• 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.
JayUtah said:
If you are paraphrasing your source from memory, then you don't get to argue from the position that this is what your source said. There is nothing in the testimony you attribute to Arikas that supports the surface collision hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Well no, because first he wants to construct a 3-D model of the wreck from the 15,000 - 25,000 images taken. Then he will begin to analyse the damage.

He hasn't even started yet.
 
LondonJohn said:
I can and I have. If you're accurately representing his personal opinions, then he was probably not fit to have been handling this investigation in the first place.

(You do know, don't you, that some pretty eminent and well-qualified structural engineers maintain to this day that the Twin Towers were brought down by Thermite charges which were probably placed by a US Government agency....?)
Click to expand...

Completely irrelevant.
 
LondonJohn said:
What I'm struggling to understand is a) why Vixen is apparently so concerned (to the point of near-anger, it seems) about what Svensson did versus what he's credited with having done, and b) what difference Vixen believes any of this might make to the cause of the sinking and the post-incident narrative?
Click to expand...

Do keep up. RO and I were discussing the mysterious case of the Estonian crew listed as survivors and whose names were then deleted without any explanation as to how they were named in the first place as survivors.
 
Vixen said:
Well I did have to do Physics for five years at school.
Click to expand...
But you can't demonstrate any competence in it. At all. None. Plus, previously you claimed your physics education didn't go any farther than your O-levels. You were very sure at the time -- rightly so -- that I would find many errors in your attempt to answer a physics problem that pertained to your claim.

Are you now claiming to be a physics expert? Are you now attempting to base an argument on your own profession of expertise?
 
Vixen said:
What? Side fender? So you are now admitting that the hole in the starboard is below the water line after all. Snookered.
Click to expand...


Oh well, this is very embarrassing for me and a fabulous "gotcha" moment for you.

Except....

...the exact opposite is actually the case.


(It's sadly apparent that you don't know what a ship's side fenders are, including whereabouts they're always placed in relation to the ship's waterline)
 
Vixen said:
Well no, because first he wants to construct a 3-D model of the wreck from the 15,000 - 25,000 images taken. Then he will begin to analyse the damage.



He hasn't even started yet.
Click to expand...
That didn't stop him from noting a similarity between the observed damage and the seafloor and saying so to the press.
 
JayUtah said:
But you can't demonstrate any competence in it. At all. None. Plus, previously you claimed your physics education didn't go any farther than your O-levels. You were very sure at the time -- rightly so -- that I would find many errors in your attempt to answer a physics problem that pertained to your claim.

Are you now claiming to be a physics expert? Are you now attempting to base an argument on your own profession of expertise?
Click to expand...

No not at all but you can't claim I am totally ignorant because at least I understand Archimedes Principle.
 
Vixen said:
Completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Erm, I think you meant "completely relevant".

See: you were using an appeal to Meister's authority and position, as a justification in and of itself that his personal opinions could/should not be considered conspiracy theories.

At which point I disabused you of that notion by noting that there were/are a good few fairly eminent people in relevant professions who happen to believe in the most absurd and ridiculous conspiracy theories wrt the 9/11 attacks.

QED, Vixen. QED.
 
JayUtah said:
That didn't stop him from noting a similarity between the observed damage and the seafloor and saying so to the press.
Click to expand...

It was a descriptive narrative.

You do understand what descriptive means? It is about describing the scene but tells you nothing about the plot, the prognosis or the ending.
 
LondonJohn said:
Erm, I think you meant "completely relevant".

See: you were using an appeal to Meister's authority and position, as a justification in and of itself that his personal opinions could/should not be considered conspiracy theories.

At which point I disabused you of that notion by noting that there were/are a good few fairly eminent people in relevant professions who happen to believe in the most absurd and ridiculous conspiracy theories wrt the 9/11 attacks.

QED, Vixen. QED.
Click to expand...

Were those 9/11 truthers actually on the Public Inquiry committee into the disaster? No, they were not.

Andi Meister got to see the evidence.
 
Vixen said:
It was a descriptive narrative.

You do understand what descriptive means? It is about describing the scene but tells you nothing about the plot, the prognosis or the ending.
Click to expand...

Well, if 'force and 'impact' can be synonymous I have to assume that 'descriptive' and 'incorrect' are equally synonymous.
 
Vixen said:
No not at all but you can't claim I am totally ignorant because at least I understand Archimedes Principle.
Click to expand...

You haven't demonstrated that you have. Nor have you demonstrated that any of your critics do not. In any case, why claim to have many years of schooling in a subject if you did not expect to be considered competent in it?

If you do not claim expertise in physics, then would you consider it possible that you have inaccurately paraphrased your source from memory?
 
Vixen said:
It was a descriptive narrative.

You do understand what descriptive means? It is about describing the scene but tells you nothing about the plot, the prognosis or the ending.
Click to expand...

You can call it a "descriptive narrative" all you want, but that does not change its essential nature. If he notes that the damage matches a thing nearby, how does that fail to suggest a plot point in which the nearby thing caused the damage? Further, you specifically cited Arikas to support a hypothesis of a surface collision. It is disingenuous to cite a source in support of a hypothetical plot point in your favor, and then deny to your critics the ability to cite the same evidence in favor of a different plot point.
 
Are the missing crewmen the ones that shot the captain?

What was the point of shooting him?

Was he part of the conspiracy?

Was the tattoo man one of the hijackers?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Are the missing crewmen the ones that shot the captain?

What was the point of shooting him?

Was he part of the conspiracy?

Was the tattoo man one of the hijackers?
Click to expand...

It was Colonel Mustard, on the Bridge, with a Gun. Apparently.

It's just as plausible as the rest of the speculative fiction being produced to retcon with snippets of newly learned information. Who needs subject matter expertise when you can do that instead. If only I'd known that, I could have skipped many years of service.

Anybody want to buy Vols 1-4 of the Admiralty Manual of Seamanship?
 
Kid Eager said:
It was Colonel Mustard, on the Bridge, with a Gun. Apparently.

It's just as plausible as the rest of the speculative fiction being produced to retcon with snippets of newly learned information. Who needs subject matter expertise when you can do that instead. If only I'd known that, I could have skipped many years of service.

Anybody want to buy Vols 1-4 of the Admiralty Manual of Seamanship?
Click to expand...

I aready have then three different editions from the 60s 70s and 80s
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom