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

[Jack by the hedge]

Then the JAIC should not have kept saying things like:

"5.2 Status of the vessel on departure

On departure from Tallinn on 27 September the ESTONIA was seaworthy and properly manned. There were no outstanding items either from the authorities or from the classification society's surveys. The maintenance standard of the vessel was good as witnessed by various instances."

You seem to have forgotten that the Estonia's non-compliance had not been noted by the authorities at the time. If you think the JAIC were wrong in what you keep quoting, perhaps you would indicate precisely where and what they ought to have said instead.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

What is it you do not understand by Mr. Justice Sheen saying that The Herald of Free Enterprise turned more than 90°?

I understand what he said. It's plain English.

It was your claim that he said "the The Herald of Free Enterprise would have turned over completely". He actually said it turned over to somewhat more than 90° and that it may have remained in that attitude for about a minute. And you quoted him saying exactly that. And yet you claimed he meant something else which he pointedly did not say.

It's not me who is confused about this, Vixen.

 

[JayUtah]

What is it you do not understand by Mr. Justice Sheen saying that The Herald of Free Enterprise turned more than 90°?

The part where you say it would have continued to roll more than 90° but for the seabed, and Sheen specifically disavows that interpretation of their findings.

 

[Vixen]

Then you shouldn't have any trouble finding some qualified marine engineers and/or naval architects who agree with him.




How do you know either of these is true?




And even if they are true, we have explained to you at length why degrees and professional certifications are not guarantees of competence, but, as has been your pattern, you ignore the explanations because you need Björkman (why do you keep misspelling his name?) to bolster your conspiracist fantasies.




Yet again, you attempt to minimize the evidence that Björkman has a tenuous grip on reality. To borrow MarkCorrigan's analogy, would you characterize David Irving as "a pain in the neck and given to prolix"?




Exactly why do you believe you are competent to critique his technical "analysis" (and I use the term very loosely)?




Despite the fact that those opinions demonstrate a monumental lack of understanding of physics and engineering?

AFAIA David Irving has a far-right neo-nazi political agenda and he and his publications are rightly shunned and excoriated.

Someone interested in 9/11, JFK, Big Foot, is hardly a criminal.

Some people enjoy discussing ideas, others not. If you come from an intellectual background, it is really not a big deal if someone is curious about something or other.

Can we now get back to the topic and not a discussion of personalities?

 

[Vixen]

Ahhhhhh so that's where all those bizarre and inappropriate references in this thread to "Archimedes" are coming from!

I think Archimedes got there a couple of thousand years before anyone here.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Can we now get back to the topic

Yes, please.

Is what Sheen actually said on-topic?

 

[Mojo]

The passage Vixen quoted to support her claim also says that there “is some reason for thinking that the ship floated more or less on her beam ends for about a minute before finally resting on the sea bed.”

Vixen, what do you understand by the expression “on her beam ends”?

I do.

What do you think it means?

 

[JesseCuster]

Indeed. And many large ships do in fact sink in that 90-degree-list (or thereabouts) orientation. Such as the Oceanos (and I still have no idea how Vixen rationalised the proven mode of Oceanos' sinking being so strikingly different from how she *thinks* the Estonia "ought" to have sunk....).

The Oceanos sinking was different because it wasn't caused by flooding.

To prove this, Vixen quoted a source that explained how the engine areas of the Oceanos flooded with water and caused it to sink.

The way in which Vixen says something and quotes a source that doesn't say anything remotely like that she claims it says is an eternally fascinating feature of this thread.

Just like her "legal bod" she has quoted recently who said nothing remotely like what she claims he said.

 

[JayUtah]

Can we now get back to the topic and not a discussion of personalities?

We're discussing the credibility and admissibility of your witness. That we can draw defensible parallels between him and others who would be considered noncredible for the same reasons is part of that assessment.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I think Archimedes got there a couple of thousand years before anyone here.

That would be funny. Imagine if Archimedes used to try to browbeat people he was arguing with by exclaiming "But you must be wrong because Archimedes says ...".

 

[JesseCuster]

What is it you do not understand by Mr. Justice Sheen saying that The Herald of Free Enterprise turned more than 90°?

He meant exactly what he said.

He did not say what you have extrapolated from what he said. He did not say that the HOFE would have kept rolling and turned over 180 degrees.

If he did say what you claim he did, then quote him saying what you claim he said.

Shoving words into an authority's mouth to make it seem like they agree with you. Naked intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Vixen]

It might just have been chance* that it landed on the sandbar, but the word you are looking for is “fortunate”.


*Caesar adsum iam forte, Pompey ad erat.

I meant "fortuitous' as in 'providence' not as in 'fortunate'.

 

[JayUtah]

Just like her "legal bod" she has quoted recently who said nothing remotely like what she claims he said.

Not only does it fail to say what she says it says, it adds a sentence disavowing the interpretation she's trying to paste on it.

This is the absurd end game of blatantly circular reasoning. Vixen believes any ship with an intact hull will turtle if it exceeds its critical roll angle. She believes the Herald of Free Enterprise would have done so, but for the seabed. And she's attempting to cite the report on Herald as evidence that her belief is correct. But of course the report contains no such language. Vixen extrapolates from what they actually say, according to her own mistaken understanding, to fill in what she takes to be gaps. If the report says it rolled 90° or more, then in her mind it "must" also be the authority for a claim saying it would have rolled farther.

All that would be painfully ambiguous and tedious to suss out in debate, were it not for the clarifying sentence that says they consider also that the ship stopped its roll "on its beam ends" (i.e., at 90°) and then sank in that orientation to the depth permitted by the seabed. It's not as if this is particularly difficult language to read. Vixen simply wants to persist in her rail-split and her fervent believe that Sheen J. tacitly agrees with her.

 

[Andy_Ross]

That notswithstanding, the public are told in the report:

"5.2 Status of the vessel on departure

On departure from Tallinn on 27 September the ESTONIA was seaworthy and properly manned. There were no outstanding items either from the authorities or from the classification society's surveys. The maintenance standard of the vessel was good as witnessed by various instances."

Stop trying to evade it.

Evade what? That is what the certification told them.

 

[Vixen]

The part where you say it would have continued to roll more than 90° but for the seabed, and Sheen specifically disavows that interpretation of their findings.

No he does not otherwise he would not have made a point of saying it. It is for the informed to understand what would have happened next but for the sand bar.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, please.

Is what Sheen actually said on-topic?

Yes because a vociferous poster here is insistent that had the sand bar not been there, there is no way The Herald of Free Enterprise would have capsized further or even turtled, but would, we are assured, 'have landed on its side' exactly as it did on the sand bar.


That is why I quoted Sheen to show the error of this poster's ways.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Then the JAIC should not have kept saying things like:

"5.2 Status of the vessel on departure

On departure from Tallinn on 27 September the ESTONIA was seaworthy and properly manned. There were no outstanding items either from the authorities or from the classification society's surveys. The maintenance standard of the vessel was good as witnessed by various instances."

All they had to go on was the authorities and classification society's surveys.

 

[Vixen]

What do you think it means?

I know what it means. I am guessing you are struggling and are looking for enlightenment, no?

 

[JayUtah]

I know what it means.

But we don't know what you think it means. Only you do.

I am guessing you are struggling and are looking for enlightenment, no?

No, you're not the teacher here. You're the student. We're struggling against your attempts to evade examination and avoid being pinned down on something that might turn out to be yet another wrong answer.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No he does not otherwise he would not have made a point of saying it. It is for the informed to understand what would have happened next but for the sand bar.

He made a point of saying there was reason to believe the ship floated on her beam ends (i.e. maintained its attitude of somewhat more than 90° roll) for around a minute.

The issue here is not what those who imagine themselves to be informed believe would happen next.

The issue is that you claimed Sheen said that the ship would turn right over, intending that as support for your belief that it would, when he absolutely did not say so. You said that he was on your side on this point when he absolutely did not say the ship would have rolled right over.