• 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:
From what I know of Atlantic locks...
Click to expand...

...and I'm just going to laugh at this. You're citing Hoffmeister as your authority for shipbuilding. You don't know anything about shipbuilding. Go look at the kinds of things Hoffmeister publishes when he's being peer-reviewed. Where do you reckon he learned about the structural dynamics of oceangoing vessels and how to analyze them? What makes him a qualified shipbuilder?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Suspicious of what? that the captain and crew sank their own ship?
Why would he be involved at all?



What is your source for this?
Why was he in handcuffs? was it because they thought he sank the ship?
Click to expand...

If that was a ship carrying highly sensitive Russian/Soviet stuff as ordered by KSI/CIA and escorted by a Swedish submarine accordingly, then being halted so dramatically in the middle of its journey will obviously raise suspicions of an inside job and I am afraid the captain and his officers would be prime suspects as it is the captain's job to ensure all rules and regulations have been followed.
 
Vixen said:
Look up the etymology of 'Atlantic lock'.
Click to expand...
Does it say it makes the locking stronger, or does it say it gives people the reassuring illusion it makes the locking stronger?

Asking for a friend who's seen your claiming style before a few dozen times and doesn't trust you to report anything accurately.
 
Vixen said:
I trust Hoffmeister to have upheld academic and scientific principles of objectivity and integrity. So I do believe there is a high level of probability that his failure sequence is correctly calculated.
Click to expand...

Gee, it only took me four tries to get you to admit that you believe Hoffmeister does trump JAIC.

Why is this a question of "academic and scientific principles of objectivity and integrity?" Why can't you just evaluate his propositions on their face and determine whether they are rigorous enough to support the claims you're making? Oh, right, because this is not a field in which you have any sort of expertise, which includes knowing whether someone else is practicing it correctly.

Odd that you give him a glowing bow-and-scrape on the basis of what you think his credentials are, but if I cite my own credentials you accuse me of strutting like a peacock. What a very strange selective appreciation you have for others' expertise.
 
JayUtah said:
Gee, it only took me four tries to get you to admit that you believe Hoffmeister does trump JAIC.

Why is this a question of "academic and scientific principles of objectivity and integrity?" Why can't you just evaluate his propositions on their face and determine whether they are rigorous enough to support the claims you're making? Oh, right, because this is not a field in which you have any sort of expertise, which includes knowing whether someone else is practicing it correctly.

Odd that you give him a glowing bow-and-scrape on the basis of what you think his credentials are, but if I cite my own credentials you accuse me of strutting like a peacock. What a very strange selective appreciation you have for others' expertise.
Click to expand...

Have you prepared a report on the bow visor locks?
 
JayUtah said:
Gee, it only took me four tries to get you to admit that you believe Hoffmeister does trump JAIC.

Why is this a question of "academic and scientific principles of objectivity and integrity?" Why can't you just evaluate his propositions on their face and determine whether they are rigorous enough to support the claims you're making? Oh, right, because this is not a field in which you have any sort of expertise, which includes knowing whether someone else is practicing it correctly.

Odd that you give him a glowing bow-and-scrape on the basis of what you think his credentials are, but if I cite my own credentials you accuse me of strutting like a peacock. What a very strange selective appreciation you have for others' expertise.
Click to expand...
That's because you disagree with Vixen, so you must be one of "them" and "they" are to be othered.

Again, anyone who agrees with Vixens predetermined conclusion is a respected expert in their field (even when they manifestly are not such as Bjorkman) and anyone who disagrees with her is either some form of narcissist who cannot admit they are wrong (which is hilariously ironic) or is part of the conspiracy that isn't a conspiracy honest.
 
Vixen said:
If that was a ship carrying highly sensitive Russian/Soviet stuff as ordered by KSI/CIA and escorted by a Swedish submarine accordingly, then being halted so dramatically in the middle of its journey will obviously raise suspicions of an inside job and I am afraid the captain and his officers would be prime suspects as it is the captain's job to ensure all rules and regulations have been followed.
Click to expand...

Are we back to the Swedish Submarine now?

Why would the police chief know about all this?
 
Vixen said:
Kari Lehtola obviously made it up as that is what he claimed on day two when he was appointed, before the ship was even located.
Click to expand...

Day two now. It was day one just earlier today. And the more reliable quote I've seen here says Lehtola wouldn't be drawn beyond "something happened to it". Rather unlike your more hyperbolic version from a distinctly secondary source.
 
Vixen said:
Have you prepared a report on the bow visor locks?
Click to expand...

Does he have to have done the extremely narrowly specific thing to understand the principles?

Let's say that as part of accountancy school you had to learn how to compile a tax return for someone who is self employed. Would it therefore be acceptable of me to question your credentials as a management accountant by asking you if you had compiled such a tax return even if you went into corporate accounting?
 
Vixen said:
Police are suspicious. It is their job to be suspicious. If a passenger ferry sinks in half an hour to the bottom of the sea, you should be very very suspicious. If you are a good detective you will already be determined that the culprits will not get away by hook or by crook.



Sillaste was brought into Turku in handcuffs.
Click to expand...
It's been a few hours since you claimed they set out to "disappear" the officers. Have you dropped that claim again or just set it aside till it's time to go full-on crazy town again?
 
Vixen said:
If that was a ship carrying highly sensitive Russian/Soviet stuff as ordered by KSI/CIA and escorted by a Swedish submarine accordingly, then being halted so dramatically in the middle of its journey will obviously raise suspicions of an inside job and I am afraid the captain and his officers would be prime suspects as it is the captain's job to ensure all rules and regulations have been followed.
Click to expand...

"If". With no evidence of smuggling on that voyage and obviously none of a pointless submarine escort, that's a very shaky "if".

What "if" the Russians had already threatened to sink it as you like to speculate? Takes the heat off an inside job, doesn't it?

Nothing about it explains "disappearing" the officers.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Does he have to have done the extremely narrowly specific thing to understand the principles?
Click to expand...

Actually I have done structural analysis on oceangoing vessel structures using finite-element methods -- the right ones. And as I said, I'm the supplier of such technology to one of the German research insistutions that Hoffmeister once worked at. Have I specifically prepared a report on MS Estonia's visor locks? No, of course not. That's a frantically-deployed straw man. But I'm more than qualified to evaluate someone else's work on the subject and determine to what extent the conclusions reached are supported by the underlying work.

But it's really much simpler than that. I represented Vixen's position as believing that Hoffmeister's findings trumped the JAIC findings and proved that the JAIC was either negligent or in error regarding the lock failure sequence. She knee-jerkedly objected, claiming that this wasn't her position. And it took how many posts to get her to admit what we all can plainly see: that this is exactly what she had claimed.

At this point it's just about fundamental honesty. She cloaks herself in self-aggrandizing virtue, believing that she's vindicating the experience of survivors and victims. And apparently she believes that the righteousness of her cause gives her leave to behave reprehensibly and dishonestly when asked to own up to what she claims. I simply cannot abide someone who lies so habitually and so often. That such a person pretends she holds the high moral ground is dismaying. She's playing bad spy-novelist on the graves of hundreds of victims and clucking her tongue at those who refuse to accept her as the authority she clearly believes she is. Just like every other conspiracy theorist I've encountered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom