• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
So erm, knowing of the smuggling of Russia military secrets, the waters were never (officially) tested for potentially elevated radiation levels. Bearing in mind there was quite a lot of smuggling of radioactive materials going on from the decommissioned ex-Soviet base at Paldiski in Estonia.
.
Click to expand...

What is your evidence for this?

What kind of 'radioactive materials'?
 
Vixen said:
So what is this all about, then...
Click to expand...

Do you have scientific data to show that such attempts to train people to be better observers actually results in them being better observers? I already conceded that such techniques as recording observations as soon as possible result in better records of the event. But these are not techniques unique to police, nor are police more adept at doing so than others. Nor is there any evidence that any such techniques were employed by the officers whose testimony you cited.

Don't just take Officer Fagersten's word for it or her police colleague.
Click to expand...

You cited those two officers' testimony as examples of police testimony that was "precise and detailed." I showed you what was imprecise about it. I showed you how the reported details were inconsistent. I showed you how testimony offered was conclusory and, if presented in a court of law, would be objectionable.

If you now want to withdraw your evidence and concede the point, then do so.
 
Vixen said:
It was the middle of the night. There are no street lights in the middle of the sea. She and her colleagues craned their necks to look out of the window to see what seemed to have collided with the ship.

I should hope that a cop knows when something has collided with them.
Click to expand...

What is his experience with ship collisions?
 
Vixen said:
I've been to Niagara Falls and I have been on the deck of a ship during stormy weather, so you tell me.

2,000 tonnes is the potentail capaicty of the car deck. Hence, if the ramp has given way then that is how much seawater surged in and it will not have been gentle.
Click to expand...

Who apart from you thinks 2000 tons of water came in at one go?

How loud should it be?
 
Vixen said:
It is a shame then, that you haven't evaluated them.
Click to expand...

Except that I have -- at length -- and your only answer is to repeat your faith in one other person's dubiously-applicable credentials.

Do you have anything to say to the rest of that post, or are we relegated to single-sentence frantic dismissals when you can't address the arguments?
 
Vixen said:
Maybe not for PC Plod on the beat but the ones who rise through the ranks as detectives likely do have better cognitive skills. I've worked with former detectives ('investigators) and they all had the knack of sizing someone up at almost at a glance. Otherwise they would not have lasted long with all the crooks pulling wool over their eyes.
Click to expand...

How would that give them experience with ships sinking?
 
theprestige said:
It's not a question of the quality of the source. It's a question of the quality of your faith in the source.

A named source can be cross-examined, and their testimony can be found inadequate. That's what we've been doing here. Your rebuttal has been a superstitious appeal to their credentials, rather than an intellectually honest examination of their claims as such.

---

For what it's worth, as far as I'm concerned an anonymous source is functionally equivalent to the reporter being the source.
Click to expand...


Not my 'superstitious appeal', more others demanding to know what their credentials are. You haven't given any specifics so I'll assume the claim is so vague as to be meaningless.

If people wish to disregard the testimony of 29 survivors (of just 137) that is certainly their prerogative. However, I would argue they are the blind stonewallers and 'superstitious townsfolk with pitchforks and torches', terrified of anyone ruffling their comfortably numb existence and dependency on platitudes.
 
JayUtah said:
You didn't address the point. The witness made a conclusory statement instead of simply reporting the facts.



In your model of police reporting, a cop should know when to report observations rather than to drawn unwarranted conclusions about what unseen cause produce them.
Click to expand...

You will note the wording is in the third person so that is the summing up of probably Bengt Schager, the Psychologist hired to edit the survivors' comments, who ended up resigning.

So do have a read of what Mr. Schager wrote edited, then let us all know which bits you disapprove of in Ms Fagersten's quality of police reporting.

https://web.archive.org/web/2004033...al report/enclosures HTM/enc 2/21.3.3.330.htm
 
Vixen said:
Not my 'superstitious appeal', more others demanding to know what their credentials are. You haven't given any specifics so I'll assume the claim is so vague as to be meaningless.
Click to expand...

I'll be specific then. You presented the testimony and opinion of an academic expert in ship collisions. Other similarly professionally qualified people pointed out problems with the expert's claims in considerable detail. You ignored every single problem and simply restated the academic's credentials as your only rebuttal. Do you see why that qualifies as a "superstitious" rebuttal and not a substantive one?
 
Vixen said:
You will note the wording is in the third person...
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. You presented the testimony as stated and asked us to agree with you that it was detailed and precise, as stated. We could not do so, for the reasons given, which remain unaddressed by you. Belatedly giving us excuses for why it is not consistently detailed or precise simply concedes the point you were trying to make.
 
JayUtah said:
Cognitive skills are not the issue. Can you cite the science to back up the new position you've backpedaled to? Or is it just more assumed, made-up crap?
Click to expand...

Please refer to the type of exams police have to pass, as cited earlier.


At least we can expect that unlike Silver Linde, the star witness, and the other crew, they had no motive to present themselves in a good light. Running around trying to help the passengers yet Paul Barney says when he got in his life raft, two crew were in survivors suits.

So yeah, those two cops who lost most of their colleagues in the tragedy are totally unreliable, as compared to the drug smuggler, star JAIC witness.
 
Vixen said:
Please refer to the type of exams police have to pass, as cited earlier.
Click to expand...

That is not controlled scientific evidence. I know what the science says. The test to which you refer simply determines whether the candidates observational abilities meet a certain criterion. It does not determine whether any training or exercise has improved that ability, or whether their abilities are any better than the population.

So yeah, those two cops who lost most of their colleagues in the tragedy are totally unreliable, as compared to the drug smuggler, star JAIC witness.
Click to expand...

You seem really fond of character assassinations and straw men when the science contradicts your beliefs. Why devolve to such emotionally laden language? You claimed that police are more reliable witnesses than non-police and should be believed over witnesses in other professions. The science agrees with you only in the specialized way I discussed above, which is not germaine to shipping accidents.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Er, gale force 9 storm. Who can possibly imagine that without being there?
Click to expand...

Why is the storm suddenly relevant? You're making representations about how loud a particular water inflow event would be. As usual, the only support you offer for your opinion is your uninformed say-so.
 
Vixen said:
The divers are not named so I suspect it was Braidwood himself, although he was probably quite elderly by then.
Click to expand...

He was born in 1938 so would have been 56 at the time. It is specifically stated in the reports that he was asked to judge the video footage and the lab results. If he had been utilised to do the dive as well, I have no doubt that would have been mentioned. They rely on his credentials, why would they hide his involvement in the dive?

Captain_Swoop said:
You are avoiding the question.
I ask again, why would the Swedish Navy leave unexploded ordnance on the wreck?
Click to expand...

I have no experience with explosives and have no idea what that package was. Saying that, not knowing the reason why it was left doesn't automatically mean it wasn't an explosive. I do find it curious the alleged explosives subsequently disappeared from future video footage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom