• 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:
Are you able to pose questions that relate to the topic of the thread?
Click to expand...

They are all related to it.

Firstly, the question of your claims to be a scientist go directly to your competency to assess scientific data. If you want to claim to be able to assess the data then you need to show that you are indeed capable. A claim of being a scientist, which you made several times in these threads, would be a claim that you can assess the data. So do you still claim it? If you want to retract that claim then that's cool, I have no objection to you admitting that you are not a scientist and are not able to competently assess data, but that would be a mark against your arguments.

The question of Anders Bjorkman is extremely relevant as it has been repeatedly shown that you are still cribbing directly from him in your arguments. You are literally lifting text from his "theories" and using it as if it were a primary source. You've been caught doing this. Therefore the question of whether you think he is credible is extremely on topic. Either you think he is credible, in which case you have to revisit the multiple posts explaining in detail why he's an unhinged loon, or you don't think he is credible but are cribbing from him for some other reason, which I cannot wait to hear.

Finally the question of whether you are able to understand and can link to relevant sections of the report in question goes directly to your claims about the disaster.

Stop attempting to obfuscate and handwave. It's pitiful. Just answer the questions and debate honestly, or be shown for the unimportant, self aggrandising fantasist and coward you are.
 
Vixen said:
I already gave you my opinion on each of those persons.

I already told you I have no time for 'deniers', antivaxxers or conspiracy theorists. I am only interested in what is true.

Quaere verum
Click to expand...

Except you are attempting to use Bjorkman, who is a genuinely unhinged delusional nutcase who has been discredited in his own chosen profession as if he were an expert. You're using the words of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about and claiming it's the truth.
 
Vixen said:
No, I said they were disappeared after rescue.

The Trident post is in response to a poster who claimed it was impossible for anyone to be located in the dark and I responded there actually commando teams of frogmen who can do exactly that sort of thing if required.
Click to expand...

What is your evidence for these 'frogmen' having this ability?

Frogman? Who still uses this term?

Are you from the 1960s?
 
Vixen said:
Your calling it an innocent deportation or some other such disgusting euphemism...
Click to expand...

It's not a euphemism, disgusting or otherwise. It's a completely different concept. Deportation is the forcible removal of someone from a place without losing track of who or where they are. It is illegal only when done extrajudicially. Enforced disappearance is never legal under EU law, and it results in the removal of a person from all external contact. That you desperately need one to be equivalent to the other -- both morally and legally -- in order for your smear campaign to work does not suddenly erase the important distinctions.
 
malbui said:
Is anybody else getting flashbacks to being seventeen and getting older siblings to buy them packs of cheap lager to take to parties?

On a more serious note, I can't remember if this has been brought up before but in the time period we're talking about the former republics of the USSR were cheerfully selling off any and all former Red Army kit that they could get their hands on in exchange for lovely lovely US dollars. I don't see why there would have been a need for sooper secretive smuggling of electronics that were already out of date when a vendor would throw in a box of them alongside a consignment of other hardware.
Click to expand...

Germany got masses of Soviet equipment handed to it ar reunification. Poland was also completely equipped with it too.
 
Vixen said:
I already gave you my opinion on each of those persons.
Click to expand...

Regarding Hoffmeister, you gave me your opinion on him, to be sure. And we can debate further whether what you think about him is accurate according to the facts. But the question at hand was whether the specific claims you made in the linked post were drawn by Hoffmeister and substantiated in his report, or whether they were conclusions you drew yourself based on your reading of his report. The question is not what you think about Hoffmeister, but whether you have accurately represented his claims. As other posters have noted, you have a serious problem doing that. Therefore I require you to reproduce the portions of the report that discuss the specific points you raised and attributed to him.

Regarding Björkman, you have attempted to disavow him. But you have not stopped using him as a source. Your quotations from Aftonbladet are exactly as he represents them, and you are unable to demonstrate knowledge of what that source says aside from what Björkman says it says. So there is now a disparity between what you say about Björkman and how you invoke him as a source. You need to reconcile those.

I already told you I have no time for 'deniers', antivaxxers or conspiracy theorists.
Click to expand...

You're clearly a conspiracy theorist, and you clearly rely upon other conspiracy theorists as authorities for your claims here.

I am only interested in what is true.
Click to expand...

An interest you can demonstrate by answering the questions posed to you.
 
Vixen said:
You are wrong but you cannot admit it.
Click to expand...

Cute. Let's see if the magic words work.

They didn't.

Try adding "Simasalabim" to them next time, that might work.

And the rest of this post is spoilerized so that those not interested in this tangent can skip it more easily.


I'm wondering what exactly I'm wrong about. Am I wrong in claiming that I didn't find the article that you mentioned? I'm pretty certain I didn't.

Am I wrong in claiming that I knew about the road before you told me that it was a road several posts after I had said so?

Am I wrong in claiming that Härkätie was never the official name of the road? If I'm in wrong with that, please tell who called it that and when? The oldest description of the road calls it "Public road from Hämeenlinna to Turku" (well, "Allmänna weg ifrå Taffwestehuss till Åbo" to be precise since Jaakko Teitti wrote his "Klagemåhls Register emot Adelen 1556 uthi Finland" in Swedish, you can find a transcription of it at https://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:sks-dor-000415)

Am I wrong when I say that the name "Härkätie" was not in common use in the 19th century? If you search for the term from digitaaliarkisto, youll notice that almost all old references are to the nursery rhyme. A couple of them are about a story happening during the Finnish War, meaning that they are not speaking about the contemporary usage but things that happened in the past. The contemporary terms that are used are: "Hämeentie", "Suuri Hämeentie" and "Iso Hämeentie". (see, for example, "Sanomia Turusta" 31.10.1862 page 4 that uses "iso Hämeentie"). The name Härkätie was resurrected later when systematic road naming started.

I definitely am not wrong when I say that Route 10 does not follow the route of Härkätie. You can confirm this by looking at the text that you posted on the message and then deleted. You should be able to find it again in the same place you originally found it. If you don't want to search for it, you can check the Finnish wikipedia that states that Härkätie followed the modern roads 2230, 2250, 12307, 2264, 2810, 2802, 2824, 2831 and 2855. You can then check from Google maps whether those roads are actually Route 10 (Hint: they aren't).

The wikipedia page mentions Jaakko Masonen's theory that the road goes back to the 9th century. His theory is not universally accepted. Since the road originally ended not at the Häme Castle but where the railway bridge nowadays crosses the lake, most people believe that the road predates the castle. But beyond that we don't have actual real data on when exactly it was built.
 
Vixen said:
It was a press conference by the JAIC Chairman, Kari Lehtola and shortly after the same thing was reiterated in an official preliminary report. This was reported in Helsingin Sanomat on 5 October 1994 - six days after the disaster, thus already on Day Five the conclusions had been made.

HS

This is why I believe what the papers said. Perhaps explain why an official press conference and official preliminary report should not be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Guess what Helsingin Sanomat reported on October 4 that happened on October 3?

Check the article https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000003371732.html .

That article tells that on Sunday 3rd a robot camera videoed the wreck of Estonia and found that the visor was missing, the gate was partially open and that the locks of the visor had been torn off.

So I don't find it particularly surprising that after looking at the videos the commission came to the preliminary conclusion that the ship was sunk because it's visor was torn off and the waterproof gate had opened to let the water in.

The full investigation then looked at details.

Just to reiterate:

There was video evidence from the wreck available when the commission gave the preliminary statement.
 
Vixen said:
Why would you even need wikipedia. A child could tell you how it works.

Take a piece of A4 paper and three drawing pins.

Place one drawing in the top corner on one side of the paper and another on the opposite top corner and press them down into a wall or board. Place the third in the middle of the paper at the bottom and ditto.

Now remove the bottom drawing pin. Does the paper still remain in place, perfectly secure?

Replace the bottom pin (which represents the Atlantic lock and the paper the bow visor) and now remove one of the pins on either of the corners. What happens?

This demonstrates where the weight of the paper is being bourne.


The bottom pin is merely an accessory, which takes some of the strain off the top two pins (i.e. the side locks) but not by any significant amount.

Now you can see why even if as the JAIC claim the Atlantic lock broke off because of a strong wave, it doesn't ipso facto lead to the two side locks also breaking off.

In any case, Dr.-Ing. Hans-Werner Hoffmeister showed that the starboard side lock was weakest and would have broken first had the scenario happened as the JAIC claim it did.
Click to expand...


You haven't got a damn clue.

Where you're positioning the side locks.... is actually the position of the top hinges. Do you even know how the bow visor operated (in normal operations)? You don't even know that, do you?

Well, I'll enlighten you. The bow visor swung upwards and open from the top hinges, by means of two hydraulic pistons - one on each side, half way down the visor (and attached to the visor at one end and the ship at the other end). When the visor was closed, there were two side locks (which were in the vicinity of the hydraulic pistons, half way down) and one bottom lock (located at the bottom-middle of the visor).

You claim to understand things and deign to lecture people, but in reality you haven't the first bloody idea what you're talking about, do you? To reclaim a comparator you pathetically "borrowed" from me: even a child could figure all this out, Vixen. How come you're still so stultifyingly ignorant?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Vixen's paper model does not take account of the two hinges fixing the top corners of the paper or the two hydraulic actuators fixed to its sides which control the lifting and lowering of the paper. Unsurprisingly she further imagines gravity is the only force acting on it which needs to be considered.

Pitiful.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Vixen has virtually no grasp of what she's pretending to be knowledgeable about. It's pathetic, risible and hugely intellectually dishonest. Vixen's posts in this thread are an individual and collective disgrace.
 
Vixen said:
The logs ae still there. Jutta Rabe claims to have seen the pilots log books.
The Defence Forces, Police and hospitals are by their nature confidential in nature. It is easy enough to remove a file from central databases.

I worked in insolvency practice for many years and we had quite a few famous and well-known people as clients, you would be amazed how many were on the verge of bankruptcy. Never once have I discussed their identities with friends or family. Never felt the need to, never will. What happens at work stays at work.

When I did Proceeds of Crime Act work, our offices were carefully inspected to ensure no-one who was not authorised had any access to the confidential locked-up files, that nobody could break in and security vetting done of all staff, no criminal convictions allowed. People in jobs of a confidential nature just don't talk.

Someone I know well worked at the Home Office, had access to all the police computers and Central Criminal Records, never breathed a word about anything. That is my experience of people in such positions.

Even if an ex-nurse at Huddinge Hospital were to ring up a newspaper and say, 'I treated one of the disappeared in 1994', who is even going to believe her? Where is her proof? What paper would publish it?
Click to expand...


***Double laughing-dog emoji***
Seriously, Vixen? You can't figure out that when a known liar, who was effectively drummed out of her profession for lying and evasion, says she's "seen" some important bit of evidence.... yet cannot back that up with anything more..... she's very probably lying about it, and most certainly cannot be trusted to be accurate or reliable about it.

You really are waaaaaay down the rabbit hole at this point, aren't you Vixen?
 
LondonJohn said:
Blood hell. Your post is a disgrace, Vixen
Click to expand...

Especially since it's a lie. I linked to the wikipedia page and it says nothing like what Vixen is claiming.

So, yet again, Vixen is caught lying about what her claimed source says.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Except you are attempting to use Bjorkman, who is a genuinely unhinged delusional nutcase who has been discredited in his own chosen profession as if he were an expert. You're using the words of someone who doesn't know what they are talking about and claiming it's the truth.
Click to expand...


A quote from Aftonbladet is a quote from Aftonbladet, whether it comes from the Sultan of Siam or the internet.
 
JayUtah said:
It's not a euphemism, disgusting or otherwise. It's a completely different concept. Deportation is the forcible removal of someone from a place without losing track of who or where they are. It is illegal only when done extrajudicially. Enforced disappearance is never legal under EU law, and it results in the removal of a person from all external contact. That you desperately need one to be equivalent to the other -- both morally and legally -- in order for your smear campaign to work does not suddenly erase the important distinctions.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The two Egyptians were bundled away extrajudicially. No trial, no right to let their lawyers, friends or family know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom