• 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:
How do you calculate the midpoint of a sea journey when you have unpredicatable variables such as wind and waves, together with the effects of listing and trim?


It is not hard ground where you can aim with confidence at an exact spot.
Click to expand...

It was your claim that it was precisely the halfway point, but you backtracked when others called you out. You then made an arbitrary allowable tolerance, with no reasoning other than it could be shoehorned into your conspiracy.
 
Vixen said:
You are approaching it wrongly statistics-wise. This is because you haven't factored in nested variables. You've looked up the probability of two random US males having the same two discrete names together to match that of two random dogs in a foreign land. This is because members of the same family will be in their own distinct cultural group. If you factored in your particular cultural identity, the odds against wouldn't be so high (unless perhaps your son's mother comes from a completely different culture and she named him according to her culture). But, the fact of two dogs in the Netherlands having the same name as you and your son would not be so probable. So OK, that is a real coincidence, if your two names are genuinely unforeseeable in pet dogs.
Click to expand...


No, it would be a coincidence however probable it was, because there is no connection between the naming of the dogs and the naming of phiwum and his son. That's the definition of a coincidence; two things coinciding without an actual causal relationship. Some coincidences are pretty commonplace, some are unlikely. Generally people only take note of the unlikely ones, but that doesn't make rest not coincidences.
 
Vixen said:
The inference is that they made dang sure the think would sink and no-one would stop it. Nor could anyone effectively rescue the survivors. 94 dying on the life rafts waiting for the helicopters and nearby ships.



If you planned an operation to make sure a vessel was destroyed, you would make sure it absolutely was, wouldn't you? So you'd block communications and remove life saving equipment.
Click to expand...
As far as I can wearily remember this whole flotsam thing goes back to one of the rescuing captains (from the Mariella perhaps?) remarking on his shock that the ship appeared to have sunk entirely. The remark was not about any suspicion regarding the number of rafts, lifeboats or vests left floating, it was about the shock of finding the ship had gone.

Now Vixen wishes to spin this into implying someone sabotaged life rafts and lifeboats. A dishonest fantasy built on absolutely nothing. Rejected.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The inference is that they made dang sure the think would sink and no-one would stop it. Nor could anyone effectively rescue the survivors. 94 dying on the life rafts waiting for the helicopters and nearby ships.



If you planned an operation to make sure a vessel was destroyed, you would make sure it absolutely was, wouldn't you? So you'd block communications and remove life saving equipment.
Click to expand...
So your claim is that the reason there's so little debris is that life saving equipment was removed?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Mojo said:
No, it would be a coincidence however probable it was, because there is no connection between the naming of the dogs and the naming of phiwum and his son. That's the definition of a coincidence; two things coinciding without an actual causal relationship. Some coincidences are pretty commonplace, some are unlikely. Generally people only take note of the unlikely ones, but that doesn't make rest not coincidences.
Click to expand...
That's a better definition than mine.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Traditional ships lifeboats are difficult to launch when the ship starts to list. Those on the 'up' side can't be lowered and those on the 'down' side swing away from the ship
Add the training required, darkness and a storm and they might as well not be there.
Where they are still fitted they have largely been replaced by 'freefall' types of merchant ships or just inflatable rafts.

https://www.viking-life.com/shop/bo...fe-ges-25-mkii-free-fall-lifeboat-32-persons/
 
Vixen said:
The inference is that they made dang sure the think would sink and no-one would stop it.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with flotsam.

So you'd block communications and remove life saving equipment.
Click to expand...

Flotsam is not limited to "life saving equipment." The amount, dispersal, and behavior of a floating debris field is governed by many factors.

We can add flotsam to the list of things you don't understand.
 
Vixen said:
Big deal, so I got mixed up with the 15kg Atlantic lock, also the object of blame.
Click to expand...

It is a big deal when you're trying to be the teacher and pretend to correct everyone. That compels you to demonstrate you know what you're talking about.

The error was acknowledged...
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't. You wrote a post that tried to make it sound like you were still somehow right while at the same time revising the number and units.

and I issued a post correcting the weight of the visor as 55 tonnes.
Click to expand...

Which is still incorrect. The recovered section weighed just over 64 tonnes.

But all that is only marginally relevant to the point you were trying to make, which was that in your expert engineering estimation, such a chunk of the ship falling off, striking the bulbous bow, and being pushed aside by the ship's headway, can't explain the witness testimony.

I say it does.
 
Traditional ships lifeboats are difficult to launch when the ship starts to list. Those on the 'up' side can't be lowered and those on the 'down' side swing away from the ship
Add the training required, darkness and a storm and they might as well not be there.
Where they are still fitted they have largely been replaced by 'freefall' types of merchant ships or just inflatable rafts.

https://www.viking-life.com/shop/bo...fe-ges-25-mkii-free-fall-lifeboat-32-persons/
 
Vixen said:
Can I refer you to the M/S Jan Heweliusz car ferry disaster, a Norwegian vessel that was Polish-owned.
Click to expand...

You can, but we already discussed it multiple times. You haven't demonstrated that you know how buoyancy or stability works. And by that I mean you've tried to participate in the discussion, but you simply don't have the technical understanding. You borrowed from Anders Björkmann, who uncoincidentally also doesn't have the technical understanding. And once you realize you can't just bluster your way through, you go away for a while and then reset.

People concentrate on the 'terrible storm' that afflicted the Estonia and about how incredibly unseaworthy she was meant to be and the dreadful design of the bow visor. But this all detracts from what we are not being told.
Click to expand...

No, that's just conspiracy twaddle. The conspiracy theorists really don't understand the physics, so they have to play the scary music to distract you. The flaws in the drawbridge-style visors on ro-ro ferries is not some fairy tale in the engineering community.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
No. The Finnish sense of humour is very similar to the British. Hikipedia is like PRIVATE EYE. It may seem to make light of social issues but what it is really poking fun it is the media that reports it and the pompous asses trying to cover their backs spouting nonsense.
Click to expand...

No, no amount of handwaving makes the joke come true. You claimed nuclear waste melted the car ramp doors and you cited to a joke site unironically as authority. The Onion also "makes light of social issues" and "pokes fun at the media" and "pompous asses," but we know not to believe it's real. And yet plenty of people still cite to it in desperation—not realizing what it is—to support ludicrous claims.

Americans have never really understood this humour.
Click to expand...

You're the one who didn't get the joke. Americans understand chemistry, which is how we were able to point out to you that your source wasn't meant to be taken seriously.
 
Most participants on this thread are not American.

I'm not, nor is Andy, Mojo, Junkshop, I don't think Jack is...
 
Vixen said:
Wow, just wow. One step away from saying, why shouldn't the CIA have taken over...
Click to expand...

Did you read the same post I did? You're trying to present Margus Kurm as an expert in forensic engineering in shipping. He's a public figure. His training and professional experience was in law. Could he not also have learned enough about engineering? Evidently not, judging by the statements he's made.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Most participants on this thread are not American.

I'm not, nor is Andy, Mojo, Junkshop, I don't think Jack is...
Click to expand...


I'm particularly impressed by the claim that it was the one person who failed to identify it as a joke who "understood this humour".
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Most participants on this thread are not American.
Click to expand...

Nor would it matter if they were. The trope that Americans don't get British humor is as stereotypical as ships always turning turtle and floating for hours. British humor has been consistently popular and normalized in the U.S. for at least 50 years.

No, it's a desperate ploy (identified by Mojo too) from Vixen to pretend she's the only one who can properly tell which parts of the joke article are factual and should be taken on the authority of Finnish satirists, and which are the joke parts. Sure, we all recognized it as a joke, but only Vixen can properly tell us what the true parts are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom