• 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.
Andy_Ross said:
...we did around 1500 knots in the current one
Click to expand...

I see what you did there, but keep in mind I also work with things that can go 1,500 kts.

I recommend the various Royal Navy Seamanship and Navigation manuals for ship handling guides. I have several complete sets from the 30s, 50s and 70s.
Click to expand...

And I wish I had access to something like those. Barber's book is a standard, and Barber himself is a retired USN captain with ship-handling experience in examples of nearly every hull type. It's the best single-volume reference I've seen, but I wouldn't mind seeing more.
 
JayUtah said:
...
I wager this is why some of us want to talk about Cockney slang and spurious Shakespeare quotes. The actual answers is foregone and the facts are not in dispute. But we just want to see—for pure entertainment value—just how far a hole can be dug. Are we not entertained?
Click to expand...

For me, yes, it's a weird form of entertainment. I took a fair break from these threads a while back and even put the current one on ignore. However, if its most recent post is also the most recent in CT then the thread shows up on the main ISF front page, and I couldn't resist.

The Cockney rhyming slang business is close to my heart as my family hails from those parts and I myself was born about 800 yards short of the 'Cockney boundary' and then spent 18 years living in S London.
 
GlennB said:
For me, yes, it's a weird form of entertainment. I took a fair break from these threads a while back and even put the current one on ignore. However, if its most recent post is also the most recent in CT then the thread shows up on the main ISF front page, and I couldn't resist.

The Cockney rhyming slang business is close to my heart as my family hails from those parts and I myself was born about 800 yards short of the 'Cockney boundary' and then spent 18 years living in S London.
Click to expand...

You might want to look back for the original discussion, you'll be rolling on the floor. Sadly a couple of the highest calibre shots to the foot got deleted within the edit window, but I'm sure you'll still find the game is worth the candle.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
You might want to look back for the original discussion, you'll be rolling on the floor. Sadly a couple of the highest calibre shots to the foot got deleted within the edit window, but I'm sure you'll still find the game is worth the candle.
Click to expand...

I will, though I might have been there.

I recall Vixen had a tendency to note corrections to her b/s, go back to the original and delete it, with corr in the edit reason.
 
Vixen said:
On the issue of CIA renditioning, as you know, Sweden is one of just three countries globally that has refused to offer its database on this issue. It can't be transparent like other countries because the stuff about the missing nine Estonian remains classified information, or we can infer it is hiding something.

I hope the new investigators will now just come clean about the whole thing for the sake of the families of the victims (from dozens of countries across the world) and survivors and in the Public Interest. Just say what really happened that night.
Click to expand...

I asked you to name one person renditioned by the CIA between 1994 and 2001. Just one name, from anywhere in the world. I'll even take a Serbian.
 
JayUtah said:
I see what you did there, but keep in mind I also work with things that can go 1,500 kts.



And I wish I had access to something like those. Barber's book is a standard, and Barber himself is a retired USN captain with ship-handling experience in examples of nearly every hull type. It's the best single-volume reference I've seen, but I wouldn't mind seeing more.
Click to expand...

Lots of old RN manuals on eBay in the UK, they go for between £6 and £20 per volume depending on condition, doesn't help on the other side of the pond though.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Lots of old RN manuals on eBay in the UK, they go for between £6 and £20 per volume depending on condition, doesn't help on the other side of the pond though.
Click to expand...

If sellers won't ship to the US Jay is more than welcome to use my UK address. PM me Jay if this would be helpful & we can sort out the details.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
How could you now imagine I did not see it?

You performed your calculation and I questioned you about it:

My first question was where you got your starting figure of 193 km from, and you gave me the runaround, posting in reply a different calculation using different distances.

You said the 193km distance meant an average speed of 18 knots.

You then converted that 193km to miles and then to nautical miles but you got your sums wrong and your units wrong, saying it was '137 knots' instead of 104 nautical miles.

You then used that wrong figure to recalculate the speed as 20.91 knots, which you wrongly called 'knots per hour'. This should obviously have been the same 18 knots you calculated before, but instead of realising this was an indication you had messed up, you decided the vessel really had made almost 21 knots ('per hour') so must have been assisted by the wind and waves.

When it was pointed out your calculations were simply wrong and that the wind and waves were not helping but rather hindering the ship, you did your ususal "Oh! Squirrel!" distraction act instead of doing the impossible which is admitting you were wrong.

You were wrong. It was painfully obvious you were wrong. But it appears to be nothing compared to the pain of admitting how wrong you were.
Click to expand...

Yes, I made a mess of that by writing:

" it had travelled roughly 193 km which mean it was travelling an average of 18 knots then it will have travelled 119 miles/.868976 = 137 knots over 6.55 hours = an average speed of 20.91 knots per hour. "

When it should obviously read:

", it had travelled roughly 193 km which mean it was travelling an average of 18 knots then it will have travelled 119 nautical miles/.868976 = 137 knots miles over 6.55 hours = an average speed of 20.91 knots miles per hour. "

No, the last bit doesn't make sense but is clearly an error.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
He didn't. Those are words you stuffed into his mouth.
Click to expand...

From Arikas press conference 16.11.2021:

Arikas noted that the team is also planning to re-interview survivors of the accident, as the interviews conducted in the years after the tragedy were not of very high quality.
"Not all of the survivors were even interviewed. Others were addressed very superficially," he said.
https://yle.fi/news/3-12190625
Click to expand...
 
phiwum said:
All what people? You've said that one person said it "sounded like an explosion." I never caught the source for that quote.

Others heard bangs. A banging sound is consistent with a loose visor.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You should be able to find the quote a few pages back.
 
zooterkin said:
Well, any fule except this one, it seems:



Note also that's the post where you said '137 knots'. When I pointed out that this was 157mph, you tried to make out that I'd made an error in quoting you, and that the first number should have been 117 knots. First of all, I hadn't (see the unedited quote, above); second, even if you had originally said 117 knots, that is barely less ludicrous, equating to a speed of 134mph.

Please explain what sort of game you are playing, when you disregard basic errors like this, not to mention the ridiculous conspiracy theories you persist with despite plenteous evidence to the contrary? What is the point of discussing this topic with you, when you ignore what has been said to you?
Click to expand...

That should very obviously have read

", it had travelled roughly 193 km which mean it was travelling an average of 18 knots then it will have travelled 119 miles/.868976 = 137 knots miles over 6.55 hours = an average speed of 20.91 knots miles per hour. "

Clearly a typo leading to an error. In future, instead of grandstanding and beating your chest with glee, perhaps politely point it out.
 
zooterkin said:
You made the mistake, and then compounded it by ignoring the correction and instead claiming I had made a error (ignoring the much more significant mistake you had made); please apologise now for accusing me of making one.
Click to expand...

You erred in trying to make out it equated to 157mph. Mocking someone for a common or garden error doesn't merit an apology.
 
Vixen said:
You should be able to find the quote a few pages back.
Click to expand...

Why not just come out and give us a few direct quotes from these witness statements who said they experienced or saw a collision? You've certainly committed 100's of hours to this subject, what's a few more minutes? Why play coy... why indeed :rolleyes:
 
Dabop said:
So why did you use the 'crow flies' distance in your (incorrect) calculations???
Click to expand...

The issue was, if you recall, ascertaining the midpoint of the journey.


The ship was travelling from Tallinn to Stockholm.

It went westwards first along the Estonia coast and then at the waypoint changed course slightly to head WNW. This isn't 'as the crow flies'.
 
Vixen said:
There are numerous witness accounts. It shouldn't take long to skim through them.


See references earlier in the thread.
Click to expand...

Show us. Use the snipping tool if you are on Windows, or similar. Snip out the text that shows a witness claiming there was a collision. Give us a URL so we can double check it. This is not hard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom