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

[Here_to_learn]

I don't agree that Anders Bjorkman is factually incorrect.

Nuclear weapons does not exist.
It's impossible to travel to the moon or another planet and come back.
An airplane cannot penetrate a steel high-rise building.

So that's all factually correct in your view then Vixen?

 

[Disbelief]

It never reached a laboratory.

Is that the same laboratory where only welding can be done because of the temperatures?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It never reached a laboratory.

Did they have a lab on the diving support vessel? (Or was it a special underwater platform?) What test would you like the laboratory to perform?

 

[Vixen]

So in your mind, not measured in a lab = measured by eye?

Hello? You are appointed to collect forensic evidence at a crime scene. You find a knife nearby the body. You estimate its dimensions - you might even have brought along measuring instruments - and then you throw it into the nearby waterfall. So your record becomes key evidence in convicting someone. But suppose the pathologist and the judge and jury also want to examine this Exhibit A knife? According to you, we just have to take your word for it that it was as described by you.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Hello? You are appointed to collect forensic evidence at a crime scene. You find a knife nearby the body. You estimate its dimensions - you might even have brought along measuring instruments - and then you throw it into the nearby waterfall. So your record becomes key evidence in convicting someone. But suppose the pathologist and the judge and jury also want to examine this Exhibit A knife? According to you, we just have to take your word for it that it was as described by you.

What are you babbling on about now? None of this has anything to do with the particulars of the incident in question. Here's the thing with analogies, they're great aids to help understanding provided the situation is analogous. This is not.

You were asked what the evidence was that a measurement was taken by eye. You stated that it was not sent to a lab. Logically from that it appears you believe that these are the only two options, so I'm asking you to confirm if you think that in your mind not done in a lab means it was done by eye.

Also I'm not letting you attempt to Gish gallop your way out of my question regarding YOUR hypothetical that actually was a good analogy. If Ian Wright said that football was a 13-a-side game and the keeper could run with the ball like in rugby, would he be a credible expert on football, yes or no?

 

[JayUtah]

You are appointed to collect forensic evidence at a crime scene.

Have you ever collected forensic evidence at a crime scene?

 

[JayUtah]

It never reached a laboratory.

How does that equate to evidence that it was never measured by means of a tool? You made a specific, affirmative claim: that the part was measured only "by eye." You don't seem to have any evidence for that claim.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No. I don't do 'would, could, should'. Fact is, it was thrown back onto the seabed, a grossly reckless and negligent act. This is because the JAIC hinge (no pun intended) their key conclusion on the failure of the Atlantic lock, thus it was imperative it was available for examination, if only for reasons of transparency. The bow visor supposedly hung on this lock whilst it bashed about, yet one wonders whether it was ever bolted at all, given the crew's penchant for hammering the dashed thing in, as witnessed by passengers.

For those who aren't aware, the Atlantic lock was a bolt lock.

How could passengers see the lock being hammered in when it is behind the bow ramp at the bottom of the visor?
How could anyone hammer in the bolt when it was behind the ramp?

 

[Vixen]

Nuclear weapons does not exist.
It's impossible to travel to the moon or another planet and come back.
An airplane cannot penetrate a steel high-rise building.

So that's all factually correct in your view then Vixen?

I was referring to Estonia. I am not interested in his views on JFK, 9/11 or Pearl Harbour.

Bjorkmann is a qualified naval architect. That is different from 'having an opinion'.

As an example, there is a man with such severe dementia (cf Alzheimer's) that if you speak to him, he'll immediately forget no matter how many times you repeat it. Yet, put him in front of a piano and a music sheet, and he plays beautifully and perfectly, just as he did when he was a world-renowned pianist when he was younger.

This is because, the part of your brain that retains memory of learned skill such as walking, driving, making a cup of tea, etc - 'working memory' - is 'stored' in a separate part of your brain than other types of memory. (This is slightly simplified because there are some forms of dementia that affect gait and ability to walk or write.) Thus, someone can be desperately mentally ill and have awful political views, yet still retain their academically trained skills.

So your dismissing someone wholesale just because you differ from them in an opinion reflects on yourself not them.

 

[Vixen]

Is that the same laboratory where only welding can be done because of the temperatures?

Hello, we have a wit here.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Where do you get the idea I'm "very very angry?" I've challenged your attack on the JAIC report. Why do you think that means I would challenge an attack by anyone else, or by everyone? I've stated the grounds upon which I think your challenge of the JAIC findings is ill-founded. You don't seem as interested in those as you do in the mere fact that someone disagrees with you. You can't seem to distinguish between the notion that your attack on the JAIC may be ill-founded, and the notion that other attacks may not be.

Try to get over yourself.

Maybe it would help if we used an analogy?

Vixen, imagine the following. Let's say that there was a planned rocket trip to Mars. Let's say that the planning was made public. Now let's split this into hypothetical A, wherein the plans are perfectly sound and make sense and would work, and hypothetical B wherein the plans have some serious flaws.

In both hypothetical A and Hypothetical B, an individual Z states that you can't get to Mars because the rocket would crash into the invisible dome of the heavens that god put up to separate his domain from the planet.

Do you think that the fact that the plans have serious flaws in one of the two realities should change the opinions of experts to person Z?

Of course not! Whether or not there are serious flaws in the plan makes no odds on whether person Z is spouting gibberish. Whether or not the JAIC report is of sound basis and complete in every way makes no difference to the ideas you have put forward failing to intersect with reality in any way.

Just because we know YOUR approach is wrong doesn't mean that we are beholden to the report any more than in my hypothetical knowing that there isn't a solid dome of heaven makes us agree with the planned trip to Mars.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I was referring to Estonia. I am not interested in his views on JFK, 9/11 or Pearl Harbour.

Bjorkmann is a qualified naval architect. That is different from 'having an opinion'.

As an example, there is a man with such severe dementia (cf Alzheimer's) that if you speak to him, he'll immediately forget no matter how many times you repeat it. Yet, put him in front of a piano and a music sheet, and he plays beautifully and perfectly, just as he did when he was a world-renowned pianist when he was younger.

This is because, the part of your brain that retains memory of learned skill such as walking, driving, making a cup of tea, etc - 'working memory' - is 'stored' in a separate part of your brain than other types of memory. (This is slightly simplified because there are some forms of dementia that affect gait and ability to walk or write.) Thus, someone can be desperately mentally ill and have awful political views, yet still retain their academically trained skills.

So your dismissing someone wholesale just because you differ from them in an opinion reflects on yourself not them.

Bjorkman is a lunatic who is unable to use the basic physics and engineering that he is supposedly qualified as an expert on.

Again, if Ian Wright, YOUR HYPOTHETICAL, started talking about how football is a 13-a-side game, would he still be a credible expert on football irrespective of his successful past as a player?

 

[Disbelief]

Hello, we have a wit here.

It's the same principle. Measurements are done daily all over the world, not in a laboratory. Having the proper tools allows an individual to take these measurements where needed, especially for something as simple as assessing the condition of a bolt.

 

[JayUtah]

I was referring to Estonia. I am not interested in his views on JFK, 9/11 or Pearl Harbour.

You don't think those cases speak to his ability and willingness to accurately represent science and engineering? In your book he can be as unreliable as he likes on other engineering subjects, but on the subject of Estonia he must be accepted as a reliable expert?

Bjorkmann is a qualified naval architect.

Björkman hasn't been a recognized expert in that field for something like 20 years.

Thus, someone can be desperately mentally ill and have awful political views, yet still retain their academically trained skills.

I am not claiming Björkman is mentally ill. No one is claiming Björkman is politically distasteful. The claim is that he is not a reliable authority on engineering because he has contravened his academic training and published claims that grossly misstate scientific fact.

So your dismissing someone wholesale just because you differ from them in an opinion reflects on yourself not them.

He is not being dismissed wholesale. He is being dismissed as an expert in engineering because he has proven to be unreliable and incorrect on the subject of engineering.

 

[Here_to_learn]

So your dismissing someone wholesale just because you differ from them in an opinion reflects on yourself not them.

That you make the existence of nuclear weapons, the ability to travel to the moon and return, and the physical effects of a collision between a plane and a building to be a matter of "opinion" illustrates perfectly why this thread is such a train wreck.

 

[LondonJohn]

Brian Braidwood was a specialist Royal Navy diver - he famously defused the Greenpeace bomb - and if he says that is how they did it - assuming he is referring to a separate communication in the other ear - in a highly specialised unit of the Navy then I believe him.

1) The "Greenpeace bomb" (by which I presume you mean the bombing of the Greenpeace ship "Rainbow Warrior" in Auckland, and it was two bombs (mines) rather than one)..... exploded. It wasn't defused. So did you just entirely make that "....famously defused..." up in order to invent some credibility for Braidwood? Why yes, Vixen. I think you did.

2) Show us the primary evidence - ie in this instance, a direct quote from Braidwood himself, or a reliable report of a Braidwood quote - where he explicitly talks about divers having separate comms coming in to each ear.

Maybe even the microphone was dual.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! *breathes* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

[Andy_Ross]

It never reached a laboratory.

What do you class as a 'laboratory'?

Do you think the ship chartered to do the job had no facilities for examining the items recovered?

After the bolt was seen to be in good condition and measured, what other procedures should have been carried out?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Hello? You are appointed to collect forensic evidence at a crime scene. You find a knife nearby the body. You estimate its dimensions - you might even have brought along measuring instruments - and then you throw it into the nearby waterfall. So your record becomes key evidence in convicting someone. But suppose the pathologist and the judge and jury also want to examine this Exhibit A knife? According to you, we just have to take your word for it that it was as described by you.

It wasn't a knife.

What testing do you think should have been done after the bolt was inspected and measured?

 

[JayUtah]

Hello, we have a wit here.

And it is well-applied, since the incident it refers to was your ignorance of simple concepts relating to machinery. You're the one asserting that a part cannot have been properly measured because it was not sent to a laboratory. This implies that you believe only in a laboratory can accurate measurements of mechanical parts be made. From that you have inferred that the part in question must have been measured only "by eye," and you are now clinging to that conclusion despite the tortuous path of inference, ignorance, and illogic that got you there.

Your amusing performance on the topic of welding simply underscores that you don't seem to know what you're talking about quite a lot of the time. So as long as you base your arguments on what is shown to be quite deficient understanding, those arguments will not be sufficient grounds to challenge others' work.

 

[Vixen]

Maybe it would help if we used an analogy?

Vixen, imagine the following. Let's say that there was a planned rocket trip to Mars. Let's say that the planning was made public. Now let's split this into hypothetical A, wherein the plans are perfectly sound and make sense and would work, and hypothetical B wherein the plans have some serious flaws.

In both hypothetical A and Hypothetical B, an individual Z states that you can't get to Mars because the rocket would crash into the invisible dome of the heavens that god put up to separate his domain from the planet.

Do you think that the fact that the plans have serious flaws in one of the two realities should change the opinions of experts to person Z?

Of course not! Whether or not there are serious flaws in the plan makes no odds on whether person Z is spouting gibberish. Whether or not the JAIC report is of sound basis and complete in every way makes no difference to the ideas you have put forward failing to intersect with reality in any way.

Just because we know YOUR approach is wrong doesn't mean that we are beholden to the report any more than in my hypothetical knowing that there isn't a solid dome of heaven makes us agree with the planned trip to Mars.

I think I would listen more carefully to the person who is a qualified astronaut and rocket scientist and someone who has years of vocational experience in the logistics of getting to mars and back. Who cares if they wear odd socks or vote Monster Raving Looney Party?