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

[Andy_Ross]

Oh, I see. And when the TV accident committee send along a search party to retrieve the remote control and get an expert to present a report as to why it did not work they are just wasting time and money doing something and that anyone on ISF could have told them that, even if they did find the thing.

The EPIRB beacons along with some liferafts and lifejackets were found on 2 October 1994 by two Estonian fishing vessels in the vicinity of Dirhami on the north coast of Estonia. The beacons were switched off when found.
On 28 December 1994 the condition of the above EPIRBs was tested by the Finnish experts. The radio beacons proved to be in full working order when switched on. On 24 January 1995 both EPIRBs were activated on board the Estonian icebreaker TARMO, when they worked without interval for four hours. According to the Russian COSPAS Mission control centre, whose area of responsibility includes the Estonian waters, the radio beacons were transmitting the signal in the normal way throughout the test period.

 

[JesseCuster]

Context is all.

That's not an answer.

You originally said that they "claimed an outcome" and when it's pointed out to you that anyone with basic reading skills can see that they're specifically adding qualifiers like "likely" and "not a firm conclusion".

So when that's pointed out to you you simply shrug and say that those qualifiers are just an "after-thought".

How do you read the minds of whoever wrote that and know why they used the language they did? "Context is all"

It's like earlier in this thread when I asked how what made you think the crew had on their persons their mobile phones throughout the ordeal, from abandoning ship, to getting onto lifeboats, to being rescued, to being taken to hospital, etc. and your answer was that it was "common knowledge".

Seriously, can't you do better than that? How do you know that stating in plain English that they are not offering a "firm conclusion" actually is stating a firm conclusion and that the words saying otherwise are just an "after-thought"? This is pathetic.

 

[JesseCuster]

It all seems rather conditional at the moment.

Yes. We know.

They said that their hypothesis for what caused the hull damage is likely and conditional and dependent on further investigation.

You were wrong when you said that they were "claiming an outcome" and now you're squirming to avoid admitting being wrong.

 

[Axxman300]

Man, all this buoy stuff is kind of sad considering that even had they been switched on they wouldn't have changed the outcome. The responding ships had Estonia on their radars, they converged as fast as they could in those rough seas, and arrived as fast as was possible in those conditions.

The buoys would have been worthless in this specific event.

 

[LondonJohn]

Therein lies the great yawning chasm of faulty reasoning.

See: just because you cannot (or will not) understand the correct situation wrt these EPIRBs..... that doesn't give you the right to suppose that the likes of I, most other people in this thread, or the JAIC, don't understand it either. Because we all do understand it. You do not.

Now, was someone talking about a "great yawning chasm of faulty reasoning"?

 

[LondonJohn]

Why should it be 'deduced' if they were the accident investigators and had all the specs. What you are really saying is that it isyou clutching at whatever it is you are clutching as one can't call it reason. It's rather like saying, 'Oh, my TV remote control doesn't work: that proves conclusively without a shadow of a doubt that my television is a manual-switch-on-tv only, and I'll tell you why: because when I pressed the TV button, why, it came on! Q.E.D.::"

I honestly can't believe you had the audacity to portray yourself as 'King Scientist'.

Hahahahaha! The very fact that you've attempted to present the issue in this way, using such a wildly incorrect/non-applicable analogy, speaks further still to your total lack of comprehension on the EPIRB issue.

Just as you had a total lack of comprehension wrt the damage to the starboard hull - even when people in this thread were repeatedly explaining the evidence to you. You just stuck your fingers in your ears and ploughed on in your false certitude, didn't you, Vixen?

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh dear. This illustrates perfectly the reason why the scientists today on the Arikas expedition press conference of what is ostensibly labelled 'Preliminary presentation' have to keep tagging what should be obvious to the average 12-year-old: 'We have to wait until we have the full findings before we can come to a firm conclusion'.

They have to allow for those at the back not paying attention. It is so tedious for the rest of us.

LOL @ "the rest of us"!

(You do realise that "the rest of us" consists of you, plus a German shipyard with a strong vested interest, plus some relatives whose vulnerability is being exploited, plus a small sad cadre of conspiracy theorists? Don't you?)

 

[LondonJohn]

You can use the search function to review all of this. I won't be going through all this again unless there is something new to add that is relevant.

So: no, then. You can't find any such information.

Let's call it a score-draw then, and agree to differ. LMAO.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ooh and by the way Vixen: can I and the other rational, well-informed, well-qualified posters here just get a latest update on precisely which batcrap conspiracy theory/theories you currently believe wrt the Estonia disaster? Just to be sure what to laugh at. Thanks!

 

[Steve]

See: just because you cannot (or will not) understand the correct situation wrt these EPIRBs..... that doesn't give you the right to suppose that the likes of I, most other people in this thread, or the JAIC, don't understand it either. Because we all do understand it. You do not.

Now, was someone talking about a "great yawning chasm of faulty reasoning"?

Vixen seems to believe that she has a innate talent for understanding things that absolutely no one else, at all, anywhere, understands. Vixen does not and cannot apply reasoning. Vixen just knows. Vixen is, of course, very very wrong about so very many things.

 

[Vixen]

Because having the specs doesn't equate to providing evidence of a failure mode, or ruling out a failure mode, by collecting actual data from the device via subsequent test procedures. If the device is switched off, its battery is fully charged, and its transmitter is in working order -- all things that require additional tests -- then the conclusion supported by the evidence is that no failure mode is evident and the device was never activated. To be fair, that's inductive reasoning for the part where the conclusion is arrived at. But the deductions along the way are that the test procedures establish facts from which a conclusion may be rigorously drawn.

One can deduce that if power is applied to the transmitter, a suitably functioning transmitter will emit a signal at its prescribed frequency. One can deduce that if a battery is measured to contain a certain charge, it will apply that charge to its output terminals via a suitable circuit. One can deduce that if a switch exists in such a circuit, closing the switch will allow current to flow and energize the other parts of the circuit. These deductions are informed by knowledge of the device specifications, but do not substitute for testing those deduced observations. If the deduced actions do not result in the expected observations, then one may infer the presence of any of a number of failure modes and conduct further investigation to isolate it. However, the correct operation of the device when appropriately activated carries those deductions into the realm of proven fact.



No, what I'm saying is what I actually said. Stop putting your words in everyone's mouths.



I never did any such thing. Unlike you, however, I do have extensive experience in the design, manufacture, and testing of engineered products, and experience in the forensic determination of failure of those products. You're the one trying to tell everyone what should or shouldn't have been done when you have no relevant knowledge or experience, and explaining the difference between your expectations and those of an expert in terms that insist you must be right and the expert must be wrong. And then accusing the expert of being audacious for disagreeing with you.

Your ego is the only reason this thread is nearing 300 pages in length.

The specifications and maintenance records told Koivisto exactly what make and model the Estonia EPIRB was, and thus he was able to acquire an identical one for his presentation. In addition, the HRU was retrieved by Rockwater for one of them, and also the casing.

 

[The Man]

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.

It's not an "opinion" and you "continue to argue about it" even here. What you were asking, and ask here as well, is for others to stop telling, showing and demonstrating your assertion to be factually wrong.

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?

Yet still here you are still trying to say more, like "If I said Paris was the capital of France". You didn't.

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?

Yet again you still do "argue about it" even to the point of pretending the documentation you have been repeatedly been provided is like claiming "Paris is not the capital of France".

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.

Not what the post hoc ergo proptor hoc (after this, therefore because of this) fallacy means and not what has been claimed. Ipso facto (by that very fact) would also require you to actually state facts. Post hoc ergo proptor hoc is a causal fallacy meaning it does not assert or deny the truth of the before event just the causal relation to the after event.

The fallacy you are probably looking for is denying the antecedent which takes the form

If P, then Q.
Therefore, if not P, then not Q.

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.'

Non-sequitur, even if the assertion that auto-activated EPIRB were required was correct the report demonstrates the ferry was not equipped with them. So unless your argument is now that the ship violated such a regulation, the question of such a regulation is moot.

 

[LondonJohn]

Vixen seems to believe that she has a innate talent for understanding things that absolutely no one else, at all, anywhere, understands. Vixen does not and cannot apply reasoning. Vixen just knows. Vixen is, of course, very very wrong about so very many things.

The sad fallback position of conspiracy theories the world over. The CTers believe that they - and only they - are the true illuminati who've cracked the code and figured out what really went down. Everyone else is just lapping up the bogus line that the authorities want them to lap up.

And where the CT is to do with any kind of human disaster, this can often have the additional effect of producing a form of evangelical zeal among those pushing the CT: "Look guys, we're doing you a service, and we're doing an even bigger service to the victims of the disaster! The victims, and the wider public, deserve to know the truth!"

 

[Andy_Ross]

The specifications and maintenance records told Koivisto exactly what make and model the Estonia EPIRB was, and thus he was able to acquire an identical one for his presentation. In addition, the HRU was retrieved by Rockwater for one of them, and also the casing.

Yes, it was a manual activation model, the actual buoys from the Estonia were recovered.

 

[Vixen]

Then the man doesn't know what he is talking about or there is a mistranslation somewhere.

EPIRB Buoys are turned off until activated. They have one manual switch and if automatic a sea water activated switch.

If they are turned on then they will transmit a distress.

They do not need to be switched on by an electrician at the start of the journey.
All that can be done by an electrician is a battery test.

Koivisto was referring to the installation phase.

This wikitionary page explains exactly what virittäminen means and it is a narrow meaning:

https://fi.wiktionary.org/wiki/virittäminen

virittäminen

oikeaan säätäminen
Pianon virittäminen on vaativaa puuhaa.
laitteen asetusten tai rakenteiden muuttaminen haluttujen ominaisuuksien saamiseksi
Mopojen virittäminen on melko helppoa.
Virittäminen paransi koneen hyötysuhdetta.
Vastaanottimen virittäminen paransi signaalin suhdetta kohinaan.
jousen tai muun mekanismin asettaminen toimintakuntoon
Rotanloukun virittämisessä on oltava varovainen.
Etymologia
teonnimi verbistä virittää


tuning

correct adjustment
Tuning a piano is a demanding endeavor.
changing the settings or structures of the device to obtain the desired features
Moped Tuning is quite easy.
Tuning improved machine efficiency.
Tuning the receiver improved the signal-to-noise ratio.
putting the spring or other mechanism into operation
Care must be taken when tuning the rat trap .
Etymology
the proper name of the verb tune

When we switch something on or off, it is a simple 'pää' or 'pois'. No fancy French words.

Koivisto does not use these words.

 

[abaddon]

Yes, it was a manual activation model, the actual buoys from the Estonia were recovered.

At sea. Not washed up on a beach covered with sand as Vixen claims.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Koivisto was referring to the installation phase.

This wikitionary page explains exactly what means and it is a narrow meaning:

https://fi.wiktionary.org/wiki/virittäminen



When we switch something on or off, it is a simple 'pää' or 'pois'. No fancy French words.

Koivisto does not use these words.

So he is meaning testing the batteries and putting the buoys in to the brackets?

Apart from that there is nothing to 'tune'

If he thinks there is anything that needs to be done to them by anyone on the ship he is wrong. They buoys are sealed units that have only an on and off switch.
Any other work on them can only be done by the manufacturer or a service centre.

 

[The Man]

That was just tacked on as an after-thought.

Even if that were the case, still a disclaiming after thought none the less. That certainly wasn't after what you just thought was claimed.

 

[JayUtah]

The specifications and maintenance records told Koivisto exactly what make and model the Estonia EPIRB was, and thus he was able to acquire an identical one for his presentation. In addition, the HRU was retrieved by Rockwater for one of them, and also the casing.

We're not talking about Koivisto's dog and pony show. We're not talking about the brackets.

We're talking about the tests done to determine the condition of the recovered EPIRBs, which were reported as part of JAIC's findings.

 

[Andy_Ross]

At sea. Not washed up on a beach covered with sand as Vixen claims.

No, two separate fishing boats recovered the buoys.