• 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:
The weight of the bow visor is really not something that is important, as it is a simple fact that can be looked up by anyone who cares to check it.
Click to expand...

But when you're the one pretending to correct everyone else, and you undertake to do so, it doesn't matter whether anyone can look it up. It matters whether you're correct, and whether you can admit a simple mistake instead of trying to cover it up.

You felt the weight of the bow visor was quite important when we were discussing whether it could explain some of the witness observation. You insisted it couldn't since it was "tiny."
 
Vixen said:
So you keep claiming. You can't bring yourself to admit that I did indeed state that, with the casing, including three girders and some frames that the bow visor weighed 55 tonnes.
Click to expand...

"A car weighs 20 kg."
"What?"
"Well, with the motor, drive train, frame, paneling, and interior comforts, it weighs 1,000 kg."

What do you think the bow visor is, if not all the parts that make it massive? Nice try, but no one is buying it.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Yes, that's a ship in a port channel, as evidenced by the green buoy. That's when it's appropriate and required to raise the bow visor, because you can't approach your terminal and then open the visor.

You claimed it was "not unusual" for ships to sail their entire voyages with the visor up. Please provide evidence of such a ferry in open water, as you claim.
Click to expand...

I looked it up and it says the Green buoys are always on the port side. In the picture it is on the starboard side ergo it means the Viking Sally was off on its journey to the open sea. We know the photo is not transposed because you can read the name VIKING SALLY clearly.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

I take that rambling answer to mean that no, you have never actually read the JAIC report.

It's not just 'quite common' for ro-ro ferries to load from the bow, it's almost universal that they alternate. They load vehicles from the stern in one port then they unload those vehicles efficiently by letting them drive off forward out of the bow at the other port, then the procedure reverses.

Can you guess at which port the Estonia loaded at the stern and which at the bow?

If you had read the JAIC report you would already know.
 
Vixen said:
I am not the slightest bit interested in 'personalities'. You have an obsession with Bjorkmann. I do not.



Don't tell me what I saw and what I didn't see.
Click to expand...
So your constantly seeming to be quoting Bjorkmann is actually another one of those coincidences you're reluctant to believe in.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Why would anyone want Soviet nuclear waste when there's thousands of tons of nuclear waste already in the West?
Who would want to add more to the pile?
Click to expand...

It should be noted that the 137Cs being smuggled in small quantities is that prepared for scientific and medical use as radiation references and sources. These are tiny specimens rendered chemically nonreactive and sealed in polymer capsules, since cesium can be both cytotoxic and genotoxic. This use represents a tiny fraction of the waste material produced worldwide by nuclear industries. These capsules them become commodities that have some smuggling potential.

This has nothing to do with what Vixen is claiming.
 
Vixen said:
I looked it up and it says the Green buoys are always on the port side. In the picture it is on the starboard side ergo it means the Viking Sally was off on its journey to the open sea. We know the photo is not transposed because you can read the name VIKING SALLY clearly.
Click to expand...

You looked it up!

Want to try that again maybe?
 
Here_to_learn said:
You looked it up!

Want to try that again maybe?
Click to expand...


That part is correct. The green buoys are on the right when leaving port and on the left when arriving. The key concept in both cases is “in port.”

You don’t immediately lower the visor when leaving the terminal for the same reason you don’t wait to get to the terminal to open it.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Mojo said:
You did not see that the stern ramp was opened by crew to let out noxious fumes, you didn't see cannon going off in John Major's back yard, and you didn't see a Times newspaper report filed by an embedded reporter in the German front lines at Stalingrad.
Click to expand...
Given the choice between my comments and some random guy on the internet...
Click to expand...


You are "some random guy on the internet", and what's more you're some random guy on the internet who has been repeatedly demonstrated to tell untruths.

Vixen said:
...who claims he is the guy in charge of Cockney slang and that his approval and consent must be applied for first, you go for the random guy on the internet. The same guy who claimed Brompton hospital does not exist and nor was it part of the Frimley group. Because, well he is in charge, and I forgot to ask for his approval first as to whether a cockney used the term 'Kemo Sabe' because he is in charge of all the cockneys, who ever inhabited Bermondsey or Shadwell, including the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, the Huguenots, etc. No cockney rhyming slang gets allowed here unless Mr "I'm in Charge of Cockney" gives the rubber stamp of approval first. He is also in charge of who saw what of the Downing Street bombs and woe betide anyone who doesn't OK it with him first or he'll spread untrue malicious stories about you. What does it say about you that you prefer to believe a malicious bully who delights in claiming I didn't experience what I said I experienced?
Click to expand...


Most of that is irrelevant to what I posted, but your claim about having a birds eye view into the back yard of 10 Downing Street from where you claimed to have been is obviously untrue. Unless you were lying about where you were, you cannot possibly have seen any of it.

Vixen said:
BTW I didn't say the report was from the front line of Stalingrad. Stop telling lies.
Click to expand...


Here you go:
Vixen said:
If you have ever researched history you will have discovered they are an excellent source. When researching WWII, I found no shortage of books on the topic. Unfortunately, despite having attractive covers and five-star write ups, I found it impossible to get beyond page 18 of most of them as they all had the same turgid style of listing events like a school textbook. So I visited the British Newspaper library. The daily on-the-spot TIMES newspaper report on the Battle of Stalingrad, together with maps and charts brought it to life for me. They even had reporters on the German front line, who must have been British secret agents to have infiltrated it in the first place.
Click to expand...


And here you are, claiming to actually have a copy of such an article, which means that you surely must be claiming to have seen it:
Vixen said:
LondonJohn said:
These are news clippings which accurately report - with supporting evidence - the fact that the British had secret agents who'd infiltrated the German 6th Army during its assault on Stalingrad?

And that these British secret agents, and their handlers/superiors in Britain, allowed their reports on the battle to be published in a national newspaper (rather than..... I dunno.... the British intelligence community keeping those reports to itself for intelligence purposes)?
Click to expand...
I don't want to go off topic, but I certainly do have one piece where the TIMES reporter reports back on what the ordinary German soldiers are saying about the British, as per eavesdropping.
Click to expand...


Would you care to apologise for accusing me of lying?
 
Last edited:
Until and unless some new infomation becomes available I''m going to do my best to resist getting sucked back into Vixen's game here.

I've had enough of this greasy ********.
 
Last edited:
For whatever it's worth, I am prepared to believe Vixen once knew someone, perhaps even a real cockney, who used 'kemo sabe' as an elaboration of 'savvy'.

They may have been literally the only person in the world who habitually used that version but I'm prepared to believe that person may have existed.
 
Vixen said:
Yeah, yeah. We'll just have to agree to differ. I have IOM Chapter III regulations on my side, Mr. Koivisto and a whole bunch of other guys, including the Rockwater diving team who recovered the HRU of one of the beacons.
Click to expand...

No we won't disagree. You don't have any regulations on your side.
Beacons cannot be 'detuned'.
Those from the Estonia were recovered, they were manual activation and were in working order.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
For whatever it's worth, I am prepared to believe Vixen once knew someone, perhaps even a real cockney, who used 'kemo sabe' as an elaboration of 'savvy'.

They may have been literally the only person in the world who habitually used that version but I'm prepared to believe that person may have existed.
Click to expand...

You'd have no argument from me on that point. ;)

zooterkin said:
You, or your 'old lag' cockney china, are clearly confused. 'Savvy' means to understand, among other related meanings. It is nothing to do with 'kemosabe'. Possibly your mucker was making a private joke by sticking 'kemo' on the front, but it's not common currency.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom