• 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:
No, congratulations to those who believe the JAIC can't be wrong and therefore the decision to reopen the investigation must be a conspiracy theory, even though it is three sovereign nations who made this decision.
Click to expand...

Feigned concern is just the best kind isn’t it? Alas, you have reaped what you have sown. You won’t be running out of straw for quite a while…
 
Vixen said:
The number of passenger survivors who heard crashes in addition to those who heard 'bangs' and/or crashes is at least 34 out of 79.

It is possible that those passengers on the lowest decks, who paradoxically seem to have got out faster than many - although those on the upper decks had a much improved probability of getting out alive - heard the bow visor 'banging on the bulkhead like a chimpanzee' as the lowest deck cabins were towards the front of the vessel. However, that doesn't prove that the bow visor fell off or came loose BEFORE the series of possible explosions (as espoused by Braidwood et al). The conclusion that the bow visor came loose/fell off because of a few strong waves - when the Baltic is a wavy sea and the designers would have allowed for this factor - is rather like claiming you crashed your car because your wing mirror came loose, as evidenced that it is lying on the ground a few metres away from the collision you were in.
Click to expand...

You already told us that the bow visor was faulty and leaking.
It wasn't a 'few strong waves' it was fourteen years of 'strong waves'

It would be like claiming you crashed your car because the track rod end failed after fourteen years of banging over pot holes.
 
LondonJohn said:
Yes, but... now I'm thrown into all sorts of doubt when I remember Lulu's Eurovision-winning song "Boom Bang-a-Bang". Is she referring to an explosion here? Or is she perhaps referring to an explosion (The "boom" part), followed maybe by the sounds of dislodged masonry falling on vehicles (the "bang-a-bang" part)?

(Then again, it's made clear in the song that this title phrase refers solely to her own heart. And I'm sure I saw her on live TV a year or so ago - so I'm judging it unlikely that her heart actually exploded.)
Click to expand...

One's heart never goes, 'boom-bang-a-bang, boom-bang-a-bang loud in my ear' - a gross exaggeration for the purpose of trying to win the Eurovision Song Contest. 'Goodness Gracious Me' is more accurate with 'eet goes boom-boody-boom, boody-boom-boody-boom' as that is more closely true of how the heart syncopates. No bangs, no explosions.
 
Vixen said:
One's heart never goes, 'boom-bang-a-bang, boom-bang-a-bang loud in my ear' - a gross exaggeration for the purpose of trying to win the Eurovision Song Contest. 'Goodness Gracious Me' is more accurate with 'eet goes boom-boody-boom, boody-boom-boody-boom' as that is more closely true of how the heart syncopates. No bangs, no explosions.
Click to expand...

B A Robertson disagrees with you.
 
Vixen said:
No, congratulations to those who believe the JAIC can't be wrong and therefore the decision to reopen the investigation must be a conspiracy theory, even though it is three sovereign nations who made this decision.
Click to expand...

Exactly no one in this thread has stated that some aspects of the JAIC report cannot be wrong, or incomplete. You cannot quote anyone who has.

Exactly no one in this thread has claimed that the decision to reopen the investigation must be a conspiracy theory. You cannot quote anyone who has.

Exactly no one in this thread has even posted an objection to the reopening of the investigation. You cannot quote anyone who has.

You have fashioned a veritable army of strawmen in this thread. Reminds me of the broomsticks in the Sorcerer's Apprentice. Destroy one and two pop up in its place.

Any and all aspects of a Conspiracy in regards to the sinking have been raised and posted in this thread by exactly one poster. Can you figure out who that one poster might be?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
You already told us that the bow visor was faulty and leaking.
It wasn't a 'few strong waves' it was fourteen years of 'strong waves'

It would be like claiming you crashed your car because the track rod end failed after fourteen years of banging over pot holes.
Click to expand...

You have just scored an own goal as your car will have had to pass an annual MOT - that it is in fit condition for the roads. Being fourteen years old does not of itself mean it is unsafe. A car with poor maintenance can be unsafe within three years or less. Meyer Werft argued strongly that the Estonia was poorly maintained - as evidenced by the leaky car ramp and the locks on the bow visor meant half the time it was tied in place with thick hawsers wrapped around the front deck capstans and windlasses. Being 'fourteen years old' is neither here nor there, as the insurers and inspectors certified it seaworthy.
 
Mojo said:
Certified statistician?
Click to expand...

Keep in mind you have to take care when reading Vixen's posts, and note that "having done a couple of Institute of Statisticians diplomas…" does not make the claim of having completed, earned, or been awarded such diplomas.

ETA: and now we have Vixen's admission that "having done" those diplomas means exactly nothing. Another meaningless claim.
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
Keep in mind you have to take care when reading Vixen's posts, and note that "having done a couple of Institute of Statisticians diplomas…" does not make the claim of having completed, earned, or been awarded such diplomas.
Click to expand...


Actually, I was thinking of someone else…
 
Vixen said:
You have just scored an own goal as your car will have had to pass an annual MOT - that it is in fit condition for the roads. Being fourteen years old does not of itself mean it is unsafe. A car with poor maintenance can be unsafe within three years or less. Meyer Werft argued strongly that the Estonia was poorly maintained - as evidenced by the leaky car ramp and the locks on the bow visor meant half the time it was tied in place with thick hawsers wrapped around the front deck capstans and windlasses. Being 'fourteen years old' is neither here nor there, as the insurers and inspectors certified it seaworthy.
Click to expand...

