• 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 IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
You laid into him for not testing the widgets for explosives.
Click to expand...

I did absolutely no such thing. I noted that if there had been evidence of explosives, it would have been apparent to him during the examination he carried out, and it would have been important to report such a discovery in connection with findings developed via finite-element methods.

But as usual you missed the point. After fumbling around with Hoffmeister and explosives, you tried to draw the discussion back to the failure sequence. You seemed unaware at the time -- and still unwilling to consider -- that those points had already been addressed. You say I should point out wherein I disagree with the findings of experts, or with your interpretation of them. I say that you can essentially drop in anywhere in this thread and its predecessors and see where I have already done that.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
So the hypothesis that the Estonia could have been sank by a Russian minisub firing blank torpedoes is your hypothesis, not that of a "respected expert in their field".

You said that they were all from respected experts in their field, when you've just admitted you made one up yourself. :rolleyes:
 
Vixen said:
Erratum: he was born 1969, not 1976.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should have a pause for thought about your accuracy of recall in general if you cannot be relied on to get such a personal detail right. Provide a link to a primary source for any future 'fact' you share, please.

I mean, really, getting your former partner's age wrong by 7 years? :jaw-dropp
 
Vixen said:
You can be a hostile nation and still go to the rescue of a vessel in distress. As witness the Kursk disaster. Several western nations immediately offered assistance.
Click to expand...

But it was never claimed that the ‘western nations’ had just deliberately sunk the Kursk to teach Russia a lesson.
 
Vixen said:
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?
Click to expand...

Why not read the many thousands of posts explaining this to you.

How about one of your ‘experts’ shows us some solid evidence for any of the claims being made?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Why not read the many thousands of posts explaining this to you.

How about one of your ‘experts’ shows us some solid evidence for any of the claims being made?
Click to expand...

I think Vixen does read most of the posts in this thread. The problem appears to be the retention of the information for a period exceeding 24 hours. Vixen constantly asks for information she has previously already commented on.
 
Vixen said:
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?
Click to expand...

Submarines do not leave tracks. If a sub fired a torpedo at the ship it would not be near the final
Resting place of the wreck.
We know the wreck has moved and changed position.
She couldn’t a current have moved them?
Are you suggesting that there have been other expeditions to the wreck that we don’t know about?
Where does the JAIC address the concerns of the Rabe expedition with regard to this?
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

We can grasp what they are saying, they just don’t have any credibility.
What evidence do you have that the stern was opened and trucks dumped out?
Weren’t you claiming it was the bow that was opened to dump the trucks?
What happened to them being on fire?
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

A 5 ton submarine? Was it a toy?
A one ton fishing vessel? You mean a dinghy?
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

It wasn’t that they would completely destroy it but that there would have been more than a bit of a banging sound and the damage would be below the waterline as a torpedo doesn’t fly.
 
zooterkin said:
Perhaps you should have a pause for thought about your accuracy of recall in general if you cannot be relied on to get such a personal detail right. Provide a link to a primary source for any future 'fact' you share, please.

I mean, really, getting your former partner's age wrong by 7 years? :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

Or even the date of the first moon landing!
 
Vixen said:
You laid into him for not testing the widgets for explosives.
Click to expand...

You're just making up our side of the conversation in your head aren't you? There is no reading of Jay's posts that could cause any reasonable person to come to this conclusion about what he was saying.

Incidentally I find it hilarious that you replied to my dressing down of your obvious continued incompetence with a petulant attempt to make it look like I was commenting solely on your education and highlight that this isn't relevant when you had a huge hissy fit when many posters, myself included, rightly pointed out that you're in no way a scientist despite your claims.
 
Vixen said:
What is being ascertained is whether it is possible for someone to still be alive in an air pocket. A Russian institute claimed it was possible and offered their specialised equipment to help rescue such persons. Bear in mind, this was still within two days of the accident.
Click to expand...

So they offered their rescue equipment before the wreck was located and their opinion was not based on knowing quite how deep it was lying.
 
Vixen said:
So you keep saying.

It is not conspiracy theory. I opened this thread in current affairs thus conspiracy is in the minds of those who insisted it must be a conspiracy theory to agree with the decision of three sovereign nations to reopen the case to examine the hole in the starboard (confirmed by Bäckstrand as being 22m by 4m, or, circa 66 feet by twelve feet, to give it perspective, which was never mentioned by the JAIC, although by all intents and purposes they had had their attention drawn to it by a couple of sources before they issued their report.
Click to expand...

1. The rupture in the hull was never mentioned by the JAIC because they didn't see it...because they couldn't see it, because the ship laying on it.

Obviously, a physics expert such as yourself would know that ROV can't fit into spaces smaller than their frames, and it is unsafe to send divers underneath a fresh wreck due to the danger of shifting, and then crushing them.

2. Backstrand cropped his footage of the rupture to edit out the rock outcropping which OBVIOUSLY CAUSED THE DAMAGE.

3. Nothing wrong with a fresh look at any accident.

4. The Estonia CT gang already knows they're about to look like idiots since they are already raising new red-flags about the new official investigations...as all CT loons do.
 
Vixen said:
Russian minisubs do exist. Rabe and the Uni Stockholm have filmed tracks on the seabed which could well be such tracks.
Click to expand...
We had a long discussion about how "submarine" is an adjective, and that unless context plainly indicates otherwise "submarine tracks" are tracks under the sea rather than tracks made by submarines. Unless you have new information on the development of specialist submarines in the '90s I think we're done with it.
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?
Click to expand...

Here's a new claim. I find myself first wondering if it actually happened at all, then deciding it's probably based on some kind of fact, then wondering if steel plates the divers placed over the holes they cut (presumably to stop stuff floating out) had simply slid off as the wreck settled, and finally I wonder what, if anything, the JAIC actually said and how it compares with the words you want to stuff in their mouths.
 
Vixen said:
So the answer is you are unable to back up your claim.
Click to expand...

He absolutely is. It is you who cannot back up your wild CT nonsense, You wheel out this CT rubbish about subs and spec ops and magic explosives and metal dissolving nuclear waste and sailors hurling trucks over the bow or the stern depending on what mood you happen to be in or the submarines or the limpet mines or the torpedoes or the teams of nameless divers and on and on.

And you claim that some governments are all covering up the "troof".

How on earth is this not a CT?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom