• 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:
Russian minisubs do exist.
Click to expand...

Which ones move along the sea floor on tracks fast enough to keep up with a ship on the surface sailing at flank speed?

ETA: At night? Though I imagine at 80m the sunlight overhead probably doesn't matter much.
 
Last edited:
How would a Russian sub that sank the ship be on the seabed at the wreck site all that time later?
 
JayUtah said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hoffmeister was appointed to replicate the JAIC's testing of the bolts.

No more. No less. His findings are important in their own right.
 
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...

I am sure you've never made a mistake.

I didn't get my ex's age wrong, I got the date of the Moon Landing wrong and I corrected it. Perhaps explain why you think this is a major crime.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
But it was never claimed that the ‘western nations’ had just deliberately sunk the Kursk to teach Russia a lesson.
Click to expand...

Poor reasoning.


It was a Russian institute that offered to help with the rescue. Why do you think this institute would necessarily know what its defence forces or intelligence services are doing? Russia is a big country.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
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?
Click to expand...

As I said, Rabe claimed to have found wheeled tracks on the seabed and there are pictures of it, which she and Greg Bemiss identify as submarine tracks. AIUI mini-subs can indeed roll along the seabed.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
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?
Click to expand...

They 'don't have any credibility' but the JAIC unproven claim 'a wave knocked off the bow visor' does?
 
Axxman300 said:
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.
Click to expand...

How else do yu think the early divers accessed the car deck? Remember, the JAIC said the car ramp only had a gap of 40cm and the divers confirmed they could not get in through that gap. Yet there are clear images of a diver in the car deck in the background of the official dive.

The JAIC did a geological survey at the time. The Baltic Sea floor is covered in rocks and mud. Only people who do not know their geography think this is a big surprise and a new development.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
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.


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.
Click to expand...

...or someone unofficial removed them to access the vessel.
 
Vixen said:
Hoffmeister was appointed to replicate the JAIC's testing of the bolts.



No more. No less. His findings are important in their own right.
Click to expand...
And you keep missing the point. I discussed all this before. I referred several times subsequently to when I had previously discussed it. You seem to want to pretend none of that ever occurred and that I'm somehow on the hook to address all your claims all over again.

The only reason I brought up Hoffmeister today was as an example of your proffered experts that I had already reviewed. You're doing an excellent job of proving that you have no idea what I said about Hoffmeister's findings. That puts you in a very poor position to be the one to say I can't support my point.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
How else do yu think the early divers accessed the car deck? Remember, the JAIC said the car ramp only had a gap of 40cm and the divers confirmed they could not get in through that gap. Yet there are clear images of a diver in the car deck in the background of the official dive.
Click to expand...

You need to post a link to that footage.


The JAIC did a geological survey at the time. The Baltic Sea floor is covered in rocks and mud. Only people who do not know their geography think this is a big surprise and a new development.
Click to expand...

Strawman. Nobody is surprised there are rocks on the bottom of the sea in that area. What is obvious is that the damage to the hull was caused by impact with the rocks when the ship hit the sea floor, and then enhanced over time as the hull has rolled.

In short - no explosives used to cause the fracture in the hull.
 
Vixen said:
Citation please.
Click to expand...

You're the one who needs to prove the offer was made with adequate knowledge of the depth and condition of the wreck. If the offer was made before the wreck was found, you can't argue it was an informed offer, and therefore that a rejection of it is somehow suspicious.
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC did a geological survey at the time. The Baltic Sea floor is covered in rocks and mud. Only people who do not know their geography think this is a big surprise and a new development.
Click to expand...

Then that must be you. When we previously raised the issue that rocks on the seabed might have caused the damage to Estonia's starboard side, you told us that wasn't credible because there were no rocks in the area to do so.
 
Vixen said:
My ex- used to say he born the same year. As he was born 1976 I assumed that was the year.
Click to expand...


Ahahaha! I think this post is a beautiful little vignette which gives us a great insight into Vixen's relationship with accuracy and factual truth:

She gets a world-famous date wrong by several years. Then claims that the reason why she got it so wrong was because her ex "used to say he was born the same year*" So instead of either a) knowing the date of the most famous Moon landing by far (a date which is hard-wired into most intelligent people's brains...) or b) spending literally 30 seconds checking the dates of the manned Moon landings, she prefers to go instead with something her (ignorant, as it turns out) ex told her. Apparently.



* And..... the same year as what, exactly? Because there were six manned Apollo missions to the Moon, which took place between 1969 and 1972
 
Vixen said:
I corrected the error. Any particular reason you hold it against me?
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. I can cite my ex's DOB without thinking about it. I can cite the dates of the moon landings without hesitation.

Somehow, you cannot. That puts your credibility in the spotlight right away.

It also calls into question all the other wild claims you have made in this and other threads. Why should those wild claims be trusted? Would you trust a source that demonstrably makes crap up?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom