• 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.
Vixen said:
Can I take it that you are better qualified in deformation metallurgy than Professor Ida Westermann? A cold objective scientist, by the way, interested only in observable and replicable results and with a high statistical confidence level.
Click to expand...

You're trying to twist what I said, seemingly to permit yourself to keep believing your fantasy version.

No, I did not say the report was wrong. I said it was consistent with metal which had been welded. The bow fastenings had indeed been re-welded. It was not a surprise to find signs of this.

Is any part of this mundane explanation still confusing? I get that you would like the report to be a gotcha hinting af explosives, but it isn't.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
No. They were not solely compatible with auto-activating EPIRBs. The implication that they were is your own invention and is not true.
Click to expand...

So someone at their keyboard knows better than:

  • Lieutenant Captain Mikko Montonen of Turku Maritime Rescue Centre
  • Kalle Pedak , the director general of the Estonian Maritime Administration
  • Asser Koivisto, a technical expert who actually supplies the navy with communications equipment.

I don't know why I keep making the mistake of arguing about things that are established facts.
 
Vixen said:
If...
Click to expand...

You claim you've only been reporting "current events." Yet we've caught you several times (including just now) brazenly claiming a conspiracy occurred. Given this ongoing dishonesty, I doubt you deserve any more serious attention than any other misbehaving child.

You note it didn't bother explaining why the EPIRB's were not activated. Skipped right over that it!
Click to expand...

Nope. It has been covered at length multiple times before this time, including contributions from me on that point. Your desperate attempt to resurrect the topic—hoping the grown-ups will give you more attention—doesn't make the previous refutation go away.

As to the matter of proper attention, I've made many posts over the past few days that you have ignored entirely. So when it comes to who is possibly being evasive, you can just shut right up.
 
Vixen said:
Asser Koivisto, a technical expert who actually supplies the navy with communications equipment.
Click to expand...

I addressed the point of Koivisto's alleged expertise in considerable depth the last time you brought this topic up. Please summarize for the forum what my answer was. Otherwise we can assume your insistence that these are "facts" requires you to lie about what has previously been said.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
You're trying to twist what I said, seemingly to permit yourself to keep believing your fantasy version.

No, I did not say the report was wrong. I said it was consistent with metal which had been welded. The bow fastenings had indeed been re-welded. It was not a surprise to find signs of this.

Is any part of this mundane explanation still confusing? I get that you would like the report to be a gotcha hinting af explosives, but it isn't.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Prof Westermann rejects your null hypothesis that "it was consistent with metal which had been welded. The bow fastenings had indeed been re-welded."

Having analaysed a strip of the metal from the bow visor under lab conditions, with controls and protocols in place, together with meticulous measurement and recording using standard scientific apparatus and method, she discovered that the metallurgic structure of the strip between 10cm apart deformed dramatically to the extent she had to reject the null hypothesis that this was within normal parameters of everyday situations such as friction, including 'welding'.

53178168040_4bb7b32034_z.jpg
 
Vixen said:
I don't know why I keep making the mistake of arguing about things that are established facts.
Click to expand...

I agree with Jack. You seem to be interested only in getting attention from the grown-ups. Apropos of nothing, you brought up the EPIRBs again. Historically, that has been good for 10-20 pages of you repeating a lot of nonsense that you insist is "established fact" despite dozens upon dozens of foregoing pages, and getting people to point out your feigned lack of reading comprehension, your idiotic assumptions, and clearly documented facts.

You're the one who has the burden to show this is anything more than just childish performance art.
 
JayUtah said:
You claim you've only been reporting "current events." Yet we've caught you several times (including just now) brazenly claiming a conspiracy occurred. Given this ongoing dishonesty, I doubt you deserve any more serious attention than any other misbehaving child.



Nope. It has been covered at length multiple times before this time, including contributions from me on that point. Your desperate attempt to resurrect the topic—hoping the grown-ups will give you more attention—doesn't make the previous refutation go away.

As to the matter of proper attention, I've made many posts over the past few days that you have ignored entirely. So when it comes to who is possibly being evasive, you can just shut right up.
Click to expand...

That is because I am not interested in personal invective. You have called me all the names under the sun as if that has anything to do with debating.
 
Vixen said:
That is because I am not interested in personal invective. You have called me all the names under the sun as if that has anything to do with debating.
Click to expand...

You're clearly not interested in a serious discussion, since everything you're now bringing up has been previously discussed several times at length. Prove to me and others that your contribution here has any purpose other than attracting attention to yourself. If you want to be treated as anything other than a misbehaving child, start acting like something else.

You specifically asked me why I had not addressed the question of why the EPIRBs did not automatically activate. You asserted I had not done so. Except that I did, yesterday. You're simply lying about what others have said in hopes of getting an emotional rise out of them. Prove you deserve attention from grown-ups.
 
Vixen said:
The Estonia EPIRB's were mounted in brackets designed for free-floating automatically activated EPIRB's and with a hydrostatic release unit.

A fact cannot be a lie.
Click to expand...

What they were mounted in doesn't matter. They could have been laid on a table and the result would be the same.
Mine is in an enclosure in the cockpit next to the companion hatch, secured to a bulkhead. When not at sea it's in a cupboard in the saloon.
The enclosure will fit any model beacon the company makes, manual or automatic.
 
JayUtah said:
On this point, yes. But I disagree in general. Most conspiracy theorists—Vixen included—want to measure the propriety of events against their own experience. "It happened this way, but I say it should have happened that way." Thence a conspiracy to produce "suspicious" evidence. In most of these cases it's necessary to test the validity of the claimant's expertise or experience. Otherwise the reasoning boils down to begging the question.

At the end of a long career in science and engineering, I learned this from lawyers. Often the most powerful question you can ask is, "How do you know that?"

Here Vixen has made inconsistent claims to maritime experience, just as she has made inconsistent claims about her education in other areas such that she can bring expertise to bear. Some of us believe that she habitually lies about her past depending on what expertise it's expedient in the moment to claim.
Click to expand...

Let me explain to you how problem-solving works. You cannot solve a problem unless you have the facts in front of you. Ignoring facts and claiming that you prefer the comfortable side of the story which is to assume that if an HRU-activated free-floating EPIRB COPSAS-SARSATS-certified isn't switched on then it must be a manual one, with zero documentary evidence whatsoever, is an example of not being able to take note of a fact that will help your problem-solving. (For example, 'an HRU-triggered EPIRB not activated: why?) A court of law cannot come to a verdict without a process of fact-finding. Certain professions, such as barristers and accountants, or any vocation where report-writing is an expert skill that is needed to come to a conclusion, need these facts. You cannot just dismiss facts because you have a prejudice against eye-witness accounts or because 'that is not what Fox News says'; as an objective dispassionate person you have to just look at the facts and they should have nothing to do with your beliefs or emotions. For example, your belief that anything that diverts from the JAIC is a 'conspiracy theory' is what stops you from looking any further.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
So someone at their keyboard knows better than:

  • Lieutenant Captain Mikko Montonen of Turku Maritime Rescue Centre
  • Kalle Pedak , the director general of the Estonian Maritime Administration
  • Asser Koivisto, a technical expert who actually supplies the navy with communications equipment.

I don't know why I keep making the mistake of arguing about things that are established facts.
Click to expand...

Both beacons were recovered. They were switched off and when switched on they activated as they should.
They were found to be in good working order with full batteries.
If they had been automatic beacons the batteries would have been discharged.
 
Vixen said:
Let me explain to you how problem-solving works.
Click to expand...

Don't bother.

Ignoring facts and claiming that you prefer the comfortable side of the story
Click to expand...

Straw man.

which is to assume that if an HRU-activated free-floating EPIRB COPSAS-SARSATS-certified isn't switched on then it must be a manual one, with zero documentary evidence whatsoever
Click to expand...

Lie.

is an example of not being able to take note of a fact that will help your problem-solving.
Click to expand...

The problem is solved. You simply don't like the solution.

For example, your belief that anything that diverts from the JAIC is a 'conspiracy theory'
Click to expand...

Straw man.
 
Andy_Ross said:
What they were mounted in doesn't matter. They could have been laid on a table and the result would be the same.
Mine is in an enclosure in the cockpit next to the companion hatch, secured to a bulkhead. When not at sea it's in a cupboard in the saloon.
The enclosure will fit any model beacon the company makes, manual or automatic.
Click to expand...

You are not a passenger ferry regulated by SOLAS. You are not in 1994.
 
Vixen said:
Re the heat issue. This is what Professor Ida Westermann had to say. She specializes in metallurgy; in particular, deformation.

https://www.friatider.se/1200-graders-varme-bakom-estonia-skador

No doubt, all the naysayers will come out and claim they know better than an expert and that she is wrong.
Click to expand...
Where did she say that such temperatures and pressures require a lab?

From what i see, she just denied that it was due to an explosion (she says it wasn't explosive welding).

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Andy_Ross said:
Both beacons were recovered. They were switched off and when switched on they activated as they should.
They were found to be in good working order with full batteries.
If they had been automatic beacons the batteries would have been discharged.
Click to expand...

They were automatic beacons that had been switched off and untuned*. They were in full operative working order when checked the week before by the ship's electricians.

*They were found switched off, which was a surprise because they were supposed to emit a signal when submerged. The correct way to approach this is to find out why.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom