Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Free Documentary - History" channel.

  1. 1). She carried more lifeboats than BoT regulations demanded. 2). She was designed to stay afloat with four of sixteen bulkheads compromised. Six were actually compromised. 3). No sea officer at the time would intentionally create a head-on collision. You are being wise after the even. 4). Wireless messages were not ignored. As the testimony of several master mariners at the British Inquiry confirmed, they would have acted exactly as Smith did. 5). What? 6). Californian's operator switched off at his usual time. One operator did not work 24 hours per day. The supposed 'rude comment' actually DDD in morse shorthand, merely meant 'clear the frequency.' Californian's operator, in later testimony, even confirmed that he did not regard the signal as 'rude.' 7). For what reason? Smith had taken the usual precautions (see 4). 8). Irrelevant, and even contradicted by your own 9). Binoculars were used to identify items which had already been spotted. 9). & 10). True. 11). Olympic used exactly the same construction materials, and was a successful liner for almost 25 years. No ship was likely to have survived what happened to Titanic. 12). She didn't. Five boilers were not connected.
    12
  2. There was a small fire in one of Titanic's 13 coal bunkers, which had been extinguished at least 24 hours before the collision, and which did not damage the hull of the ship. Moreover, the area of collision was well forward of the affected bunker.
    5
  3. There is no evidence for anyone conneted with Titanic or White Star ever making such comments. Do you really believe that, had someone actually said that, God would really have thought it a good idea to kill 1500 people who hadn't?
    5
  4. I suppose you can remember the name of this programme, as it contradicts the reports from every actual expedition team?
    4
  5. No, there weren't. Astor & Guggenheim had never expressed their views about the Federal Reserve, whilst Straus was a supporter. You have been suckered into believing a myth invented in the 1990s.
    4
  6. It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak, and remove all doubt. Alas, too late in your case.
    4
  7. 'Small missile?' In 1912? What planet do you live on?
    4
  8.  @Kalus_Saxon  Olympic was fully repaired and back at sea by late November, 1911. The inspection reports from the time make no suggestion that her keel was damaged, largely because she had a 92 feet beam, and HMS Hawke's bow penetrated no more than 6-8 feet into Olympic's side. Subsequently, she was repaired in about 7 weeks by Harland & Wolff, and, fully certified by the Board of Trade, was back on her Atlantic duties about five months before Titanic was completed. 'They painted titanic on it and sent it out to claim the insurance..' 'They' would need to do rather more than that. 'They' would need to re-build the forward end of 'A' & 'B' decks, as there were differences between the two ships. 'They' would also need to do this without the H & W workmen not knowing what they were doing. 'Prof is the amount of port holes on the bow. 14 on Olympic and 16 on titanic…' Oh dear, the greatest Canard of all. Both ships were designed with 14 portholes. After Olympic's first voyages, a number of improvements and modifications were made. Aside from 'A' & 'B'' decks mentioned above, the need for extra light & ventilation at the forward end of the port side was also identified, which resulted in the installation of two extra portholes. This happened to Titanic during her building, in late December 1911 or early January, 1912. The portholes were added to Olympic as well, at the time of her first refit. Surely you don't think that a ship at the time of her launch is the completed object, do you? White Star in 1911 was far from bankrupt. In fact, the company was the star in IMM's crown. Do you really believe that a company in financial difficulties would have just placed an order for the third ship in the class, as White Star did in November, 1911? Moreover, your whole insurance scam depends on your wrong assumption about Olympic. Without that, your scam claim falls apart. Certainly, a number of people did cancel their bookings for Titanic's maiden voyage. Almost as many, in fact, as had cancelled for Olympic's in 1911. What conclusions would you falsely draw from that? Moreover, if you have thought up a secret 'cunning plan' is it really a good idea to tell all and sundry all about it?
    3
  9. 'The three richest men in the world ,who opposed the set up of the federal reserve, were on board ?' Only if you believe a conspirasist video from the mid 1990s. Actually, Astor & Guggenheim had never expressed their opinions about the Fed., whilst in October 1911 Straus had spoken in support of the idea. Also, the idea of the switch, invented by Robin Gardiner in the late 1990s, has alsu been proven to be nonsense so many times by so many people that it is unworthy of response. You shouldn't believe everything you see in a switcher or conspiracist video.
    3
  10. Olympic never had a damaged keel. The claim originated in a book written in the mid 1990s. No contemporary evidence supports this nonsense. The post collision survey carried out by the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, and White Star does not refer to any such damage. Moreover, Olympic was repaired in less than two months, and was back on her Atlantic run by late November 1911, at a time when Titanic was still several months away from completion. There are even photos. of the two ships together in Belfast in October, 1911. Titanic is the one with parts of her superstructure not yet in place, unpainted, and with only one funnel fitted. Olympic, by the way, was at sea, returning from New York, when Titanic sank. How would you explain that? You really should not watch switcher videos and swallow them so foolishly.
    3
  11. Good idea. Paint over the name. That would work. After all, no-one would ever notice the many other differences between Titanic & Olympic, would they!
    3
  12. Five of Titanic's boilers were never connected. She was not, as several Master Mariners at the British Inquiry later testified 'going too fast.' Two lookouts in the Crow's Nest was the norm. There wasn't, ny the way, room for four anyway. Binoculars (or 'glasses') would probably actually have delayed any warning, as these were used to identify things already spotted with naked eye. The lifeboat drill was postponed, not cancelled. 18 of 20 boats were successfully launched, and the other two, both collapsibles, did float off the ship as she sank. Californian was stopped, but Carpathia wasn't. The mystery is where the hell did you get so much wrong information from.
    3
  13. Certainly there is a degree of idiocy involved. Most of it is in your post.
    3
  14. Was it a time-travelling U-boat. The first diesel-engined boat with even the theoretical possibility of reaching Newfoundland was U19, commissioned a year later. Even WW2 U-boats could not catch ocean liners steaming at 20+ knots. I won't even bother to ask you why a U-boat would attack a liner in 1912, of course.
    3
  15. Oh please! The iceberg was not visible because of flat calm conditions, at night. There is even a climatic condition called Cold Water Mirage which may have added to the problem. If Olympic was no longer insurable after being repaired following her ONE collision, how is it that she was at sea at the time of Titanic's sinking, and replied to her distress call, although too far away to help. Are you suggesting White Star sent an uncertified, uninsured, atlantic liner full of passengers to sea, and neither the Board of Trade nor Lloyds noticed? CaliforniaN was a cargo liner, carrying a mixed general cargo from Liverpool to Boston, in order to re-load from New Orleans with cotton bales. That was what Leyland Lines ships did. She had stopped because of sheet ice, and for no other reason. Lloyds actually paid out $5 million to White Star. The Olympics had cost $7.5 million to build. This is documernted. No propeller was ever taken from Titanic and fitted to Olympic. Firstly because the blades of the outer propellers on the two ships had different pitches, but secondly because Olympic's propeller was not damaged in the Hawke collision, only her propeller shaft, which was replaced using parts from the incomplete Titanic, and which is documented. The propeller swap was only claimed when switcher fanatics needed to explain the inconvenient presence of a Titanic propeller on the wreck of Titanic. The letters M & P are of course conclusive. Always assuming that images which first appeared in the 2000s, without any provenance, which haven't been claimed by any of the several expeditions to the wrecksite, and which are so obviously computer generated, may be taken as proof, that is. Did you actually get anything right? Yes, the manner in which you repeated, parrot-fashion, something you swallowed from a switcher video, was quite good.
    3
  16. It is still early, but that is the daftest comment of the day so far. Congratulations!
    3
  17. 1). There was no-one aboard who anyone sought to assassinate. 2). The number of people who cancelled their bookings was around the same as those who cancelled for Olympic's maiden voyage in 1911. Nor did they cancel at 'the last minute.' 3). Did you even bother to look at the list of wealthy people who did die? 4). Try to think. If you have created a cunning plan ro kill someone, would you really tell many other people about it? I refer you to the Gunpowder Plot for further information. 5). In general terms, don't be gullible enough to watch a conspiracy video and swallow it whole. Try, for once, to think for yourself.
