• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jack by the hedge said:
Yet the "well-documented fact" is not the failure of an automatic activation system. Otherwise you could show us just how well-documented it is and you have consistently failed to do so.

JAIC is not the only party which cares if emergency equipment works or not. How many parties have to be in on your conspiracy?
Click to expand...


I get that you don't get it, so let's just leave it there, shall we?
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC is the party that concludes.
Click to expand...

What a funny way of conceding that no such "documentation" exists. Where is the widespread industry objection to the derelict JAIC study of the beacons? Where's the industry recall? Your conclusion that others lack critical thinking skills is based solely on your disagreement as a person who is afraid to admit that she has no actual expertise or experience in these matters.
 
Vixen said:
Where does it say they were 'manual-operation-only' buoys?
Click to expand...

The JAIC as quoted by GlennB above makes it clear that the reason the EPIRBs did not transmit a distress signal is because they weren't properly activated.
JAIC said:
The only reason that they were found switched off is that they were not properly activated.
Click to expand...
If the EPIRBs were automatically activated then they wouldn't need to beproperly activated, to transmit a distress signal, although I gather that even with automatic EPIRBs, the correct procedure is to manually activate them and throw them overboard, and the automatic activation is a failsafe.

Seem pretty obvious to me with bit of basic reading comprehension.
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC concluded the lack of EPIRB signals was of no consequence ...
Click to expand...

There is no authority which considered the non-activation to be sinister. Not just the JAIC. Your theory cannot be limited to their malfeasance alone. What you propose is literally a conspiracy.
 
JesseCuster said:
The JAIC as quoted by GlennB above makes it clear that the reason the EPIRBs did not transmit a distress signal is because they weren't properly activated.

If the EPIRBs were automatically activated then they wouldn't need to beproperly activated, to transmit a distress signal, although I gather that even with automatic EPIRBs, the correct procedure is to manually activate them and throw them overboard, and the automatic activation is a failsafe.

Seem pretty obvious to me with bit of basic reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

I can discern no reasoning skills in your post.
 
Vixen said:
I get that you don't get it, so let's just leave it there, shall we?
Click to expand...

No. “Leaving it there” would benefit only you in your attempts to avoid the actual facts of the matter. You really should provide the documentation requested and required to support your statements
 
Vixen said:
I get that you don't get it, so let's just leave it there, shall we?
Click to expand...
No let's not. He's asking you for evidence for your claim in the form of objections to the JAIC beacon analysis from experts. If you have none, admit it and withdraw the claim. We're not just going to "leave it."
 
JayUtah said:
No let's not. He's asking you for evidence for your claim in the form of objections to the JAIC beacon analysis from experts. If you have none, admit it and withdraw the claim. We're not just going to "leave it."
Click to expand...

Well, if he thinks all the quality broadsheet newspapers citing maritime experts is all a load of rubbish, nothing is going to convince him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom