The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[JayUtah]

Rationalization doesn't explain THIS accident.

No one is rationalizing anything.

That sort of answer might satisfy the intellectually lazy or the average incurious person...

I'm not the intellectually lazy one.

...there people who ARE interested in the actual facts and not in some comforting pet formula as to 'why accidents happen'.

I'm sure there are, but the evidence in this thread is that you are not one of them. I and others have tried for several hundred pages to correct your chronic misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the events in question. You have demonstrated instead that you will just latch onto any and all conspiracy theories if they propagate the discussion for another ten pages.

My professional training and experience includes determining why accidents happen. From that position I can confidently say you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Vixen]

You were asked and invited to defend Rabe with facts. The best you could come up with was a string of assumptions that she somehow "must" have done her job and been a good journalist, and a secondary conspiracy theory of your own for why she didn't provide evidence for her conspiracy theory that the captain was shot in the head.

So now that your unhinged defense of Rabe is back on the table, please tell us how we're supposed to believe you're as even-handed and fair-minded as you claim when you're clearly shilling for conspiracy authors who don't provide evidence for their claims.

As for whether we can evaluate Rabe, the answer is yes. We're quite capable of recognizing tabloid tactics such as relying on unnamed sources for sensational claims.

For crying out loud, Rabe enlisted the help of renowned experts in their field (Bemis, Braidwood, Fellowes) and even employed independent reputable forensic metallurgy labs.

You prefer the comfort of not having to give it much thought.

That is of course, your prerogative, but you cannot force that mindset onto others, just because they have a different view.

 

[Vixen]

Indeed, the desperate attempts to deflect are so obvious it's painful.

I ask for support of Rabe and her nonsense and instead get accused of never having heard of her and being a meanie for no reason. It's farcical, particularly considering everyone in this argument is ostensibly an adult.

You lied and claimed you had read her book, that is how you know she is an 'insane crank'. I know you are lying because her book is in German and Swedish.

IOW my impression is that you have the erroneous belief that this topic is about 'believing' or 'not believing' so you nail your mast to the former, thinking it demonstrates what a great skeptic you are. No understanding of the issue needed, just wear a badge.

 

[Vixen]

Including uncorroborated claims of conspiracy.



Asked and answered. When last we left this story, you were on the hook to produce photographs of the key pages confirming your claim that the book includes the full forensic reports, not just the cherry-picked summaries available from other sources.

Anyone can staple lab reports to a bad spy novel and sell it to an unsuspecting audience.



In my case, by reading what you say.

I am conscious of copyright law but I shall try to dig out an extract or two under the permissible grounds of a reasonable review for educational or discussion purposes. But no way will it be 16-pages.

 

[Vixen]

Because you got lost in a rowing boat?

Oh is that what he claims to base it on.

 

[Here_to_learn]

That is dated November 2023. The Swedish prosecutor refers to conclusions.

Can you please quote where the Swedish prosecutor uses the word "conclusions" so I understand what you are referring to?

 

[Here_to_learn]

Thanks, I'll have a look. It still says, 'preliminary' on the main page, which seems to indicate the Swedish prosecutor has seen a final report, yet this doesn't seem to have been released publicly.

Why would you jump to that conclusion? Why not go to the source that I have linked to, where you can read exactly what the Swedish prosecutor has based their decision on. (hint - it is not any form of unreleased final report from the accident investigation boards).

 

[MarkCorrigan]

What 'incident with the book [you] own'?

Sea of Death, when you lied about what it said regarding hospital ships.

It is clearly very important to you to disparage me at every turn.

Nope, just pointing out that you've been caught in so many lies your word is meaningless and you're desperate to make yourself seem more important than you are so people take your conspiracy mongering nonsense seriously.

That reflects your insecurity. It is not for me to give your slurs the dignity of a response.

What slurs? That you're a liar who lies about herself to make you seem more important? But that's true and has been catalogued many times in threads passim.

Likewise, in these parts, we do the Jante law here. We are not impressed by showing off, so your typically British sport of oneupmanship - i.e., your 'humble brag' (= pretending you are talking about me) of having a sailing certificate

Its not humble bragging, nor is it bragging. I simply stated that i have some sailing experience and i think youre lying about yours.

and sailing 'extensively' -

You're lying again. Quote me saying I have sailed extensively. Go on, quote it.

You can't, because it's your fabrication. You're a liar.

doesn't impress and likewise, I shall not be 'putting you in your place' nor arousing good old British envy, by giving that comment the dignity of a response, either.

What are you talking about now? I have asked you to support Rabe by providing evidence for her wild conspiracy nonsense. That is a reasonable request, so support it and stop trying to deflect. Again, you're just pathetically bad at this.

It matters not a jot that you think Rabe reads like a pulp spy novel, that is your prerogative - I do not believe for a minute you have read her book! -

Have I claimed to have read the book itself? No. But I have read summaries of it, and I know that she is talking out of a different orifice than the one people typically talk out of. Her conclusions are unsupported, her theories wildly implausible if not outright impossible and they read like bad spy fiction.

Again, you have no idea how the intelligence community operates, how disaster investigations work or how bouncy calculations work to name but 3 things you've mangled in these threads, but you keep trying to pontificate on them as if you do. Why do you try to keep up the farcical bluster? No-one is buying it.

but your claim that that she is 'an insane crank' is just a spurious insult of the playground variety, that doesn't even reach the level of a logical fallacy.

No, it follows directly from her making insane claims with no evidence.

 

[JayUtah]

Sweeping generalisations.

No. From my well-experienced perspective, it is a very accurate presentation of the sorts of conditions that persist and from which accidents such as MS Estonia invariably arise. These are documented facts, regardless of your desire to ignore them and the suggestion that you're smart to do so. You've presented nothing to contradict the conclusion that the loss of MS Estonia was a "normal accident," in Charles Perrow's terminology.

My personal pet hate is the debating technique of the 'would, could, should' variety, where everything has an alternative explanation and everything can be rationalized so there is no problem to be solved at all.

Oh, knock it off.

You fasten on each conspiracy theory du jour without respect to any sort of viable alternate theory or even consistency on a daily basis. You're not trying to solve a problem. It's been solved, and by better people than you. You're trying to prolong the illusion of a problem because it validates your "armchair detective" role and makes you feel important. It's all about you.

But it is not, it is a simple current affairs, factual, news story. Nothing to do with whether you 'believe in it' or not.

From the "simple current affairs" perspective there really is nothing to see here. It was an accident. It was investigated thoroughly and the root causes found. The root causes include chronic problems in engineering and transportation that we practitioners are quite familiar with. We can talk about them accurately and knowledgeably without "dismissing" anything. Being able to see patterns in failure is a strength, not a dodge.

On the other hand, you seem to desperately want there to be something more and nefarious to it, apparently so you can pat yourself on back for being so clever in discovering it. It's literally all about what you are choosing to believe, often in contravention of self-evident fact, and usually in contravention of what you said you believed yesterday.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You lied and claimed you had read her book, that is how you know she is an 'insane crank'. I know you are lying because her book is in German and Swedish.

IOW my impression is that you have the erroneous belief that this topic is about 'believing' or 'not believing' so you nail your mast to the former, thinking it demonstrates what a great skeptic you are. No understanding of the issue needed, just wear a badge.

No I didn't. Please, quote me claiming I have read her book.

I did say that translations and summaries exist, and I've read the summaries.

Once again your view is wildly divergent from reality.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Oh is that what he claims to base it on.

No. I've explained that I based my flippant comment on the fact you're a self aggrandising liar.

 

[JayUtah]

For crying out loud, Rabe enlisted...

That doesn't change the fact that you merely assumed she had done her homework. You told us that's what you did, then you tried to tell us you didn't.

We've addressed the other contributions you mention at length. I want to hear from you why you think you can tell us you're fair-minded about Rabe and at the same time just give her the benefit of the doubt for sensationalist claims such as the captain being shot in the head.

 

[JayUtah]

I am conscious of copyright law but I shall try to dig out an extract or two under the permissible grounds of a reasonable review for educational or discussion purposes. But no way will it be 16-pages.

If you want to convince us that you—and only you—have read Braidwood's report in its entirey, and because it was included in Rabe's book, then you have the burden to produce suitable evidence of it.

Every forensic report includes a summary of findings and conclusions. Start with that. But generally you will need to show us something that doesn't exist in the already-available summaries of Braidwood's work.

As for the substance of Braidwood's work, it has already been disputed by other authority presented in this thread.

 

[Steve]

Oh is that what he claims to base it on.

It is one very valid data point.

 

[JayUtah]

Thanks, I'll have a look. It still says, 'preliminary' on the main page, which seems to indicate the Swedish prosecutor has seen a final report...

No. "Preliminary" has a specific meaning in forensic reporting.

 

[JayUtah]

...even employed independent reputable forensic metallurgy labs.

Braidwood's analysis of the diving footage is available and has been evaluated by other diving experts. The flaws with it have been presented here, but you ignored them. I addressed Braidwood's summary of the metallurgical data and have shown several times how it does not support the conclusions Braidwood wishes to draw from it. You have been unable to address any of that,

What you say you have—that no one else has—are the actual reports of the forensic laboratories upon which Braidwood based his findings. They were apparently appendices to Braidwood's original report, but were omitted when it was digitized. These you say contain the information showing that Braidwood's questionable conclusions are nevertheless defensible, and therefore only you can know that for sure.

You're making a lot of hay out of what you think those reports contain and prove. But let's face it: you're not competent to evaluate them, or to determine whether Braidwood correctly evaluated them. And you seem reluctant to get the information into our hands so that we can address your claims or draw our own conclusions from positions of expertise. Yes, I saw into ordering the book for myself, but it's only available from a single overseas publisher with whom I can't seem to find a way to arrange payment.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I have noticed a post wherein I appear to claim that her book reads like spy pulp rather than the ideas and theories in it which is what I meant. So I apologise for clumsy language intimating that I had read it in full.

 

[Mojo]

Only if they had an incomplete understanding of the English language. Do you really think that:

describes an everyday state of affairs?

Well, maybe if accountants were running everything.

 

[Mojo]

Ironically we usually know more about her sources than she does.

Nonsense. Vixen knows things about her sources that the rest of the world is unaware of, for example:

I am amazed you had no idea that Rabe was a part of the German Group.

 

[JayUtah]

I have noticed a post wherein I appear to claim that her book reads like spy pulp rather than the ideas and theories in it which is what I meant. So I apologise for clumsy language intimating that I had read it in full.

I did finally make it all the way through Drew Wilson's The Hole. And yes, it's spy pulp. That's apparently what Vixen is relying on for the political angle. There's little if any technical expertise evident in the book. Plenty of attempts, to be sure, but no substance.