• 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

MarkCorrigan said:
Well Rabe was a conspiracy theorist and a nutter, but that isnt the point.

Jay is an expert, he has explained why Bjorkmans buoyancy calculations are wrong.


Do you accept that?
Click to expand...
I've told you before I am not interested in personalities. You seem driven by irrationality towards Björkman and Rabe. I don't see calling someone a 'nutter' advances understanding. You might just as well say Shakespeare was a nutter because you don't like his plays but that is not actually informing us of your reasoning. I mean they might well be stark raving mad but this obsession with personalities is little different from liking or disliking Madonna or the Kardashians. It really means nothing to me. I am only interested here in the MS Estonia accident. Couldn't care less if you hate Rabe or Bjorkman.
 
Vixen said:
Can you provide an explicit example so that we can all see what you are talking about?
Click to expand...
I discussed one at length and cited to them back when we were talking about Prof. Amdahl's conclusions.

Here's a model contemporary with the MS Estonia investigation. https://calhoun.nps.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/ee163ff1-05fe-4387-9888-05d5d0e25b19/content

Here's a more modern one. https://www.sistre-shipdesign-software.com/help/progressive-flooding

Both these discuss the role of downflooding and the progression of flooding through various compartments and how to estimate flood rates. Björkman simply presumes an intact, indiffusible hull and proceeds.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I've told you before I am not interested in personalities. You seem driven by irrationality towards Björkman and Rabe. I don't see calling someone a 'nutter' advances understanding. You might just as well say Shakespeare was a nutter because you don't like his plays but that is not actually informing us of your reasoning. I mean they might well be stark raving mad but this obsession with personalities is little different from liking or disliking Madonna or the Kardashians. It really means nothing to me. I am only interested here in the MS Estonia accident. Couldn't care less if you hate Rabe or Bjorkman.
Click to expand...
1763058302162.png
 
Vixen said:
I've told you before I am not interested in personalities.
Click to expand...
And we've told you repeatedly this has nothing to do with personalities.

Vixen said:
You seem driven by irrationality towards Björkman...
Click to expand...
There is nothing irrational about testing the foundation of purported expert testimony.

In contrast you seem irrationally interested in supporting the expert reputation of a person you now want to say has nothing to do with your argument.
 
Vixen said:
I've told you before I am not interested in personalities. You seem driven by irrationality towards Björkman and Rabe. I don't see calling someone a 'nutter' advances understanding. You might just as well say Shakespeare was a nutter because you don't like his plays but that is not actually informing us of your reasoning. I mean they might well be stark raving mad but this obsession with personalities is little different from liking or disliking Madonna or the Kardashians. It really means nothing to me. I am only interested here in the MS Estonia accident. Couldn't care less if you hate Rabe or Bjorkman.
Click to expand...
Blah blah blah stop avoiding the question.

Do you accept Jay's expert rebuttal of Bjorkman's buoyancy calculations, yes or no?
 
Vixen said:
Pleasure. He believes the accident was the fault of the Estonian crew.
Click to expand...
They were a big part of the death toll. Everyone heard the loud banging, but only one guy went to look for the source, and due to his timing didn't find anything. He didn't stick around near the bow in the car deck long enough, and the command didn't take the initiative to keep damage control parties stationed in the car deck (where most ferry accidents start), and put the rest of the crew on alert. Most navies do this on a whim, and a good seaman sleeps with on eye open in that kind of weather.

And not one crewman braved the bow deck, which would have alerted the bridge immediately.

So guess what? He's not wrong.
 
Vixen said:
You explicitly said that Bjorkman was my sole source.
Click to expand...
He is the only person you've cited as an expert witness. The other people you cite to either or not experts or did not study the question in an expert capacity. That they expressed an opinion is not relevant.

Then you went on to imagine what I would say to all those people if I were to meet them. That's dishonest and childish.
 
JayUtah said:
He is the only person you've cited as an expert witness. The other people you cite to either or not experts or did not study the question in an expert capacity. That they expressed an opinion is not relevant.

Then you went on to imagine what I would say to all those people if I were to meet them. That's dishonest and childish.
Click to expand...
Not to mention absolutely mental.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Do you accept Jay's expert rebuttal of Bjorkman's buoyancy calculations, yes or no?
Click to expand...
There's a bit of a red herring because Björkman's chief error is not down in the guts of some tedious computation, but in the assumption of an intact, indiffusable hull. He assumes things to be the case that are contradicted by all the flooding models. And that's because the flooding models all presume that downflooding and diffusion will occur. They can get away with those presumptions not because they are somehow cheating but because downflooding and diffusion always occur when a ship lists and/or takes on water. Pseudoscience is often insidious because it draws attention away from the actual flaws; its defenders are often misled because they want skeptics to look for errors only in the straightforward parts of the claim and not where the flaws actually lie.
 
Vixen said:
What do you have to say to Captain Mäkelä, Capt Thornroos, Andi Meister, Margus Kurm, Jutta Rabe, or even Bemis and Braidwood were they alive? Presumably they are all fakes and badly educated.
Click to expand...
I'd say they're all conspiracy theorists. Some people (like you) are just wired to embrace nonsense, no matter the level of lunacy required to make the conspiracy theory real.

I used to be a conspiracy theorist myself, buying into the JKF Assassination stupidity, UFOs, and I still hunt ghosties from time to time. I know the game you're playing. I can find "experts", some with PhDs, others with otherwise solid reputations in logic that back whatever silly conspiracy claim I care to make. The main roadblock to making any of these things true are the facts, and key elements that cannot be waved away with the whole, "You weren't there so you never really can know" line of crap. Just because they had a PhD, or have years of experience doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make them right in their assessments. In the case of JFK I bought into the so-called ballistics experts claims of a second gunman, and because of their backgrounds in law enforcement, and military experience I never questioned their judgement...until I went to Dallas and stood in Dealey Plaza. At that moment it was clear those "experts" were either lying, had not been to Dallas in person, and or are subject to confirmation bias to the point of mental illness.

No matter the disaster there are always "qualified" individuals who either genuinely question an investigation's findings based on their interpretation of the facts, or the question the findings because they are hardwired to be a-holes. Bjorkman is the latter. In the case of the former, I do get where some of them come from, intellectually. For many engineers, and other qualified experts it can be hard to accept a specific system failure initiated by a seemingly random event, or component within that system. Major Edward Murphy Jr. wisely stated, "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong". And there are ten rules of Murphy. The other two which apply to the MS Estonia are: Nature Sides with the Hidden Flaw, and "Of all the things that can go wrong, the one which causes the most damage will go wrong". The problem with these few "qualified experts" is they can't embrace Murphy's Law(s).

My lone qualification in this case is I can break anything through common use. I am the 2% Guy who can crash your computer, fry the electrical system of your car, break/jam your doorknob. I even broke a hammer once. When I look at the JAIC all I see is my counterpart sailing his ferry too fast in rough seas because he'd done it one other time without problems, and he had a schedule to keep.
 
Vixen said:
Chalmers is rated 165 in the world and no. 1 in Sweden, according to this webpage.

www.topuniversities.com

Chalmers University of Technology

Learn more about studying at Chalmers University of Technology including how it performs in QS rankings, the cost of tuition and further course information.
www.topuniversities.com www.topuniversities.com
Click to expand...
No. You either didn't read carefully, or else you're just being dishonest. It says that topuniversities.com rates Chalmers no. 165 in Europe, but that Chalmers is consistently ranked number one in popular surveys in Sweden. Further, I informed you last summer, when we were discussing your blatant double standard regarding expert opinions about the JAIC report and expert opinions about the evidence against Amanda Knox, a) Chalmers is ranked no. 8 in Sweden and no. 140 in Europe by US News & World Report, and b) Chalmers is not a naval academy.

Edit: italics
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Indeed, that's probably my fault. I habitually (though not intentionally) misspell his name and others copy me. Back when I was debating him (at another forum) there was another conspiracy theorist who had a Scandinavian name that ended in -mann and a given name Anders, and I never got over my confusion.
Click to expand...
I always copy either from his website, or from a previous post of mine, partly to avoid spelling mistakes, and partly as a handy way to reproduce the ö character. And I've corrected Vixen's spelling of his name in the past. However, despite her strong tendency to pedantry, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that she meant that MC might have gotten a negative response to his inquiry due to a spelling error.
 
Axxman300 said:
They were a big part of the death toll. Everyone heard the loud banging, but only one guy went to look for the source, and due to his timing didn't find anything. He didn't stick around near the bow in the car deck long enough, and the command didn't take the initiative to keep damage control parties stationed in the car deck (where most ferry accidents start), and put the rest of the crew on alert. Most navies do this on a whim, and a good seaman sleeps with on eye open in that kind of weather.

And not one crewman braved the bow deck, which would have alerted the bridge immediately.

So guess what? He's not wrong.
Click to expand...
I agree, the crew were badly trained and badly lead. Watch keeping was sloppy and procedures for storm running inadequate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom