The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Reformed Offlian]

OMG! She was right!

Oh, c'mon it's right there!

That tracks

 

[Vixen]

Not how that works. You were never a psychologist, even if you did subscribe to the BPS as a non-professional.

For your information, in the UK, 'psychologist' is not a protected designation. Anyone can call themself a 'psychologist'. However, I have never referred to myself as a 'psychologist'. You just don't get that some of us have values and authenticity, which includes not claiming unearnt or 'stolen' honours. I know that is a principle some cultures find hard to grasp. (Cue the bullying.)

Just be what you'll be ~ NRD

 

[zooterkin]

For your information, in the UK, 'psychologist' is not a protected designation. Anyone can call themself a 'psychologist;. However, have never referred to myself as a 'psychologist'.

Yes, you did, by implication.

I am not a psychologist as I am no longer a member of the British Psychological Society.
<snip>

The clear implication being that when you were a member, then you were a psychologist.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, you did, by implication.


The clear implication being that when you were a member, then you were a psychologist.

I have no control over your thoughts or emotions.

 

[zooterkin]

I have no control over your thoughts or emotions.

How about your own memory?

I was a psychologist for a short time as a member of the British Psychological Society. If you practise your field you you can call yourself by the term you are professionally recognised as. I am no longer a member of BPS and no longer call myself a psychologist. However, that doesn't mean I have forgotten all my scientific training.

 

[Vixen]

How about your own memory?

Let me give you some advice. Being a member of BPS is a prestigious designation. Always ask a person what accreditation they have should you require the services of a psychologist. I don't care if you have no respect for me as long as I have made myself clear.

 

[Vixen]

Excellent, as you yourself affirm I made the following clear:

Vixen said:
I was a psychologist for a short time as a member of the British Psychological Society. If you practise your field you you can call yourself by the term you are professionally recognised as. I am no longer a member of BPS and no longer call myself a psychologist. However, that doesn't mean I have forgotten all my scientific training.

I did not say it was my current profession. ETA: When one has honesty, integrity and authenticity as core values, it is remarkable the incredible lengths some people will go to try to drag you down.

 

[zooterkin]

Wriggle, wriggle...

For your information, in the UK, 'psychologist' is not a protected designation. Anyone can call themself a 'psychologist;. However, have never referred to myself as a 'psychologist'.

I was a psychologist for a short time as a member of the British Psychological Society. If you practise your field you you can call yourself by the term you are professionally recognised as. I am no longer a member of BPS and no longer call myself a psychologist. However, that doesn't mean I have forgotten all my scientific training.

 

[Vixen]

Got a link to your "source".
I can in a couple of CT sites that also claim to have the divers' descriptions of the 3 on the bridge.
But they also claim this mysterious "unofficial" third person was wearing a red/brown suit. Not a red jacket.
The YT videos are useless sources.

I can not find any description of this body in any RockWellWater reports that I can find.
Section 8.8 of the JAIC report summarises the divers' observations with no mention of jacket or suit or colour.

You can do a search about this as it has been discussed in the past. However, another readily available source is the book - well worth reading if you have an interest in this topic - The Hole by Drew Wilson. He states that the guy under the toppled cabinet had a tattoo on his hand which would not have been Capt Andresson's. Wilson's source is the late former head of the JAIC, Andi Meister, quoting Lopetamatta logiraamat ['The Unfinished Logbook', Baltic News Services, 1997]. According to Jutta Rabe from p. 140, the two eyewitness sources were two Finnish armed forces guys who said that clearly visible in these videos was Capt. Andresson with a 'shot through the head'. Now, my view is that (a) Finns tend to tell it as it is (authenticity) so I do believe them if that is what they say they saw. (b) this doesn't necessarily signify murder. IMV it could well be suicide in the face of near certain death, as being the captain, he couldn't leave the ship, as Andresson was very old school and trained at a Russian naval academy. In WWII, torpedoed German ships would have a flurry of SS officers shooting dead their wives and children before killing themself, rather than face drowning and fear.

Note: words in italics indicates the title of a book.

 

[Vixen]

Nope. This is utter nonsense as anyone remotely connected to or involved in commercial shipping could tell you.

The main ferries between Finland, Estonia and Sweden, whilst making journeys of relatively short durations (< one day) are designed as cruise ships, with entertainment, restaurants, lavish buffets, conference rooms, dancing, bars, which many use as such. As a commercial enterprise, the captain's team were expected to wear the uniform whilst on duty. What is the actual situation now?

 

[Vixen]

But not "nano-milli," which is gibberish.

Nanoscale metallurgy is very much a new thing, so someone you met long ago wouldn't have been using it seriously that way. Yes, scientists will sometimes use facetious measurements like, "microfortnight" or "nanoparsec." But again, you only get to joke that way when people know that you understand how to use units properly.

Er, that was the joke. But never mind.

 

[Vixen]

And asking for an actual useful reference for what Meister said is a waste of time, because Vixen isn't going to provide it. It's patently obvious she hasn't read Meister's book, and if pushed will simply make a vague handwave towards something she said at some point in the past which has the reference. This is despite the fact that she has boasted about her research skills.

Both her research and debate methodology are are best extremely sloppy and at worst downright dishonest at times.

So Vixen, what's your reference for the curious body on the bridge that supposedly shouldn't have been there? Don't make a vague reference to something you already said, if you're the diligent researcher you claim you are, you should be able to dig up a reference and post it easily. But I'm betting you won't and can't.

Well, I have sent off for Meister's book [from a secondhand web shop in Tartu, Estonia] so let's see what it says when it arrives.

 

[Vixen]

As Jay noted, you are not the most virtuous person in the room. This and other threads contain dozens of examples of your dishonesty, especially your dishonest mischaracterizations of other posters' arguments and comments. They also contain numerous examples your lack of integrity, as when you fail to admit your errors when clearly proven wrong, or fail to withdraw false accusations when you are unable to substantiate them.


It's not a smear campaign when it accurately describes your behavior. Further, you seem to think it's fine for you to insult everyone else, e.g., referring to people who believe that Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend are innocent as her "fans," and referring to the pair as our "pets," while insinuating that you arrived at your conclusion logically while everyone else is simply acting on blind faith.


You've falsely accused me of bullying you, and even provided a link to a page and invited me to take a quiz to determine whether I'm a bully. Why? Because I insisted that you either substantiate several false claims or withdraw them. So no, I don't believe that you have some special ability to spot bullying. I'm very sorry about what happened to your friend, but, as I and others have pointed out to you many times, having your views vigorously challenged and accurately characterized as conspiracy theories are neither personal attacks nor bullying.

However, as I've pointed out, claiming persecution in an attempt to mute criticism is a basic conspiracist play. Most of us have seen it many times before, and it doesn't work on us.


It's not "authenticity" when you avoid questions and evidence that ought to lead you to reconsider your beliefs, which we frankly see you do all the time.

Please stop using the word 'we' and just speak for yourself. It is a logical fallacy to appeal to the crowd and to claim you speak for a 'we'. Take ownership of your own views.

 

[Vixen]

In addition to the other responses, granting, arguendo, that the hilited is true, did it occur to you that, in an extreme emergency, an off-duty crewmember might make his way to the bridge without taking the time to put on his uniform?

One of the ship's engineers who was doing the rounds, was immediately behind Capt Andresson as he was making his way up the steps to the bridge to take over, as is protocol every X number of hours. The ship lurched at that very moment the clocks changed from East European Time to Swedish time. from 01:00 to 12:00 and so the remarkably fast sinking began. The persons who would or should have been on the bridge have all been identified as to where they ended up during the disaster, yet no-one has been able to identify the man with the hand tattoo under the cabinet.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It's basically just a ghost story.

 

[Vixen]

No. As noted, that's just the usual BS excuse you use when you put your foot in your mouth. When, for example, you made some disparaging comments about Freemasons and Freemasonry, after I told you that several of my relatives were Freemasons and took umbrage, you tried to weasel out by saying something to the effect that any fool should have known that what you'd said was just a joke.

I was actually talking about the specific hand gesture across the throat which the individual claimed meant a literally slit throat when it simply signifies a grim reality and also is a common masons gesture. That's all! I wasn't impugning Freemasons.

 

[Vixen]

The Herald's main contribution to this interminable thread has been as a target for one poster's claim it would not have sunk entirely (had it not come to rest on its side on a sand bar, before it was quite submerged) as they wished us to accept, if I remember correctly, that scooping up great volumes of seawater through an open bow door is not enough to make ferries sink. (The report on that accident disagrees and states plainly that it would indeed have sunk entirely had the water been deeper.)

No the issue was, according to the JAIC report, the waves on the starboard side [iirc] were so high as the ship listed owing to the imbalance now on the car deck caused by the massive sudden ingress of water, the windows (which are strongly reinforced to withstand gale force winds) somehow smashed causing the vessel to float on infrastucture. This is what was in dispute. LondonJohn claimed that HOFE was a good example of a ship floating on its side despite my demonstrating very clearly HOFE fortuitously came to rest on a sandbank, which stopped it turning upside down and sinking completely.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen said thart the HOFE would have floated upside down if it weren't for the sandbank because apparently, according to her, that's how ships are designed. I'm not a maritime engineer, but I'm pretty sure ships are designed to float the other way up.

edit: And just for grins and giggles, while searching for some old posts on this topic, I found a post of Vixen's where she said that Jutta Rabe found submarine tracks on the Baltic seafloor which she and someone called "Greg Bemiss" identified as being caused by submarine wheels, which Vixen says are sometimes found on minisubs...

edit2: The new search function is super duper BTW, much faster than the old version.

You can mock F. Gregg Bemis but he is considered 'the father of modern day sailing racing rules'.

Gregg Bemis, Harvard Class of ’30, is one of the fathers of the modern day racing rules. In 1950, Bemis sat down with Harold Vanderbilt and Gerald Sambrooke-Sturgess and fine-tuned the rules Vanderbilt had been working on since the 1930s. Those rules went into effect in 1961, and for the first time ever the rules became identical wherever sailboats are raced. Bemis was Chairman of the NAYRU appeals committee for many years, after which he became Chairman of the NAYRU racing rules committee. He was also a senior international judge who served at the Olympics and the America’s Cup. He was a judge long before US Sailing created a judging program.

The Sailing Museum

Bemis travelled with Rabe to the Estonia wreck so it is first hand observation. I love how people mistaking sceptism for knee-jerk mocking, write off experts like Bemis or Braidwood as 'conspiracy theorist' cranks. Spot the true ignoramus.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No the issue was, according to the JAIC report, the waves on the starboard side [iirc] were so high as the ship listed owing to the imbalance now on the car deck caused by the massive sudden ingress of water, the windows (which are strongly reinforced to withstand gale force winds) somehow smashed causing the vessel to float on infrastucture. This is what was in dispute. LondonJohn claimed that HOFE was a good example of a ship floating on its side despite my demonstrating very clearly HOFE fortuitously came to rest on a sandbank, which stopped it turning upside down and sinking completely.

I searched. No.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You can mock F. Gregg Bemis

For saying what, exactly?