamer. I will let you deduce for yourself which side it took.
    1
  358.  @Tozzpot500  Afraid so. here is a comment on the article on their site:- 'John Hamer argues that Titanic at the time of sinking was swapped for its damaged sister ship, Olympic to save the shipping line from financial ruin, and to despatch with powerful passengers—businessmen resisting the formation of the Federal Reserve.' The magazine describes itself as 'The Alternative News Magazine.' Someone like John Hamer, who has never stumbled across a conspiracy theory that he didn't like and believe in absolutely, should be right up their street.
    1
  359. When Californian arrived in Boston on 19 April, the shipping newspapers stated that her cargo was a 'mixed, general' one. Isn't that rather an odd way to spell 'warm blankets?'
    1
  360. Which families did not want us to 'see it' and wasn't criticism of the jerry-built Titan, by marine experts, by the way, justified?
    1
  361.  @Tozzpot500  With some of the people who are posting on here recently, I can only suggest that Friedrich Schiller was right :- 'Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.'
    1
  362.  @fmyoung  The New York Times in March 1912 contained as article stating that Morgan intended to visit St. Mark's in Venice, to attend the dedication of a campanile. He could not have done this had he sailed in Titanic. Bruce Ismay went instead. Do you suggest he was not aware of the (imaginary) plot?
    1
  363.  @fmyoung  'quite a few just didn't trust the new ship.' Really? almost as many cancelled for Titanic's maiden voyage as had cancelled for Olympic's in 1911. Do you think that they didn't trust Olympic either?
    1
  364.  @fmyoung  'He may or may not have known something I said.' No. Actually you wrote 'Did he maybe know something?' To make my answer clearer, I will enlarge upon it :- Yes, he did know something.He knew that he was doing to Venice, and couldn't be in two places at once.
    1
  365.  @fmyoung  'They felt uncomfortable about being on a brand-new ship that needed some breaking-in that''s what I hear.' People who book to sail on a ship's maiden voyage, but didn't realise that it was a new ship, must be more than usually stupid. I suggest.
    1
  366. No. Your post is misinformation, probably entirely due to ignorance. Aside from the fact that as owner of IMM, White Star's parent company, Morgan didn't need to 'book a trip', it is documented in the NYT that he had already planned to visit St. Mark's in Venice before Titanic could have returned from New York. He had, moreover, confirmed this well before Guggenheim, on 8 April, booked his own trip, which renders your reference to the 1990s created myth about the Federal Reserve equally invalid. Although, as Astor & Guggenheim had never commented about the Fed., whilst Straus had already spoken in favour of it, such invalidation was hardly needed.
    1
  367.  @northernhillbilly5867  A number of people cancelled their bookings. Just as a similar number cancelled for Olympic's maiden voyage in 1911. Do you think that the Olympic voyage was a failure because Smith missed the iceberg?!
    1
  368.  @northernhillbilly5867  I didn't even know that there was any vaccine which forced people what to believe about Titanic.
    1
  369. Fine. But why would anyone sunk a ship for the level of loss White Star experienced when Titanic sank?
    1
  370.  @imscanon  Both ships cost £1.5 million to build, and both were insured for £1 million. The 'expensive and extensive' repairs to Olympic cost £25,000 which was some 1.67% of her building costs. If both ships were not making money, why did White Star order a third from Harland & Wolff in November, 1911. Co-incidentally the same month Olympic returned to sea after repairs. 'They said the ship wouldn't have passed inspection even with repairs, so sinking it was the most equitable solution financially.' Who is this mysterious 'they?' Olympic received full Board of Trade Certification before she returned to sea. All this is easily verifiable. Why don't you try?
    1
  371.  @imscanon  You hven't watched the video, have you? If you had, you would realised how thoroughly the 'theory' was dismantled. If you didn't believe it, why was your previous reply to me so supportive of it? Even if you did post a whole series of incorrect statements?
    1
  372.  @likeisaid1947  Did the video refer to the five boilers?
    1
  373. The conclusion reached by the court was that Olympic's size resulted in major displacement of water which drew the much smaller cruiser into her side. In point of fact, responsibility was attributed neither to Olympic nor to Hawke, but to the Solent Pilot who had charge of Olympic at the time. As a result, White Star were not required to pay for repairs to HMS Hawke, although they could not claim from Olympic's insurers. The actual cost of repairs to Olympic, by the way, was small.
    1
  374. Have you conspiracy fantasy enthusiasts all been watching the same video, without bothering to check any actual facts?
    1
  375. Made up claims by a reporter, Senan Molony, out to make a few Euros by promoting his book. Once you look at the location of the 'burn mark,' well above the waterline and far from the affected bunker, the whole nonsensical 'documentary' collapses into nonsense.
    1
  376. That Titanic really was Titanic was demonstrated by the pattern of windows at the forward end of 'B' deck, and the enclosed forward end of 'A' deck, both of which were unique to the Titanic of 1912. Odd that switchers fantasise about portholes, but need to ignore the obvious.
    1
  377. Odd, then, that so many eye witnesses reported the iceberg, or that the International Ice Patrol, still around today, was set up as a result of the sinking to monitor their presence, don't you think?
    1
  378.  @tqsuited  What 'plan?'
    1
  379.  @MightyoNe-MiT1  The images simply show damage to Olympic's starboard quarter. The images confirm precisely what the Inspection Report produced by White Star, the Board of Trade, and the Admiralty stated. Put simply, Robin Gardiner made up the keel damage claim to justify his switch damage nonsense, because without it, his book falls to pieces.
    1
  380.  @MightyoNe-MiT1  Good on you! A rebuke from a person like you is a considerable badge of honour to a normal like myself.
    1
  381.  @OceanlinerDesigns  Good news! However, expect abuse from the usual suspects, who have watched a switcher/conspiracist video, swallowed it unquestioningly, and proclaimed themselves instant experts on all things Titanic related.
    1
  382. Surely you aren't silly enough to believe lies invented in the 1990s? Please provide documentary evidence that Astor and Guggenheim opposed the Fed. I will provide unchallengeable documentary evidence that Straus supported the idea.
    1
  383.  @Embracing01  'Yes I believe there is some evidence of that the switch theories goes back further than the 1990s.' Is there? please provide your source for it then. How, by the way, would workers in Liverpool have known anything of the sort, given that Titanic never went anywhere near Liverpool? Every time you are questioned, you simply say 'It was all a big cover up.' As Oliver Cromwell said to the Church of Scotland in August, 1650, '"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, to think it possible you may be mistaken.."
    1
  384. Because of the suction effect created by Olympic's size.
    1
  385. Where Titanic was concerned, Lloyds paid out promptly, and in full.
    1
  386. Er. You are confusing Olympic & Titanic. The comparisons were not simply with warships, by the way. Didn't you notice that?
    1
  387. Do you? How so, and what do you actually know about Morgan other that what you swallowed from a conspiracy video?
    1
  388.  @1USACitizen192  Of course you have. That conspiracist video you watched must have been very convincing, mustn't it? Certainly, far too convincing to bother checking any of it.
    1
  389. Oh dear, yet another ignoramus who isn't aware that the supposed connection with the Federal Reserve was invented in the 1990s, or that Astor & Guggenheim never actually expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst Straus had spoken out as a supporter. Why not just look them up for yourself? As to 'insurance', White Star were insured for only two thirds of Titanic's building costs, which meant that when she sank, the company not only lost a major asset and a reputation for safety, but also £500,000 at 1912 monetary value. You could, of course.look that up as well?
    1
  390. Actually, the officers aboard Californian did see Titanic's flares (or, at least, flares from a 'large steamer) , and reported their concerns to their captain. What was there to question about the iceberg, when so many survivors reported it?
    1
  391.  @user-Rocket-Fest  'You 100% sure about that?? The stuff I'm quoting is not common market material.' Yes, I am absolutely sure about that. The crew lists, and the lists of crew survivors, are readily available for inspection. You do know that the old 'I have secret documents which prove me right, but I daren't make them public' drivel is not really original, I trust?
    1
  392.  @user-Rocket-Fest  I am not creating any spin, but someone who denies the facts about Joseph Bell & his staff, on the basis of some dramatic secret documents that may not be disclosed to anyone else most certainly is. You obviously care, or you wouldn't have started making personal attacks. To go back to your originsal false post. The fact is that none of Bell or his engineering staff gave evidence to anyone because none of them survived the sinking. Stokers who did survive did testify. Go on then, prove me in error.
    1
  393. Only if you believe a myth invented in the 1990s. In terms of facts, there is no evidence regarding what the views of Astor or Guggenheim were, whilst Straus is known to have promoted the Federal Reserve. Why not just look the three up for yourself, instead of simply believing a fairytale?
    1
  394. The number of portholes claim is an example of the lack of knowledge exhibited by these people. Titanic and Olympic were both launched with 14 (port side, forward). Olympic sailed with 14, but, after recommendations following Olympic's early voyages, two more were added to Titanic during building. A similar modification was made to Olympic as part of a refit.
    1
  395.  @Dizzy19.  It is on Part Two of 'Titanic Conspiracy: The Full Truth. Eleven Days ago as I type this. The post was from @alexandros4703 and began 'Basically, the chairmen and board of directors of H & W and WSL are responsible for the deaths of more than 1,500 people.' There are now 61 comments!! You actually had a discussion with him, before I innocently chipped in with a correction to him, actually supporting one of your earlier comments. The rampant insanity which ensured is quite remarkable and vastly entertaining! There you are then. It's all your fault!!!! ENJOY, but have a coffee and a biscuit or two handy.
    1
  396.  @Dizzy19.  It is getting more disturbing now. I have just switched the computer on, and have found that he has been tracking back through my posts, in some cases going back a year or more, and begun posting insults, or luntic comments, after every one. Half a dozen last night alone! Two examples :- @dovetonsturdee7033 And her sub woofer overhead magnetic multi valve camshaft turbo charger wasn't engaged at the time, heee @dovetonsturdee7033 Just imagine, if Smith had been sacked after Olympic there would have been no Titanic sinking and you wouldn't be talking shite on YouTube. I suppose that I should feel a degree of pity for someone in so desperate a state mentally.
    1
  397. How about this one? End of the Second Boer War, 1902, first powered flight 1903. Those events were equally unconnected.
    1
  398. Actually, Titanic cost £1.5 million to build, and was insured for £1 million. What sort of insurance fraud loses £500,000? Where does your $400,000,000 come from, out of interest?
    1
  399. More likely, he was astute enough to realise that there was a market for such 'theories' and wrote his book (lacking in any actual evidence to support him, by the way) to exploit it. I doubt that even he would have believed how many idiots and half-wits would leap upon the bandwaggon, however.
    1
  400.  @thediscerningfox  There was no suggestion of anything untoward until Robins Gardiner's 'imaginative' book from the 1990s, which was seized upon at once bt the 'everything is a vast conspiracy' crowd.
    1
  401.  @Tozzpot500  Olympic's 'B' deck windows forward were not modified until her first refit, after Titanic's sinking. At the time of the sinking, Olympic still had the original pattern, which was modified in Titanic.
    1
  402. So what if you are from Belfast? I am from the north of England, but wouldn't regard myself as an authority on the Viking presence there in the ninth century.
    1
  403. Cover what up?
    1
  404.  @shahmanz  Of course there was why? Because you want to believe so? You should look at the evidence concerning the switch, and the equally false allegations of conspiracy, and you will find that these date back no further than the 1990s.
    1
  405. He wasn't present for Olympic's first voyage either. Do you consider that suspicious as well? The fact he owned IMM didn't mean that he was required to sail on every voyage of every IMM ship. Were you to look at Morgan's returns from Europe from 1904 to 1912, 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 that early only to attend a family wedding, heading back to Europe a few days later and staying there until late August." Those occasions when he return 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 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)
    1
  406. What was?
    1
  407. A court of law decided differently, and blamed the Hawke collision on the suction effect of Olympic's huge displacement. Fortunately, repairs were completed quickly (within seven weeks) at a cost of only £25,000
    1
  408. Did it ever occur to you that Mr. Brady is quite capable of locating and assessing pictures for himself? What pictures do you suggest disagree with his accurate assesssment? By the way, although some metallurgists have indeed suggested that the quality of the rivets and the steel was inferior to that of today, those same experts have also stated that both were the best quality that was available at the time. Olympic, built in the same yard of the same materials at the same time, seems to have had no problems for 23 years, or don't you care to discuss that?
    1
  409. The damage to Olympic was the fault of the Solent Pilot in charge of Olympic at the time. Thus, her insurance was invalidated.
    1
  410. No there isn't.
    1
  411. Perhaps the concept of the 'paragraph' passed you by?
    1
  412. I assume that you met many of the riveters who worked on the Olympics? I expect that they had all slowed up a bit from their peak in 1910 - 1912? 'I know all the parties and players involved.' You must be extremely old, and so must they. Please give my regards to Bruce Ismay next time you meet him! Feel free to present your evidence, as I am in need of a good laugh. Seriously, why do you people feel the need to post outright lies? Couldn't you find a more useful hobby, like knitting?
    1
  413. It would need to have been a very odd scammer who thought this one up. White Star were insured for only two thirds of Titanic's building costs, which meant that when she sank, the company not only lost a major asset and a reputation for safety, but also £500,000 at 1912 monetary values. Who suggested it to White Star, do you think? The Board of Cunard, perhaps?
    1
  414. What? She returned to sea in late November, 1911, and was thereafter a successful Atlantic Liner until withdrawal in 1934. She had made several more Atlantic crossings between December, 1911 & April 1912, and was in New York when Titanic left Southampton. You could, of course, look this up for yourself?
    1
  415.  @Tozzpot500  Out of interest, there have been seven more in the last hour, in the Type Two, on a thread begun by one charliefarley, headed 'Not surprised Smith decided to take a plunge with the ship.' I think this is the first time I have encountered someone who seems actually clinically insane!!
    1
  416. This wouldn't be mentioned in the video, because it is total invention on Gardiner's part. Had the stern of Olympic been displaced by 45 degrees, how was it that she returned to Southampton under her own power, and how was it that there were no photographs of this remarkable damage, or even accounts of it in reports or newspapers, at the time? Perhaps you might explain the rationale behind the suggestion that the Admiralty would order a Royal Navy captain to ram one of the great liners, which was carrying over 2,000 passengers and crew, including numerous prominent Americans, to see if it sank? Gardiner was inventing things to sell his book. What is your excuse? HMS Hawke was, by the way, where she was because she had just completed a short refit in Portsmouth, and was about to undertake sea trials. As Star Trek transporter technology was not around in 1911. in order to leave Portsmouth she was obliged to use the Solent. She had, therefore, every right to be where she was. Commander Blunt, as both Robin Gardiner & you ought to have known, was cleared of any responsibility for the collision as part of the findings of the Hearing following the incident. He was in the zone which made him eligible for promotion to Captain, and received his appointment to HMS Cressy in January, 1912. After, the verdict of the Hearing had been handed down.
    1
  417. Why would the insurance company, Lloyds, by the way, be 'in on' an insurance claim which cost them £500,000?
    1
  418. If you base your understanding on unquestioning acceptance of conspiracy myths invented in the 1990s, no wonder it is so wrong.
    1
  419.  @peetsnort  I'm convinced! Convinced, that is, that you might well think that Nandos Chicken owned Titanic.
    1
  420. Careful not to dribble on the keyboard, as you might need to get your carers to buy you a new one.
    1
  421.  @rencelani-ty2sc ' oh did I hurt your scumbags pommie feelings.' Not really. As I assume that you are from Australia, I suggest that you worry more about the state of your own nation before posting largely incoherent ravings about another.
    1
  422. The conspiracies only appeared in the 1990s, with the publication of an entertaining but largely fact free book by one Robin Gardiner, and the rise of social media, which enabled all sorts of strange people to post all sorts of bizarre videos, usually about subjects of which they were largely ignorant. Obviously, such videos were the subject of responses, both from sensible, informed people and, increasingly, from numerous oddballs.
    1
  423. Quite correct. Indeed, Olympic had been doing just that since the end of November, 1911.
    1
  424. Why not just read the Inspection Report? Then ask yourself how it was that Olympic was repaired, and back at sea, in seven weeks.
    1
  425. Almost as many people cancelled for Titanic as had cancelled for Olympic on her maiden voyage in 1911. The Federal Reserve nonsense was a 1990s created myth. No one aboard Titanic had expressed opposition to the Federal Reserve. The fire had been detected in Southampton, and dealt with at least a day before the collision. Nowhere in their evidence to the Inquiry did any stoker survivor state that if had caused any damage other than to bunker paintwork. If you must post nonsense, at least try to make it consistent nonsense.
    1
  426.  @Paul-f3i8y  HMS Hawke was also repaired fairly quickly, but was sunk by a U-Boat torpedo early in WW1.
    1
  427.  @Paul-f3i8y  You can find photographs of the damge to HMS Hawke on line. It looks quite impressive but the safety of the ship was never in doubt. Hawke was an old ship in 1911, and her outdated ram style bow was replaced with a straight one.
    1
  428. Wnat sort of 'scam' costs the scammers a major asset, their safety record, and £500,000 at 1912 monetary values?
    1
  429.  @lordhegamonster6931  Really? Do enlighten us as to how that happened. Assuming that you can manage more than six words per post, of course.
    1
  430. You drone on about Astor & Guggenheim. Why not simply make your point by providing one single piece of evidence which can be used to prove their opposition to the Federal Reserve? Good luck with that, because no real researcher has ever managed that feat. That is your opinion of Mr. Payne, is it? A member of a Secret Society? Upon what do you base that judgement? I assume that it hasn't occurred to you, in what seems to be your permanent state of delusion, that, unlike yours, his professional opinion might be of merit among we mere normals?
    1
  431. The mystery is why, when Robin Gardiner wrote his absurd book in the 1990s, comparatively rational people were willing to take it seriously. Probably a result of the growth of social media, when actual knowledge of a subject was no longer necessary in order to post crazed conspiracies about it, perhaps?
    1
  432. Yes.
    1
  433.  @ukraineunited56  I believe the reference was to the repairs undertaken by Harland & Wolff on RMS Olympic, although I am sure bigorange can speak for himself, should he so choose.
    1
  434. Or, as was in fact the case, Olympic's size resulted in a large amount of water being displaced, which created a suction effect that had drawn Hawke off course, and into her starboard quarter.
    1
  435. Janes Fenton, or Paddy the Pig, was simply a fantasist. He does not feature in any crew list or survivor list from Titanic. He had no known association with the ship. The only 'facts' he knew were fully available to anyone at the time he stated them. The story come from Frank Finch, a retired seaman living in New South Wales, Australia, who wrote a letter to the newspaper Northern Star that was published on the 31 July 1996. It was written in response to an article previously published on the 'switch' theory -no doubt due to the release of the book "The Riddle of the Titanic" in 1996. Frank Finch's letter paraphrases what his son Dennis recalled from a conversation he had in the early 1970s with an old sailor named James Fenton, also known as Paddy Fenton or "Paddy the Pig":
    1
  436. Watch the video and you will see that the 'theory' is comprehensively dismantled.
    1
  437. Au contraire, mon vieux. The forward end of 'B' deck on the wrecksite, with the irregularly spaced rectangular, windows, is diagnostic of the Titanic of 1912, and different from Olympic's appearance until after her post Titanic sinking refit, when she received the same uograde. Do try to think. Had this not been the case, wouldn't someone, just possibly, have mentioned it? By someone, of course, I mean a serious Titanic researcher or historian, or perhaps had bben involved in one of the many expeditions to the site?
    1
  438. Smith had no such record. Where did you get the idea from? How would 'a little modification' explain the differences i 'A' & 'B' decks, or the propeller blade on the wreck with 401 on it? I refer you to Occam's Razor.
    1
  439.  @ThomRealEstate-k1y  Then the author of the book is ill-informed about Smith & his career.
    1
  440.  @ThomRealEstate-k1y  Do buy a proper book. A tug did have a minor collision with Olympic in New York, caused by the suction effect of Olympic's great size. No tug was 'taken out.' When Olympic & HMS Hawke collided, Olympic was in the Solent, and in the charge of a Solent Pilot, not Captain Smith. If you read nonsense, then it is not surprising that you believe nonsense.
    1
  441. Odd, then, that neither he, nor any French explorer has ever seen fit to mention this since, isn't it?
    1
  442. They were sister ships, but far from identical. Improvements to Olympic's basic design were implemented in Titanic during her constuction, and later, in many cases, retrospectively made to Olympic.
    1
  443. 'Fraud Fraud Fraud.' Are you? Surprising that you would so openly admit it.
    1
  444.  @Tozzpot500  Actually, $125,000 or £25,000 Which equates to 1.67% of Olympic's building cost.
    1
  445.  @mjhbuckeye  I don't think he 'looks like' a nutcase. I suggest replacing 'looks like' with 'is'.
    1
  446.  @Dizzy19.  Do you remember the old days, when people actually debated a subject, rather than simply posting vague and meaningless attempts at insults? Moreover, not very good insults at that?
    1
  447. Unfortunately, many of the people who post on here are conspiracy fanatics who refuse to believe mere facts, or simply half wits who have stumbled across a conspiracy fantasy video and swallowed it whole.
    1
  448. Independent examination of the rivets by experts from Wood's Hole actually resulted in them being impressed by how reliable the rivets really were.
    1
  449.  @jackfrey47  Isn't it odd how supporters of conspiracy fantasies tend to resort to insults immediately when challenged. Go on, make an effort to debunk this video. I am, obviously, not the only one who would enjoy examining your efforts.
    1
  450. You mean the images which emerged, from nowhere and without provenance, in around the year 2000? The images which no Titanic expedition has ever claimed, or even commented upon? The images which even the creator of the myth, Robin Gardiner, denounced as fake? The images which were not even good CGI in 2000? Those pictures? Or the propeller blade which was never swapped, or the images of the forward end of 'B' deck which matches that of Titanic and differs from that of the Olympic of the time?
    1
  451. Captain Smith was not held responsible for the collision with HMS Hawke. This occurred in the Solent, and Olympic was in the charge of a Solent Pilot, George Bowyer, who was deemed to be at fault. Smith was White Star's senior captain, and had commanded every new White Star liner on her maiden voyage since 1904.
    1
  452. Especially when the supposed claim would have cost White Star a considerable amount in assets, reputation, & money.
    1
  453. Quite. But let's not also forget that 9/11 and the Titanic sinking were totallu unconnected.
    1
  454. No, they didn't.
    1
  455. He also had a very fertile imagination.
    1
  456. You shouldn't watch conspiracy fantasy videos and then swallow them whole. Astor, for one, had never expressed his views about the federal reserve. Nor, come to that, had Guggenheim. Straus had, by the way. He supported the idea.
    1
  457.  @kresimirzex2720  You really think that there is still some vast organisation monitoring the internet and attempting to conceal some nefarious plot surrounding the Titanic? Remarkable!
    1
  458.  @kresimirzex2720  Why would you think I was going to write that Astor was not aboard Titanic? What sources claim that Astor was opposing the Federal Reserve? There are precisely none, except the unsupported allegations of Conspiracy fantasists, dating from no earlier than the 1990s.
    1
  459. Perhaps you are unaware that the stern of Titanic is a distorted shambles? If Ballard really thought such a thing, why has he never simply said so? By the way, the keel was not bent, until the idea was invented in the mid 1990s in order to sell the switch theory to the gullible.
    1
  460. You do know that the alleged nameplate is a CGI fake, I hope? Since it appeared, in around 2000 or thereabouts, no exploration team has ever claimed it, nor even referred to it. Even the creator of the switch myth, Robin Gardiner, denounced it as false. Neither were the 'big shots' known to oppose the Fed.Two never expressed their opinions, whilst the third had spoken in support. This claim was invented, by conspirsacy theorists, in the 1990s.
    1
  461. Smith was not found guilty. The blame was placed on the Solent Pilot in charge of Olympic at the time.
    1
  462. Have you conspiracy fantasy enthusiasts all been watching the same video, without bothering to check any actual facts?
    1
  463. Perhaps because Hawke's steering gear did not fail?
    1
  464. Wherever did you get that false notion from? Both ships were insured for two thirds of their building costs, and that was what Lloyds paid out after Titanic sank.
    1
  465. Aside from the ship being pulled from her moorings being New York, not America, you make a host of valid points. Your later post will probably attract the ire of a host of obsessive conspiracy fantasists, however. Be prepared!
    1
  466. You really ought to watch the video before commenting upon it, don't you think?
    1
  467. There was no speculation about a damaged shaft. It was a fact. Hence the use of one intended for Titanic instead, in order to minimise Olympic's down time. Olympic was not 'written off.' She was back at sea from late November,1911, after which she had a long and successful career.
    1
  468. The phrases 'John Hamer' and 'impeccable research' not only do not belong in the same paragraph, they ought not to be allowed on the same Continent
    1
  469.  @nickh.4917  As best I recall, there was no mass increase in deaths among H & W employees immediately after the sinking.
    1
  470. Then people would conclude that you were 'odd'.
    1
  471.  @Tozzpot500  Do you ever get the feeling that, where these people who have watched a switcher or conspiracist video, swallowed it whole, and pronounced themselves instant experts, are concerned, actual facts and knowledge are of no interest at all to them?
    1
  472. Perhaps you might have watched the video before descending into rampant insanity?
    1
  473. Why would Smith have sailed if there really had been an 'uncontrollable' fire? How would crashing into an iceberg extinguish a fire which had beeb dealt with a day earlier? Wait a minute! You are being sarcastic, aren't you?
    1
  474. You must be a conspiracist? Your claim that, because all the available evidence contradicts what you would like to believe, it must have been doctored by 'THEM!' is characteristic of the breed.
    1
  475.  @tonyjones7372  'Just read the transcripts of the Enquiry.' If you really had, you would know that no such references to Olympic were made by any Titanic survivors. It is unwise to make things like this up when they can be checked with ease.
    1
  476.  @tonyjones7372  I don't need to 'act' clever. I have been to University, and left with a First in Modern History. Instead of resorting to insults, why don't you simply try to provide some evidence to support your nonsense, little fellow?
    1
  477.  @tonyjones7372  Tell you what, little chap. Why don't you prove me wrong by providing chapter and verse of all those 'able seamen' who regularly referred to Titanic as Olympic at either Inquiry? Good luck with that. As my old Professor, M. R. D. Foot, often said 'People who resort to insults tend to do so when they have either run out of arguments, or never actually had any.' Congratulations for proving him right. There were, by the way, 29 Able Seamen aboard Titanic. Would you like me to list the names of the survivors, and which lifeboat each was in?
    1
  478.  @tonyjones7372  As I wrote, I have read the minutes of both inquiries.I have copies of beth in my library. You still haven't been able to answer, I observe. Haven't you heard the maxim, 'when you are in a hole, stop digging?' Clearly, you haven't. Now, name any of the Titanic crewmen who referred to her as Olympic. You cannot, of course.
    1
  479.  @tonyjones7372  Still no answer. If it would help, I would be happy to name those Able Seamen from Titanic who survived, just so that you might look them up in the minutes in order to learn the truth about them. You are rather out of your depth, I suggest. Or do you still think that insults are a valid excuse for you ignorance?
    1
  480. What is?
    1
  481.  @eliel_360  Fair enough.
    1
  482. The supposed connection with the Federal Reserve was invented in the 1990s. Astor & Guggenheim never actually expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst Straus had spoken out as a supporter. Why not just look them up for yourself?
    1
  483.  @screeny_  What you appear to be saying is that you wish to believe in conspiracy theories, and you won't let mere facts hinder that belief.
    1
  484.  @screeny_  I thought the subject was Titanic?
    1
  485.  @screeny_  What is this 'Big Lie' of which you speak? Had I chosen to write about WMDs, I would have used an appropriate site. On the subject of your actual question, firstly, the names were erased because the newsreels were supposed to represent Titanic in Southampton, when they were actually of Olympic in New York. Hence, the port of registry, 'New York' might have been something of a giveaway. Secondly, the evidence-free Federal Reserve/Titanic connection was an invention of the 1990s. No suggestion of it at all predates the growth of social media. Passengers aboard were on their way to the US because that was were the ship was going. Had they been heading for Cairo, then that might have been suspicious. Finally, if you refer to cognitive dissonance you should first find out how ro spell it, and then find out what the term means. It is actually 'the discomfort a person feels when their behaviour does not align with their values or beliefs'. Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when a person holds two contradictory beliefs at the same time. Something which certainly does not apply to me, and never has.
    1
  486. No. That was a myth created on social media.
    1
  487. How was what happened a case of fraud? White Star, by the way, far from covered any loss. Unless you consider losing, a major asset, a reputation for safety, and £500,000 (at 1912 monetary values) acceptable?
    1
  488.  @bethbartlett5692  Astor, just like Guggenheim, never expressed any opinion about the Federal Reserve. Straus, however, did, when he spoke in favour of it in October, 1911. No-one collected a 'fortune' on insurance policies. Titanic cost £1.5 million to build, and was insured for £1 million.
    1
  489. Gardiner actually died in July, 2017.
    1
  490.  @likeisaid1947  Are you suggesting that, because this testimony disagrees with your assumptions, therefore they must all be lying? That might well be the first steps on the path to paranoia!
    1
  491.  @likeisaid1947  You haven't previously mentioned Mrs. Lines so what do you mean by that comment, please? However, as you ask, I regard her testimony as honest and credible. However, as it related to a conversation believed to have been between Smith & Ismay, and made no reference to the issue of increasing Titanic's speed, I fail to see the relevance.
    1
  492.  @likeisaid1947  Perhaps you might draw my attention to my 'previous comments and assertions were fabricated falsehoods.' Or as you are clearly one of a triumvirate working from the same script, or even from the same mind, perhaps you shouldn't bother to try?
    1
  493. What makes you think Smith 'hid in a room?' Morgan did not decide not to sail 'at the last second'. What he actually was going to do was mentioned in the NYT in March. 'Scorch marks' well forward of any bunker, and well above the waterline? What 'photographs of the sinking?' What 'important men' who opposed the Federal Reserve? The Titanic sank in April 1912; the Federal Reserve Act was passedin December, 1913. 'Six months?' Oh dear, another day another idiot!
    1
  494.  @screeny_  'iraq had super cannons and bio weapons WMD too right?..' You have the advantage of me, in that, evidently, you think I wrote that, whereas I have no recollection of it. Perhaps you might point me to when and where I did?
    1
  495.  @screeny_  I know damned well it was you, because I know equally damned well it wasn't me. Perhaps sarcasm is not a word in your vocabulary? I assess the concept of the 'big lie' on my assessment of whether there is, or is not, any credible evidence to support the allegation. As everyone should, although few Conspiracy Theorists ever do. In the case of my opinion about Titanic, it is based on a host of factors, the main ones being the total lack of credible evidence to support the idea, the vast amount of evidence which supports the contention that the wreck really is Titanic, and the fact that the claims of a conspiracy date back no further than the 1990s and the rise of social media, when it became unnecessary to have any knowledge in order to present a theory, however absurd. Still, feel free to avoid the issue, as you appear to be intent upon doing.
    1
  496.  @screeny_  So, you ask me for an answer, I give you an answer, and you tell me to calm down because I have? 'Far greater "conspriacies" have happpened even in out own lifetime.' That vould only be determined by examining them on a case by case basis, and on this site my only interest is correcting your errors about Titanic.
    1
  497. The verdict was reached by an independent civilian court. It was determined that, whilst RMS Olympic was at fault, White Star was not required to pay the costs of HMS Hawke's repair, because she was in the charge, at the time of the collision, of a Solent Pilot, not a servant of the White Star company.
    1
  498. That is a common misunderstanding, probably spread by switchers to explain the inconvenient, to them, presence of a propeller blade with the number 401 cast into it at the wrecksite. In fact, parts of a propeller SHAFT intended to be installed in Titanic were used, in order to speed up Olympic's return to revenue earning service, but never a propeller itself, as the Inspection Report of November 1911 made clear.
    1
  499. Actually, I believe he was a plasterer. This is part of his obituary from the 'Oxford Mail.' ROBIN Gardiner, who has died aged 70, wrote several books claiming the Titanic never actually sank in 1912, which divided opinion but were popular across the world. Mr Gardiner's meticulous research led him to conclude the Titanic was switched with its near-identical sister ship the Olympic shortly before the maiden voyage as part of an insurance scam. A plasterer for more than 20 years, the Barton man had one of his manuscripts accepted in the early 1990s, which started a writing career which spanned two decades. His wife Lynn said not everyone liked his theories but he 'stuck to his guns' and believed in his research and conclusions.
    1
  500.  @gokulgopan4397  Well, Lloyds shipping records demonstrated that the whaler Samson was nowhere near. Californian, a small, fully laden, freighter, was almost ludicrously unsuited for the role of the imaginary rescue ship. Lord was certainly criticised in court, not for cowardice but for his failure to react to the concerns of his officers, and for not seeking to investigate even to the extent of waking his wireless operator. Lusitania was not 'sent to be sunk.' She was lost because the Germans had recently instituted a policy of unrestricted submarine warfare. AS to the M & P letter claim. This appeared, with no provenance, in 2000 or thereabouts. No exploration team has ever claimed it, nor even referred to it, despite the sensation it would have made if one had. Moreover, even the creator of the myth, Robin Gardiner, denounced it as fake. You need to be a total fanatic to oppose the opinion of the creator of the fantasy to which you cling!
    1
  501. No. I am si8mply supporting your earlier comments
    1
  502. You really should watch the video before commenting on it. Had you done, you would have noticed how competently the myth was destroyed.
    1
  503. She was a successful liner, nicknamed 'Old Reliable', until the early 1930s, when the Great Depression and the consequent downturn in Atlantic traffic caused major difficulties for both White Star & Cunard. The British Government were only willing to bail them out if they merged, and as a result both Olympic and her old rival Mauretania were deemed surplus to requirements. Olympic went to Jarrow to be largely dismantled in 1935, with many of her fittings auctioned off locally, before breaking up in Inverkeithing was completed in late 2937.
    1
  504.  @ukraineunited5855  How is the question related to 'I thought Olympic also sunk, but it was dismantled. :)' Moreover, the question, on a different thread, was one I addressed to you.
    1
  505.  @ukraineunited5855  Actually, it is simply an accurate answer. But as you are posting these comments to me in an attempt to annoy me, rather than out of any genuine interest in the subject, you should have realised by now that it really isn't working.
    1
  506.  @ukraineunited5855 'Did you find the question annoying? Ahhh, sorry 😞 maybe it was too difficult.' Mae eich neges wedi ei nodi.
    1
  507. 'The theory is older than 1990 and it's BS, of course. BUT, this was 1912.' You really think that? I assume that you can refer us to pre-1990 references to this theory/fantasy. Ones which predate Gardiner's little book? The ships were seen together on two occasions, by the way. In October - November 1911, when the Olympic was photographed in Belfast with the partly completed Titanic, and for around five days in March, 1912, when Olympic was haveing a shed propeller blade replaced. Again, there are photographs of the two together.
    1
  508.  @scottysgarage4393  'The point was how few people ever saw them together or would have recognized any differences, or could have proven those differences'. Well, most of the workforce at H & W, and the crews of both ships, for a start. Photographs of both ships are fairly readily available, and show the differences between the two. In more recent times.the furniture auctioned off when Olympic was dismantled in the 1930s, which may still be seen and carries the yard number 400, and images of the wreck taken after her rediscovery, are definitive.
    1
  509.  @scottysgarage4393  Critical thinking skills involve assessing the available information, and making judgements based upon that information. Perhaps you haven't studied history? In this case, the first, silly reference to any switch, was made by one Robin Gardiner in the mid 1990s. Unfortunately, he failed to provide any credible evidence to support it. Studies of the wreck are critical, as the layout of 'A' & 'B' decks, as well as the cast number 401 on the propeller blade, simply supported what everyone knew already, which is that the wreck was that of Titanic. You might also not be aware that items auctioned off when Olympic was being dismantle in 1934-1937, and which may still be examined to this day, have the yard number 400 (Olympic) marked upon them? I am perfectly capable of discussing Titanic with you at any time. Shall we see who actually ends up looking foolish?
    1
  510.  @FMChimera  My point is the obvious one. That the Titanic sank because of her collision with an iceberg. There was no switch, no evil and wide-ranging plot, and not the slightest possibility of keeping those whom you believe 'in the know' silent. Feel free, of course, to seek to prove me in error.
    1
  511. Have you heard of Mr. William Swithin, also known as expattaffy1? You might consider viewing his magnum opus, 'Titanic never sank vol 2,' although you will probably need to sit in a darkened room with a strong drink for an hour or two thereafter, in bewilderment at the sheer lunacy of his claims. I have tried to discuss his ideas with him on more than one occasion, only to be dismissed as a 'paid shill, working for 'them' ' and then blocked from his site. He is, however, vastly entertaining, although largely by accident.
    1
  512. Please disregard my earlier comments about Mr.Swithin. When I looked at his site earlier today, I found this :- This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.
    1