The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

SpitfireIX said:
No. You've never "objectively weigh[ed] up the issues" about any expert's qualifications. Any expert (or "expert") who supports your CT/guilter narrative is uncritically accepted, while any who doesn't is rejected out of hand with lame excuses such as "hired gun" or "ivory-tower intellectual." Even worse, you sometimes resort to blatant lies, such as falsely claiming outright fraud.

If you want to prove me wrong, then why don't you explain to us how you supposedly "weighed up the issues" about how the German group of experts weren't biased, but Dr. Peter Gill ("ivory-tower intellectual" :rolleyes:), one of the world's foremost experts on forensic DNA, is wrong when he says that the DNA evidence against Knox and her ex-boyfriend is worthless?

ETA: You've also been known to exaggerate the credentials and experience of "experts" who support your CT/guilter fantasies, such as Anders Björkman.
Click to expand...
You seem incapable of understanding the point I was making, which was that an academic writing papers in an ivory tower (and in the case of your specific example, information gleaned third-hand from other parties) is absolutely useless in a criminal court of law as he wasn't cross examined and therefore his academic stuff could not be considered by the court. It certainly wasn't knocking academia. In future, make sure you quote me in context.
 
Vixen said:
The metric of m/s IMV is best because - and I made this point before but nobody understood it - wind doesn't move in a straight line, it tends to come in 'gusts', so metres per second is far more useful a measure in the short term for vessels because it can change a lot before one hour is even up.
Click to expand...
This is exactly why I prefer to drive my car on highways. It's so hard to be able to keep a constant speed in a city for one full hour.
 
Vixen said:
The metric of m/s IMV is best because - and I made this point before but nobody understood it - wind doesn't move in a straight line, it tends to come in 'gusts', so metres per second is far more useful a measure in the short term for vessels because it can change a lot before one hour is even up.
Click to expand...
And the speedo in my car has to wait until I've driven for an hour before it can tell me my speed:rolleyes:
 
dorricc0 said:
May we take a step back to a previous claim that kicked off the discussion on visibility of the bow visor?





Since it may have gotten lost in the detailed discussions since, can I just ask @Vixen to clarify her position, on:
(1a) Does she believe that the bow visor and car ramp were purposely opened at sea (rather than the visor breaking off due to fatigue);
(1b) and if so, did the bridge crew notice that the bow visor was open, or not?
(1c) and if so, was this to dump some contraband / drugs / secret military/spacecraft equipment / briefcase / software?
(2a) Does she believe that the stern (not stem) ramp was purposely opened at sea;
(2b) and if so, was this to dump some contraband / drugs / secret military/spacecraft equipment / briefcase / software?

Many thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

I have no idea. However, I am curious to understand why so many marine experts and insiders - that is, seemingly respectable persons directly involved in the disaster - are convinced there is more to it than meets the eye. And I have to say I cannot help feeling sceptical about the visor just falling off all by itself as a result of force majeure, given some of the eye witness accounts of the few survivors. So the answer to your questions 1a to 2b - except 1b - is 'I wouldn't know'. As I said, I follow this topic as a local current affairs news item; following its developments. However, to your question 1b, the JAIC found as a measurable and observable fact that the bridge crew did not have the visibility range to see what was happening with the bow visor, so no, the bridge crew would not have noticed that the visor was open, or not.
 
Vixen said:
... I am curious to understand why so many marine experts and insiders - that is, seemingly respectable persons directly involved in the disaster - are convinced there is more to it than meets the eye.
Click to expand...

How many is that? How many experts and insiders are these "so many"? (Aside of course from those with a motive to deny the original report's conclusions)
 
Vixen said:
... However, to your question 1b, the JAIC found as a measurable and observable fact that the bridge crew did not have the visibility range to see what was happening with the bow visor, so no, the bridge crew would not have noticed that the visor was open, or not.
Click to expand...

Have you taken on board that the bridge had an obstructed view of the visor which meant they could not see it when it was closed but it rose into their view when it was opened?
 
P.J. Denyer said:
My satnav uses a quantum computer it can only tell me where I am or how fast I'm going.
Click to expand...
My satnav's Schrödinger's cat. I'm going in the right direction and I'm going in the wrong direction, and it really doesn't give a ◊◊◊◊ either way.

I stopped using my Heisenberg satnav, it isn't sure about anything.
 
Vixen said:
The metric of m/s IMV is best because - and I made this point before but nobody understood it - wind doesn't move in a straight line, it tends to come in 'gusts', so metres per second is far more useful a measure in the short term for vessels because it can change a lot before one hour is even up.
Click to expand...
Are you sure you want to defend this position - that meters per second is better for measuring short term vessel speed because wind doesn’t travel in straight lines and because wind can change a lot in an hour? An no-one else understands your advanced reasoning?

You know if you’re given the wind speed in mph, it’s not an actual measurement of of how far the wind has travelled in the last hour? Does someone have to explain how velocity works and how wind works now, like you’re an elementary school kid?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The Soviet naval academies were more 'military' style stuff 'do as you're told'. Andresson was said to be unapproachable. People muddle along instead of risking incurring possible wrath.
Click to expand...
Said by who?

Why do you think a crew would be afraid to tell him the bow was falling off and the ship was flooding?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom