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

[Vixen]

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!

My view is that there are a lot of questions still to be answered. I for one am glad that Arikas and Kurm have made some of these answers possible, thanks to the efforts of Henrik Evertsson and Jutta Rabe, who has had her name dragged in mud and vilified, possibly understandably because of the sensitive nature of the catastrophe. However, she is an investigative reporter and where would we be without them. I was originally highly sceptical of her claims, but do you know what? Like her or loathe her, I think she is very close to the truth, actually.

 

[JayUtah]

I am an independent thinker. I don't believe in fake news or conspiracy theory. I can see the flaws in all the various arguments. I tend to naturally side with the underdog, which is why my sympathies here tend towards the survivors and the relatives and advocates of the deceased. I recall the day of the accident and of feeling utterly stunned by it.

You may believe you're an independent thinker, but you're clearly just regurgitating what has been spoon-fed to you by one conspiracy claimant or another. Otherwise we would expect you to have formulated some coherent alternate theory to what you think sank the ship. Instead of a single coherent theory, we get nothing more than a recitation of the claim du jour, even if it's flatly contradicted by what you told us the day before. You're not evaluating any of your sources critically, so it's very hard to imagine you are thinking independently of what they tell you to think, and very hard to imagine you are approaching you own beliefs critically.

You're clearly promoting a conspiracy theory. Several, in fact.

You may believe you can see the flaws in all the available arguments, but you are categorically unwilling to admit any flaw in your own arguments, even when there is a mountain of fact standing against them. Your overriding desire apparently to save face is a serious impediment to having any sort of reasoned discussion with you.

You're allowed and expected to have an emotional response to tragedy. However, when it comes time to determining what happened and, apportioning blame, and taking corrective action, "siding with the underdog" is useless and distractionary sentimentalism. If you want to know what happened you have to side with evidence and sound reasoning no matter where they point. In this debate you have constantly countered astute, dispassionate analysis with frantic appeals to emotion, as if by taking a hard look at things your critics have somehow trodden upon the graves of children.

 

[JayUtah]

My view is that there are a lot of questions still to be answered.

That's what every other conspiracy theorist I've encountered has said. A few try to answer them, but most simply wallow endlessly in a sea of "unanswered questions" predicated largely upon expectations bred from ignorance, and sustained by a desire to wreak vengeance upon some imaginary enemy. It seems most of the questions you deem unanswered do, in fact, have answers (or at least reasonable, probable propositions). But since they don't let you keep believing in a conspiracy, you ignore them.

 

[Vixen]

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.



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



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".




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.




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.

Look. I do not mind people disagreeing with me or disputing a presumed fact. What is irritating is poor reasoning and debating skills. Let's face it, much of it is playground ad hominem, or pathetic point-scoring. One poster claims 'you never admit you are wrong', because I once wrote 'Sterling hit the bar' when I meant to say 'goalpost' and forever more he persistently claims I am a liar unable to admit it was not a typo. (What he doesn't know is that I was a season ticket holder for several years of two different football clubs, so I think I do know the difference) thus his smug confidence that it was not a typo and that I should be jeered at by him that I am supposedly 'too embarrassed' to admit it was not a typo at every opportunity, and frankly, it is annoying.

Brinkmanship, likewise.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Look. I do not mind people disagreeing with me or disputing a presumed fact. What is irritating is poor reasoning and debating skills. Let's face it, much of it is playground ad hominem, or pathetic point-scoring. One poster claims 'you never admit you are wrong', because I once wrote 'Sterling hit the bar' when I meant to say 'goalpost' and forever more he persistently claims I am a liar unable to admit it was not a typo. (What he doesn't know is that I was a season ticket holder for several years of two different football clubs, so I think I do know the difference) thus his smug confidence that it was not a typo and that I should be jeered at by him that I am supposedly 'too embarrassed' to admit it was not a typo at every opportunity, and frankly, it is annoying.

Brinkmanship, likewise.

Where are the goalposts?

 

[Vixen]

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!"

That doesn't apply to me as I opened this thread in Current Affairs as the Arikas expedition happened to be a news item and in addition, he set sail in July this year, and Kurm in September.

Do try to differentiate between news, current affairs and anti-vaxxers.

 

[abaddon]

I am an independent thinker.

You understand that is a common claim of conspiracy wingnuts? Are you certain that you want to position yourself there?

I don't believe in fake news or conspiracy theory.

As we can all read from your various threads.

I can see the flaws in all the various arguments.

But not your own.

I tend to naturally side with the underdog, which is why my sympathies here tend towards the survivors and the relatives and advocates of the deceased.

That is called bias. Look it up.

I recall the day of the accident and of feeling utterly stunned by it.

Ever been involved in a serious incident resulting in death? I have. Ever had someone bleed out in front of you while he died and nothing you could do but hold his hand while he died? I have.

You seem to think that unless you can witness the people die yourself, it is a conspiracy. Try the fresh smell of blood spilt on the ground. Once one smells it, one will never forget it.

 

[Vixen]

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

From that finnish backwater rag:

There, Koivisto says that the emergency buoys were sandy and really looked like they had floated ashore.

YLE

This guy actually handled them.

 

[Vixen]

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.

From HS:

"The so-called EPIRB emergency buoys had been recently serviced and had been placed in place in accordance with the rules. However, during the installation phase, the activation of the buoys was forgotten: the protective cover must be opened and turned on the coupling head. Activation of the emergency buoy was one of the tasks of radio electricians in Estonia, of which there were two on board."

This was in January 1995, he gave his presentation. In Dec 1994 Rockwater retrieved the HRU.

"Rockwater Survey Report

Also under the direction of the authorities, divers accessed the Bridge of the vessel and retrieved a number of navigational aids, a man-overboard beacon and the hydrostatic release mechanism for one of the vessel’s EPIRB beacons. The bodies of 3 of the victims of the disaster were found on the Bridge."

End of. You can the last word again.

 

[Vixen]

No phase of operation available to the end user of an emergency locator beacon includes or allows the adjustment of the frequency on which the beacon transmits. If "tune" is intended to convey that, it is simply a wrong concept regardless of translation issues.

Be that as it may, that is what the JAIC appointed marine navigation expert in marine electronics reported. He saw them, he touched them, he examined them, he wrote a report, acquired identical models and did a presentation to the JAIC.

At no point does he or the JAIC say they were manually-activated models only and that whoever threw them in the sea forgot to turn them on. Nowhere.

 

[Agatha]

The discerning reader will see that another batch of posts has been sent to AAH for various breaches; chiefly rule 0 and rule 12. Will you all please pay greater regard to your MA when composing and submitting your posts.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[JayUtah]

This was in January 1995, he gave his presentation.

Which contains obvious errors. You have not explained where he obtained his purported expertise in the design and operation of EPIRBs. Repeatedly citing this one source as if it has supremacy over all else is irrational when it has been repeatedly rebutted and is not credible on its face.

...the hydrostatic release mechanism for one of the vessel’s EPIRB beacons.

The release mechanism has nothing to do with how the buoy itself is activated. I'm reasonably confident I could explain the difference once to a reasonably intelligent child and have him understand. But for some reason you consider repeatedly conflating the two to be a high art.

End of. You can the last word again.

And the last word is the same rebuttal you've received over and over again. Your "position" is and always has been simply to repeat your original claim along with the original evidence you gave in support of it, as if none of the ensuing discussion had ever occurred and no contravening evidence had been presented.

You're not the least interested in whether your beliefs coincide with the facts, and apparently have no interest in paying attention to what anyone else in this thread is saying or why they may have said it.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen's error. She wont even admit that error. Although notably, she now avoids the claim she made. I would not be surprised if she denies ever making that claim.

I haven't erred. Unlike yourself I have actually provided official sources, quality broadsheet newspapers and Rockwater report.

 

[JayUtah]

Be that as it may, that is what the JAIC appointed marine navigation expert in marine electronics reported.

Then either he is wrong or the translation is wrong. No end user tunes the transmission frequency on an emergency beacon. That's simply not a thing.

At no point does he or the JAIC say they were manually-activated models only and that whoever threw them in the sea forgot to turn them on. Nowhere.

We know exactly what model they were exactly what the capabilities of that model are.

 

[The Man]

Look. I do not mind people disagreeing with me or disputing a presumed fact.

That whole post I responded to demonstrates otherwise. You invented a whole analogy scenario just to assert how indisputable your claim must be. Likewise your claim wasn't that they were disagreeing with you but that they were disagreeing with facts.

What is irritating is poor reasoning and debating skills. Let's face it, much of it is playground ad hominem, or pathetic point-scoring.

If your "poor reasoning and debating skills" are irritating your them try improving them. Claiming and showing your assertions are wrong is not an " ad hominem", "playground" or otherwise nor is it "point-scoring", "pathetic" or otherwise. It is simply demonstrating errors on your part.

One poster claims 'you never admit you are wrong', because I once wrote 'Sterling hit the bar' when I meant to say 'goalpost' and forever more he persistently claims I am a liar unable to admit it was not a typo. (What he doesn't know is that I was a season ticket holder for several years of two different football clubs, so I think I do know the difference) thus his smug confidence that it was not a typo and that I should be jeered at by him that I am supposedly 'too embarrassed' to admit it was not a typo at every opportunity, and frankly, it is annoying.

Brinkmanship, likewise.

Actually I think it has quite a lot to do with you being shown to be wrong here and simply not admitting it. Again demonstrated above by the assertion of the "poor reasoning and debating skills" of others and "playground ad hominem, or pathetic point-scoring" instead of simply an error on your part. Will you even admit to the possibility that your claims on the EPIRBs could be in error?

 

[abaddon]

Be that as it may, that is what the JAIC appointed marine navigation expert in marine electronics reported. He saw them, he touched them, he examined them, he wrote a report, acquired identical models and did a presentation to the JAIC.

At no point does he or the JAIC say they were manually-activated models only and that whoever threw them in the sea forgot to turn them on. Nowhere.

Were there no HRUs then?

 

[Vixen]

How close were any Russian vessels?
How long does it take for the position of the buoys to be triangulated and a response passed to the appropriate rescue services?

The Russian 'research' ship the Leonid Byshkoff was there. We know because Turku MRCC had to warn them as they were headed straight to the rocks at Utö.

 

[Vixen]

There were no Russian vessels proximate.

Except for your imaginary submarines/limpet mines/divers/special forces/Spetsnaz who were all over it on a suicide mission. Because reasons.

It's absurd.

Wrong. Assertions without any back up.

 

[Andy_Ross]

From that finnish backwater rag:

YLE

This guy actually handled them.

They were found in the water, they were picked up by boats.

 

[Vixen]

So what's this thread about?

The current news about a new investigation into the sinking as a result of Henrik Evertsson's documentary last October revealing the massive hole int he starboard, together with the law being amended by Finland, Sweden and Estonia, to allow for fresh dives.