• 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.

The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Vixen said:
The perception of colour would be in the eye of the beholder, cones at the back of the eye, the quality of lighting, film or photo developing, etcetera. Red can be perceived as brown (russet), orange or even black. Sorry, yes, the Rockwater Report (I never was good at names). Not a 'wild conspiracy theory' it is based on an actual eye-witness account, who of course might be mistaken, but nonetheless, is not a made up one.
Click to expand...
.How does anyone know that the body was that of someone unauthorised to be on the bridge?
Do unauthorised people wear red jackets and authorised people don't wear red jackets?
 
Andy_Ross said:
Do unauthorised people wear red jackets and authorised people don't wear red jackets?
Click to expand...
So long as we're discussing fictional characters...
As explained within a review of Galaxy Quest:
(“Star Trek” popularized the notion of “Red Shirt” characters because, as fans like to point out, the first crewmate to get killed whenever the cast beams down to a planet is the unnamed guy in the red shirt.)
Click to expand...


ETA:
As for the real-world victims of this disaster, @Vixen does not appear to have given (within this thread) any genuine source for her claim that someone wearing a red jacket was found on the bridge. It is of course entirely possible that a red-jacketed victim was seen on the bridge, and I have not searched @Vixen's many posts in this thread's predecessors. Within this thread, her three references to the red jacket:
That third citation (from earlier today) corrects the second (from yesterday).

My online search for the "Rockwater Report" found this:
SUPPLEMENT No. 503
Rockwater A/S
Condition Survey of the Vessel "Estonia" for the Swedish National
Maritime Administration
Survey Report​

That report does not mention a red-jacketed victim on the bridge. Its section 2.8 reports "The bodies of 3 of the victims of the disaster were found on the Bridge." Immediately following that sentence, section 2.8 closes with this paragraph:
As agreed with the Representatives of the Authorities onboard, no reporting is made of the results of this investigation work though the performance of the work is recorded on the video cassettes which have already been delivered to the client.
Click to expand...
Section 2.3.1 ("Confidentiality") says all of Rockwater's video tapes were either "handed over to the NMA Representative" or would "be destroyed".

There might be other documents that could be described as a "Rockwater Report", but I think it's fair to say @Vixen has yet to cite an identifiable and credible source that confirms a red-jacketed victim on the bridge.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
.How does anyone know that the body was that of someone unauthorised to be on the bridge?
Do unauthorised people wear red jackets and authorised people don't wear red jackets?
Click to expand...
AIUI the bridge was like a pilots cockpit: authorised personnel only. The authorised personnel, in addition, are identified by the stripes on their uniform, so even if they take off their jacket or hat, there's an insignia on the shirt. Here's Capn Mäkelä's unform from the Silja Europa, now preserved as a museum piece at Turku's maritime museum (the Forum Marinum):

Capt. Makela's M/R Europa Cabin by Username Vixen, on Flickr
 
Vixen said:
AIUI the bridge was like a pilots cockpit: authorised personnel only. The authorised personnel, in addition, are identified by the stripes on their uniform, so even if they take off their jacket or hat, there's an insignia on the shirt. Here's Capn Mäkelä's unform from the Silja Europa, now preserved as a museum piece at Turku's maritime museum (the Forum Marinum):

Capt. Makela's M/R Europa Cabin by Username Vixen, on Flickr
Click to expand...
"As (you) understand it" has no relevance to anything in this discussion. You have posted so many porkies here that your unevidenced opinion is worthless, and most likely wrong.
 
LondonJohn said:
I'm British, and I've never ever in my entire life heard anyone refer to "smallest nano-millimetre".

On top of which, it makes literally no sense. It's as stupid as saying "largest centi-kilometre".
Click to expand...
Hmmm, must have picked it up from my ex-husband's circles who was a metallurgy* undergrad when we met. Reminds me of my sibling's in-laws, who were a medical bunch, who chatted to each other 'wittily' using the medical name for their body parts. British witticism. I can't think of any we accountants use, although, as I recall, I did use the term de minimis once and that almost sparked off WWIII on here. Oh yeah, there was one tutor given to saying, "Nota bene!" which I like.

*NB: not the PhD maths one.
 
Vixen said:
Do you consider yourself his 'better', by your own account?
Click to expand...
Nice try. You said you no longer believe the Captain was shot. So you reject his conspiracy claims too. But yes, since I know a pilot doesn't record passenger or rescuee names in his log book, I'll absolutely pit my professional knowledge and skill against his.

Vixen said:
Let me explain. Some of us have core values that we live by.
Click to expand...
No, you're not the most virtuous person in the room either.

You're simply being asked to explain how you know what you think you know. And in your case, you simply can't demonstrate that you know what you're talking about. The rest of your self-aggrandizing drivel is comedy gold, but worth no further comment.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Hmmm, must have picked it up from my ex-husband's circles who was a metallurgy* undergrad when we met. Reminds me of my sibling's in-laws, who were a medical bunch, who chatted to each other 'wittily' using the medical name for their body parts. British witticism. I can't think of any we accountants use, although, as I recall, I did use the term de minimis once and that almost sparked off WWIII on here. Oh yeah, there was one tutor given to saying, "Nota bene!" which I like.

*NB: not the PhD maths one.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you belonged to a proper Algonquin Roundtable - certainly a whole load of fun :rolleyes:
 
Vixen said:
...although, as I recall, I did use the term de minimis once and that almost sparked off WWIII on here.
Click to expand...
Only because you were corrected, dug in your heels, and had to be repeatedly corrected as usual. You heard me use the phrase, mistook what it mean, and tried to use it yourself—incorrectly—in order to look smarter than you actually are. If you don't want to be taken to task for your incessant posturing and bluffing, don't dredge up all the occurrences of when we people of "low levels of comprehension," as you put it, have to correct you.

Vixen said:
AIUI the bridge was like a pilots cockpit: authorised personnel only. The authorised personnel, in addition, are identified by the stripes on their uniform, so even if they take off their jacket or hat, there's an insignia on the shirt.
Click to expand...
And how do you know that the stripes on a jacket or shirt—or in fact, any uniform marking—is what authorizes a person to be on the bridge?
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
I'm British, and I've never ever in my entire life heard anyone refer to "smallest nano-millimetre".

On top of which, it makes literally no sense. It's as stupid as saying "largest centi-kilometre".
Click to expand...
A nanometre is a valid unit of measurement...
(specifically one billionth of a metre in length)

A 'nano-millimetre' is not- thats a unit of Vixenism...
(specifically one length of whatever Vixen deems it to be- this week..)
 
LondonJohn said:
It sounds like you belonged to a proper Algonquin Roundtable - certainly a whole load of fun :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
We have a few colloquial malapropisms at my company for measurement units, but they wouldn't have any traction outside it because they're all inside jokes.

Properly, nautical miles are abbreviated NM but we once had some regulatory paperwork slip through with the abbreviation nm, for nanometers. Since the document properly used both units in different contexts, it wasn't clear to the editor at the time that either NM or nm was wrong. So at an appropriate moment these days, someone in a meeting will occasionally quip, "That's nautical miles, right, and not nanometers?"

Another time, someone scribbled MA instead of mA on the whiteboard, intending milliamperes. We sent an intern into the conference room to transcribe some of the schematics. Naturally the value got transcribed as megamperes, which was hilarious in context as the signal in question was being sent to a biological payload specimen. If you've ever seen a squirrel on a transformer, you know the effects of that much electricity on an animal. So now there's a running joke among the electrical engineers whereby someone will respond to a dodgy proposal with, "[sound of specimens exploding]." P.S. The intern graduated and worked for us for a few years.

Dabop said:
A nanometre is a valid unit of measurement...
(specifically one billionth of a metre in length)
Click to expand...
As is a nanometer, depending on one's latitude and longitude. And to be clear, a nanosecond is also a valid unit of time measurement equal to a billionth of a second (or the length of time it takes a photon to travel about 30 cm in a vacuum). But "nano-second" is not. Anyone who has spent any measurable amount of time in a scientific context will have it soon beaten out of them that hyphens are permitted between the magnitude prefix and the unit name. And also that GW is not pronounced "jiggawatt."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom