• 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:
At no time did I make a ridiculous claim that I never use the term 'hypothetical' nor discussed hypotheses as you tried to make out.
Click to expand...
I never said you "never used the term 'hypothetical'". That's an outright falsehood.

Stop fibbing.
 
Vixen said:
Please grow up. When I said I didn't answer hypothetical questions, it was in the context of a poster asking a what-if imaginary scenario, and no, I don't tend to bother answering hypothetical questions along the lines of 'if my grandad wore a skirt would he be my grandma?' .

Given history, politics, science and many areas revolve around intellectual ideas and hypotheses (for example, the effect of lockdown in the corona virus) it is clearly a misrepresentation to state, 'You said you never dealt in hypotheticals or speculation'.

If you want to make that claim next time please kindly be sure to include the post I am answering and then you will see in which context I said I didn't answer hypothetical questions. That would be awfully decent of you.
Click to expand...

If you claim to never answer them, then it is awfully rude to ask them like you so often do.
 
LondonJohn said:
No. We are berating you for taking that person's views (on the OP) at total face value, presenting them as your own, then falling back (whether implicitly or explicitly) on that person as an authority to justify those views.

You really can't understand this....?
Click to expand...

You are quite incorrect. I have not taken that person's views at face value and representing them as my own.

I didn't know Bjorkman read the Helsingin Sanomat or Asser Koivisto.

What a bizzaro world view you have.
 
Vixen said:
Please grow up. When I said I didn't answer hypothetical questions, it was in the context of a poster asking a what-if imaginary scenario, and no, I don't tend to bother answering hypothetical questions along the lines of 'if my grandad wore a skirt would he be my grandma?' .

Given history, politics, science and many areas revolve around intellectual ideas and hypotheses (for example, the effect of lockdown in the corona virus) it is clearly a misrepresentation to state, 'You said you never dealt in hypotheticals or speculation'.

If you want to make that claim next time please kindly be sure to include the post I am answering and then you will see in which context I said I didn't answer hypothetical questions. That would be awfully decent of you.
Click to expand...


"Grow up", you say? Notwithstanding the obvious personal insult there, please point out to me the way(s) in which my post was infantile. Many thanks.

And you're still not grasping the point. There's literally no difference between 1) a hypothetical question (or scenario) and 2) a "what if" question (or scenario). You appear to be trying to draw a distinction between the two, when none in fact exists. You also appear to be employing your own criteria around what constitutes an "acceptable" hypothetical and what constitutes an "unacceptable" one. Unsurprisingly, you're choosing to place the (arbitrary) boundary at a point which preserves (in your view, solely) your integrity.
 
Vixen said:
I'll take your word for it. I have no intention of clicking on those links as I am simply not interested in this sundry person's theories.

I don't know why you are berating me for someone else's views. Take it up with the person spouting them.
Click to expand...

That would be you. You have cited Bjorkman as an authoritative source many times. Why can't you stop spouting his nonsense?
 
LondonJohn said:
What time are you claiming Bildt first knew about the sinking and the rescue operation then?

And show us the evidence that there were were names and DoBs being written down by the rescue operatives which were a) not the names/DoBs of the people they'd actually rescued, and b) the names/DoBs of other people aboard the Estonia that night, who had not been rescued. Evidence, please.

Oh and we don't trust a thing Rabe says (with good reason). Show us the actual logbooks. Or withdraw.
Click to expand...

Bildt was called aside at his leaving do in a hotel in Stockholm by about 2:30.
Witnesses say he told attendees, 'Something terrible has happened' and went off. He claims he can't remember when he was told, yet Aho and Laar, the PMs of the other two countries have vivid memories of when they were informed.

Here's one such list, for a start, hung up in Turku Hospital.
 

Attachments

  • 6r9dc.jpg
    6r9dc.jpg
    96.9 KB · Views: 9
Vixen said:
You are quite incorrect. I have not taken that person's views at face value and representing them as my own.
Click to expand...

You have cited directly to his claims regarding MS Estonia and advocated that we should accept such citations as relevant expert testimony. You have repeated numerous arguments unique to him, without citation.

I didn't know Bjorkman read the Helsingin Sanomat or Asser Koivisto.
Click to expand...

No one claimed he was your only source. But you have regarded him as an authority for some arguments you've made. So you are responsible for the voir dire.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
They keep a log book!!!
Click to expand...

Here are the left and right pages of a typical pilot log book.
Where would all these names be written?

KY0DKqAm.png


UWsIRBFm.png
 
Vixen said:
They keep a log book!!!
Click to expand...


You do realise, don't you (I mean, this makes it clear that you don't*, but anyhow...) that the pilots of these rescue helicopters a) would have been separated from the main area of the fuselage where survivors were being winched in, placed, treated and processed; and b) would have been too busy with the business of controlling, flying and navigating the aircraft in very difficult weather and sea conditions.... to take any notice of the actual identities of the people being rescued?

The only crew aboard those helicopters who were taking any identification records would have been the winch-related crew and the medics. But even then, this task would have been difficult-to-impossible to do accurately and completely, owing to the nature of the rescue operation and the obvious fact that many of those who were winched up were in no fit state to identify themselves properly.



* It's also abundantly clear that you don't have the first idea what a flight crew logbook is, why it exists, what it's used for and what it records. Add that one to the list of things you a) don't understand yet b) pretend that you do.
 
Vixen said:
You are quite incorrect. I have not taken that person's views at face value and representing them as my own.

I didn't know Bjorkman read the Helsingin Sanomat or Asser Koivisto.

What a bizzaro world view you have.
Click to expand...


Oh good. Some more aping of my posts.

And what does your other improper reliance - upon contemporaneous newspaper reports written when the situation was extremely unclear and all sorts of rumours and misinformation were flying around, and before any proper investigation had even started in earnest - have to do with your reliance on Bjorkman as a source and as an authority on the disaster?
 
Vixen, why are you attempting to say that you don't care about Bjorkman on one hand, and pushing his ideas as an "expert" on the other?

Why do you persist in this obvious charade of nonsense?
 
LondonJohn said:
"Grow up", you say? Notwithstanding the obvious personal insult there, please point out to me the way(s) in which my post was infantile. Many thanks.

And you're still not grasping the point. There's literally no difference between 1) a hypothetical question (or scenario) and 2) a "what if" question (or scenario). You appear to be trying to draw a distinction between the two, when none in fact exists. You also appear to be employing your own criteria around what constitutes an "acceptable" hypothetical and what constitutes an "unacceptable" one. Unsurprisingly, you're choosing to place the (arbitrary) boundary at a point which preserves (in your view, solely) your integrity.
Click to expand...

What a lot of codswallop. A poster asked in which way could a crew be charged with the Estonia accident and I gave my opinion and I said it was hypothetical as it would not be fair or ethical to state the Estonia crew would be liable for criminal charges. It was a disclaimer, if you like.


It is exceedingly childish to trawl through my posts. Find one that says, 'I don't answer hypothetical quesions' in response to a 'What-if' question, without quoting the OP for context, and then proclaiming, 'TA DA, you used the word HYPOTHETICAL. You said you never use hypotheticals or speculations. GOTCHA!'

Childish, no? And not only that, the aim was to besmirch my morals.
 
JayUtah said:
You have cited directly to his claims regarding MS Estonia and advocated that we should accept such citations as relevant expert testimony. You have repeated numerous arguments unique to him, without citation.



No one claimed he was your only source. But you have regarded him as an authority for some arguments you've made. So you are responsible for the voir dire.
Click to expand...

Elementary basic equations and some rather good diagrams.
 
Oh trust me, the level of your morals is extremely obvious to everyone reading the thread.
 
Vixen said:
Bildt was called aside at his leaving do in a hotel in Stockholm by about 2:30.
Witnesses say he told attendees, 'Something terrible has happened' and went off. He claims he can't remember when he was told, yet Aho and Laar, the PMs of the other two countries have vivid memories of when they were informed.
Click to expand...


1) Why would you find it hard to believe that Bildt first heard about it at around 2.30am?

2) Why could it not have been the case that Bildt might have heard the news in a fractured series of instalments? For instance, he might firstly have been told that reports were coming through of a ferry on its way to Stockholm having run into serious trouble; then some time later he might have been told the name of the ship and that it was feared sunk; then some time later still he might have been given a fuller briefing about the circumstances and the rescue operation.

3) Why on earth does it matter to you that those two other PMs (say that they) remember when they were first informed, while Bildt appears equivocal on when he first knew? Why would/should that even be indicative of "funny business" on Bildt's part? How would he - assuming for a moment that he was wearing your "conspiracy ringmaster" hat - have benefited by claiming a level of confusion over when/how he first found out?



Here's one such list, for a start, hung up in Turku Hospital.
Click to expand...


Nope. No dice.

1) It's a hospital list. Totally different from any lists which might have been compiled aboard the rescue helicopters. Indeed, that hospital list might easily have been drawn up entirely independently from any information that might have been gathered during the rescue operation itself.

2) It clearly doesn't contain anyone's date of birth.


Other than that (as they say)....................... :rolleyes:
 
Vixen said:
What a lot of codswallop. A poster asked in which way could a crew be charged with the Estonia accident and I gave my opinion and I said it was hypothetical as it would not be fair or ethical to state the Estonia crew would be liable for criminal charges. It was a disclaimer, if you like.


It is exceedingly childish to trawl through my posts. Find one that says, 'I don't answer hypothetical quesions' in response to a 'What-if' question, without quoting the OP for context, and then proclaiming, 'TA DA, you used the word HYPOTHETICAL. You said you never use hypotheticals or speculations. GOTCHA!'

Childish, no? And not only that, the aim was to besmirch my morals.
Click to expand...


Hoooooo boy.

(And by the way: the aim was to expose your hypocrisy and capriciousness on this issue. But hey, if you want to misrepresent it as an attack on your morals, be my guest!)
 
Vixen said:
Elementary basic equations and some rather good diagrams.
Click to expand...

You're not qualified to evaluate any of that. He's the genesis of your belief that a ship with an intact hull will necessary turtle and float for an extended period, an article of faith to which you have clung like a drowning person to a ring buoy.

If his work is merely "elementary," then why do you have to argue so strenuously that his puported credentials as a marine engineer are so valuable and must be respected? If you agree that his other beliefs make him a problem for credibility, why cannot you find another expert who (1) endorses his claims and (2) isn't plagued with crackpot beliefs?

As I said, you're now to the point (again) in the cycle of Vixen-style debate where you're disavowing him. You've done this before. And after you disavowed him the last time, you came back a few weeks later and started citing him again as an authority. Do you believe we cannot see the games you're playing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom