The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Vixen said:
I provided detailed calculations based on all of Estonia's relevant specifications and its environs as to the expected impact on the sea bed. The detail included all of the parameters and assumptions.
As you might recall, this was censored on the specious grounds I couldn't remember which on-line calculator I used, given any calculator will give the same result using the same paradigm.
Click to expand...
A laughable lie (yet again).
 
Reformed Offlian said:
Have you heard the tape?
Click to expand...
I'd have to look into my history. In the meantime you can see a transcript here:

The Estonian chairman of the JAIC, Andi Meister, left the commission in June 96 after accusing the Swedes of censoring the video material from the ship, and also for not investigating who was at the bridge. He also said that the Swedish police were in charge of the video filming, and that they mostly were interested in finding a certain suitcase.

In the video material it is confirmed by the diving control that the police are in charge, though they instruct the divers to not brake in to any more cabins. This can be seen and heard in the video tape made by Rockwater 04-12-94 marked "tape no. 15". At index 0.25 to 0.35 when the divers investigate certain cabins checking for a suitcase the following can be heard:

Index 0.33, cabin no. 6134

-Diving control: OK John, after we have done this one the police don't want us to brake any more doors, we just try them or try corridors.

A little later they check a large cabin, 6230, where they find an attache case with a name tag. The name is read to be "VORANI...", but is noted in the video log as " ALEXANDER VORONLA" or "ALEXANDER VORANLA". After the diver has read the name for the diving control they answer, "OK, I'll just see if that name rings a bell up here".

It is also interesting to note, that in the supplements (503, 4.4.4) it is said regarding those cabins: "The cabins in this part of the vessel were intact and access was made to cabins 6118, 6124, 6130, 6132, 6134 and 6230. Almost all cabins in this area were locked though those accessed were all empty".

Yes, there were no victims in the cabins, but the cabins were not empty as in many other cases where a cabin have not been used.




The voice recording from 04-12-94 on "tape no. 15":


Starting where the diver is at door 601, a door that only could be opened a little (body trapped behind it).

D=diver 1
D2=diver 2
DC=dive control 1
DC2=dive control 2
My comments in bold
Click to expand...

<snip>

The diver is reading and pointing at a sign over cabins in the corridor
DC2 - OK John, just in front of you there is possibly cabin 6229, very large cabin
D - 6229, that would be forward
DC2 - That's forward yes, very large cabin four bunks and all that crap
D - OK
DC2 - If you can get in to it?
D - Handle went all way round
DC2 - Handle went all way round
DC2 - Slack the diver as he goes
DC2 - Next one coming down on that side would be 6230
D - 6230
DC2 - Again, facing forward very large cabin
Diver complain of headache, want to change
DC2 - Slack the diver
D - Big cabins
DC2 - Yes very big cabins
D - not readable...cabin 6230
DC2 - Very big cabins this, might take a while searching
DC2 tell the diver what the cabin look like, where the toilet is and everything
D - Enters
Diver look around, find refrigerator, make joke of cold beer if any, look around
D - I'll found an attache case here
DC2 - Attache case, any markings on it?
D - Eeee...yes, hold on here, jepp, we got a name....Alexander Vorin
DC2 - Alexander...
D - Alexander Vorin
DC2 - Can you spell it?
D - Victor, Oscar, Romeo, Alfa, November, November
They try to read the name tag several times and come to VORANI
D - OK
DC2 - And that's it?
D - I cant read it out
DC2 - OK, I'll just see if that name rings a bell up here...
D - Can I leave...not readable...sudently
DC2 - OK, it's a Russian name, Alexander Voran
D - Voranoly
DC2 - Yes
D - It possibly could belong to the man outside
Time 47 minutes on the tape

From this tape, in blue above, it is clear that they carefully were investigating the cabins for certain objects, among those suitcases. The first suitcase they found seem to be the one they were looking for. In red, it is clear that the police was in control of the investigation. They were only interested in some cabins, others they did not bother to brake in to. It is also known from survivors that a person during the last trip was having an attache case locked to his arm. This person dressed in a wine red suite was having the dinner together with the crew and he moved unrestricted among the crew. From information regarding other trips with the Estonia this man was seen aboard many times carrying the attache case.

Most interesting is that Alexander and Vassili Voronin both have stated that they together with Vassili's grandfather were staying in a luxury four bed cabin 6320. There is no such cabin. But there is a luxury four bed cabin No: 6230 where Alexander's attache case was found. However, there is a catch, this cabin was Captain Avo Piht's. Therefore I think it is clear that Avo Piht and Voronin had some business together, and that it was of such interest that the police had to investigate and find Voronin's attache case.
Click to expand...



Index
 
Vixen said:
...given any calculator will give the same result using the same paradigm.
Click to expand...
No.

Collision mechanics such as those used to determine the deformation and/or fracture of objects in collision requires detailed modeling of the precise structures and materials properties in each case and typically includes several congruent calculations that are the cross product within the envelope of possible values for many parameters. Each of these calculations requires room-sized computers working for up to days. There is no "online calculator" that will solve the problem for you. This is what I do for a living, Vixen.

Because you don't know the right words to describe physics concepts, you confused an LLM into thinking you were asking about static pressure at a certain depth of seawater. So when you fed in the parameters of how deep the ship had to sink and asked it about the "pressure" of an impact with the seabed, it naturally followed all the probabilistic cues pertaining to "depth" and "pressure" (Instead of more aptly-named quantities like "energy" and "force") and spat out an explanation of how to find the static pressure of seawater for a given depth.

Now someone who actually understood the problem and was using some kind of online calculator as merely a convenience would immediately recognize that this solution is not what was asked for. Not just the number at the end, but the way the "online calculator" is telling you to solve the problem. Further, someone with any understanding of how collision mechanics are reckoned would know that such computations all but ignore any fluid medium through which the objects might be traveling. The collision mechanics are the same whether the collision occurs in a vacuum or in a tub of maple syrup.

You were not "censored." You were properly disciplined for failing to follow the instructions that require you to disclose in a particular way any use of AI on the forum. You did not want to admit to it likely because then we would realize that you're resorting to deception in order to portray a greater expertise than you can actually demonstrate. Your behavior is consistent with a desire to lie about your qualifications.
 
JesseCuster said:
And did the shipping company officially make a statement about the alleged dead body on the bridge and say that it was an unauthorised person? No, they didn’t, so you’ve still to explain the meaning of your claim that the dead body was *officially unauthorised*.

What exactly is *official* about your conjecture about the identify of the alleged dead body and who should or shouldn’t be and was or wasn’t on the bridge when the Estonia sank.
Click to expand...
From the link, above:

This person dressed in a wine red suite was having the dinner together with the crew and he moved unrestricted among the crew. From information regarding other trips with the Estonia this man was seen aboard many times carrying the attache case.
Click to expand...

Compare and contrast it with other reports.
 
zooterkin said:
To remind you, you were supposed to be supporting your claim that the divers made a beeline for the case. The transcript shows quite the opposite.
Click to expand...
From a popular Finnish newspaper, Ilta-Sanomat [google translate]:

On the night of the sinking of the Estonia, a mysterious businessman from East Estonia, Aleksandr Voronin , was also traveling towards Sweden on the ship . The man was on his way to Denmark for a business meeting with his suitcases, but according to him, he had chosen Estonia as a stopover because he was afraid that a storm forecast for the evening would cause flight cancellations.


Although Voronin himself was saved, the suitcase was left on the sinking ship. Later, the Estonian newspaper Õhtuleht wrote that divers sent to investigate the wreck of the Estonia were tasked with finding Voronin's suitcase "at any cost." According to the newspaper, the suitcase was found in the cabin of Captain Avo Pihti, who was a passenger on the ship the night the Estonia sank .


Voronin's name has been linked not only to the arms business but also to the smuggling of Russian space technology to the West. https://www.is.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000006255187.html
Click to expand...
 
JayUtah said:
No.

Collision mechanics such as those used to determine the deformation and/or fracture of objects in collision requires detailed modeling of the precise structures and materials properties in each case and typically includes several congruent calculations that are the cross product within the envelope of possible values for many parameters. Each of these calculations requires room-sized computers working for up to days. There is no "online calculator" that will solve the problem for you. This is what I do for a living, Vixen.

Because you don't know the right words to describe physics concepts, you confused an LLM into thinking you were asking about static pressure at a certain depth of seawater. So when you fed in the parameters of how deep the ship had to sink and asked it about the "pressure" of an impact with the seabed, it naturally followed all the probabilistic cues pertaining to "depth" and "pressure" (Instead of more aptly-named quantities like "energy" and "force") and spat out an explanation of how to find the static pressure of seawater for a given depth.

Now someone who actually understood the problem and was using some kind of online calculator as merely a convenience would immediately recognize that this solution is not what was asked for. Not just the number at the end, but the way the "online calculator" is telling you to solve the problem. Further, someone with any understanding of how collision mechanics are reckoned would know that such computations all but ignore any fluid medium through which the objects might be traveling. The collision mechanics are the same whether the collision occurs in a vacuum or in a tub of maple syrup.

You were not "censored." You were properly disciplined for failing to follow the instructions that require you to disclose in a particular way any use of AI on the forum. You did not want to admit to it likely because then we would realize that you're resorting to deception in order to portray a greater expertise than you can actually demonstrate. Your behavior is consistent with a desire to lie about your qualifications.
Click to expand...
No, it factored in it was in water at a depth of 80m ceteris paribus and factored in the effect of gravity. The only thing it didn't have was the angle the vessel hit the bed. However, eye witnesses, including the English guy who managed to crawl his way along the port hull and safely got into a life raft confirmed the angle was quite steep with the nose in the air.
 
Vixen said:
No, it factored in it was in water at a depth of 80m ceteris paribus and factored in the effect of gravity. The only thing it didn't have was the angle the vessel hit the bed. However, eye witnesses, including the English guy who managed to crawl his way along the port hull and safely got into a life raft confirmed the angle was quite steep with the nose in the air.
Click to expand...
No.

I do this for a living, Vixen. The solution you posted was a hilarious, nonsensical mashup of unrelated physics concepts. You absolutely cannot bluff your way past me on this point.
 
Andy_Ross said:
In addition to extra crew there for the weather, the ship was sinking and had lost power.
Any messages to or from the bridge would have to be delivered by a crew member.
I would say that extra people on the bridge would be expected.
Click to expand...

It's also worth remembering that even on planes security increased significantly after 9/11.
 
Andy_Ross said:
How does the shipping company know who was on duty or allowed on the bridge at any given time?
It's the captain and First Mate that set watch rotas and schedules and decide which crew are on the bridge on official duty at any given time.
In circumstances like a storm extra watch keepers are usually there as lookouts.
When there's a problem other people may be on the bridge reporting or doing extra duties.
When the ship is sinking any number of people could be there for any number of reasons.

Even in 'normal' cruising extra people can visit the bridge with permission. It's not locked like an aircraft cockpit.

You know nothing of bridge duties, crew duties or how a ship is run and organised.
Click to expand...
The JAIC Report details exactly who was on duty and who had come off it.
 
Vixen said:
I provided detailed calculations based on all of Estonia's relevant specifications and its environs as to the expected impact on the sea bed. The detail included all of the parameters and assumptions. As you might recall, this was censored on the specious grounds I couldn't remember which on-line calculator I used, given any calculator will give the same result using the same paradigm.
Click to expand...
Hahahahahahahahahaha

No. You posted worthless AI-hallucinated calculations based on none of the Estonia's relevant specifications.

You asked an AI to calculate with how much force a 15,000 ton ship would hit the sea bed after sinking 80m. And the AI hallucinated a sciency-looking answer which you pasted here without noticing it had invented a formula which completely ignored the existence of the ship and instead told you the static force exerted by water pressure on an arbitrary 1,000 square meter area of seabed.

As you might recall, it drew criticism, not because you couldn't do the calculations yourself, but because you pretended you understood the worthless sciency-looking babble it came up with.

The "specious" grounds for it's being moderated was your undeclared use of AI to generate content you posted, clearly without understanding it.

It's here: https://internationalskeptics.com/f...nia-case-reopened-part-v.356236/post-14082207

At least it led to a discussion elsewhere which clarified the forum's rules about using AI to write posts.
 
JesseCuster said:
I’ll ask again. You said that the alleged dead body was “officially unauthorised”. Who officially said that this alleged dead body was unauthorised? Are you incapable or unwilling to answer that question?

I’m not asking about airplane, I’m asking about the Estonia, and I’m not asking how *you* determined that the alleged dead body was unauthorised, I’m for a citation that the alleged dead body was *officially* declared to be unauthorised. You will not provide a citation because you made it up yourself and you are not an official source for this made-up fact.
Click to expand...
If you can follow notation correctly, you will see I asterisked the word 'unauthorised' to explain what I meant by this term. Do you know how an asterisk works, or is that another 'grey' area people don't get?
 
Vixen said:
Then all you had to do was state where it erred.
Click to expand...
You erred in believing the collision mechanics problem was a simple thing that could be computed with an "online calculator. You erred in believing that the solution your AI gave you solved your problem rather than one completely unrelated to the collision of a sinking ship with the seabed. You erred in every possible way a person could err in trying to bluff her way along.

You asked an AI to solve the problem, intending to pass of its solution as one that you came up with on your own. But because you prompted it ineptly, you got the typical garbage-in-garbage-out answer you can expect from such an exercise.

You continue to err in believing that people who actually helped extend LS-DYNA along with LLNL to handle flexible-body collisions back in the day can't tell that you're bluffing.

Simply pathetic.
 
Vixen said:
If you can follow notation correctly, you will see I asterisked the word 'unauthorised' to explain what I meant by this term. Do you know how an asterisk works, or is that another 'grey' area people don't get?
Click to expand...
If you don't like being dragged about your ineptitude with notation, perhaps don't keep bringing it up.
 
Vixen said:
I think Christopher Bollyn is a pseudonym but from what he says of himself and his theories about the 9/11 disaster, I get the sense he is anti-Israel and pro-Islamist Middle Eastern states. I might be completely wrong but that is the vibe I picked up from reading his stuff.
Click to expand...
Oh jesus we're back to this again.

No, it isn't a pseudonym. It's his name and he's a rabid anti-semite.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Hahahahahahahahahaha

No. You posted worthless AI-hallucinated calculations based on none of the Estonia's relevant specifications.

You asked an AI to calculate with how much force a 15,000 ton ship would hit the sea bed after sinking 80m. And the AI hallucinated a sciency-looking answer which you pasted here without noticing it had invented a formula which completely ignored the existence of the ship and instead told you the static force exerted by water pressure on an arbitrary 1,000 square meter area of seabed.

As you might recall, it drew criticism, not because you couldn't do the calculations yourself, but because you pretended you understood the worthless sciency-looking babble it came up with.

The "specious" grounds for it's being moderated was your undeclared use of AI to generate content you posted, clearly without understanding it.

It's here: https://internationalskeptics.com/f...nia-case-reopened-part-v.356236/post-14082207

At least it led to a discussion elsewhere which clarified the forum's rules about using AI to write posts.
Click to expand...
I said it was an on-line calculation. You don't think I calculated it myself..?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Oh jesus we're back to this again.

No, it isn't a pseudonym. It's his name and he's a rabid anti-semite.
Click to expand...
Can you provide a link to his online bio, other than his articles. Because I couldn't find any such internet presence, other than his claim to have studied Middle Eastern Studies and his self claim he had a Swedish (..?) wife.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom