Cont: The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI

[Mojo]

I can't imagine the level of hubris it takes to steadfastly believe that every single other person in this thread, not to mention all the actual experts who did the original investigation & the new investigation, are wrong but I'm right despite having no training, knowledge or experience of the field.

This is from another thread, but I think it's relevant here:

Nah, in order to be interesting everything has to be as complex as possible. Did someone die of a stab wound and their worst enemy was standing over the body with a bloody knife? Clearly it's an elaborate frame-up conspiracy involving dozens of people, a mystery that will unfold over three seasons on Netflix.

I blame the modern habit of viewing everything as entertainment and therefore expecting everything to be entertaining.

 

[JayUtah]

For crying out loud. I described the bow visor and its weight in full in direct response to a question. What more do you want. Hari-kiri on national tv?

But let's keep claiming I never said what I did say for the next ten pages.

The problem is that you never said what you claim you did. Correct that lie and we’ll move on.

 

[Vixen]

Can we "see" this, too?

Should be able to. The stern ramp was found to be ajar.

The JAIC never bothered to explain this fact.

 

[zooterkin]

Nobody said it is Sweden's fault.

Really? Isn't that what this whole thread is about, you claiming it's Sweden's fault?

 

[Vixen]

Let's look at what you actually posted:

"Nuclear waste instantly etched the already rusted bow visor into nothingness" is known as hyperbole or exaggerating to make a point.

It doesn't mean you have to take it literally.


Matt Hancock said he was 'straining every sinew' but nobody believed it literally for a moment.

 

[zooterkin]

For crying out loud. I described the bow visor and its weight in full in direct response to a question.

Once again, that is a lie. Feel free to prove me wrong by linking to this alleged question to which you were simply giving an answer.

I've already linked to the actual exchange in my recent post.

 

[Vixen]

The buoys were not 'untuned' That's just some twaddle you invented.
There's no way to 'untune' an EPIRB

As for the debris turning up on the same beach, what would you expect when it started in the same place and was moved by the same wind and current?

All the floating bodies in the water were recovered. Those missing were trapped in the hull or on the seabed. They don't float as well as lifejackets, that's the point of lifejackets.

No, I was quoting professional technical EXPERTS who actually worked with the things vocationally.

This is an argument that will go nowhere as you refuse to acknowledge it. You claim Helsingin Sanomat and Asser Kovisto, together with several others, such as Lt Capn Montonen of the coastguards are all liars.

 

[Vixen]

We can all read the thread Vixen. When you realised you had erroneously claimed the visor weighed 15kg, you *didn't* admit that was a mistake, you revised your figure to include another mere 54,895kg as if that were some minor discrepancy over exactly which parts of the visor count as "the visor".

I hope you can see that reading responses from someone who seems to display an almost pathological aversion to admitting being wrong about anything makes it hard for the reader to believe the person they're debating with will be arguing in good faith.

<YAWN>

 

[Mojo]

For crying out loud. I described the bow visor and its weight in full in direct response to a question. What more do you want. Hari-kiri on national tv?

But let's keep claiming I never said what I did say for the next ten pages.

You do realise that we can go back and read what you posted, don't you?

Here's the post in which you introduced the weight of the visor: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=14174248#post14174248

There's no question about the visor there, just your claim that the bow visor "is tiny, just 15 kg".

If you like, I can also link to the post in which you defended this claim by inventing a "casing" weighing 54,985kg. Would you like that?

 

[Vixen]

Vixen still fails to understand that it was a joke, despite numerous explanations that it was a joke.

Smuggling of ex-Soviet nuclear waste was no joke.

 

[Mojo]

Matt Hancock said he was 'straining every sinew' but nobody believed it literally for a moment.

We don't believe you either.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Should be able to. The stern ramp was found to be ajar.



The JAIC never bothered to explain this fact.

How did you eliminate every other possible explanation to arrive at such a precise explanation with certitude.

Pointing to uncertainties or single, isolated facts which could be interpreted a myriad of ways will not be accepted as valid.

 

[JayUtah]

Smuggling of ex-Soviet nuclear waste was no joke.

It's not about the smuggling. It's about you claiming ¹³⁷Cs destroyed the ramp. That was a joke. You didn't get the joke, while we all did.

 

[phiwum]

Phiwum might think it a coincidence but it is more likely to be an amusing story than a real coincidence. As I don't know the full facts and he swears that the probability of the two names together are one in ten million, I conceded it to him, on the assumption the two names would be most unlikely as a pet's name.

I didn't swear that it was one in ten million. I have an estimate that two random American men born at the right time would have these two names.

Strictly speaking, I suppose I should have divided by two since order didn't matter.

The odds for two Dutch dogs to have the same two names would be much, much less, I would think.

I'm sure I don't know what distinguishes this occurrence from a real coincidence. It isn't made up, if that's what you're suggesting.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Smuggling of ex-Soviet nuclear waste was no joke.

I have stated a fact which is true.

I have stated this fact in a complete void of any meaningful context.

However, since I did accurately state that a thing exists which does exist, this means I have credibility and deserve infinite attention while I weave fantasy nonsense and if anyone questions me I will repeat one of a handful of irrelevant but otherwise true statements.

Here's an example:

"Steel melts at 2500 degrees!"

It's that simple.

 

[phiwum]

Well, the automatically-activated on immersion buoys were found to be switched off and found dumped together with a whole load of other life-saving stuff. I believe one EPIRB was caught by a fisherman, also switched off, despite having been checked by the ship's electricians as being set up and activated the week before.

That doesn't answer my question.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[JayUtah]

You claim Helsingin Sanomat and Asser Kovisto, together with several others, such as Lt Capn Montonen of the coastguards are all liars.

No. As stated, your claims on this point come from one writer, who relied on one source—conspiracy theorist Margus Kurm—to supply the information. Then somehow all the allegedly corroborating information mysteriously "disappeared."

I know why Koivisto was in Helsinki. You don't. I'm not the one making up stories about him.

 

[Mojo]

Smuggling of ex-Soviet nuclear waste was no joke.

Nobody has suggested that this would be a joke. It is your source claiming that the visor was instantly etched into nothingness by nuclear waste while the stern gate was opened to let out tobacco smoke that was an obvious joke, that you swallowed hook, line, and sinker.

 

[Vixen]

Do you believe him? And do you suspect these were two military trucks you insist were loaded last of all?

What makes you think the vehicles were loaded at the stern?

Have you ever actually read the JAIC report? Serious question.

I neither believe nor disbelieve him. I respect his POV as an expert who was there at the time and has the conviction of his beliefs to present them to the Estonian government working party. It is quite common for these passenger ferries to leave the port stern first and then turn, as cars can be loaded from either the stern or the bow. Ruotsalainen's theory might sound outlandish because you are conditioned into accepting the official JAIC Report as it is, well, 'official', even though it never investigated the cargo, the communications blackout, the removal/failure of the EPIRB's, the blackout on the bridge, the poor radio channel reception on both bands, where and what the Captain was doing all of this time: not even mentioned, when it is crucial to know what the Captain was up to. Could have retrieved his body and carried out a post-mortem. Notice it doesn't give key information that might alert people to anything that points to a deliberate operation.

 

[Mojo]

I didn't swear that it was one in ten million. I have an estimate that two random American men born at the right time would have these two names.

Strictly speaking, I suppose I should have divided by two since order didn't matter.

The odds for two Dutch dogs to have the same two names would be much, much less, I would think.

I'm sure I don't know what distinguishes this occurrence from a real coincidence. It isn't made up, if that's what you're suggesting.

The odds don't matter, what makes it a coincidence is the lack of a connection between the two coinciding events.