• 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:
This is the route, according to JAIC, which appears to show MV Estonia cutting across a busy traffic zone. It was more usual to go the other route, according to consensus.

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53217521028_bb99a790c0_z.jpg[/qimg]Estonia route re JAIC by Username Vixen, on Flickr

Source: http://privat.bahnhof.se/wb576311/factgroup/est/route.html

You can discover its reasoning there.
Click to expand...

You can discover the JAIC's reasoning more reliably by reading its own report rather than the people you got that map from.

The JAIC says the Estonia passed very close to the Osmussaar lighthouse at 22:00 local time. If you, like me, take a look at it on Google maps you'll see a web of shipping lanes criss-crossing each other. The route shown from Helsinki to Mariehamn crosses all the other east-west lanes twice to pass close to the lighthouse. It doesn't sppear to be the gotcha problem you would like us to assume it is. Why should the Estonia not keep close to the Estonian coast in heavy weather?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
All you have in the debating toolbox seems to end up in Logical Fallacy #101 the ad hominem because you are not actually familiar with the facts of the topic being debated.
Click to expand...

No. Pointing out that you simply seem to numbly repeat claims over and over that others have debunked several times from a position of greater knowledge and apparent intelligence than yours is not an ad hominem argument. Your behavior commits one of the oldest logical fallacies in the world, ignoratio elenchi, as formulated by Aristotle.

Nor is an ad hominem to note that you are generally arguing from a position of ignorance and putting forward expectations forged in ignorance as the yardstick by which reality is to be measured.
 
Vixen said:
It's not a question of 'justified'. War medals are restricted to combat situations. If you look at the list of war medals awarded, these guys were in Afghanistan, for heaven's sake. Nobody is claiming that heroics at sea saving the lives of civilians is not the height of heroicism.

However, he was working in a team. All of the teams were heroically saving lives at risk to their own.

Svensson got the Swedish 'Victoria Cross' so to speak because he carried out an OPERATION and brought nine Estonian survivors to Huddinge Hospital in Stockholm 'just after two'.
Click to expand...

Svensson rescued seven people, six of whom he accompanied to Huddinge on Y74. The seventh (chronologically the first) went to Uto aboard his original helicopter, Y64. There were a total of nine people on Y74 who ended up in Huddinge Hospital: the six rescuees, plus Svensson himself and two other injured rescue men. And it wasn't just after two. The journalist you and Bjorkman keep quoting simply got the timing wrong.

Also, you still don't seem to be able to get Svensson's job description right (in spite of the fact that the aforementioned reporter does). He wasn't a "winchman", any more than he was a pilot. He was a rescue man.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
From wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium


So it would be grossly irresponsible and dangerus to smuggle nuclear waste on a passenger ferry. But the stern-end ramp was found to be ajar. The JAIC made no attempt to explain that. Plus the fire alarms were going off.
Why shouldn't people ask why?
Click to expand...

What in gods name does that have to do with Caesium? Do you think the Estonia's fire alarm was tied to radiation levels?!?

This is aside from the fact, that, no they weren't.
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
What in gods name does that have to do with Caesium? Do you think the Estonia's fire alarm was tied to radiation levels?!?
Click to expand...

Elemental cesium—including its isotopes—ignites spontaneously in contact with air. Vixen suggests this reaction caused a fire that purportedly set off the ship's fire alarm. The fire-alarm portion of this claim has been addressed thoroughly and repeatedly. The chemistry claim is easily addressed: cesium's high reactivity ensures that 137Cs is almost never found in its elemental state.
 
Vixen said:
AFAIAA only one or two lifeboats were successfully launched - the list was too great. Yes, there was indeed a huge dump of lifesaving equipment, life vests, etc., washed up at Dirham, a little fishing village on the shores of Estonia. Enough to fill a warehouse. But strangely, no bodies. The current was obviously very selective. Again, not dealt with in the JAIC report.
Click to expand...

So, there was flotsam. Prepared to walk back your claim that there was no flotsam?

No bodies... except for all the bodies that were recovered :rolleyes:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...re 138 people rescued,of them 18 months later.

There were 138 people rescued, one of whom died in hospital. Most of those who died drowned, although a third of the 300-odd who reached the outer decks succumbed to hypothermia. Only 93 bodies were recovered, the last of them 18 months later.

Do you really think the conspirators what... collected bodies unseen? OR like what, why exactly?
 
Last edited:
lobosrul5 said:
So you think this guy really killed JFK? :confused:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7376765143fa798a68.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

No, not seriously, of course. But the actor William Hootkins and his mother Helen are actually mentioned in the Warren Commission report. Helen Hootkins, IIRC, ran the boarding house where Marina Oswald took shelter from the media following L.H. Oswald's arrest. Again IIRC little "Bill Hootkins," then 15 years old, was learning Russian from Marina.

I can illustrate several lessons from this curious set of facts. The lesson I'm pointing out here is that there is literally more evidence in favor of such a ridiculous claim as "Porkins killed Kennedy" as there is for some of the points Vixen is trying to establish in her conspiracy theories.
 
JayUtah said:
Elemental cesium—including its isotopes—ignites spontaneously in contact with air. Vixen suggests this reaction caused a fire that purportedly set off the ship's fire alarm. The fire-alarm portion of this claim has been addressed thoroughly and repeatedly. The chemistry claim is easily addressed: cesium's high reactivity ensures that 137Cs is almost never found in its elemental state.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the soviets even moved it around in its elemental state? Is this a thing thats done? And of course, its obvious that the ship was not destroyed due to a fire.
 
JayUtah said:
No, not seriously, of course. But the actor William Hootkins and his mother Helen are actually mentioned in the Warren Commission report. Helen Hootkins, IIRC, ran the boarding house where Marina Oswald took shelter from the media following L.H. Oswald's arrest. Again IIRC little "Bill Hootkins," then 15 years old, was learning Russian from Marina.

I can illustrate several lessons from this curious set of facts. The lesson I'm pointing out here is that there is literally more evidence in favor of such a ridiculous claim as "Porkins killed Kennedy" as there is for some of the points Vixen is trying to establish in her conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Well, you learn something new everyday.

Although, it was Vixen to whom I posed that question... so maybe yes seriously.
 
lobosrul5 said:
I wonder if the soviets even moved it around in its elemental state? Is this a thing thats done? And of course, its obvious that the ship was not destroyed due to a fire.
Click to expand...

No. It's to everyone's advantage to render 137Cs chemically non-reactive as a first step in handling. In general you can't help it from bonding to various other substances in the handling environment, but the goal is to do it on purpose in a controlled reaction. The energetic reaction you can see from elemental cesium is mostly a classroom stunt. You can do similar demonstrations with elemental sodium.

But the product remains radioactive, even in its chloridated or oxidized (i.e., relatively chemically nonreactive) forms. Handling is about managing the products of radioisotopic decay, not keeping it from combusting. In the U.S. it's transported by tractor-trailer flatbed or rail in special casks. Any driver who is smuggling it concealed it an ordinary military truck without suitable shielding is asking for cancer.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
You can discover the JAIC's reasoning more reliably by reading its own report rather than the people you got that map from.

The JAIC says the Estonia passed very close to the Osmussaar lighthouse at 22:00 local time. If you, like me, take a look at it on Google maps you'll see a web of shipping lanes criss-crossing each other. The route shown from Helsinki to Mariehamn crosses all the other east-west lanes twice to pass close to the lighthouse. It doesn't sppear to be the gotcha problem you would like us to assume it is. Why should the Estonia not keep close to the Estonian coast in heavy weather?
Click to expand...

According to its limited certificate it's all it was allowed to do and shouldn't have been out in such weather. That was the point of limiting it.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
Svensson rescued seven people, six of whom he accompanied to Huddinge on Y74. The seventh (chronologically the first) went to Uto aboard his original helicopter, Y64. There were a total of nine people on Y74 who ended up in Huddinge Hospital: the six rescuees, plus Svensson himself and two other injured rescue men. And it wasn't just after two. The journalist you and Bjorkman keep quoting simply got the timing wrong.

Also, you still don't seem to be able to get Svensson's job description right (in spite of the fact that the aforementioned reporter does). He wasn't a "winchman", any more than he was a pilot. He was a rescue man.
Click to expand...

He was left in water by a failed winch and himself rescued by another helicopter. He took over from that helicopter's rescue man when he was injured and carried on working despite being injured himself.
 
Vixen said:
...18 knots, ergo, it will have travelled 119 miles*/.868976 [miles to knots conversion] = 137 knots over 6.55 hours = an average speed of 20.91 knots per hour.
Click to expand...

A knot is a measurement of speed, equivalent to one nautical mile per hour. It's nonsensical to propose to measure distance in knots. One properly measures distance in nautical miles, in cases where that's the appropriate measure. (Other cases might want kilometers, for example.)

"Knots per hour" is not a measurement of speed. It can technically (but not practically) be used as a measurement of acceleration, but that's not relevant.

Maybe you shouldn't pretend you know what you're talking about when it comes to shipping.
 
GlennB said:
That's the way they did it back at her school. It wasn't a problem, as everybody agreed on the terminology.
Click to expand...

We seem to have no end of technical subjects on which Vixen can express only wrong assertions. I have yet to see her get a technical subject right. Maybe her expectations are not the best yardstick for whether the professional investigators did or are doing a good job.
 
You know I mentioned in a (very) negative review of the dreadful Gabriel Byrne/Karl Urban schlock fest that Byrne describes something in "knots per hour". I was amazed that even Hollywood screenwriters couldn't do the 5 seconds of research as to what knots were and put that ludicrous line in their movie in the mouth of a supposed veteran ship captain.

I am on the other hand not shocked that Vixen made the exact same stupid mistake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom