The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem with google is that, if you are ignorant of the subject, you might find yourself quoting crazy lunatic 9/11 truther and nuclear bomb denier Anders Bjorkman.
 
carlitos said:
Feeling like you can remember traumatic events clearly, correctly and in graphic detail, as if in slow-motion, can be a symptom of PTSD.
Click to expand...

Why would you want to stop a survivor of a public transport tragedy from giving testimony at a select committee. The Grenfell Tower victims were allowed to.
 
Vixen said:
I didn't say it was rammed by a submarine. Margus Kurm former Chief Estonian Prosecutor is making that claim and as a current affairs news item, I am reporting his claim, as are the newspapers.
Click to expand...

But you aren't just casually reporting it. You're trying to take your critics to task for allegedly being so afraid of this claim and unwilling to examine it or let it be examined by others. You clearly think his accusation proves some point. When your critics examine the claim and give you good reasons to disbelieve it, and opine why this former official may have made it, if not on the strength of the evidence for it, you completely ignore it.
 
JayUtah said:
That's the phenomenon known as memory amplification. However, as the researchers I cited pointed out, vividness is not the same as accuracy. They go on to study the effects of memory amplification on memory malleability. Subjects who have more vivid memories due to such effects as PTSD do not have more accurate memories.
Click to expand...

As I said, nobody is expecting accuracy when someone is in a situation of high danger. That doesn't mean they have nothing to relate at all.
 
JayUtah said:
Whereas I have read both editions of Loftus' textbook and several dozen of her published papers. Which of us is more qualified to summarize her research?
Click to expand...

IAs I said, I don't wish to disrespect Loftus but psychologists who go to court to help get criminals off charges in exchange for money are not my cup of tea.
 
Vixen said:
As I said, nobody is expecting accuracy when someone is in a situation of high danger. That doesn't mean they have nothing to relate at all.
Click to expand...

Your claim was that witnesses to a traumatic event were more likely to remember it clearly. That's the claim for which I require evidence.
 
JayUtah said:
But you aren't just casually reporting it. You're trying to take your critics to task for allegedly being so afraid of this claim and unwilling to examine it or let it be examined by others. You clearly think his accusation proves some point. When your critics examine the claim and give you good reasons to disbelieve it, and opine why this former official may have made it, if not on the strength of the evidence for it, you completely ignore it.
Click to expand...

Look, posters are sauing it is a conspiracy theory that the vessel collided with a submarine. I am merely pointing out that hello, the Estonian State Prosecutor was making that claim not some nerd on ISF.
 
Vixen said:
IAs I said, I don't wish to disrespect Loftus but psychologists who go to court to help get criminals off charges in exchange for money are not my cup of tea.
Click to expand...

We can discuss your distaste for legal due process in another thread. I cited four authorities who disputed your point. Far from avoiding disrespect to Loftus, you trashed her before you even knew who she was or what stature she had in the field. Her textbook contains eleven chapters, only one of which deals with the implications of eyewitness testimony for the legal system. The other three authorities you just ignored altogether.
 
Vixen said:
He has travelled the world and he is quoted in the documentary by Graham Philips as saying he is knowledgeable about marine matters. How do you know he wasn't once in the Navy?
Click to expand...

Former servicemember here. Armed service membership does absolutely nothing to give you experience outside your particular specialty. "Maybe he was in the navy" is not even remotely close to "he has relevant experience as a marine engineer".
 
JayUtah said:
We can discuss your distaste for legal due process in another thread. I cited four authorities who disputed your point. Far from avoiding disrespect to Loftus, you trashed her before you even knew who she was or what stature she had in the field. Her textbook contains eleven chapters, only one of which deals with the implications of eyewitness testimony for the legal system. The other three authorities you just ignored altogether.
Click to expand...

You are the one who is claiming that the survivors' accounts are worthless and you keep trying to direct me to 'authorities' when I already know about the pitfalls of eyewitness accounts. As I said, these survivors are not appearing in court. They wanted to have their stories told, like Magnus of Ludvig. If he says his parents were left standing frozen to the spot, how dare anyone come along and accuse him of a 'false memory'!
 
Vixen said:
Why would you want to stop a survivor of a public transport tragedy from giving testimony at a select committee. The Grenfell Tower victims were allowed to.
Click to expand...

Because their testimony is not germane to the committee's inquiry, seems like an obvious reason not to waste the committee's time. If the victims want to get their story out there, I'm sure there's no shortage of media outlets who'd be happy to organize a press conference. But unless the committee's inquiry is specifically about the victim's experiences, why invite their testimony at all?
 
theprestige said:
Former servicemember here. Armed service membership does absolutely nothing to give you experience outside your particular specialty. "Maybe he was in the navy" is not even remotely close to "he has relevant experience as a marine engineer".
Click to expand...

All he was saying was that he knows what a bow looks like when he sees one. He said he is well familiar with ships and has a good sense of direction. However, the layout of the Estonia was a nightmare for him Why would he lie about something as trivial as that?
 
Vixen said:
Look, posters are sauing it is a conspiracy theory that the vessel collided with a submarine. I am merely pointing out that hello, the Estonian State Prosecutor was making that claim not some nerd on ISF.
Click to expand...

Government officials are incompetent nincompoops all the time.

The Estonian State Prosecutor is making a conspiracy theory claim. Do you disagree?
 
Vixen said:
Look, posters are sauing it is a conspiracy theory that the vessel collided with a submarine. I am merely pointing out that hello, the Estonian State Prosecutor was making that claim not some nerd on ISF.
Click to expand...

Insult noted.

Yes, we know you're citing a former prosecutor's endorsement of this conspiracy theory as evidence that it is more likely to be true. And contrary to your claims, we are engaging with the theory, and specifically from the standpoint of a prominent official having said it. The rebuttal is that it doesn't matter how fervently he believes it on the basis of crew interviews if the physical evidence doesn't allow for it. All you can manage to come up with to rehabilitate Kurm's endorsement is to speculate that he might have information that no one knows about.
 
theprestige said:
Because their testimony is not germane to the committee's inquiry, seems like an obvious reason not to waste the committee's time. If the victims want to get their story out there, I'm sure there's no shortage of media outlets who'd be happy to organize a press conference. But unless the committee's inquiry is specifically about the victim's experiences, why invite their testimony at all?
Click to expand...

Well, I am arguing it is germane because they dispute what is in it. The JAIC should at least be open to amendments and corrections. It was a passenger ship so the passengers' experience is also germane. Can't just take it for granted that the crew were the self-painted heroes they portray themselves as. Their testimony should have been rigorously cross-examined.
 
theprestige said:
Because their testimony is not germane to the committee's inquiry, seems like an obvious reason not to waste the committee's time. If the victims want to get their story out there, I'm sure there's no shortage of media outlets who'd be happy to organize a press conference. But unless the committee's inquiry is specifically about the victim's experiences, why invite their testimony at all?
Click to expand...

Ah but when they go to a press conference they become 'loonie' conspiracy theorists because the great unwashed masses won't believe anything unless Rupert Murdoch gives it a stamp of approval.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom