• 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.
Vixen said:
Look, I get that pundits and experts can be utter swine, rakes, deviants, lunatics or whatever in their personal life or character but that doesn't cancel out what professional skills they have, even if that talented footballer is actually a drunk who takes KFC's and a fishing rod to a murderous criminal surrounded by police patiently waiting for him to give up his gun.
Click to expand...

Again, I am not talking about what he is like as a person but the fact that he is no longer credible as an expert. Even if he once was, his absolute failures in his own subject since then have discredited him. So answer my question please, if Ian Wright started talking about how football teams had 13 players and that the goalkeeper could carry the ball like in rugby even if he was still discussing 90 minute games, would he still be a credible expert, yes or no?
 
JayUtah said:
If he was discredited from his profession by malpractice of that profession, then he is no longer a credible practitioner. Anders Björkman was not dismissed from the engineering profession because he was a bounder and a cad for other reasons. He was dismissed because he was dishonest about engineering.
Click to expand...

Citation, please.

I get that he's eccentric but to claim he is professionally fraudulent should not be stated lightly even if it is a chat forum.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
But I haven't used Bjorkman as an expert in his field except for factual narrative.
Click to expand...
Yes you are.

Vixen said:
You can bring on the twelfth player as a substitute, so maybe it is the viewer who is actually ignorant and not the ref and overpaid tv 'pundit'.
Click to expand...

Stop deflecting. If Ian Wright was talking about football teams having 13 men is he still a credible expert on football, yes or no?
 
Vixen said:
Citation, please.
Click to expand...

Oh, sure, just let me go scrape through the web forums for 15 years ago.

I get that he's eccentric but to claim he is criminally fraudulent...
Click to expand...

I made no claim of criminality. Do try to stick to the arguments I actually make and stop trying to shove words in my mouth. He's not "eccentric." He blatantly misrepresents fact.
 
Vixen said:
There is one microphone. Here follows a report on how the Rockwater divers operated:

EFD

As is apparent, what the public hear on the video, is controlled by the video editors, without having to mute it, by simply not including the more confidential one.
Click to expand...

Hmm. This looks like a lot of surmise rather than expert knowledge to me. Yes, it quotes Braidwood as saying it's normal for divers to have two earphones, but he doesn't say its normal to have a different person talking in each ear. It claims the diver can sometimes be seen to react to instructions we do not hear but I'm going to put that down to wishful thinking unless you can give us a convincing example.

"The diver received his instructions through two earphones - one in each ear - and spoke into one microphone. On the video tapes available to the public only the voice of the supervisor into one of the earphones and the voice of the diver are audible. Only on some occasions does it become evident that the diver gets additional respectively other instructions when he reacts differently or replies differently, this being particularly obvious when he quickly turns his head away from areas which the public should not see as will be explained on the following pages. It is common practice - according to the diving expert Brian Braidwood - that divers carry two different earphones during an operation like the one under consideration here."
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
You can bring on two substitutes. Maybe defer to the person who knows better.
Click to expand...

Stop deflecting. You know what I mean.

But fine, to prevent any further "cute" deflections, if Ian Wright says that football is a 13-a-side game played for 90 minutes where the ball can be carried by the goalkeeper like in rugby, is he still a credible expert on football, yes or no?
 
JayUtah said:
Oh, sure, just let me go scrape through the web forums for 15 years ago.



I made no claim of criminality. Do try to stick to the arguments I actually make and stop trying to shove words in my mouth. He's not "eccentric." He blatantly misrepresents fact.
Click to expand...

OK, I have retracted the 'criminally' bit to 'professionally'. From what you say, you seem to be saying he was kicked out of his profession over disciplinary issues, which I presume must have been gross misconduct to have been 'struck off', as it were?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Stop deflecting. You know what I mean.

But fine, to prevent any further "cute" deflections, if Ian Wright says that football is a 13-a-side game played for 90 minutes where the ball can be carried by the goalkeeper like in rugby, is he still a credible expert on football, yes or no?
Click to expand...

If my grandfather wore a skirt, would he be my grandmother?

Herein lies the problem with hypothetical questions.
 
Vixen said:
If my grandfather wore a skirt, would he be my grandmother?

Herein lies the problem with hypothetical questions.
Click to expand...

Stop deflecting. It's YOUR hypothetical.

If Ian Wright said those things would he still be a credible expert, yes or no?

If Anders Bjorkman made declarations that violated the laws of physics would he still be a credible expert, yes or no?
 
Vixen said:
And is this ship still floating? Perhaps it finally reached Fantasy Island.

Actually:

The JAIC orally stated that the reason for throwing the bolt back into the Baltic was 'because the helicopter was full and the bolt was too heavy': its weight was 'about 25 kilograms'. However, the JAIC brought up eleven other parts of the ship, none of which were thrown back in the sea. This included the bell, which was 70kg.


So the bell was extremely important and VERY essential for the investigation._NOT!
Click to expand...

Was the bell returned aboard the helicopter?

How big was the bell?
 
Vixen said:
There is one microphone. Here follows a report on how the Rockwater divers operated:

EFD

As is apparent, what the public hear on the video, is controlled by the video editors, without having to mute it, by simply not including the more confidential one.
Click to expand...


LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

You, and the execrable EFD site, believe that the divers had an earphone in their left ear receiving transmissions from Person 1, and an earphone in their right ear receiving transmissions from Person 2.

And that those nasty people in the JAIC and the national governments have shown us all the voice that went into (say) the divers' left ear, but have withheld from us the voice that went into the divers' right ear - the voice that was giving the divers the sooper-sekrut instructions that "The Man" doesn't want the public to hear or even to know about.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
 
LondonJohn said:
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

You, and the execrable EFD site, believe that the divers had an earphone in their left ear receiving transmissions from Person 1, and an earphone in their right ear receiving transmissions from Person 2.

And that those nasty people in the JAIC and the national governments have shown us all the voice that went into (say) the divers' left ear, but have withheld from us the voice that went into the divers' right ear - the voice that was giving the divers the sooper-sekrut instructions that "The Man" doesn't want the public to hear or even to know about.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Click to expand...

I know when I put in my earphones to work around the house, I have one genre of music in my left ear and another in my right. Doesn't everyone?
 
Vixen said:
And is this ship still floating? Perhaps it finally reached Fantasy Island.

Actually:

The JAIC orally stated that the reason for throwing the bolt back into the Baltic was 'because the helicopter was full and the bolt was too heavy': its weight was 'about 25 kilograms'. However, the JAIC brought up eleven other parts of the ship, none of which were thrown back in the sea. This included the bell, which was 70kg.


So the bell was extremely important and VERY essential for the investigation._NOT!
Click to expand...


What does "The JAIC orally stated...." mean?

Did the JAIC (which consists of many people, remember) recite this in unison at some point?

Or are you claiming that one person on the JAIC "orally stated" this at some point?

If so, what's the evidence that this was "orally stated"? By whom, exactly? When? To whom exactly?
 
LondonJohn said:
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

You, and the execrable EFD site, believe that the divers had an earphone in their left ear receiving transmissions from Person 1, and an earphone in their right ear receiving transmissions from Person 2.

And that those nasty people in the JAIC and the national governments have shown us all the voice that went into (say) the divers' left ear, but have withheld from us the voice that went into the divers' right ear - the voice that was giving the divers the sooper-sekrut instructions that "The Man" doesn't want the public to hear or even to know about.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Click to expand...


Yup, it's that classic CTist trope, "the absence of evidence is the evidence!"
 
Last edited:
The Teflon CTs are built like this:

"The JAIC never investigated the very real possibility of an attack by Howler Monkeys."

Just because nobody reported the presence of Howler Monkeys on the Estonia doesn't mean they weren't onboard.

The Captain was a graduate of the Russian Naval School of Awesomeness, and thus makes him above suspicion for any wrong-doing. Couple this with the FACT the JAIC never investigated the potential attack by Howler Monkeys, and it is clear that Howler Monkeys were the cause of the sinking.

At some point Bjorkman will put out a video where he reviews the dive footage, and points out "clear evidence" of Howler Monkey attack by pointing out fuzzy images of what he claims is residue of flung-poo on the bridge.

I'm sorry if this is off-topic, but you can do this with every CT in history by replacing every claim with "Howler Monkeys Did It" and the CT will hold up even is it drifts further from reality.

Real accident investigations don't work like that. Investigators are broken into teams to cover the different aspects of the event. The Estonia began with the survivors because that's all they had until they found the wreck, and then they investigated the wreck, a d recovered the bow-visor. Most legitimate investigations are down behind closed doors mostly to avoid confusing the public as new evidence that is developed can change the working narrative of the disaster. We saw this with TWA-800, where the FBI tried to be transparent with the investigation, and ended up adding fuel to a half-dozen CTs.

The evidence points to the bow-visor being knocked off in heavy seas, causing the ship to capsize, and sink. That's it. that's all she wrote.

Anyone claiming Spetsnaz, mini-subs, explosives, and or radioactive materials MUST also include a rogue troop of Howler Monkeys as well to maintain consistency.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom