• 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 Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
LondonJohn said:
So it is.

Another thing that's rearing its ugly head in these partisan *unofficial* investigations: the old "...is consistent with..." chestnut.

Now of course there are plenty of occasions where such a construction may be used properly and with intellectual honesty. But it's also wide open to being abused in pursuit of a particular agenda. And I already get the feeling that this "Fokus Group" investigation is erring towards the latter.


(To take an extreme (fictional) example as an illustration of abuse of this construction: a disreputable lawyer representing a man on trial for murder might tell the court: "The evidence is wholly consistent with a scenario in which an entirely different man, whose height and appearance approximated those of my client, expertly broke into my client's house that night (leaving no visible trace), stealing some of his clothing and his gun, going to the bar and shooting the victim, then returning to my clients house to deposit the gun and the clothing back there again." And in a strictly logical sense, the lawyer might very well be correct......)
Click to expand...

The samples of metal from the bow were microscopically analysed by Ida Westermann, and associate professor in Materials Science in Norway. I think she knows a deformation consistent with a detonation when she sees one.

https://scholar.google.no/citations?user=N3TuYh8AAAAJ&hl=no

Ida Westermann
Associate Professor in Materials Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
Verifisert e-postadresse på ntnu.no
Materials Science
Click to expand...

Professor Westermann's main research area appears to be in Steel and Aluminuim.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ida-Westermann

I find it rather disgraceful that you are insinuating that she is acting without integrity or objectivity and is little more than a silver-tongued weaselly lawyer who'll say anything if you pay him.


Yes, the Fokus group are advocates for a group of survivors, led by a Swedish politician and survivor Rolf Sörman plus a victim's widow. However, the experts to whom they referred the bow visor samples to are wholly independent academic scientists who do things empirically and as observed by demonstrable tests in a scientific laboratory, in tests that can be replicated by any other scientist in the same field to achieve the same results.

A scientist will use the term 'compatible with' because they use statistical probability to evaluate their results and thus use confidence intervals and ANOVA to calculate the odds on getting their results completely randomly, so it always will be X%/100% as there will always be a degree of freedom.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Surely you can look up the one thousand and one highly infammable and hazardous substances on wikipedia for yourself? The CIA list could be yoru guide. Caesium, Uranium-23 and cobalt all seem to be common substances being smuggled out of the old Soviet Union base at Paldiski.

Given there was definitely a container on bard that was not registered to any driver there is a high chance it contained illicit cargo, no? We know this because the Swedish prosecutor opened an investigation into it.
Click to expand...

Well done, you've clearly ignored what I was actually asking and decided to make up my half of the conversation in your own head.

Once more with feeling, I don't CARE what stuff was stolen from Soviet bases. I want to know how radioactive waste could destroy the ship. Do you even understand what radioactive waste is and what properties it has? Hint: It isn't acid (especially not the kind of Hollywood fantasy acid you see in movies).

Even if this ridiculous non-answer were not so pathetically evasive in failing to address my actual question and actually was of substance, it's still only one question of several you have just outright ignored. This is presumably because you can't even attempt to bluster your way past them like you usually do when you don't actually know what you're talking about, which is 99% of the time.

LondonJohn said:
The question is not just about what hazardous cargo might (or might not) have been carried on board the Estonia that night.

The question is more: how could/would the presence of these sorts of hazardous materials (if they'd been on board that night, that is) have contributed in any significant fashion to the ultimate loss of the ship?
Click to expand...
See, it obviously isn't the way I worded the question because LondonJohn gets it.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
I would have thought that the most immediate and quickest way to slow down the rate of seawater intake - assuming that the captain/crew knew that the bow door mechanism had by then been totally compromised - would have been to go hard astern in order to slow the vessel down in the shortest possible time. Obviously not to the point that the ship ended up coming to a complete stop though.

And yes, I didn't mean turning the ship beam on and leaving it beam on. I meant (though I didn't express it very well) it in the sense of turning the ship away from its bow on heading. It stands to reason that the optimal direction for the ship would be stern on, but the ship would have had no choice but to go beam on while doing so.


And yes: the prior evidence of crew "workarounds" re the bow visor lock and the plugging-up round the sides of the bow ramp.... should most certainly have raised a massive red flag. Did the captain, or any of his senior officers, know that this was being done? If they did know, well they should have reported this up the management chain and refused to sail the ship until proper repairs had been carried out. If they didn't know, well they should have known (and it was part of their job to have known about these sorts of things).
Click to expand...

Slow the ship yes, but there is no point going astern, turn away from the sea and stop the waves breaking round the bow. You have to keep some way on otherwise you can't steer and the ship will broach beam on to the sea.

It is certainly the job of the chief engineer to report to the captain and he should be aware of the structural integrity of the ship. He is responsible for all mechanical aspects of the ship and can on some matters overrule the captain.

It is the first mate (or officer depending ho you want to name him) who is responsible for loading the ship, securing hatches and making sure the ship is in a fit state to sail. He will have known about the problems with the bow and will hav reported them.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Well done, you've clearly ignored what I was actually asking and decided to make up my half of the conversation in your own head.

Once more with feeling, I don't CARE what stuff was stolen from Soviet bases. I want to know how radioactive waste could destroy the ship. Do you even understand what radioactive waste is and what properties it has? Hint: It isn't acid (especially not the kind of Hollywood fantasy acid you see in movies).

Even if this ridiculous non-answer were not so pathetically evasive in failing to address my actual question and actually was of substance, it's still only one question of several you have just outright ignored. This is presumably because you can't even attempt to bluster your way past them like you usually do when you don't actually know what you're talking about, which is 99% of the time.

See, it obviously isn't the way I worded the question because LondonJohn gets it.
Click to expand...

The issue of nuclear waste was a quote from Hikipedia not me. So you need to go back to the quote in Hikipedia and see whether the author has provided a source for his observation.
 
Vixen said:
The issue of nuclear waste was a quote from Hikipedia not me. So you need to go back to the quote in Hikipedia and see whether the author has provided a source for his observation.
Click to expand...

You made the claim and cited a parody web site as authority for it. Are you telling us that you don't know enough about nuclear waste to have been able to determine whether your source was serious or kidding? Did you just swallow it hook-line-and-sinker?
 
Vixen said:
The samples of metal from the bow were microscopically analysed by Ida Westermann, and associate professor in Materials Science in Norway. I think she knows a deformation consistent with a detonation when she sees one.
Click to expand...


Please try to read things more carefully before attempting a reply.

What I was talking about was solely in relation to examinations of the bow visor mechanism etc before the disaster.

If you recall, you were claiming that since the Estonia had been declared seaworthy, this necessarily must have implied that (eg) the bow visor bottom lock was in excellent shape. I and others then explained how it would have been functionally virtually impossible to determine the presence of metal fatigue in that bottom lock, without performing fairly complex (and skilled) procedures - and we know that those procedures were not part of the examination for seaworthiness for this ship.
 
Vixen said:
The samples of metal from the bow were microscopically analysed by Ida Westermann, and associate professor in Materials Science in Norway. I think she knows a deformation consistent with a detonation when she sees one.



Professor Westermann's main research area appears to be in Steel and Aluminuim.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ida-Westermann

I find it rather disgraceful that you are insinuating that she is acting without integrity or objectivity and is little more than a silver-tongued weaselly lawyer who'll say anything if you pay him.


Yes, the Fokus group are advocates for a group of survivors, led by a Swedish politician and survivor Rolf Sörman plus a victim's widow. However, the experts to whom they referred the bow visor samples to are wholly independent academic scientists who do things empirically and as observed by demonstrable tests in a scientific laboratory, in tests that can be replicated by any other scientist in the same field to achieve the same results.

A scientist will use the term 'compatible with' because they use statistical probability to evaluate their results and thus use confidence intervals and ANOVA to calculate the odds on getting their results completely randomly, so it always will be X%/100% as there will always be a degree of freedom.
Click to expand...

let me get this straight - you believe this logic supports your position?

1. The Professor knows what deformation from detonation looks like.
2. The Professor does not state that there was deformation from detonation
3. The Professor *does* state that there was appearance of exposure to high temperatures (if, indeed, she has been quoted accurately)
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Slow the ship yes, but there is no point going astern, turn away from the sea and stop the waves breaking round the bow. You have to keep some way on otherwise you can't steer and the ship will broach beam on to the sea.

It is certainly the job of the chief engineer to report to the captain and he should be aware of the structural integrity of the ship. He is responsible for all mechanical aspects of the ship and can on some matters overrule the captain.

It is the first mate (or officer depending ho you want to name him) who is responsible for loading the ship, securing hatches and making sure the ship is in a fit state to sail. He will have known about the problems with the bow and will hav reported them.
Click to expand...


It is rather interesting, is it not, that whilst all the senior officers died, those actually down below - for example in the engine room - wasted no time in getting their body warmers and survival suits on.

The first crew (see crew list - Enclosure 6.5.1.123) was to a large extent identical to the last one.

Of those crew members

Captain Arvo Andresson
2nd officer Peeter Kannussaar
2nd officer Tormi Ainsalu
4th officer Andres Tammes (later 3rd officer)
AB Kaimar Kikas (later 4th officer)
boatswain Vello Ruben
2nd engineer Arvo Tulvik (later 1st engineer)

did not survive,

whilst 2nd engineer Peeter Tüür
4th engineer Margus Treu (later 3rd engineer)
reefer engineer Andres Verro
motorman Ivan Ziljajev
electrician Arvi Rohumaa
motorman Elmar Siegel

have survived
Click to expand...
EFD

Then we have Lembit, Chief Engineer, Bogdanovic, Chief Medical Officer, Deputy Captain Arvo Piht, who were named as survivors but then disappeared and became 'deceased'.

So, suppose the 'committee of men' whom the interrogator of Silver Linde refers to several times, tried to take over the ship by force? Or perhaps there was a mutiny in which a bunch of criminals 'took charge' or a fight broke out leaving at least Captain Andresson lying dead on the floor?

Maybe some of these guys aren't dead at all but managed to get away before it all kicked off. You would think the JAIC would want to establish that the guys in charges actually were dead and it would have been easy enough.

I hear that Kurm's expedition is planning to take a look at the bridge whilst they are there. RS Sentinel still seems to be on site.
 
Vixen said:
The samples of metal from the bow were microscopically analysed by Ida Westermann, and associate professor in Materials Science in Norway. I think she knows a deformation consistent with a detonation when she sees one.
Click to expand...

What about the other equally-qualified experts your source quoted who disagreed with her?

I find it rather disgraceful that you are insinuating that she is acting without integrity or objectivity and is little more than a silver-tongued weaselly lawyer who'll say anything if you pay him.
Click to expand...

Where can we read her published findings? She could simply be wrong. She could have made a judgment call that other experts might have made differently. Those who consulted her could have misstated or cherry-picked her findings.

A scientist will use the term 'compatible with' because they use statistical probability to evaluate their results...
Click to expand...

No, that's not when "consistent with" is indicated. It is specifically said to disavow that the expert is concluding a cause. The ultimate cause will depend on a consilience of other evidence.

You're not a scientist. Don't pretend you are, and don't pretend to speak for them.
 
Vixen said:
A scientist will use the term 'compatible with' because they use statistical probability to evaluate their results and thus use confidence intervals and ANOVA to calculate the odds on getting their results completely randomly, so it always will be X%/100% as there will always be a degree of freedom.
Click to expand...


LMAO!

A scientist will use the term "compatible with" (in the context we're discussing here) in the straightforward sense of: "the sum of the (credible, reliable) evidence can be accounted for & explained under the following scenario:"

The (needlessly-overdetailed - for effect, maybe?) paragraph you've written above a) is strictly in a statistical sense, and b) even in a statistical sense, it doesn't refer to "is compatible with". It refers solely to the confidence level wrt a variable one is testing for.

Utterly bizarre.
 
JayUtah said:
What about the other equally-qualified experts your source quoted who disagreed with her?



Where can we read her published findings? She could simply be wrong. She could have made a judgment call that other experts might have made differently. Those who consulted her could have misstated or cherry-picked her findings.



No, that's not when "consistent with" is indicated. It is specifically said to disavow that the expert is concluding a cause. The ultimate cause will depend on a consilience of other evidence.

You're not a scientist. Don't pretend you are, and don't pretend to speak for them.
Click to expand...

Nobody disagreed with her. The journalist writing the piece in an effort to present a 'balanced' article seems to have amateurishly bent over backwards to include a whole lot of historical stuff which is not relevant to todays story of the bow visor findings.

I am a scientist.
 
Vixen said:
The issue of nuclear waste was a quote from Hikipedia not me. So you need to go back to the quote in Hikipedia and see whether the author has provided a source for his observation.
Click to expand...

Ah ah ah, naughty naughty. You were the one that quoted the site as a possible explanation for the event were you not If you are willing to accept it as a possible theory, you must be able to defend said theory and coherently explain why you think it is valid.

Alternatively you can state that you no longer accept the theory as valid and apologise for wasting everyone's time by linking to it.

Also you're still not answering the REST of my points.
 
Wait, you're a scientist? In what field? What qualifications do you have? Are you an active researcher? What papers have you published?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Ah ah ah, naughty naughty. You were the one that quoted the site as a possible explanation for the event were you not If you are willing to accept it as a possible theory, you must be able to defend said theory and coherently explain why you think it is valid.

Alternatively you can state that you no longer accept the theory as valid and apologise for wasting everyone's time by linking to it.

Also you're still not answering the REST of my points.
Click to expand...

As I said, I wouldn't rule anything out.
 
Vixen said:
Nobody disagreed with her.
Click to expand...

That's not what your source says.

The journalist writing the piece in an effort to present a 'balanced' article seems to have amateurishly...
Click to expand...

So your source is selectively unreliable in just the right way to make your summary of it fit your desired belief?

I am a scientist.
Click to expand...

You clearly are not. You didn't know what the null hypothesis was, for example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom