• 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.
Jack by the hedge said:
Well, it would appear that (unless Vixen wants to have another try and has been hiding a really convincing argument about sailing distances up her sleeve) we can say the 'exactly halfway' point on her list of sinister coincidences is simply untrue and can be struck from the list.

Do you have any objection to that Vixen? Do you want another go at demonstrating how it could send a message?
Click to expand...

Lemme get the back of an envelope out and I'll be right with you.
 
Vixen said:
So far, so good. But you appear to have planned it as a passenger might. Google distance is fine as a heuristic measure if you want to know expected time of arrival.

Consider this. If the disaster had been the result of a military operation, then it woudn't be a case of looking at Google distances or passenger timetables.

For example, say you have planned a paintballing experience at, let's say, the V&A and it is a military exercise. You wouldn't send your guys a map of the London Underground, together with bus routes, for them to work out how long it might take to get to the station or from a bus stop or car park. You would give precise time and precise coordinates. For example: Paintball Event at 13:00 at 51.4966° N, 0.1722° W.

Likewise, with the MV Estonia, any saboteur is not going to worry about the minor details, but would be ready with a precise time and position.
Click to expand...

 
JayUtah said:
We have.

You claim the witness statements include those who witnessed a collision. But you cannot point us to any of them beyond those that inferred there had been a collision by having felt a sudden movement in the ship.

The JAIC report addresses these claims and reconciles them defensibly with the physical evidence. Your claim that the JAIC ignored witness evidence of a collision is rejected as lacking foundation.
Click to expand...

Let me phrase it better. The witnesses reported what they perceived to be a collision. More than one said they had travelled the route many dozens of times over many years and likened it to a scraping sensation as when in an icebreaker and something is obstructing the path causing a sense of heavy grinding.
 
Vixen said:
How can Bildt have possibly known it was 'the design of the bow visor' wot caused the accident the same morning
Click to expand...

Citation asked for repeatedly over the years and never delivered. This is fiction. Bildt declined to speculate. You know this and you have nothing to gainsay it.
 
Vixen said:
Let me phrase it better. The witnesses reported what they perceived to be a collision. More than one said they had travelled the route many dozens of times over many years and likened it to a scraping sensation as when in an icebreaker and something is obstructing the path causing a sense of heavy grinding.
Click to expand...

Because something was obstructing the ships path.... the visor swinging loose and catching water and a now pretty much perfectly flat section of the ship in the front (do you understand what drag is?). Are you making the claim the ship hit an iceberg now... if a sub struck the side, the ships path would not have been obstructed... if it was charges planted on the car deck the ships path would have not been been obstructed if it was cesium catching fire the ships path would also... you guessed it... have NOT BEEN OBSTRUCTED.

Really the only thing that even COULD explain these people's witness statements besides the visor coming lose is the ship hit something. Not a much smaller objecting hitting the ship in the side. Is it now your claim that the Estonia sunk because she struck an object with her bow?

Your own witness experiences ARE corroborating evidence that it was the bow visor coming lose. They do not contradict this, THEY ******* SUPPORT IT!!!
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
You can know your toast is burning without having to stand over it.
Click to expand...

Weak analogy. If you're previously familiar with the smell of burning toast and you know there's bread in the toaster then yes you can. If you never experienced that before and don't know what might cause such a smell then your inference might be something else entirely.
 
Vixen said:
Likewise, with the MV Estonia, any saboteur is not going to worry about the minor details, but would be ready with a precise time and position.
Click to expand...

Then they would have been disappointed. You can't have a precise time and position for a ship in a storm.
 
Vixen said:
The witnesses reported what they perceived to be a collision.
Click to expand...

They perceived something. They inferred a cause for that perception without having any way of knowing whether their inference was correct. The observation is evidence. The inference is not.

More than one said they had travelled the route many dozens of times over many years and likened it to a scraping sensation as when in an icebreaker and something is obstructing the path causing a sense of heavy grinding.
Click to expand...

You're conflating different observations. Here you're talking about a "scraping sensation" and "heavy grinding." That is fully consisting with the ship having struck the bow visor as it fell away, for which we have physical evidence. Because we have physical evidence and because it corresponds to witness evidence of the bow visor breaking free, it is the reasonable inference to explain all the data and hence satisfies the rule of parsimony for a minimal inductive leap.

But you also want us to consider the observations of others who experienced what they described as a sudden deceleration: being thrown off their feet or knocked out of bunks, etc. You don't get to lump these together as if they are coherent descriptions. Nor do you get to cherry-pick those and say it's evidence for the conspiracy theory that a submarine struck the ship. Nor is that observation consistent with an impact on the side of the ship that was observed later in the wreck. The inductive gap for that is considerably wider.

But overall, in neither case of a perception did any of these witnesses see anything that the ship may have collided with. They didn't witness a collision no matter how deftly you try to reword your claim.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Weak analogy. If you're previously familiar with the smell of burning toast and you know there's bread in the toaster then yes you can. If you never experienced that before and don't know what might cause such a smell then your inference might be something else entirely.
Click to expand...

And even then, your inference that you burnt the toast would not be something you had *witnessed*. A description of something you inferred doesn't become a description of something you saw simply because the conclusion is well-founded. Yes, you can know that you burnt the toast without standing over the toaster. You cannot, however, *witness* that you burnt the toast without standing over the toaster.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Lemme get the back of an envelope out and I'll be right with you.
Click to expand...

Okay.

We'll provisionally strike it off the list and you can put it back again when you show that the ship came to grief at exactly the mid point of its journey as measured in some way that a perpetrator could have selected to be in some way symboic and send a message.

Is that fair?
 
JayUtah said:
They perceived something. They inferred a cause for that perception without having any way of knowing whether their inference was correct. The observation is evidence. The inference is not.



You're conflating different observations. Here you're talking about a "scraping sensation" and "heavy grinding." That is fully consisting with the ship having struck the bow visor as it fell away, for which we have physical evidence. Because we have physical evidence and because it corresponds to witness evidence of the bow visor breaking free, it is the reasonable inference to explain all the data and hence satisfies the rule of parsimony for a minimal inductive leap.

But you also want us to consider the observations of others who experienced what they described as a sudden deceleration: being thrown off their feet or knocked out of bunks, etc. You don't get to lump these together as if they are coherent descriptions. Nor do you get to cherry-pick those and say it's evidence for the conspiracy theory that a submarine struck the ship. Nor is that observation consistent with an impact on the side of the ship that was observed later in the wreck. The inductive gap for that is considerably wider.

But overall, in neither case of a perception did any of these witnesses see anything that the ship may have collided with. They didn't witness a collision no matter how deftly you try to reword your claim.
Click to expand...

NONE of her CT ideas on why the Estonia sinking would've resulted in a sudden deceleration of the Estonia. Yet her own witness evidence, that is supposedly being ignored, supports a sudden deceleration.
 
Vixen said:
So far, so good. But you appear to have planned it as a passenger might. Google distance is fine as a heuristic measure if you want to know expected time of arrival.



Consider this. If the disaster had been the result of a military operation, then it woudn't be a case of looking at Google distances or passenger timetables.



For example, say you have planned a paintballing experience at, let's say, the V&A and it is a military exercise. You wouldn't send your guys a map of the London Underground, together with bus routes, for them to work out how long it might take to get to the station or from a bus stop or car park. You would give precise time and precise coordinates. For example: Paintball Event at 13:00 at 51.4966° N, 0.1722° W.



Likewise, with the MV Estonia, any saboteur is not going to worry about the minor details, but would be ready with a precise time and position.
Click to expand...
That may very well be the weakest rebuttal I've experienced to my posts on this forum.

Then only answer I can come up with leads to "Mornington C..." but I think that is considered detailing the thread so I'll just stop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom