• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Vixen said:
Just as one can report on what Trump is saying and what Davie of the Beeb is saying, it is possible to present what the issues are in influential people demanding the MS Estonia be reinvestigated. They aren't pundits or the guy down the pub, they are people in positions of authority, expertise and direct experience in the disaster.
Click to expand...
Doesn't even remotely deal with what I said and is just meaningless waffle in an attempt to deflect.

Deal with what is being said to you and stop making up our side of the discussion in your head.
 
Vixen said:
Yes very generic. Treated as random anecdotes, which of course, it had to include some, excerpts collated by the psychologist. Doesn't give any weight to them. Doesn't even name Treu and Linde, who it does give great weight to.
Click to expand...
No, the JAIC report doesn't name participants. Why should they? Does their first and last name matter? Did their names impact the accident in any way?

When you write accident investigation report, do you always name everybody?
 
Vixen said:
I read it.
Click to expand...
That doesn't answer my question. How do you know what the captain was wearing when the ship went down?

Your argument that JAIC's apparent disinterest in ascertaining the identities of the victims on the ship's bridge is suspicious. This is predicated on a thing you made up about the identities being easily inferred from their uniforms, and that the JAIC's failure to do so was therefore an intentional act of coverup. All that presumes that the uniforms they were wearing on the bridge can be known and distinguished. Can you please tell us what the captain was wearing at the time of the collision and how you know that?
 
Vixen said:
Common sense tells you to consider a breach in the hull. You don't need to confect 'windows got smashed by waves and that's how a further 4,000 tonnes got in' ["in theory"]'.
Click to expand...
And that is why accident investigations are performed by experts and not by a random set of the "common person".

If you want to include a hull breach as part of the accident, you have to produce a full set of actions that explain how things happened, in what order, and how that matches what is known from interviews of the people present.

Please go ahead - describe in detail how a breach happened, how it relates to witness statements, how it related to where the bow ended up, how the list happened and so on.

JAIC has done this, based on expert knowledge, simulations and experiments.
 
Steve said:
Cheney is relevant to Vixen. As the "Oh look, a squirrel!" of the day.
Click to expand...
Oh look, a squirrel....
1762890208075.png
That's not a squirrel Vixen....

(cue 1600 pages of thread as to why it IS a squirrel, how at her school where she was in the top 0.000000000001% of the most intelligent people on the planet, they always called the mooses squirrels and therefore she is 1000% right that IS a squirrel....) etc etc etc
 
Vixen said:
Common sense tells you to consider a breach in the hull. You don't need to confect 'windows got smashed by waves and that's how a further 4,000 tonnes got in' ["in theory"]'.
Click to expand...
Common sense is not sufficient to conduct a forensic engineering examination. You are entirely unqualified to say what a proper one entails. You're simply

Considering a breach in the hull means identifying a potential cause of the breach (e.g., collision or grounding). It means identifying physical evidence consistent with such a breach taking place. That can be done easily in this case, and the proper conclusion reached early on is that a breach is not evident.

While common sense is telling you some wrong thing, engineering expertise tells me that a ship which heels or lists for any reason is in danger of downflooding. Therefore I look for sources and evidence of downflooding.

Stay in your lane.
 
Dabop said:
Oh look, a squirrel....
View attachment 65771
That's not a squirrel Vixen....

(cue 1600 pages of thread as to why it IS a squirrel, how at her school where she was in the top 0.000000000001% of the most intelligent people on the planet, they always called the mooses squirrels and therefore she is 1000% right that IS a squirrel....) etc etc etc
Click to expand...


A squirrel once bit my wife...
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Common sense trumps actual expertise for you does it? Afterall, the actual experts disagree with you.
Click to expand...
That's more or less how conspiracy theories work. They make the person recounting them feel smarter than they really are. Some conspiracy theorists will claim to have some sort of qualitatively better insight, to be less tainted by Establishment thinking, or to have a high degree of general intelligence ("I'm a triple-niner") that compensates for their lack of critical specialized knowledge and experience. But yes, the goal is generally to support the notion that the conspiracy theorist knows more than actual experts.
 
Vixen said:
MS Estonia was not a merchant ship, it was a passenger ferry and staff were expected to be seen in uniform. Do have a look at the picture of Captain Mäkelä's of Europa (again), as worn on the night of the accident and donated to the maritime museum in Turku.
Click to expand...
A car ferry is a merchant ship.

It was the middle of the night in a storm. The captain would go to the bridge in whatever he eas wearing with a big waterproof coat over the top. Do you think he would waste time putting on some kind of special dress uniform?

If he had any sense he would have out on an immersion suit as it became obvious the ship was going down. For me it would have been as soon as the engines were lost.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom