• 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:
Those were the slides Professor Westermann used at her press conference. You can find the press conference in youtube probably and judge for yourself if they are the same slides.
Click to expand...

I have listened to Westermann's presentation. I am aware of the content of her slides, which presents material that is within my professional competence. That is how I know your original source misrepresented her findings and substituted their own conclusions for hers. Simply presenting her slides does not substantiate the misstated claims you copied from your original tabloid source.

As I have stated many, many times now, I addressed her findings at length the last time you brought them up, which was when she gave her press conference. To confirm that you recall that response, please summarize it for the group. Otherwise I have to assume you have no interest in a serious discussion.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
So you're claiming your translation is sufficiently unambiguous that your sources must be technically incompetent? Odd take, but you do you.
Click to expand...

It is definitely unambiguous. As in English, the term for turning on the light or switching on a radio, is very different from tuning a radio. (Finnish has a different word for tuning a piano.)

I doubt the Lt. Commander of a Coast Guard station or a technical expert in marine communication is technically incompetent. But hey-ho, they must be because it shoots to pieces the claims of a random person on the internet with no sources.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Oh hey Vixen, you're back.

Care to admit to the errors you made in those two posts where I did the legwork and found the posts in question?
Click to expand...

I preferred the relative peace and quiet of sensible posts on the topic by knowledgeable people after Vixen posted, some months ago, "I'm out".
 
Vixen said:
The recommendation is of a float-free automatic type. First the Herald of Free Enterprise Inquiry 1987, next the gdmss conference 1988, next their recommendations, presumably voted on and passed. Next passes into SOLAS requirements. Commercial marine enterprises were given ample time to comply, 'by Aug 1993'. That is how lawmaking works. Laws start as a recommendation or a white paper.
Click to expand...


When was the recommendation implemented?
 
Vixen said:
Stop putting words into my mouth and claiming to be able to second guess me.
Click to expand...

I've put no words in your mouth. But you seem desperate to pretend the words you copied from a right-wing tabloid were never in it. The conclusions you copied from a tabloid source are attributed by that source to Westermann, but they are not her conclusions. You apparently didn't know this.

The source you now insist we pay attention to has the slides from her presentation, which I deem to match my recollection of them. It does not, however, include her oral presentation, which I recall. In any case, neither the slides nor the oral presentation present the conclusions you are asking us to account for. They were solely the product of your unreliable secondary source.

If something is a fact or a matter of news, it matters not a jot what newspaper reports it. For example, the earthquake in Morocco is also reported in 'right wing' press; doesn't make it any less a current news item.
Click to expand...

It may come as a surprise to you that media sources might lie.
 
Vixen said:
It is definitely unambiguous. As in English, the term for turning on the light or switching on a radio, is very different from tuning a radio. (Finnish has a different word for tuning a piano.)

I doubt the Lt. Commander of a Coast Guard station or a technical expert in marine communication is technically incompetent. But hey-ho, they must be because it shoots to pieces the claims of a random person on the internet with no sources.
Click to expand...

Apparently the translators don't agree.

Google translate:
The two emergency buoys on board the ferry Estonia did not send a signal to the rescuers because they were not tuned on board. The emergency buoys popped to the surface appropriately as the ship sank.

The International Commission of Inquiry into Turma has investigated the operation of emergency buoys that drifted off the coast of Estonia. The buoys' batteries were fully charged, but they could not transmit anything untuned," says Commissioner Kari Lehtola.
Click to expand...

DeepL translate (bolding mine):
The two emergency buoys on the car ferry Estonian did not send a signal to the rescuers because they were not tuned on board. The emergency buoys properly bubbled to the surface when the ship sank.
The International Commission of Inquiry into the accident has been investigating the operation of the buoys that washed up on the Estonian coast. The buoys' batteries were fully charged, but they could not have sent anything without being armed," says Kari Lehtola, a member of the Commission.
Click to expand...
 
MarkCorrigan said:
That's the quote trail. Every one of those posts is quoted in the post above it.

You're a liar Vixen. You claimed there was evidence that witnesses heard explosions, you were asked for a link, and when the link you provided was checked it didn't say what you said it did, then you tried to weasel out of it by attempting to claim that the previous conversation didn't happen like it did.
Click to expand...

MarkCorrigan said:
No, that's not what happened.

In this post you write


In response to me (not LondonJohn) saying this:



But even before that In response to me stating




You responded with a laughing dog emoji.

So yes, you DID claim that the muzzle velocity of the cannonball (900mph) was the velocity of the cannonball in flight by virtue of mocking anyone who tried to correct you or told you that you were wrong.

You aren't even a little ashamed about this?




It's not a case of believing you, it was literally impossible.



No answer to the welding point then?
Click to expand...

Well Vixen?
 
Vixen said:
It is definitely unambiguous.
Click to expand...

How do you know that? I asked you what process you used to "confirm" that your translation is accurate. You didn't answer; you just referenced Google translate vaguely.

I doubt the Lt. Commander of a Coast Guard station or a technical expert in marine communication is technically incompetent.
Click to expand...

Straw man. No one is claiming a Finnish naval officer is technically incompetent. It's the accuracy of your preferred translation that's in question. You've been shown evidence that your preferred translation cannot be correct. Rather than hurl blame everywhere else but where it belongs, why don't you simply admit that you are in error and move on.
 
zooterkin said:
When did that recommendation become a requirement, and when did it apply to existing equipment rather than new equipment?
Click to expand...

RESOLUTION A.695(17) adopted on 6 November 1991
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR FLOAT-FREE SATELLITE EMERGENCY
POSITION-INDICATING RADIO BEACONS (EPIRBs)
OPERATING ON 406 MHz
 
Censored by whom? Are you claiming that you posted something that proved you were correct despite my quoting the posts that show you not to be and they were deleted?

Where are they? AAH?
 
Vixen said:
The recommendation is of a float-free automatic type. First the Herald of Free Enterprise Inquiry 1987, next the gdmss conference 1988, next their recommendations, presumably voted on and passed. Next passes into SOLAS requirements. Commercial marine enterprises were given ample time to comply, 'by Aug 1993'. That is how lawmaking works. Laws start as a recommendation or a white paper. In other words it is completely untrue that it didn't happen until after 1997 as claimed by a couple of detractors.
Click to expand...


I think I've found one of your major problems here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom