Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Rockwater report from whence JAIC get this information states in further detail:



From the Rockwater video: You can see the instruments Rockwater divers retrieved at circa 1:32:00 onwards. The diver places what looks like the hydrostatic release mechanism into the netting to bring up.

At 1:43:00 the divers then move into the bridge to attempt to retrieve a logbook and 'GPS Navigation', at 1:51:00 (surprise, surprise, so it did exist in 1994).


I don't see the point of this post.
We know it existed otherwise it wouldn't have been there.
A GPS navigation unit has nothing whatsoever to do with the buoys.
 
From google:

"What is float free EPIRB?
Float-free Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (FF EPIRBs) are water-activated distress beacons fitted in a float-free bracket. They are designed to activate when a vessel capsizes to a depth of 1–4 metres. They use a hydrostatic release function and a water activated switch."

Yes, and the ones aboard the estonia were not water activated.

You are still conflating the release system with the buoys themselves.
 
I was obviously quoting the YLE article, which used that term.

YLE/svenska

So the journalists used a colloqualism but everybody knew what they meant. It is not the end of the world if they used the technically inaccurate term to describe satellite communication involved which did exist at the time.

Why are you quoting journalists and not the actual report?

GPS is not a 'colloquialism' it is a term with a precise meaning.

You obviously didn't know what they meant and it seems, neither did they.

Unless your 'expert' told them that GPS was involved in which case he made a big mistake and his expertise has to be called in to question.

From your posts it is impossible to tell where the error was introduced.

That is why it is better to use primary sources, not newspaper reports.
 
Stop lying.


Yeah..... how about you stop accusing other members of lying, Vixen, especially when in fact they're doing nothing of the sort?

From the Statement of the UK Secretary of State for Transport to Parliament, on 24th July 1987 (my bolding for emphasis):

"The ship then capsized rapidly. Fortunately, the vessel sank in shallow water."

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...4baf-a1b3-a835df511b5b/HeraldOfFreeEnterprise


The (apparent) fact that you don't understand the meaning of the term "sink" in this context.... is neither here nor there, really.
 
You just made that up off the top of your head. I bet you cannot even name four of the JAIC members. Yet here you are claiming to have done a probity check.


What the bejeezus are you on about now?! "Probity check"?!

Can you name four of the members of the 9/11 Commission off the top of your head, Vixen? Does that have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not you a) understand and b) agree with, the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report?

Things are getting seriously weird now...........
 
I never claimed to be an expert. Stop lying.


LMAO.

When a person is attempting to lecture others on the technicalities of a certain matter, then yes: that person is presenting herself/himself as a de facto expert on that particular matter.

(And again: enough of the tiresome "lying" bollocks)
 
Why are you quoting journalists and not the actual report?

GPS is not a 'colloquialism' it is a term with a precise meaning.

You obviously didn't know what they meant and it seems, neither did they.

Unless your 'expert' told them that GPS was involved in which case he made a big mistake and his expertise has to be called in to question.

From your posts it is impossible to tell where the error was introduced.

That is why it is better to use primary sources, not newspaper reports.


What makes this worse is that in the post under discussion, ie this one:


Cospas-Sarsat was conceived and initiated by Canada, France, the United States, and the former Soviet Union in 1979.

1 July 1988 (definitive agreement signed; preceding memorandums of understanding signed 23 November 1979 and 5 October 1984)

The first rescue using the technology of Cospas-Sarsat occurred in September 1982.[7][8] The definitive agreement of the organization was signed on 1 July 1988. - Wikipedia

So yes, they were in use in 1994. It is a satellite system only, so the EPIRB beacons had inbuilt GPS.


Vixen didn't even reference the journalists she was 'obviously quoting', she quoted wikipedia, which also made no reference to the article she tries to use to excuse her error.

It's ******** all the way down.
 
The JAIC report very plainly states they were Kannad-406 F type. That is, automatically activated and housed in casing with an HRU.


N. O.

Stop lying. (Oh look! I'm doing it now! :D)

The JAIC Report very plainly states that the EPIRBs carried on the Estonia that night required manual activation (and the report further states that this manual activation did not happen, meaning that the buoys never received and transmitted anything that night).
 
The vast majority of those 137 survived thanks to their own efforts and the good luck (?) to have been on the top deck at the time, either in the bar or asleep on the cafeteria benches near the promenade deck, the others being Deck 1 passengers just on the deck above the hull who heard the bangs loud and clear, saw water seeping in and got the hell out.


Look Vixen:

You made the (astonishing) claim that whoever the heck you think "engineered" this disaster did so in a way that ensured that nobody would have any chance of rescue.

In direct response to this ludicrous claim, I contradicted you by pointing out that in fact 137 people were successfully rescued ("successfully" meaning that they survived).


Plus ça change, huh.....?
 
If they were HRU-automatically activated Epirbs and the model Kannad-406F indicates they were, together with the divers retrieving the HRU that would have triggered activation, both to free float them and to emit a beam tot he satellite system, then the question needs to be asked, how come they did not activate but were instead found two days later covered in sand near Dirhami about 200km away? They were found to not be 'switched on', yet if the crew had not manually removed them and switched them on, then they should have done so automatically anyway on being submerged. Marine expert Asser Koivisto in a YLE article said they had not been tuned. Who knows if something was lost in translation but the Finnish for 'switched on' is not he same word as 'turned' or 'to set' or to 'activate' but definitely has electronic connotations.




After all this time and after all the careful and fulsome explanations of this to you...... you still cannot/will not understand this????
 
Can anyone provide me with a citation for the report saying that they found no evidence that the Estonia was deliberately sunk by Vixen?


WHADDAYOUMEAN the report doesn't rule out Vixen as the cause of the sinking??!

This is an absolute bombshell!fosj!!!nfetbd!!!!!!
 
From google:

"What is float free EPIRB?
Float-free Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (FF EPIRBs) are water-activated distress beacons fitted in a float-free bracket. They are designed to activate when a vessel capsizes to a depth of 1–4 metres. They use a hydrostatic release function and a water activated switch."


*shakes head and backs away slowly*
 
WHADDAYOUMEAN the report doesn't rule out Vixen as the cause of the sinking??!

This is an absolute bombshell!fosj!!!nfetbd!!!!!!

The JAIC should obviously have investigated whether Vixen sank the Estonia. It's a glaring dereliction that they failed to even cursorily research whether Vixen had an alibi.
 
WHADDAYOUMEAN the report doesn't rule out Vixen as the cause of the sinking??!

This is an absolute bombshell!fosj!!!nfetbd!!!!!!

Well, someone who claims to have intimate and detailed knowledge of so very many aspects of the sinking is deflecting, protesting, and misdirecting an awful lot!!!
 
COSPAS SARSAT was invented circa 1979 and the international treaty fully operative by 1988. Stop falsely claiming satellite signals were not available to pinpoint location and that there was no such thing as an automatically activated EPIRBs.

"Satellite signals" are not GPS. I explained in some detail the vast difference between COSPAS SARSAT and GPS. They work entirely differently and solve entirely different problems. Stop falsely claiming an equivalence that doesnt exist.

No one claimed that "satellite signals" didn't exist in 1994. You specifically claimed that EPIRBs used GPS in 1994, and were properly corrected. Trying now to pretend you said something different or that your critics said something different is dishonest.
 
Last edited:
It was COSPAS-SASART enabled using AIUI six weather station satellites for pinpointing location. COSPAS-SOSART was invented 1979. Stop claiming satellite identification of location was impossible before 1998.

I made no such claim.

In fact, I explained in non-technical terms the difference between how COSPAS-SARSAT (not "SASART" or "SOSART") works to allow third parties to locate a transmitter on Earth's surface, and how GPS works to allow one party to locate its receiver on Earth's surface.

The claim is that EPIRBs were not available with GPS receivers before 1998. This is entirely separate from their roles as COSPAS-SARSAT transmitters. It is entirely separate from the use of GPS for other purposes such as navigating the ship proper. I could probably teach an improptu hour-long lecture on the various methods used throughout history to use satellites (both natural and artificial) to locate points on Earth's surface. You can't even spell it right.
 
GPS is not a 'colloquialism' it is a term with a precise meaning.

Correct. Global Positioning System refers to a specific system involving specific kinds of spacecraft in specific orbits, used with specific kinds of receivers on or above Earth's surface. It refers to a specific mathematical basis for three-dimensional triangulation.

Earlier satellite networks provided a different kind of geolocation, using different satellites in low Earth orbit and a completely different mathematical model. For SAR purposes, the transmitter is at the site of interest (e.g., a sunken ship, an aircraft crash, or a lost hiker). The transmitter broadcasts continuously on a steady frequency. The curve of Doppler distortion as received by the satellite can be fit mathematically to parameters that describe how far to the left or right of the satellite's ground track the transmitter is. (This is why the transmitters must be very carefully calibrated to transmit in a narrow band.). The curve of amplitude variation over time, as received by the satellite, determines the point along the satellite's ground track that is closest to the receiver, but this too can often be gleaned from the Doppler curve. Either way, all this requires someone on the ground to interrogate the satellite for that information and carry out some suitable exercise.

Early navigation used the same math in reverse. The satellites emitted a steady radio signal on a particular frequency. Ground stations equipped with a suitable receiver could fit the Doppler and amplitude curves as they received them to obtain their position relative to the satellite's (known) ground track. The receivers we used in the 1980s were about the size of a breadbox and required setting up an ungainly antenna. Not something you can stuff into a small buoy, and -- operating in this mode -- not very helpful for the required purpose.

GPS works entirely differently. By using atomic clocks and stable, high-speed timers, the receiver works out the distance from several satellites themselves, not from the satellites' ground tracks. The signals are pulses containing digital information, not steady signals. The satellites are in much higher orbits, and don't care (or even know) who might be receiving their signals. The system provides no method for a ground station to signal its whereabouts such that a third party knows where it is.

That some journalist may not know the difference between various satellite systems is par for the course, it appears, for some journalists. GPS is not a generic term for any satellite-based system.
 
Last edited:
*shakes head and backs away slowly*

Indeed, the notion that products have a history over which new features were invented and incorporated, and that we have documentation of this happening to the devices in question, seems a simple one. Failing to grasp it seems to me more like intentional evasion. Nobody is this stupid naturally.
 
So if you guys are so smart, why didn't thousands of people record 9/11 on their iPhones? Stop claiming they weren't invented yet. Cameras were invented in the 1800s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom