• 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.
Vixen said:
However, that doesn't mean I have forgotten all my scientific training.
Click to expand...

What scientific training, specifically, have you had, and when did you receive it? You mentioned some number of lab reports and a dissertation on psychology. Were these done as part of your bachelor of science degree? Beyond college, what professional training or experience did you receive as a scientist, that would enable you to speak with authority on the occupational practice of science?
 
lobosrul5 said:
So did I... in fact I recall a chem lab where the building was evacuated after a rather scary alarm went off. Some sort of leak on another floor, and we got to leave early. Literally that and the instructor was the first Russian I ever met is all I remember. God knows how many labs I completed... 15? Probably more. The idea that that makes me in any way a scientist is laughable.

ETA: no one is denying your claim that you completed science labs in school. We are disagreeing with your opinion that this makes you a scientist.
Click to expand...

I was actually refuting JayUtah, not making a statement.
 
JayUtah says "You're not a woman."

You respond with "I AM a woman"

This is a claim you are a woman.
 
Vixen said:
Is that what you claim to be doing? Or explain what you mean.
Click to expand...

Jabba overstated his credentials in the same way we fear you're overstating yours. Like you, he maintained he was certified as an expert in a field in which he nevertheless could not demonstrate minimal competence when required. Finally he admitted the true nature of his "certification," which was clearly deficient.

You present us with a similar dilemma. You cannot demonstrate competence in a field in which you have insinuated expertise by predicting an argument on knowledge of how that field is practiced. While you assert adequate training, you are too coy with the details to allow us to draw an informed conclusion.

Further, when asked about your physics education you were similarly coy and finally revealed that the "five years" in which you had studied physics was at the elementary level, not the way its taught to people who intend to go on to become physicists.

People are telling you what red flags you've raised. It's up to you to address them.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Why do you think survival suits would be in their cabins and not stowed in equipment lockers around the ship?
Click to expand...

Because American author Jack A Nelson in Flashes in the Night describes in detail of how the crew (or, rather, some of the crew) got to their cabins, changed into warm clothes and were able to escape out of their windows, which opened, unlike those of the passengers.
 
Vixen said:
On the assumption the higher more senior officers having completed naval school and studied the theory side of navigation and maritime principles would they not have been the first to don the survivor suits and not the boatswain seen sitting in the Admiral Pub when he was supposedly on his watch...?
Click to expand...

What would studying navigation and 'maritime principles' have to do with it?

Maybe they didn't appreciate the seriousness of the situation until too late.
Their whole handling of the situation seems to be lacking any skill or professionalism.

Once the alarm was sounded the crew detailed to serve the rafts and boats would have got their suits on straight away.

What does the boatswain being in the bar have to do with it?
 
LondonJohn said:
Exactly. I happen to have been thrown into the Irish Sea in springtime, wearing a survival suit*, before being "rescued" by a Sea King helicopter in a training exercise. I can report that after 15 mins in the sea, even with the protection of the suit, you start to get so cold that breathing becomes difficult and your cognitive abilities get impaired. Without any sort of survival suit, it'd be hard to be much more than a dead weight in the water after that length of time, and you'd certainly be dead well within the hour..
Click to expand...
Agreed. I get to do that kind of exercise on a yearly basis, although in the Baltics and during winter time. The suit is supposed to keep me alive for 6 hours but that's not something I hope I ever have to experience.
 
Vixen said:
I was actually refuting JayUtah, not making a statement.
Click to expand...

Your refutation was the statement, "I am a scientist." Explain how that's not a claim to be a scientist.

Again, no one is disputing that science subjects were part of your education. As I elaborated, the question at hand is about the communication of scientific findings. I have explained at length how you got the wrong answer, what the right answer is, and why it's the right answer. The reason you got the wrong answer is that you lack the particular experience as a practicing scientist that would have properly informed you.
 
Vixen said:
In refutation of your clear slur, 'you are not a scientist'. You don't get to define what or who I am. OK?
Click to expand...

We do if you claim to be something you aren't!

I could claim all day long to be an expert in Finland, and talk about how the Finns speak Flemish and when you tell me that I'm clearly not an expert in Finland by your logic I could throw this exact line of reasoning back at you!
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Would 'gagging clauses' prevent you reporting a potential murder?

If it is all confidential and 'gagged', how do you know about it?
Click to expand...

Jutta Rabe who claimed to have access to various sources claimed she was informed of this by a senior Finnish naval officer.

People talk. They have gagging clauses written into their contracts so they spill the beans via third parties.
 
JayUtah said:
The bigger point is that you're still wrong about what scientists mean when they say "is consistent with." I was kind enough to give you a full paragraph explaining the important difference between what you thought was meant and what actual scientists mean. Do you have a rejoinder? Do you concede the point? Or are you simply going to sweep it under the rug like all your other many mistakes in this thread and pretend it never happened?
Click to expand...

When chatting on a chat forum nobody is expecting a learned paper.
 
LondonJohn said:
By the way, does anyone know exactly which parts of the bow visor were examined in this recent investigation?

Were they, for example, parts of the bottom lock? Or parts of the metal skin of the visor itself? Or parts of the reinforcing struts etc?

The answer to this question has obvious implications in terms of figuring out what actually happened that night.
Click to expand...

Hard to say, looks like these guys are running with the CT angle:

https://estonianworld.com/life/new-...k-on-the-official-ms-estonia-disaster-report/

https://news.err.ee/1608353807/ms-e...s-may-show-traces-of-exposure-to-extreme-heat


And as I predicted, they had to cut their investigation short due to weather:

https://news.err.ee/1608351927/poor...tonia-official-investigation-rival-dive-short

This is stark contrast to the combined government investigation team's work thus far:

https://news.err.ee/1608346988/expe...-we-did-not-seen-signs-of-extraneous-activity

Who the hell spends that kind of money without looking at a calendar first?

Just to throw this into the mix, this private investigation was funded by Postimees Grupp, a large media conglomerate, and overseen by Margus Kurm, who was an investigator on the original distaster report:

https://news.err.ee/1608331562/postimees-group-main-backer-of-rival-ms-estonia-dive-investigation

Kurm seems to be an Estonian Rudolph Giuliani.
 
Vixen said:
In refutation of your clear slur, 'you are not a scientist'.
Click to expand...

"Clear slur?" It was a statement of probable fact arising during ordinary voir dire of your claim. For someone who declares she doesn't care whether someone calls her something or not, you're so very determined to translate one simple statement into the insult of the century.

You don't get to define what or who I am. OK?
Click to expand...

You seem very proud that you get to define yourself as a chartered accountant, and that by virtue of being so certified you can work in the U.S. as a similarly qualified profession. This implies that I -- not being so certified -- would have no basis by which to call myself a certified accountant by any useful application of the term, and that by holding myself out as one I would likely be in violation of some sort of regulation.

So let's dispense with the nonsense that you can just simply claim to be whatever you want and that no one else can have anything to say about that. Words have meanings, and your sad attempts to equivocate yourself out of the hole you have dug for yourself aren't fooling anybody.
 
JayUtah said:
What scientific training, specifically, have you had, and when did you receive it? You mentioned some number of lab reports and a dissertation on psychology. Were these done as part of your bachelor of science degree? Beyond college, what professional training or experience did you receive as a scientist, that would enable you to speak with authority on the occupational practice of science?
Click to expand...

That is correct.


There is nothing mysterious about science. Stop trying to make it something esoteric.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom