• 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 VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
JayUtah said:
Nonsense. You haven't provided any evidence that your claims to expertise in psychology are any more credible than your insinuations to expertise in any of the other fields upon which you've pontificated. If anything, you've provided copious evidence on this forum that you will claim competence in whatever field is at hand if it means you get to suggest that we should accept your ignorant say-so as fact.

When I presented the testimony of highly-respected, fully-credentialled pyschologists on the subject of the reliability of eyewitness testimony, you knee-jerkedly dismissed them as frauds. You weren't even able to muster the criticisms that other academics and practitioners have presented against them in the literature. You don't know the field, so don't pretend that you do.



No, Vixen, you have no expertise in crime-scene investigations or analytics that anyone on this forum is bound to respect.



You don't know what "direct evidence" and "hard evidence" mean, and you have no relevant courtroom experience. I have, and I have routinely seen eyewitness testimony impeached on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Yes, eyewitness testimony is evidence. It's simply not the superlative evidence—in any context—that you demand it be taken as.

Further, a forensic engineering investigation is not a court of law. You have absolutely no relevant expertise, training, or experience in how eyewitness testimony is collected, evaluated, and used in such an endeavor. Your opinion on whether it was treated properly in this investigation is nonprobative.

Stay in your lane.
Click to expand...


The incident you are referring to is a commercial psychologist in the business of representing suspects accused of childhood abuse. Her line of expert defence is false childhood memory brought about by trauma and dissociation.

That has sweet Fanny Adams to do with someone who witnessed a serious accident in the last 48 hours.

The issue of childhood abuse and adult trauma has ZERO to do with the memories of people in a disaster scenario.
 
Vixen said:
The Mayday by Ainsalu received by Isabella (iirc) circa 01:21 was very likely not his first attempt to make contact. Likewise, Ainsalu couldn't hear a word the other Captain was saying but he knew someone had picked up and was begging for help urgently. In fact, the whole communications network seems to have been down from 01:00 to 01:54. Turku coastguard couldn't even get through the Ålands coastguard until circa 01:34. These are seafaring peoples with a very sophisticated network of marine communications.
Click to expand...

Hahaha!

"Very sophisticated network of marine communications"!

It's Marine VHF Channel 16 where we can hear the recorded mayday calls and emergency traffic. That is not a sophisticated network - it's simply individual radio sets with antennas! Just that they can be remotely monitored.

In fact the NMT system used to communicate was actually a lot more complex.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
Which applies to a military crew performing rescues in dangerous conditions and putting their lives at risk to perform tasks above and beyond the call of duty
Click to expand...

The US military does the same for service members who risk their lives to save people in car accidents, swimming/diving accidents, mountain rescue, etc. They don't get the Bronze Star, Silver Star, or CMOH, but they do receive medals for valor, without being in a combat zone.

Any child can look this fact up.
 
Vixen said:
The incident you are referring to is a commercial psychologist in the business of representing suspects accused of childhood abuse. Her line of expert defence is false childhood memory brought about by trauma and dissociation.

That has sweet Fanny Adams to do with someone who witnessed a serious accident in the last 48 hours.

The issue of childhood abuse and adult trauma has ZERO to do with the memories of people in a disaster scenario.
Click to expand...
Except that it highlights the weakness of human memory.


You're a Psych postgrad, right? You've heard of Loftus and Palmer right?
 
lobosrul5 said:
Given that it was noted by the investigation I think its fair to say it was included as part of the investigation.
Click to expand...

There are a few paragraphs with comments about a few of the survivors. It reads as though this was added as an afterthought, as some kind of interlude to the proceedings.
 
Vixen: why would this all powerful CIA of your imagining even put the cargo on a RO-RO ferry from Estonia to Sweden? Why not just put it straight on a cargo ship bound for Langley (via Hampton Roads) or a C-5 cargo jet if they were in a hurry to get their grubby hands on it?
 
Vixen said:
There are a few paragraphs with comments about a few of the survivors. It reads as though this was added as an afterthought, as some kind of interlude to the proceedings.
Click to expand...
But you have no idea how investigations are conducted or recorded, do you? So you can't make that observation.
 
JayUtah said:
*waves hand Jediacally*

"It's classified."
Click to expand...

Standard excuse used by the Walter Mitty types that claim they were Secret Squirrel 'special operations' types in the military, usually in connection with Vietnam War heroics.
 
Vixen said:
If Sweden took the Estonians into custody because of suspected sabotage, espionage or treason then that would be quite reasonable, ne c'est pas?
Click to expand...

And if my aunt had wings then it would be reasonable to expect her to fly. Your lines of reasoning fall generally into two categories: A statement of uncontested fact from which you speculate a host of absurd consequences, or an absurd conjecture from which you infer an unremarkable consequent. In the former case you pretend the solidity of the fact advances to sustain the absurd conclusion you draw from it. In the latter case you pretend the straightforwardness of the inference trickles back upstream to sustain your absurd premise. In neither case is the absurdity actually addressed.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Vixen: why would this all powerful CIA of your imagining even put the cargo on a RO-RO ferry from Estonia to Sweden? Why not just put it straight on a cargo ship bound for Langley (via Hampton Roads) or a C-5 cargo jet if they were in a hurry to get their grubby hands on it?
Click to expand...

I don't know. But they did. <shrug>
 
Vixen said:
Not so, they explained it as something he did later on in the night closer to four am. Once again, he was part of a team.
Click to expand...

Still insinuating he got a medal for participating. Disgusting. We all know what he got the award for.
 
Vixen said:
Please start a new thread if you want to discuss the academics of memory.
Click to expand...

No.

The work done by the researchers mentioned has been applied practically in real-world investigations such as the one whose propriety you are questioning. If you are unwilling to confront evidence that disputes your belief, just say so. It's now time for you to demonstrate the expertise in psychology that you have claimed.
 
Vixen said:
The military operation conveying that military truck that was seen being loaded onto the Estonia.
Click to expand...

The operators of a truck do not automatically seize control of a ferry which is transporting their truck. Their concern is their truck and its cargo. They let the crew run the ferry. This is what happens in the real non-spy-movie world.
 
Vixen said:
They were the auto types. Please, please, please <fx deep American voice> 'don't go there'.
Click to expand...

Why do you lie so obviously?

They weren't the auto types.
At the time there were very few and not compulsory.

After the sinking of the Estonia the regulations were changed to make auto release and activation mandatory at international treaty level. Solas regulations regarding EPIRB and other safety requirements including ship construction and use were updated.
 
Vixen said:
I don't know. But they did. <shrug>
Click to expand...

No, that's not how facts work. You're proposing that someone solved a problem or achieved a goal in a fairly stupid fashion for no apparent reason. When there are easier and safer solutions presented to your imaginary conspirators, parsimony requires that you show evidence why those better solutions were not undertaken.

Instead you're just blatantly reasoning in circles, in typical conspiracy-theory fashion. You don't have an answer for why your proposed actors have behaved stupidly or irrationally in your mise-en-scène. But you take it as a given that they did what you imagine they did, so you just assume they "must" have had some reason. This is why armchair detectives are worse than useless. You either don't know how to think or you don't care to do it defensibly.
 
Vixen said:
If Sweden took the Estonians into custody because of suspected sabotage...
Click to expand...

Your pretend timeline requires the Swedes to launch this impossible abduction operation when they only just learned the ferry was in trouble and they had absolutely no reason to suspect any of the ship's officers had sabotaged their own ship. It doesn't make a scrap of sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom