• 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:
Actually, it is very disconcerting that for all their braggadocio...
Click to expand...

Well, there it is. You don't actually respect anyone's intelligence, knowledge, training, or expertise who doesn't agree with you. To you, all their hard-won knowledge and skill is mere "braggadocio" that you can set aside without further thought.

...none of them seem to be familiar with what happens when a boat capsizes.
Click to expand...

And then you just double down on yet another "Because I say so" argument. I would say this is the most brazenly arrogant thing you've written in this thread, except it probably isn't.
 
JayUtah said:
Well, there it is. You don't actually respect anyone's intelligence, knowledge, training, or expertise who doesn't agree with you. To you, all their hard-won knowledge and skill is mere "braggadocio" that you can set aside without further thought.



And then you just double down on yet another "Because I say so" argument. I would say this is the most brazenly arrogant thing you've written in this thread, except it probably isn't.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you then: if a longboat capsizes, does it immediately sink?

A simple yes or no will suffice.
 
Vixen said:
They do tend to be hoist by their own petards.
Click to expand...

You're avoiding the issue.

You tell us we have to accept Linde's testimony on this point. But when we cite Linde's testimony for other things that don't agree with your conspiracy theory, you tell us how untrustworthy he is and dismiss him categorically. I previously asked you what criteria you use to tell when Linde is lying and when he's telling the truth. And you avoided the issue back then too; you just gave us an unsolicited opinion of how you think chronic liars think.

How can you tell, from moment to moment, whether Linde is lying or not?
 
Vixen said:
Really? Perhaps you need to enlighten yourself.

https://mobile-dictionary.reverso.net/en/english-definition/elucidate+oneself
Click to expand...

That link explains the word "elucidate" and that provides no support at all for your curious use of it in "elucidate yourself".

And I was just about to try to word some joke about "explain yourself" when I realised that it's yet another derail which will clog up the thread with nonsense whether it was deliberately planted as a talking point or not.
 
Vixen said:
Let me ask you then: if a longboat capsizes, does it immediately sink?

A simple yes or no will suffice.
Click to expand...

Nonsense: a simple yes or no doesn't suffice, because my whole point is that such simplistic scenario-mongering as you insist upon doesn't provide useful knowledge. A boat sinks for exactly and only one reason: it has lost buoyancy. The reasons why it might lose buoyancy are many and varied. In the case of Viking ships, yes, they will sink if they ship too much water, which can happen if they roll too far, if they ship water over the bows, or if water enters via the notoriously leaky seams, or any other of a dozen other scenarios I can imagine. The Vikings knew this, which is why bailing the ships is such a prominently-mentioned aspect of their narratives.

The real point remains how you are being confronted with the knowledge and experience of people who have designed, built, and operated large oceangoing vessels as part of their professions, as well as studied professionally the failures in those endeavors that occasionally befall us. Yet you -- who have done none of these things -- rely almost exclusively on your own ill-informed say-so to attempt to make your point. Explain why a reasonable person should not dismiss your arguments as arrogant crackpottery.
 
Vixen said:
Let me ask you then: if a longboat capsizes, does it immediately sink?

A simple yes or no will suffice.
Click to expand...

I'm absolutely not an expert but I'm going to try "yes", although it's really "yes but". It won't capsize as in roll right over. If it tips over until it fills with water it'll founder and sink rather than continue to tip over.

Do I win anything?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I'm absolutely not an expert but I'm going to try "yes", although it's really "yes but". It won't capsize as in roll right over. If it tips over until it fills with water it'll founder and sink rather than continue to tip over.

Do I win anything?
Click to expand...

My guess is you will win some arrogant condescension. That will be wrong.
 
Vixen said:
Really? Perhaps you need to enlighten yourself.

https://mobile-dictionary.reverso.net/en/english-definition/elucidate+oneself
Click to expand...


No. I'll start by pointing out that I know full well what the verb "elucidate" means and how it's used.

See, what you've done is you've put the search term "elucidate oneself" into Reverso. But you've then signally failed to notice that Reverso hasn't actually given you a result which is directly linked to the two-word term "elucidate oneself". Instead, its algorithm has clearly gone: "There's no such thing as "elucidate oneself", but in the absence of that, here's the definition of "elucidate"."

In exactly the same way, if I put the search term "extrapolate oneself" or "imply oneself" into Reverso, it will simply return the definition of "extrapolate" and "imply" respectively.

And it gives the correct definition of "elucidate". A person can elucidate a concept; or a person can elucidate an argument. Or a person can elucidate a point. As the Reverso definition correctly states: to elucidate (something) is to make that thing - which is obscure or difficult to understand - clear. The object of the verb "to elucidate" has to , by definition, be a concept/argument/point. The object of the verb "to elucidate" can never, by definition, be a person.

A person cannot elucidate himself or herself.
 
Vixen said:
Actually, it is very disconcerting that for all their braggadocio, none of them seem to be familiar with what happens when a boat capsizes. They think a longboat immediately sinks to the bottom.
Click to expand...


There's only one person in this thread who's not only unfamiliar with what happens when a boat/ship capsizes and sinks..... but who actually promotes a nonsensical and incorrect "theory" of how certain boats/ships must necessarily behave when they sink.


Vixen: take a look at the picture below. It's a photograph of what remains of a Roman shipwreck. The wood of the ship has long since rotted away, and all that remains is its cargo of terracotta amphorae (jugs/containers).

Do you know, Vixen, why the amphorae in the picture are lying on the seabed in tight formation with each other and in the shape of a ship? It's because they were being transported in an open-decked ship, and the ship sank straight down in its same horizontal keel-down attitude. If the ship had capsized, the amphorae would simply have spilled out and fallen to the seabed in a haphazard pile.

 
Vixen said:
Actually, it is very disconcerting that for all their braggadocio, none of them seem to be familiar with what happens when a boat capsizes. They think a longboat immediately sinks to the bottom.
Click to expand...

What is your evidence that it doesn't?
 
Vixen said:
Actually, the top of one (or even both) of the stern ramps was found to be open. Hence the satire in Hikipedia it was opened to let cigarette smoke out.

Seriously though, that someone saw fit to open the stern ramp slightly, indicates there was a fire, hence the Mr Skylight 1/2 message, together with the fire drenchers turned on in the car deck.
Click to expand...

You don't think that the ramp could have been damaged when the ship landed on it ?
 
Last edited:
catsmate said:
The classic fuel/oxygen welding systems burn even hotter, and have been portable and used at sea for over a century:
Propane/air burns at 1,980°C
Propane/oxygen burns at 2,250°C
Ethyne ('acetylene)/oxygen burns at 3,500°C

There are other mixes.
Click to expand...

The discussion wasn't 'how hot can welding systems burn'. We were discussing why Clausthal-Zellerfeld said assuming Braidwood's sample had not been heated to 700°C then XYZ follows. The significance of the 700°C is to do with at what temperature causes a change in the inherent structure of the steel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom