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

[JayUtah]

They are not tall stories. These are experts with carefully considered viewpoints.

They're still claims that a conspiracy took place.

ETA: You bring up Braidwood, for example, whom we will accept as an expert in explosives. But it's his conclusion that the metallurgical evidence confirms his belief that explosives were used. He's not a metallurgist. And you can't produce the actual metallurgical findings; we must trust his inexpert interpretation of the primary evidence. He says he's identified an object in a photo as an explosive. To the rest of us it's a nondescript package. What would make his determination that of an expert is whether he could show a comparison between the object in the photo and other objects known to be explosives. His expertise would arise in knowing what specific objects to compare it to. But all we get is the vague claim that bulk explosives can be packaged like that, among many other ways.

That particular kind of navigation around uncertainty and ambiguity is what could be considered an example of conspiracy-directed thinking.

Perhaps the real fault lies with the JAIC issuing such an obviously defective report?

It's not "obviously defective." I'm sure the people you trust have repeatedly told you this, and it's obvious you don't have the expertise to make that determination on your own. But your belief after steeping yourself in the views of people who are blatantly arguing a conspiracy is not somehow incontrovertible fact.

That thought has never occurred to you.

Has the thought ever occurred to you that much of what you claim is wrong?

 

[JayUtah]

The fact it is beyond your ken does not make it a conspiracy theory.

That's not the claim. The observation that each of those scenarios postulates a conspiracy to sink the ship, or to cover up the real reason for the sinking of the ship, is what makes it a conspiracy theory. You have yet to identify what part of the commonly accepted definition of a conspiracy theory is missing from your presentation.

 

[Vixen]

Irrelevant. They're still theories that a conspiracy took place. What would have to be added to your presentation here to make it a conspiracy theory? What's missing?

Let's put this another way: in which way do you disagree with the aforementioned experts in their field and why are they wrong and the JAIC right?

 

[Vixen]

You're both wrong. Now do you see why, when you say something is a thing, we have come to doubt you?

Erratum: he was born 1969, not 1976.

 

[Vixen]

They're still claims that a conspiracy took place.



It's not at all obvious. I'm sure the people you trust have repeatedly told you this, and it's obvious you don't have the expertise to make that determination on your own. But your belief after steeping yourself in the views of people who are blatantly arguing a conspiracy is not somehow incontrovertible fact.



Has the thought ever occurred to you that much of what you claim is wrong?

Jutta Rabe and Henrik Evertsson are both journalists. It is all right to report a matter, without needing a PhD in Rocket Science.

 

[JayUtah]

Let's put this another way: in which way do you disagree with the aforementioned experts in their field and why are they wrong and the JAIC right?

See my various contributions to this thread.

 

[JayUtah]

Jutta Rabe and Henrik Evertsson are both journalists.

Evertsson admitted he selectively presented his evidence in order to favor a particular conclusion. Why do you think people who call themselves journalists must be believed uncritically?

It is all right to report a matter, without needing a PhD in Rocket Science.

Straw man. Journalists generally rely on qualified experts to inform them in subjects they do not understand. I have served that purpose on a number of occasions. Reporting on something in ignorance -- or worse, with an ulterior motive -- is not excusable.

 

[Vixen]

What "respected expert in their field" thinks that the Estonia might have been sank by a Russian minisub firing limited range torpedoes?

Russian minisubs do exist. Rabe and the Uni Stockholm have filmed tracks on the seabed which could well be such tracks.

The Rockwater divers left steel plates weighing 500kgs to cover the incisions they made to enter the vessel. There were two of them. At the time Rabe's expedition filmed, both had been removed. The JAIC dismissed this concern with, oh it must have been an underwater current. What? 500kg?

 

[JayUtah]

Russian minisubs do exist.

That doesn't mean they did what you claim they did. In any case, do you concede that you have raised this is a point, irrespective of the "current affair" of conducting a new investigation?

Rabe and the Uni Stockholm have filmed tracks on the seabed which could well be such tracks.

No, they cannot. In any case, there you go theorizing again -- or at best, mindlessly regurgitating others' conspiracy theories.

 

[Vixen]

What "respected expert in their field" thinks that the Estonia might have been sank by a Russian minisub firing limited range torpedoes?
What "respected expert in their field" thinks that the Estonia might have been sank by radioactive waste dissolving the bow door locks?

What "respected expert in their field" thinks that the crew might have been trying to smuggled 40 tonnes worth of heroin into Sweden and tried to open the bow doors and push a truck off the ship during a storm to prevent their drugs from being found?

Have these people got names? Telling me to go look back through the thread for names is an automatic fail. You should know where you got these expert hypotheses from.

The heroin claim comes from Russian intelligence, the Felix Group, so named after the guy who founded the Russian spy networks.

Harri Ruotsalainen a naval engineer who was an intern on the Estonia dives back in 1994, was heard by the Estonian Government THIS SUMMER, 2021, in a working party, requesting that the Arikas expedition looks for some dumped trucks. He believes the trucks were dumped out of the stern because he recalls seeing a sonar image of same on site.

Just because you cannot grasp what these people are saying, doesn't they did not say it.

 

[JesseCuster]

Russian minisubs do exist. Rabe and the Uni Stockholm have filmed tracks on the seabed which could well be such tracks.

So what is the name(s) of the respected expert(s) in their field who thinks that the Estonia might have been sank by a Russian minisub firing limited range torpedoes at it?

 

[Vixen]

See my various contributions to this thread.

So the answer is you are unable to back up your claim.

 

[JayUtah]

The JAIC dismissed this concern with, oh it must have been an underwater current. What? 500kg?

And would you consider this a conspiracy on the part of JAIC to underreport problematic observations?

 

[Vixen]

Evertsson admitted he selectively presented his evidence in order to favor a particular conclusion. Why do you think people who call themselves journalists must be believed uncritically?



Straw man. Journalists generally rely on qualified experts to inform them in subjects they do not understand. I have served that purpose on a number of occasions. Reporting on something in ignorance -- or worse, with an ulterior motive -- is not excusable.

Evertsson deferred to an expert in naval explosives and also to Dr Ulfversson of a Norwegian University, who gave his professional and objective opinion that such a hole was caused by an enormous force which could not be explained by a 55 tonne bow visor. He said the force of the indentation caused was the equivalent of a five tonne submarine at 1.99kn (?) or a small one tonne fishing vessel at 5 kn IIRC.


You rubbished someone who is an expert in his field and who meticulously modelled the damage.

 

[JayUtah]

So the answer is you are unable to back up your claim.

No, the answer is that the majority of my contributions to this thread have been to provide exactly what you're now asking for, at the time the relevant issue was raised. Every time I've quizzed you later on those contributions, you cannot seem to recall what they were. A good example was when you brought up Hoffmeister. I provided immediately afterward my review of his methods and findings, including possibly why he arrived at a different failure sequence than other investigators. I also addressed the issue of scientific reproducibility. You don't seem to remember any of that.

 

[JayUtah]

Evertsson deferred to an expert...

Yes, he did. And he also selectively represented the evidence, and explained that he did so in order to support a desired conclusion.

You rubbished someone who is an expert in his field and who meticulously modelled the damage.

No, I as a well-qualified peer reviewed his work. Don't shift this onto Amdahl. Evertsson's admission had nothing to do with him.

 

[JayUtah]

Just because you cannot grasp what these people are saying, doesn't they did not say it.

It's not a matter of "grasping" it. It's a matter of pointing out, correctly, that it's a conspiracy theory.

 

[Vixen]

So what is the name(s) of the respected expert(s) in their field who thinks that the Estonia might have been sank by a Russian minisub firing limited range torpedoes at it?

As I recall, a poster was saying a submarine could not fire torpedoes without completely destroying it and I simply pointed out that they could be blank torpedoes or that of a mini-submarine. Note, this is disputing the claim that it was 'impossible'.


That is what is known as 'debate'.

Easy enough to distinguish, I would have thought.

 

[Vixen]

No, the answer is that the majority of my contributions to this thread have been to provide exactly what you're now asking for, at the time the relevant issue was raised. Every time I've quizzed you later on those contributions, you cannot seem to recall what they were. A good example was when you brought up Hoffmeister. I provided immediately afterward my review of his methods and findings, including possibly why he arrived at a different failure sequence than other investigators. I also addressed the issue of scientific reproducibility. You don't seem to remember any of that.

You laid into him for not testing the widgets for explosives.

 

[JayUtah]

As I recall, a poster was saying a submarine could not fire torpedoes without completely destroying it and I simply pointed out that they could be blank torpedoes or that of a mini-submarine. Note, this is disputing the claim that it was 'impossible'.

And the point was that this scenario was your invention, not -- as you've claimed for other hypotheses -- the carefully-considered proposals of well-qualified experts.