Ad yet, track rod end ball joints and other components break quite often. How can that be if there is a valid MOT certificate for a car?
An MOT test confirms that a car is roadworthy when the test is taken. It is only tested once a year.
A car can be roadworthy when you start a journey but something can break while you are driving, that's why breakdown services exist.

Being fourteen years old has everything to do with it. Components wear in use. You even just admitted the ramp and visor had developed faults. It can be seaworthy and carrying defects. Just like a car can pass an MOT test and break down the same day through a failed component that wasn't obvious in the test.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The number of passenger survivors who heard crashes in addition to those who heard 'bangs' and/or crashes is at least 34 out of 79.
Click to expand...
Was that before or after they failed to hear "the series of possible explosions"?

The conclusion that the bow visor came loose/fell off because of a few strong waves - when the Baltic is a wavy sea and the designers would have allowed for this factor - is rather like claiming you crashed your car because your wing mirror came loose, as evidenced that it is lying on the ground a few metres away from the collision you were in.
Click to expand...
Ah. You reject the idea that the bow door broke loose because it was designed with the intention that it would not do that. And a ship with its bow door torn off is clearly in no more danger than a car with one wing mirror smashed off. Compelling stuff.
 
Is it clear yet if the party that placed the bombs to blow the bow door off its hinges is the same party that sent the submarine to collide with the ferry?

Or were these two entirely separate plots that just coincidentally were timed to occur late at night in the middle of a storm?
 
Vixen said:
The number of passenger survivors who heard crashes in addition to those who heard 'bangs' and/or crashes is at least 34 out of 79.
Click to expand...

Okay, I thought you were combining the various terms in the number of twenty-nine witnesses..

It is possible that those passengers on the lowest decks, who paradoxically seem to have got out faster than many - although those on the upper decks had a much improved probability of getting out alive - heard the bow visor 'banging on the bulkhead like a chimpanzee' as the lowest deck cabins were towards the front of the vessel. However, ....
Click to expand...

Okay, that's fine. The reports of bangs do not give any clear evidence to the explosion theory over the bow visor theory. That's all that I was saying.

As far as Braidwood's report goes, I have no comments because I don't reckon I have any particular expertise to evaluate his claims. This is one of those disputes that I ought to leave to those with real understanding of the issues.
 
Vixen said:
I'm willing to bet I know more about this than you do, having done a couple of Institute of Statisticians diplomas and being a Bachelor of Science with Honours*, which required entry level Biology + another science (being Chemistry in my case, plus Economics thrown in) plus extensive probability theory and forecasting in my postgraduate business masters.



*This entailed a dissertation plus fifteen self-designed laboratory reports, plus

a Statistics paper in the finals.



The null hypothesis in the Estonia case ought to have been, 'We strongly suspect the bow visor falling off and seawater flooding the car deck, as in the Herald of Free Enterprise , so to test this hypothesis, we'll assume that it was NOT the bow visor falling off that was the prime cause of the accident. That is, we will investigate whether the massive hole in the starboard caused by what looks like an enormous force or the loud explosion type noises heard by 48% of the vanishingly small number of survivors around about the stroke of Swedish midnight, together with the reported blackout of radio and VHF signals, might have contributed. Only once we have eliminated these can we reject our null hypothesis that it was not the bow visor falling off because of a few strong waves.
Click to expand...

I would think that someone with any significant training in Biology and Chemistry would know that DNA is not a protein. Remember?

How many years of physics?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
No, congratulations to those who believe the JAIC can't be wrong and therefore the decision to reopen the investigation must be a conspiracy theory, even though it is three sovereign nations who made this decision.
Click to expand...


Look, let's frame it in the following terms, to see if it makes the situation clearer for you:

Imagine if in time it transpired that there were some nagging inconsistencies and areas of concern in the official 9/11 Commission Final Report, and as a result the inquiry would be reopened with a view to an amended/appended report as the outcome. And while that's unlikely to happen, it's not inconceivable. If it were to happen, there'd be a reasonable discussion/debate to be had about what might have prompted the reopening, and what new/amended conclusions might ultimately be reached. Perhaps (just for example) there might now be more credible/reliable evidence available about the role of the Saudi Government in the matter, or additional/changed information about the parts played by the emergency services on-site or the air traffic control and military communities wrt the monitoring & identifying of the hijacked aircraft.

But what you're doing in this thread is the equivalent of a 9/11 conspiracy theorist taking the news of the reopening as a firm cue to speculate that this time, it's very possible that the commission would conclude that the Twin Towers were indeed brought down by thermite detonations (with the charges having been meticulously placed within the towers by agencies tied to the Government), or that the Jewish community knew in advance about the attacks, and pre-warned all Jews against going to lower Manhattan that day.

Is it now perhaps possible for you to see, via the above comparator, what's going on within this thread?
 
Vixen said:
A persistent number of ignoramuses more like rather than the PTB.
Click to expand...


So now it appears you believe that a persistent number of ignoramuses secretly controls the PTB (since only the PTB have the....power.... to move this thread into it's present subforum)?

Wow, if this is the case, now we really do have a conspiracy going on! Sound the church bells!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom