The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Vixen said:
For the umpty-ninth time, the diagram was some time after and was directly from JAIC.
Click to expand...
We know where the diagram came from. The paragraph you quote next comes from a completely different source, so I don't know why you're bringing it up now.
Vixen said:
To recap max wind was 24/25 ms max speed was 18 knots.
Click to expand...
Once again, why does the character string "18 knots" appear here? 25 m/s is not 18 knots, either.

What is the "18 knots" a reference to here, Vixen? It can't be max windspeed if the max windspeed was 24 to 25 m/s.
 
Vixen said:
Here is the explanation again. Having had it explained, I am not sure why people are still pretending they do not understand.

[...snip...]

Later post:

No, we were discussing how bad the storm was. I mentioned I had travelled from Stockholm to Turku in the middle of January overnight with no problem, so there is nothing special about the end of September (and the water is deepest just NW of Gottland, and the stretch between Åland Islands and Stockholm can go up to >300). Compare and contrast to the relatively shallow waters near where Estonia sank (35m - 125m) plus, the Gulf of Finland midstream is quite deep. So having mentioned the January ferry journey, I stated the wind speed on 27.9.1994 was sou'westerly at 24/25 [corr] m/s. 18 knots. Later, another poster claimed not to understand so I produced a diagram (from the JAIC Report) illustrating wind direction and speed at m/s and the speed of the vessel where the bow visor fell off, which showed 'S = 14'. It is unfortunate the JAIC diagram didn't show where Estonia reached its maximum speed as witnessed by AMBER and the nearby Silja Europa. So we then had dozens of posts from people claiming they couldn't see the word 'S = 18', on the JAIC diagram, so therefore, I was a some kind of an airhead/bimbo and also a liar for denying I had supposedly - according to the detractors - confused 18 knots for 18 m/s. Given I went to some lengths to explain it several times, plus I am a fully qualified chartered accountant who works with numbers every working day, uses kilometres here, in this country, as default, and has a mathematical sciences degree, there really is zero chance I could mistake 18 m/s windspeed for 18 knots boat speed. Having stated wind speed 18 m/s, there is zero chance I would bother to calculate the mph equivalent, as the person I was responding to already knows what 18 m/s windspeed means. However, person no. 2, claimed they just couldn't understand the difference between 24/25 [corr] m/s windspeed and 18 knots, and a whole load of people claiming I really thought 18 m/s = 18 knots. So yes, I do think it was hazing and not a genuine belief, given the background and my explanations.

Person no 2, I believe knows full well 18 knots refers to vessel speed, given he claims to be a coastguard.

Please stop falsely claiming that I converted 24/25m/s to 18 knots for the benefit of Andy Ross, because the idea is obviously ridiculous. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Most of that "Later post" is a word-for-word copy/paste from something @Vixen wrote yesterday. She added some highlighting and the last two short paragraphs. She has now edited today's copy/pasted text to change "at 18 m/s. 18 knots." to "24/25 [corr] m/s. 18 knots."

Because today's "explanation again" is essentially the same as yesterday's, I will simply link to the response I wrote yesterday.
 
junkshop said:
Greasy post is greasy.
Click to expand...
Given you have been given the explanation, why are you insisting you know better what I think than I do? Yes, it does come across as misogyny claiming you are in charge of what I think and that you are in a position to reprimand me. I am pretty sure you wouldn't treat a guy with such contemptuous scorn. For example, the poster who originally mistakenly or deliberately claimed I had converted m/s into knots. Too timid to have a go at the person who really WAS wrong. And I haven't had an apology from him.
 
Last edited:
I think Vixen was trying to say “max wind speed was 24/24 m/s and Estonia’s max speed was 18 knots” but if that’s so, then it’s needlessly confusing to refer to the Estonia’s speed without actually mentioning or referencing the Estonia.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Most of that "Later post" is a word-for-word copy/paste from something @Vixen wrote yesterday. She added some highlighting and the last two short paragraphs. She has now edited today's copy/pasted text to change "at 18 m/s. 18 knots." to "24/25 [corr] m/s. 18 knots."
Click to expand...
She’s desperately trying to make 18 m/s somehow be the source of the 18 knots claim. She’s repeating the same hackneyed technique of just throwing out ambiguous words and numbers and mocking anyone who tries to figure out what she means.
 
JesseCuster said:
I think Vixen was trying to say “max wind speed was 24/24 m/s and Estonia’s max speed was 18 knots” but if that’s so, then it’s needlessly confusing to refer to the Estonia’s speed without actually mentioning or referencing the Estonia.
Click to expand...
And irrelevant because 18 knots simply isn’t on the diagram in any form.
 
JayUtah said:
Irrelevant. The thing you said was on the diagram is not on the diagram. It’s literally that simple.
Click to expand...
That is not the issue, that is mere trivia. That is like saying there was a dot missing, as an excuse to falsely claim I was converting 24/25m/s into 18 knots, given it has been explained several times now. I note you haven't once corrected the REAL poster who mistakenly or deliberately made the claim I converted m/s into knots. Any reason for that?
 
JesseCuster said:
I think Vixen was trying to say “max wind speed was 24/24 m/s and Estonia’s max speed was 18 knots” but if that’s so, then it’s needlessly confusing to refer to the Estonia’s speed without actually mentioning or referencing the Estonia.
Click to expand...
We had already been talking about the night of the accident and the storm. I believe the poster who claims I converted m/s into knots was just trying to do a oneupmanship and putdown because he has never acknowledged he was mistaken.
 
With my highlighting:
Vixen said:
That is not the issue, that is mere trivia. That is like saying there was a dot missing, as an excuse to falsely claim I was converting 24/25m/s into 18 knots, given it has been explained several times now. I note you haven't once corrected the REAL poster who mistakenly or deliberately made the claim I converted m/s into knots. Any reason for that?
Click to expand...
Not the issue, mere trivia?

Well, that explains why this thread contains more than a thousand subsequent posts dominated by @Vixen's claim that "18 knots" came directly from the diagram while others tried to explain that "18 knots" is not on the diagram.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
We know where the diagram came from. The paragraph you quote next comes from a completely different source, so I don't know why you're bringing it up now.

Once again, why does the character string "18 knots" appear here? 25 m/s is not 18 knots, either.

What is the "18 knots" a reference to here, Vixen? It can't be max windspeed if the max windspeed was 24 to 25 m/s.
Click to expand...
Typographical error crept in.
 
Vixen said:
What? I travelled from Stockholm to Turku, night boat, in the middle of January in recent years. It is not a problem for these boats.

The wind on 27.9.1994 was 24/25 m/s at its worse but otherwise a sou'westerly 18 m/s. 15 - 18 knots.

View attachment 64050
Click to expand...
This is the post in question Vixen, you said “The wind on 27.9.1994 was 24/25 m/s at its worse but otherwise a sou'westerly 18 m/s. 15 - 18 knots.”. You later stated that those figures were clearly stated on the diagram. Where is 15-18 kts clearly stated on the diagram?

Edit: i see Vixen has offered the excuse that it was a typo, if so then try so desperately to say it wasn’t a mistake?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Given you have been given the explanation, why are you insisting you know better what I think than I do? Yes, it does come across as misogyny claiming you are in charge of what I think and that you are in a position to reprimand me. I am pretty sure you wouldn't treat a guy with such contemptuous scorn. For example, the poster who originally mistakenly or deliberately claimed I had converted m/s into knots. Too timid to have a go at the person who really WAS wrong. And I haven't had an apology from him.
Click to expand...
What? Sorry, but this makes no sense at all.
 
JesseCuster said:
This is the post in question Vixen, you said “The wind on 27.9.1994 was 24/25 m/s at its worse but otherwise a sou'westerly 18 m/s. 15 - 18 knots.”. You later stated that those figures were clearly stated on the diagram. Where is 15-18 kts clearly stated on the diagram?
Click to expand...
Because I assumed it was self evident that m/s meant wind speed, which showed on the diagram as 18 m/s SW. and that S meant speed. The person who said they couldn't see the original 24/25 m/s and 18knot was just being obtuse IMV, because he didn't want to admit the other poster was wrong about my having converted m/s to knots. Instead of acknowledging this poster was wrong, he had to keep up the pretence I was the reprobate who 'had converted m/s into knots' which was untrue, because I said so.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom