The Captain of Estonia, Andresson, was trained in the then Leningrad naval acadamy and was well-experienced. He was also authoritarian in the Soviet way (albeit being an Estonian) so whilst his crew might have feared drawing trouble to his attention, we don't actually have any idea what happened on the bridge, other than they had little to no time to react.
The context was that 'Estonia wasn't built for open sea'. I was simply pointing out it had passed the 'open sea' point as of where it sunk, if 'open sea' was a factor.
I am not interested in 'personalities' stuff. I couldn't give a toss about Alex Jones and his theories. AIUI he is some kind of 'influencer' type bod. Nobody is interested in that stuff.
I have no idea what any of those topics has to do with this one. Each topic has to be judged on its own individual merits.
The AI overview was no different from wikipedia, which is where it seems to glean much of its stuff from. Do you think wikipedia is also dodgy because most people don't consider a wiki source as sleazy or greasy.
But 'open sea' is not about depth. It about lack of the protection from wind factors compared to coastal waters.
Wikipedia doesn't regard Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.
False. Wikipedia is curated and edited. The final product is something a set of humans wrote, fact-checked, and remains responsible for.
Why must you lie about what is being asked of you like this? He's not asking about the personality of Alex Jones, that is your invention.
Amazing.
Here's the AI overview of 'conning in a ship':
I am perfectly aware of Wikipedia's shortcomings but as a reference source for simple facts, people use wiki all the time. There is no way I would recommend wiki as a study aid.
Give it up. Your victim complex fools no one.
Ah but you didn't even use Wikipedia, you used an AI which is even more pathetic.
If only someone had explained that they disagree with @Vixen's claim that her figure of "15-18 knots" is "clearly stated" within the diagram, we could have avoided all of the subsequent posts in which @Vixen continued to insist her figure of 15-18 knots came directly from that diagram.
The sentence I highlighted establishes a context in which @Vixen is talking about wind speed. Neither that sentence nor the sentences that precede it say anything at all about the speed of the boat.
I suspect they were saying that because 'S = 18' isn't on the diagram.
How could anyone fail to be convinced by such plausible and well-evidenced claims to qualifications, expertise, academic degrees, probabilities, infallibility, and (my favorite) laziness ("zero chance that I would bother to calculate")?
I should ask my pilot friend whether he's ever heard of anyone stating a wind speed in knots.
OK since a poster wasn't satisfied with my response, let's try again. The current news would be 9/11. One lone individual - Alex Jones or whoever - wouldn't be current affairs news unless they were a person of interest, that is a member of the Senate with influence, or someone directly involved in the incident. Some guy mouthing off doesn't make it 'current affairs', except perhaps if someone wants to start a thread to discuss what he is claiming. However, the reinvestigation of Estonia is current affairs because it is something that has happened recently and is ongoing. The fact is, many Estonians in the Estonian government and ex-JAIC were disgruntled, including Margus Kurm, a government lawyer, who set up a rival expedition to Arikas'. Plus the recent tv doc that set the reinvestigation off, Evertsson. That is why these guys get quoted because they are inherent to the reasons and wherefores there is the reinvestigation in the first place.
BLOODNOK: Oh, oh, oh! I've never had it as bad as this before! Oh dear, the wind must be 40 knots at least! Well, I hope we don't have to launch the lifeboat tonight. Just in case they ask me, I'll put one arm in a sling and lie down in a mock faint.
I put 'conning' into google search and it gave me a quick summary, as it does with spelling, for example..
In post n#3,660 I stated [excerpt] "Yes, historically wind might have been measured by knots..."
Once again, for avoidance of doubt, the '18 knots' reference was in a post BEFORE another poster asked for clarification. Being helpful I added a JAIC diagram, which because unfortunately it didn't include all the knots from 1 - 18 but only the one where the bow visor fell off (S=14) people were up in arms because it didn't say 'S=18', as if I had the clairvoyant power to know I was going to be producing that diagram later for a different poster and had somehow cheated them of their "S=18 knots".If only someone had explained that they disagree with @Vixen's claim that her figure of "15-18 knots" is "clearly stated" within the diagram, we could have avoided all of the subsequent posts in which @Vixen continued to insist her figure of 15-18 knots came directly from that diagram.
The sentence I highlighted establishes a context in which @Vixen is talking about wind speed. Neither that sentence nor the sentences that precede it say anything at all about the speed of the boat.
From that context, we should have inferred that @Vixen knows full well that 18 m/s is not 18 knots.
I suspect they were saying that because 'S = 18' isn't on the diagram.
How could anyone fail to be convinced by such plausible and well-evidenced claims to qualifications, expertise, academic degrees, probabilities, infallibility, and (my favorite) laziness ("zero chance that I would bother to calculate")?
Especially when anyone who doubts those claims can test them against the archives of this and other threads.
I should ask my pilot friend whether he's ever heard of anyone stating a wind speed in knots.