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

[LondonJohn]

Not at all. I stand by my certainty Estonia had float-free - hydrostatically released by an HRU - automatically activated EPIRB's, as evidenced by Rockwater not only retrieving the HRU but Koivisto explaining they were switched off when at land but need to be activated by the ship's electrician at the start of a journey. He says they correctly bobbed free when immersed in water but bafflingly failed to emit the expected signals despite being in full working order, having been checked just a week before and with full batteries. Because of these latter two aspects he concluded they had not been properly installed on the ship.

That is my position.

"My certainty"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I wonder if the penny will ever drop for Vixen that a) the EPIRBs on the Estonia that night were definitively not automatically-activated, and that b) calling something a "certainty" when in fact it's a falsehood.... is an extremely bad look for anyone claiming to be a decent, intellectually-honest participant in a debate?

 

[Vixen]

Ah the old 'agree to disagree' ploy. As if someone simply being in disagreement with demonstrable facts is in any way agreeable. No, one does not have to agree that it is simply you and they that are in disagreement. In order for just two people to be in disagreement both must hold positions supportable by facts. Failing that one or both are simply in disagreement with the facts at hand.

A guy here at work always says that, most of the time he doesn't even have a self consistent position to even assert. Basically he just agrees to disagree with himself. I tell him, 'No, I can't agree to disagree with you until you can actually and accurately assert what the position is that I'd be disagreeing with.'

All I meant by this is that I have presented the factual evidence. I accept I am not going to change the opinion of someone who won't accept it, so I am not going to continue to argue about it.

If I said Paris was the capital of France, what more is there to be said once I have pointed it out on the atlas and presented supporting documents?

If you claim Paris is not the capital of France yet fail to produce one single document that backs it up, why would I continue to argue about it?

So a couple of people have presented a post hoc ergo proptor hoc logical fallacy argument in claiming a different fact must be true if an automatically-activated EPIRB failed to emit signals on bursting to the surface of water, i.e., it now becomes ipso facto a manually-activated EPIRB instead and this becomes the reason it failed to operate as it was expected to.


Yet whilst I have presented hard factual documentation, backed up by a JAIC appointed marine navigation expert and an article in HS (which a poster called a 'finnish [sic] backwater rag'), the fallacious-reasoning party can only express an opinion. and a poorly reasoned one at that.

"Oh people don't comply with regulations until many years later.'

 

[Vixen]

"My certainty"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I wonder if the penny will ever drop for Vixen that a) the EPIRBs on the Estonia that night were definitively not automatically-activated, and that b) calling something a "certainty" when in fact it's a falsehood.... is an extremely bad look for anyone claiming to be a decent, intellectually-honest participant in a debate?

As I was saying.

 

[JayUtah]

He is a marine communications expert and with wide contacts.

That doesn't answer my question. Or rather, it does, because you're trying to change the subject. You know Koivisto's company doesn't have anything to do with EPIRBs. But you won't straight-up admit it, because you still want to create the illusion of subject-matter expertise using shadier reasoning.

You don't need to make the widgets to be an expert in them.

But you claimed he was an expert because his company made what you considered to be relevant products. Now you're backing away from that foundation. So if Koivisto's connection to the irrelevant Navielektro company isn't the foundation for his expertise in EPIRBs, then what is?

Or we can look at this another way. You have a single statement from one guy who is apparently "baffled" at why the EPIRBs didn't operate the way he thinks they should. Then on the other hand you have literally the entire industry not being baffled, because they actually know the equipment and know how it works. Why isn't the obvious answer that the one guy -- who isn't really the expert some people make him out to be -- is simply mistaken?

 

[Vixen]

Exactly how likely is something that isn't "somewhat likely"?

ETA: Isn't "but that there is no firm conclusion until more studies have been completed," also a disclaimer?

That was just tacked on as an after-thought.

 

[JesseCuster]

That was just tacked on as an after-thought.

How do you know that?

 

[Vixen]

That doesn't answer my question. Or rather, it does, because you're trying to change the subject. You know Koivisto's company doesn't have anything to do with EPIRBs. But you won't straight-up admit it, because you still want to create the illusion of subject-matter expertise using shadier reasoning.



But you claimed he was an expert because his company made what you considered to be relevant products. Now you're backing away from that foundation. So if Koivisto's connection to the irrelevant Navielektro company isn't the foundation for his expertise in EPIRBs, then what is?

Or we can look at this another way. You have a single statement from one guy who is apparently "baffled" at why the EPIRBs didn't operate the way he thinks they should. Then on the other hand you have literally the entire industry not being baffled, because they actually know the equipment and know how it works. Why isn't the obvious answer that the one guy -- who isn't really the expert some people make him out to be -- is simply mistaken?

The JAIC were baffled. They even said it was priority to (a) retrieve them, or their bracket/HRU and (b) subject them to intense testing, to understand why they did not operate as expected.

 

[Vixen]

How do you know that?

Context is all.

 

[JayUtah]

All I meant by this is that I have presented the factual evidence.

No.

You present the opinion of a guy who isn't really an expert. You present your own conclusions drawn on the basis of misreading various sources.

If I said Paris was the capital of France, what more is there to be said once I have pointed it out on the atlas and presented supporting documents?

The capital of France is a well-known fact. If, instead, you claimed that Marseilles was the rubber-coated hammer capital of France, and all you did was point out that Marseilles is a city in France, you will not have substantiated your point. If you trotted out some guy who you claim is an expert in France, but has never seen a rubber-coated hammer, and he says he believes that Marseilles is the French capital of that tool, that's not credible evidence.

And if we provide you a ream of documents that shows no such factories exist in Marseilles, and that all the rubber-coated hammers in France actually come from a factory in Toulouse, your "position" is irrelevant. You really don't understand the difference between a fact and your supposition.

So a couple of people have presented a post hoc ergo proptor hoc logical fallacy argument in claiming a different fact must be true if an automatically-activated EPIRB failed to emit signals on bursting to the surface of water, i.e., it now becomes ipso facto a manually-activated EPIRB instead and this becomes the reason it failed to operate as it was expected to.

Straw man. That's not the argument that is being presented.

Yet whilst I have presented hard factual documentation...

You don't understand the documentation you've presented. You're conflating dissimilar concepts because you don't actually understand this field. Others, who have considerable experience and expertise in these matters, have endeavored for page after page to correct your misunderstanding, but you are simply impervious to correction.

...backed up by a JAIC appointed marine navigation expert...

But not an expert in the actual equipment he's giving his opinion about.

"Oh people don't comply with regulations until many years later.'

People who are not you understand the difference between recommendations and regulations.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Your quote said:

"During the Q&A phase of the press conference, Jonas Bäckstrand say that based on the Stockholm University report, it's likely that the holes in the side are caused by the exposed bedrock that Estonia is resting on, but that there is no firm conclusion until more studies have been completed,"

whereas the report I read in a Swedish newspaper had Bäckstrand saying only it was "somewhat likely" and adding a disclaimer, whereas the version above appears to claims an outcome.

Maybe something was lost in the translation.

This is where you go back to the source material, instead of relying on a newspaper reporting.

I've just gone back to the source material (the recorded press conference), and here verbatim is some of what he says as answers to two separate questions:

I would say that based on the report of Stockholm University there is high probability at least that the damage to the starboard side of the ship could have occurred due to contact with the sea bottom…

…based on the Stockholm University report it seems relatively likely that that could be how those damages occurred but we cannot confirm that without further investigations.

Questions were asked several times, so there are some small variations on the answers.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Not at all. I stand by my certainty Estonia had float-free - hydrostatically released by an HRU - automatically activated EPIRB's, as evidenced by Rockwater not only retrieving the HRU but Koivisto explaining they were switched off when at land but need to be activated by the ship's electrician at the start of a journey. He says they correctly bobbed free when immersed in water but bafflingly failed to emit the expected signals despite being in full working order, having been checked just a week before and with full batteries. Because of these latter two aspects he concluded they had not been properly installed on the ship.

That is my position.

You are wrong.
Both buoys were found. They were switched off. They had no automatic activation.
When they were switched on they worked for over four hours and transmitted a distress.

 

[LondonJohn]

All I meant by this is that I have presented the factual evidence. I accept I am not going to change the opinion of someone who won't accept it, so I am not going to continue to argue about it.

If I said Paris was the capital of France, what more is there to be said once I have pointed it out on the atlas and presented supporting documents?

If you claim Paris is not the capital of France yet fail to produce one single document that backs it up, why would I continue to argue about it?

So a couple of people have presented a post hoc ergo proptor hoc logical fallacy argument in claiming a different fact must be true if an automatically-activated EPIRB failed to emit signals on bursting to the surface of water, i.e., it now becomes ipso facto a manually-activated EPIRB instead and this becomes the reason it failed to operate as it was expected to.


Yet whilst I have presented hard factual documentation, backed up by a JAIC appointed marine navigation expert and an article in HS (which a poster called a 'finnish [sic] backwater rag'), the fallacious-reasoning party can only express an opinion. and a poorly reasoned one at that.

"Oh people don't comply with regulations until many years later.'

No. What you've been doing - for example with reference to your claims that the EPIRBs had an automatic activation mechanism - is to open an atlas, point to the place in Germany marked "Berlin", and claim this is proof that Paris is the capital of Germany.

How the hell can you still be unable to process/understand the facts that

1) the EPIRBs on the Estonia, while they did indeed have automatic deployment mechanisms, did not have automatic activation mechanisms?

2) these EPIRBs needed to be manually switched on by a crew member in order to operate electronically and receive/transmit radio signals?

3) the reason - and the sole reason - why those EPIRBs didn't transmit/receive that night was because no crew member remembered to switch either of them on?

4) the entire reason why the international regulations changed in the year following the Estonia disaster, to make automatic-activation EPIRBs mandatory, was precisely down to a) the fact that the Estonia's EPIRBs had been manual-activation only, and b) the fact that the manual activation route had been shown to be dangerously unreliable by the case of the Estonia sinking (because in the event, nobody had manually activated them, thereby rendering them entirely useless as a aid to location identification and rescue)?


I recommend that you take your fingers out of your ears, and do some learning.

 

[Vixen]

That doesn't answer my question. Or rather, it does, because you're trying to change the subject. You know Koivisto's company doesn't have anything to do with EPIRBs. But you won't straight-up admit it, because you still want to create the illusion of subject-matter expertise using shadier reasoning.



But you claimed he was an expert because his company made what you considered to be relevant products. Now you're backing away from that foundation. So if Koivisto's connection to the irrelevant Navielektro company isn't the foundation for his expertise in EPIRBs, then what is?

Or we can look at this another way. You have a single statement from one guy who is apparently "baffled" at why the EPIRBs didn't operate the way he thinks they should. Then on the other hand you have literally the entire industry not being baffled, because they actually know the equipment and know how it works. Why isn't the obvious answer that the one guy -- who isn't really the expert some people make him out to be -- is simply mistaken?

Thank you for giving me a good laugh.

 

[JayUtah]

The JAIC were baffled.

No. Wanting to know something is not the same as being "baffled."

They even said it was priority to (a) retrieve them, or their bracket/HRU and (b) subject them to intense testing, to understand why they did not operate as expected.

And the reason they discovered was that they had not been switched on, as that particular model required. No further mystery needed.

 

[LondonJohn]

As I was saying.

What were you saying?

That you're still (almost inconceivably) unaware that the thing you present as a "certainty" - that the EPIRBs on the Estonia included an automatic activation feature - is factually incorrect? And that therefore it's about as far away from a "certainty" as it's possible to be?

What that what you were saying?

 

[Here_to_learn]

That was just tacked on as an after-thought.

What?

Before the Q&A part, they had a whole section describing the next phase of the investigation, what they would do, and what they expect to achieve with it.

It's not an afterthought that more investigations are needed, that is the whole setup of the investigations.

 

[JayUtah]

Thank you for giving me a good laugh.

Still not answering the questions, I see. You maintain that Koivisto should be considered an expert on EPIRBs, but you conceded that his connection with Navielektro is not the source of that alleged expertise as you previously claimed. What is the source of it, then?

Why, when the deep consensus of the industry is one thing, and one guy's arguably uninformed opinion is a different thing, do you cling to the one guy and throw out the knowledge and expertise of the entire industry? How is that not displaying bias?

 

[LondonJohn]

The JAIC were baffled. They even said it was priority to (a) retrieve them, or their bracket/HRU and (b) subject them to intense testing, to understand why they did not operate as expected.

No, Vixen. The JAIC were not baffled. You're the only one that's baffled.

Did you miss the part in the JAIC Report where they discussed having retrieved the EPIRBs and tested them extensively? And that they found the EPIRBs to be in total working order? And that they pointed out that when the EPIRBs were switched on, they worked perfectly? Leading to the unequivocal conclusion that the only reason why the EPIRBs hadn't worked on the night of the sinking must have been because they were never (manually) switched on by the crew prior to the sinking?

How is it even possible to be so totally wrong about something, for so long, in the face of inescapable proof of that wrongness?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You really don't understand the difference between a fact and your supposition.

Bingo.

That's the major issue with this thread. If Vixen thinks something then it becomes the truth. Reality be damned, if that disagrees then obviously the fault lies in our reading of the facts. Vixen cannot ever be wrong about anything. She's a scientist, she can see through buildings, this guy is an expert...it doesn't matter what the issue is, no error can ever be admitted to because there can be no error.

 

[Vixen]

This is where you go back to the source material, instead of relying on a newspaper reporting.

I've just gone back to the source material (the recorded press conference), and here verbatim is some of what he says as answers to two separate questions:



Questions were asked several times, so there are some small variations on the answers.

It all seems rather conditional at the moment. Of course, some damage from hitting the bottom of the seabed is to be expected. The big question is the extent of it. What is interesting here is that the original JAIC seem to have got the original seabed geological formation slightly wrong, although Kurm suggested recently the vessel has actually slid a few metres because of the several tonnes of rocks poured onto it; that has to be a factor, as well, in causing damage.