    3
  18.  @Ununpentius  You mean the photographs of the forward end of 'B' deck on the wreck, which show a pattern of irregular rectangular windows matching exactly known photographs of Titanic, and which are different from the more regular, square windows of Olympic in the same area, also from contemporary photographs? Or perhaps the number 401 on one of the propeller blades, also diagnostic of Titanic, when compared to the 400 of Olympic? Those photographs, old chap? Don't you think, just possibly, that one of the several diving expeditions to the wreck might perhaps have noticed had there been something 'odd' about the wreck? Or perhaps, as a confirmed switcher, you choose not to think at all?
    3
  19. A good try, but you need to be aware that the half-baked conspiracists who infest these sites are not interested in facts or reason. They have simply watched a video or two, have appointed themselves experts, and are impervious to discussion or debate.
    3
  20. You believed that silly switcher video, then? How remarkably gullible of you.
    3
  21. You are mistaking something from a movie with reality.
    3
  22. Perhaps you might tell us which navy had a submarine capable of catching Titanic, or with the endurance to reach her? Titanic was insured for two thirds of her building cost, and was following the normal course for liners of the day. You really cannot be as gullible as you present yourself, surely?
    3
  23. Perhaps you are unaware that Olympic had been back at sea since late November, 1911, when Titanic was far from complete? Or perhaps you have simply watched a switcher video and swallowed it whole, as a number of other ill-informed fools have done?
    3
  24. Only if you believe the movie rather than the facts.
    3
  25. Hello, Mr. Swithin. Still fantasising away, then?
    3
  26. Then enlighten us all.
    3
  27. Not correct. The Board of Trade specified the minimum number of lifeboats, not the maximum. Titanic carried more than the minimum. Her original designer, Alexander Carlisle, expected that the Board of Trade would amend the regulations, and designed the Olympics with the CAPABILITY to carry 48 lifeboats. The BoT did not introduce any change in regulations, so only 20 were carried. To use modern terms, the Olympics were equipped for, but not with, 48 boats.
    3
  28. Nonsense. You have been suckered in by Conspiracist drivel.
    3
  29.  @stanhelsing4995  Odd how people who urge others to 'do the research' tend to be the ones who have done the least themselves. My old University professor, M.R.D. Foot, used to say that when people resort to insults, it generally means that they are unsure of their argument. Thanks for proving old Michael correct.
    3
  30.  @mich6425  That is the problem. I have, as a maritime historian, done a considerable amount of research over many years. On thing I have discovered is that people like you, who urge others to 'do some research' have usually done the least themselves.
    3
  31. You really shouldn't watch conspiracy videos and believe them unquestioningly. 1). Morgan never intended to sail on Titanic. He intended to be in Venice on 23 April, and couldn't do both. There was a news item in the New York Times from March, 1912, confirming the Venice visit. 2). Of the three financiers lost on Titanic, two had never stated their opinions about the FR, and the third was actually in favour. As the typical conspiracy theorist might say. 'I don't like the facts, so I will invent some new ones.'
    3
  32.  @alvarovega2487  Why do you take offence at people with more knowledge than you educating the less well informed?
    3
  33.  @rollcall-  Drivel. What 'watch tower crew?' What 'Captain smiths personal Olympic crew?' Nonsense. What do you mean by 'all wireless activity was refused?' Californian only had one operator, who simply went off duty. There was, at the time no requirement for trhe comparatively few ships with wireless to maintain a 24 hour watch. Titanic's operators continued to transmit distress calls until the power failed. 'The wireless controller murdered his workmate when his workmate "tried to put a life jacket on"... more like... tried the contact the ships beside them.' Insanity! You are either an idiot, a lunatic, or mentally affected. Perhaps a combination of the three?
    2
  34. Think again. Haven't you heard of the Royal Navy?
    2
  35. Ah yes! RMS Olympic. The 'Old Reliable' which experienced a wonderful career, in peace and war, spanning 23 years.
    2
  36. You are, presumably, unaware of the flawed sterns of most WW2 German heavy surface warships?
    2
  37. Isn't impressive how, the dafter a comment is, the more people like you use exclamation marks and capital letters? 1). J. P. Morgan was never tried for anything. 2). Olympic and Titanic were both at sea when Titanic hit the iceberg. Olympic was en route from New York to Southampton. 3). There is no proof that either Astor or Guggenheim opposed the Fed. That is a myth invented in 1995. If you can provide a contemporary source, kindly provide it. The third financier, Straus, by the way, had gone on record as a supporter of the Fed. Go on, prove me wrong.
    2
  38. 'Someone will shed light on this hopefully soon.' You do know that Titanic sank around 110 years ago? Don't you?
    2
  39. What is fact is that Olympic, after being repaired, was back at sea in late November, 1911. She had Board of Trade certification, and was insured by lloyds of London. Without either, she could not have put to sea. Titanic in November, 1911, was still some five months from completion. All these facts are readily available to check. A shame that you seemingly chose not to look them up.
    2
  40.  @donaldmarcus9655  But a start can be made by disregarding the nonsense touted by obsessive switchers and conspiracists, and simply looking at the evidence.
    2
  41.  @denniswhite7736  Having read all your posts, might I urge you to get out more often?
    2
  42.  @SuperGiantGeckosLLC  Oh look! Immediately resorting to what you believe are insults. A sure sign of lack of confidence in the strength of your argument. How sad. I had hoped for a real debate, as I find conspiracists vastly entertaining.
    2
  43. Why would God confuse a phrase used in a movie with fact?
    2
  44.  @backsweet  In the British Inquiry, questions 18224-19073 were addressed to Ismay. There was never any suggestion that he had any influence over the design. The design of the ship was the responsibility of Alexander Carlisle, and then Thomas Andrews after Carlisle retired. In his evidence to the British Inquiry, Carlisle stated that he expected the Board of Trade to require a greater of lifeboats for ships the size of the Olympics, but no such instruction was forthcoming from the Board, even though Carlisle's design could accommodate 64 lifeboats. Carlisle never suggested that White Star attempted to influence that decision. In the US Inquiry, Ismay was questioned on days 1 & 11. With the same outcome. Ismay was a businessman, not a marine architect
    2
  45. Nionsense. Astor & Guggenheim had never expressed their views on the Federal Reserve, whilst Straus had spoken in support. You have been watching conspiracist videos, haven't you?
    2
  46. They were originally fitted with 25, later increased to 40. I believe some later ones carried as many as 70, but 127 seems unlikely, unless they were able to re-stock at sea.
    2
  47.  @russcooke5671  No. I will continue to post proven and verifiable facts about the sinking of Titanic in response to anyone, like you, who writes claims which border on lunacy, and then squirms in his seat trying to avoid the issue.
    2
  48. Actually, more people cancelled for Olympic's maiden voyage in 1911 than did for Titanic's. The insurance fraud is another myth. Lloys paid out £1 million for a ship which cost £1.5 million to build. Thus, White Star lost, in addition to their safety record, £500,000. There were many binoculars aboard. As lookouts only used them to identify something they had previously seen, they would have made no difference. Why Californian failed to act, after her captain had been alerted to Titanic's rockets by his officers, is a question for Captain Lord.
    2
  49. Why do you people insist upon writing from a position of ignorance? At the time of Olympic's collision with HMS Hawke, both were in the Solent. Olympic was in the charge of a Solent Pilot, who was judged responsible for the collision. Smith's role was also considered, and he was exonerated of any blame.
    2
  50.  @JohnS-il1dr  No, he didn't. He never intended to travel on Titanic, as he was committed to attend an event in Venice on 23 April. There is an article in the New York Times of Thursday 28th March 1912 revealing that i "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. Put simply, Morgan's alleged cancellation is merely an unsubstantiated urban myth, created to support a false conspiracy theory. As Titanic historian Mark Chirnside has written, 'When the Titanic sailed on her maiden voyage in April 1912, the number of passengers that she was carrying was very similar to the number that was booked onto Olympic for her maiden voyage the year before. It’s natural that there would be cancellations and while more than fifty might sound like a high number it’s hard to see that there is much significance in this fact. If a number of people had cancelled because of some sort of fear of a switch or insurance scam going on, it seems very likely that someone would have spoken out after the disaster. There is no record of anyone doing so.'
    2