• 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 Reopened Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
LondonJohn said:
If Braidwood, for example, had been presented with a piece of the bow visor, and if he had noted deformation, pitting and metallurgical changes which could only have occurred if the sample had been in close proximity to an explosive detonation...

...he would, categorically, have stated something unequivocal along the lines of "in my opinion, there was an explosive detonation in close proximity to that sample"
Click to expand...

Yes, in many cases we can simultaneously observe many modalities of evidence that consiliently allow us to draw such a conclusion. When we cannot, "is consistent with..." is the standard weasel phrase. What we've seen -- both in Braidwood's case and in the latest metallurgical examination -- is the language of people explicitly not going where others are trying to push them.
 
JesseCuster said:
So where's the proper reference for the quote above?

Your claim that your factual claims in your posts are sourced, cited and properly referenced is laughable when you hardly ever do that, and when you do, it's only after being nagged for it, regularly after you deflect by answering a different question than is being asked or link to something that doesn't contain any evidence of the thing being asked about.
Click to expand...

It clearly states it is from Braidwood's and Fellows' reports, with the lab reports as an appendix.
 
Vixen said:
No, it does not come from estonia ferry disaster net. Wrong again.

The quote comes from:

https://www.multi.fi/estonia/estorap.html
Click to expand...

On the citation, I stand corrected. However, you did not address the substance of my post, which was the important point regarding the difference between regulatory seaworthiness and practical seaworthiness. Will you kindly do that now please?
 
Vixen said:
It clearly states it is from Braidwood's and Fellows' reports, with the lab reports as an appendix.
Click to expand...
That's not a proper reference.

C'mon Vixen, you keep going on about your research skills and how your factual claims in your posts are properly referenced and cited, surely you know how to actually reference and cite something properly? :confused:
 
Vixen said:
I have the reports. They are several pages long, so cannot reproduce them here.
Click to expand...


Well, you yourself must have got the reports from somewhere. And if that "somewhere" was electronic in nature, then you should have no problem posting links to the reports. Should you?
 
Vixen said:
I never make anything up. All of my comments are sourced, unless I state 'IMV'.
Click to expand...

Ok, cool...

Vixen said:
It was never the JAIC's job to discover the real cause of the accident. All they were tasked with doing was bringing out a plausible report that upheld the ludicrous 'strong wave caused the bow visor to fall off due to a design fault in the bolts'.

No more, no less.


Sweden even set up a Ministry of Information to browbeat its citizens into accepting the findings.
Click to expand...

I don't see 'IMV' in there, so what's your source for your statements?
 
Vixen said:
It clearly states it is from Braidwood's and Fellows' reports, with the lab reports as an appendix.
Click to expand...

But we have seen the lab reports, they do not say it was explosive damage.

Can we see these reports?
Where did you get them?

Can you scan them and put them up somewhere or make a PDF email them to us?
 
Vixen said:
Absolutely, they had no doubt.
Click to expand...


Well that's strange, because (for example) everything of Braidwood's that I've seen has been carefully prefaced by "on the balance of probabilities...." - thereby giving him a completely free pass.

But maybe you can provide me (and this thread) with the report of Braidwood's in which he switches to this bold, declarative statements?
 
Vixen said:
No it doesn't. It states very plainly that the vessel was seaworthy on the day of departure.

It doesn't qualify it as you claim.
Click to expand...

The report also points out the Estonia was never designed for open-ocean sailing, and had only sailing into ONE other storm in the time she'd been making those crossings.

My truck is "road-worthy" which means I can drive it anywhere there is asphalt or a graded road bed. However, it's a 2WD/4cylinder, and if I take it into less than optimal conditions like snow I have to put chains on my tires, and drive slow. And if I feel like taking it onto an old logging or mining road, my road-worthy truck will quickly become a paperweight...just like the Estonia is today after sailing in conditions for which she was not designed.
 
Axxman300 said:
The report also points out the Estonia was never designed for open-ocean sailing, and had only sailing into ONE other storm in the time she'd been making those crossings.

My truck is "road-worthy" which means I can drive it anywhere there is asphalt or a graded road bed. However, it's a 2WD/4cylinder, and if I take it into less than optimal conditions like snow I have to put chains on my tires, and drive slow. And if I feel like taking it onto an old logging or mining road, my road-worthy truck will quickly become a paperweight...just like the Estonia is today after sailing in conditions for which she was not designed.
Click to expand...

At the time SOLAS limited ferries with bow visors to coastal work. Sweden and Finland exempted their ships from the requirement.

Certification and the mess it was in with regard to Estonia is covered in report sections 3.6, 15.13 and all of Chapter 18.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
At the time SOLAS limited ferries with bow visors to coastal work. Sweden and Finland exempted their ships from the requirement.

Certification and the mess it was in with regard to Estonia is covered in report sections 3.6, 15.13 and all of Chapter 18.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it's all in the report she hasn't read.

This is not a very high bar. The ship might have made the trip without incident had the captain just slowed down as the other ferries had to cross safely. And had a proper damage control inspection been done upon the first report from the car deck, at time when the visor was still in place but loose, he could have possibly saved the ship. Certainly turned around to head for shallow water while getting folks to the life boat decks, and into their vests.

The accident boils down to nature+poor judgement+lost time due to negligent seamanship.

It's that simple, and that sad.
 
Axxman300 said:
Yes, and it's all in the report she hasn't read.

This is not a very high bar. The ship might have made the trip without incident had the captain just slowed down as the other ferries had to cross safely. And had a proper damage control inspection been done upon the first report from the car deck, at time when the visor was still in place but loose, he could have possibly saved the ship. Certainly turned around to head for shallow water while getting folks to the life boat decks, and into their vests.

The accident boils down to nature+poor judgement+lost time due to negligent seamanship.

It's that simple, and that sad.
Click to expand...

So there was no sabotage with explosives (radioactive or otherwise)? Nor by collision with a submarine? Nobody shot the crew on the bridge? Nothing was timed to occur exactly at midnight?

Your summary certainly seems to be based on reality, and not some bizarre storyline for a novel. I think I agree with you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom