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

[Mojo]

Erratum: he was born 1969, not 1976.

When did you find this out?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It has moved from IIRC 214° to 224°; that is only an angle of ten degrees, give or take five.

Assuming the Swedish Navy specialists are halfway competent I doubt they left the 500kg steel plates in a position they could slide off, when they had all the undersea welding equipment.

You brought us the story of the steel plates. I don't know your source. If you have information rather than assumptions about how they were fixed in place that might be useful too.

A rotation from 214° to 224° would bring an object closer towards being upright again (360°). Maybe check the numbers.

 

[junkshop]

Erratum: he was born 1969, not 1976.

When did you find this out?

Around about post #266?

 

[Mojo]

I didn't get my ex's age wrong…

Either that’s a porkie, or this is:

My ex- used to say he born the same year. As he was born 1976 I assumed that was the year.

And that can’t be justified as a casual error or a typo: you deliberately brought it up to justify your claim that the Moon landing was in 1976, after you had been pulled up on it.

 

[Mojo]

Around about post #266?

But Vixen’s reply to that was this:

My ex- used to say he born the same year. As he was born 1976 I assumed that was the year.

Surely she must have believed he was born in 1976 when she posted that? Otherwise she was saying that she thought the Moon landing was in 1976 because her ex said he was born in the same year as the Moon landing and he was born in 1969, which would be utterly ludicrous.

 

[zooterkin]

What I said was that my ex was born the same year as the moon landing and mistakenly thought this to be 1976. He was actually born in 1969, so it was a simple error which I immediately corrected. It is telling that people swoop down to beat me up over it, as if no-one has the right to make a mistake and correct it.


Perhaps reflect on whether this is fair.

You thought the moon landing was 1976 because you thought that was the year your ex was born. At least, that's what you told us. You got your ex's age wrong.

The real point is that if you (in the general sense) can be in error on something like that, you cannot be relied on to be correct on anything else without providing convincing corroboration.

 

[Vixen]

What I'm reflecting on is that this whole exchange started out with your trying to defend as not a conspiracy theory your championing of theory after theory about plots by which various villainous groups might have conspired to sabotage the Estonia in elaborate ways, and listed a number of other famous events about which people concoct conspiracy theories.

I think your argument was that since this event of 27 years ago is being reinvestigated now, it must ipso facto be current affairs and cannot be a conspiracy theory. Not sure I follow this but presumably you can explain.

See my example of the 1987 incident with the Finnair pilots. No doubt had a passenger on that plane started a thread on it, he or she would be shot down and had abuse hurled at him or her, when in fact it was not a conspiracy theory at all but something that actually happened, except the average man on the street has no problem in believing in sunny uplands and unicorns as read of in the popular medai but anyone who argues from a scientific or expert POV is derided and shot down in flames. Remind me about the 'weapons of mass destructions' again and the professor who tried to present the scientific facts of the matter based on his expertise. People just can't fathom why they haven't been told all of this and it is easier and more comfortable to dismiss it as a conspiracy theory. No joke, though to those who had to go to the Iraq war, as my brother did.

The fact there are many challenges to the JAIC report should indicate to you that it did an incomplete job - to be charitable - in investigating the root causes of the matter. For example, why it sank in 35 minutes. Pointing to the report itself as the answer is not helpful as it doesn't actually deal with it.

 

[junkshop]

But Vixen’s reply to that was this:


Surely she must have believed he was born in 1976 when she posted that? Otherwise she was saying that she thought the Moon landing was in 1976 because her ex said he was born in the same year as the Moon landing and he was born in 1969, which would be utterly ludicrous.

Good point.

 

[Mojo]

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.

Let me guess: your ex told you that mini-subs could do the same things as him, and he could roll along the seabed.

 

[Vixen]

Either that’s a porkie, or this is:




And that can’t be justified as a casual error or a typo: you deliberately brought it up to justify your claim that the Moon landing was in 1976, after you had been pulled up on it.

Sorry, are you calling me a liar? Did you want me to attach a birth certificate?


The year of the moon landing was not even significant in the context of my post, in which quite a few dates were cited as a by-the-by. It was immediately corrected so maybe you can let me know what sort of punishment you would like to dish out to me for daring to make a mistake and perhaps explain why you have singled me out but not others (For example, the post that claimed the Atlantic Lock was 150kgs).

 

[Vixen]

But Vixen’s reply to that was this:


Surely she must have believed he was born in 1976 when she posted that? Otherwise she was saying that she thought the Moon landing was in 1976 because her ex said he was born in the same year as the Moon landing and he was born in 1969, which would be utterly ludicrous.

Yes, surprise, surprise, it was a simple error.

 

[Vixen]

You thought the moon landing was 1976 because you thought that was the year your ex was born. At least, that's what you told us. You got your ex's age wrong.

The real point is that if you (in the general sense) can be in error on something like that, you cannot be relied on to be correct on anything else without providing convincing corroboration.

So there was an error on the date of the moon landing. Surely anyone is capable of looking up the date of the moon landing for themselves, or perhaps you can tell me what gain there was for me for misremembering.

 

[Mojo]

Sorry, are you calling me a liar?

I invite you, and anyone else reading the thread, to review the evidence of what you yourself have posted.

 

[zooterkin]

So there was an error on the date of the moon landing.

There was an error on the date of your ex's birth, according to you.

You are now claiming there wasn't. One of the two statements must be false.

 

[Mojo]

So there was an error on the date of the moon landing.

Yes, there was. There was then an attempt to evade responsibility for that error by claiming that your ex said he was born in the same year and he was born in 1976, followed by a correction to his date of birth, and a claim that you didn’t get his age wrong.

Have you never heard of Healey’s first law?

 

[zooterkin]

Sorry, are you calling me a liar? Did you want me to attach a birth certificate?

Well, it would establish which date was a lie, 1969 or 1976.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

anyone who argues from a scientific or expert POV is derided and shot down in flames.

That's not what is happening here.

 

[abaddon]

Yes, surprise, surprise, it was a simple error.

No it isn't a simple error. I can rattle off my ex wifes DOB, or my kids or my siblings, or my long dead parents.

This goes to your reliability as a claimant of a wild CT. And do not try to pretend you are not claiming a CT. You have hoppity skipped between a dozen of them. It is too late to pretend you have not.

You have lurched between claims of submarines, minisubs, limpet mines, explosives, radioactive waste, spec-ops, drug smugglers and who knows what else. And what do all of those mad hypotheses have in common? Three national governments conspired to cover the whole thing up.

Now how is that not a CT?

 

[Andy_Ross]

What I said was that my ex was born the same year as the moon landing and mistakenly thought this to be 1976. He was actually born in 1969, so it was a simple error which I immediately corrected. It is telling that people swoop down to beat me up over it, as if no-one has the right to make a mistake and correct it.


Perhaps reflect on whether this is fair.

If nothing else it makes you consistent.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It has moved from IIRC 214° to 224°; that is only an angle of ten degrees, give or take five.

Assuming the Swedish Navy specialists are halfway competent I doubt they left the 500kg steel plates in a position they could slide off, when they had all the undersea welding equipment.

Were these plates welded in to position?