The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Andy_Ross]

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.

Ships are not watertight from above.
If they were the crew would suffocate and the engines and machinery would be unable to run.

 

[Axxman300]

I agree, the crew were badly trained and badly lead. Watch keeping was sloppy and procedures for storm running inadequate.

If you think about it, EVERYONE heard the banging. I assume that was not normal. And if the entire ship shuddered as reported by survivors it should have been all hands on deck to find out what the hell just happened.

Last past weekend it work there was a loud bang that shook the motel where I work. I thought a car hit the side of the building. I grabbed a flashlight, locked up, and walked the entire property, and checked the boilers. Found nothing. Later I learned the local bomb squad had detonated a phosphorus maritime signaling device that had washed up on the beach, the boom was heard five miles away. Point is, I heard something ugly, and I did my job to make sure there was no immediate danger.

But no, we're subjected to Swedish midnight, and minisubs.

 

[EHocking]

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.

I've told you before I am not interested in personalities. You seem driven by irrationality towards Björkman and Rabe.

Speaking of Meister. How many pages of his book have you translated via Google Lens?
Anything relevant to previous discussions?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Has it crossed your mind he might have been seriously interested in the logistics of dropping atomic bombs and its aftermath.

Bull. You tried this four years ago, even going so far as to lie and claim that other posters in the thread had made that argument. As has been explained to you ad nauseam, Björkman claims that nuclear weapons are impossible because of his gross misunderstanding of nuclear physics. But, zombie-like, you keep resurrecting this canard that he merely questions the "logistics" of their construction (and of human spaceflight) in an attempt to pretend that he's a) less of a lunatic, and b) somehow still competent in physics.

If you read more widely, for example, Kazuo Ishiguro, who verifies events via autobiographical fiction . . .

What WDC said.

. . . you wouldn't need to feel so threatened . . .

And, again, back to the BS where we feel "threatened" by your and others' BS conspiracy theories.

For the however manyeth time, we do not find your theories threatening or disconcerting. We find them obnoxious and offensive, first and foremost because you're pissing on the graves of the victims of the Estonia (and of Meredith Kercher).

. . . by people shooting the breeze on abstract notions however ridiculous.

Would you consider Holocaust denial "shooting the breeze on abstract notions?" As I have repeatedly explained to you, and you have repeatedly either minimized, questioned, or ignored, Björkman claims that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were faked, with the collusion of the Japanese government, and that there were "few" real casualties. (When I linked to the page of his website where he claims this, you declined to read it, and claimed that you'd take my word for it, because you weren't interested.) As I've mentioned before, Björkman's denial of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese from the direct and indirect effects of the atomic bombs is no less vile than Holocaust denial, notwithstanding the fact that it's an order of magnitude smaller. Does this automatically make him wrong about the Estonia? No. But it should create a very strong presumption that he's a highly untrustworthy source.

Edit: italics

 

[Vixen]

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

 

[Vixen]

What 'grave doubts' have Captains
Mäkelä and Thornroos expressed?

You claim to be outraged by repetition of facts, so please may I suggest you perform a search to save repeating oneself.

 

[Vixen]

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.

I don't believe they are conspiracy theorists. They are experts or investigators with primary access to sources. Rabe, Bemis, Bradiwood, Evertsson and Kurm actually visited the wreck. Hence the reinvestigation. A simple news story. Like the aforesaid, I am not looking for reassuring platitudes, it is a simple case of wanting to find out what happened.

 

[Vixen]

I agree, the crew were badly trained and badly lead. Watch keeping was sloppy and procedures for storm running inadequate.

Be that as it may that is still your 'best guess'.

 

[Vixen]

Memory issues - both short and long term.
Childish knee-jerk posts.
Confusion.
Trouble understanding simple statements.

Sometimes when persons reach a certain age.....

Sorry to hear that.

 

[Vixen]

Speaking of Meister. How many pages of his book have you translated via Google Lens?
Anything relevant to previous discussions?

Well yes. He claims Einseln coached Linde and Treu in what to tell the investigators. BTW I was referring to those persons' opinions re the sinking, but then you knew that.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You claim to be outraged by repetition of facts, so please may I suggest you perform a search to save repeating oneself.

You made a claim, a new one, that the captains expressed 'grave doubts' about something.
Previously you said surprise at the speed of sinking.
What are these previously unmentioned 'grave doubts'?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Be that as it may that is still your 'best guess'.

Not a guess, it's documented Haven't you read the enquiry report and it's supporting documentation?
I know how a good and efficient crew is organised and trained, I know what procedures would be considered good.
I know this from my own direct training and experience as a member of well trained and organised crews.

 

[JesseCuster]

Has it crossed your mind he might have been seriously interested in the logistics of dropping atomic bombs and its aftermath.

Has it crossed your mind to read what Bjorkman has to say about nuclear bombs? No it hasn't, because you're too intellectually dishonest and lazy to actually check yourself. Bjorkman thinks that nuclear weapons are a hoax. He thinks the the moon landings were a hoax. He thinks that COVID is a hoax. He explicitly says this on his website.

You'd know this if you bothered to actually check, but you know he's a crackpot, so it suits you to pretend that he's simply questioning logistics, or engaging in pontificating about abstract matters, etc. instead of acknowledging that he's a crackpot who says things like "a nuclear explosion is a deception or a joke! It has never happened!"

And don't lie and say that it's about his personality or eccentricites or another dumb excuse you're going to invent. He's a crackpot who explicitly promotes numerous very silly conspiracy theories.

 

[Dabop]

He's a crackpot who explicitly promotes numerous very silly conspiracy theories.

And not the only one here either lol....

 

[JayUtah]

I don't believe they are conspiracy theorists. They are experts or investigators with primary access to sources.

That won't generally stop someone from being a conspiracy theorist if they really want to be.

Hence the reinvestigation. A simple news story.

Which only seems to interest you as far as you can use it to spout conspiracy theories that were flying around long before the second investigation.

Like the aforesaid, I am not looking for reassuring platitudes, it is a simple case of wanting to find out what happened.

Which part of that is served by, for example, Evertsson lying about the damage he saw on the wreck? We're not interested in your platitudes about how these authors are very fine people who can't possibly be suspected of anything because they pretend to be so conscientious and diligent. If Evertsson tells me he lied abut the damage because the real damage didn't fit the story he wanted to tell, that's super strong evidence that he's a conspiracy theorist.

Conversely, Kurm and Rabe each stood on the deck of a boat above the wreck. To suggest they "visited" the wreck by doing that and thereby got some sort of additional insight that their critics don't have is exactly the sort of publicity-seeking nonsense that raises red flags among actual investigators.

The goal isn't to find an excuse to label people something and then dismiss them by the label. The goal is to vet purported scholarship. The fact that "conspiracy theorist" happens to be an apt label for people like Evertsson who lie to get gullible people like you to pay attention to them is just a convenience. The shoe just fits.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Exactly.

Just because someone has an academic qualification or experience in a field doesn't mean they can't be nutter butters. While someone with said qualification or experience would be expected to know more than a lay person and therefore their words can be seen to have a head start on those of some rando, that doesn't mean that if their claims are false we have to ignore that.

If Gukesh Dommaraju claimed that in chess a knight can move diagonally any number of spaces, just because he's currently world number one doesn't mean that he is right about how a knight moves.

 

[JayUtah]

Be that as it may that is still your 'best guess'.

No, it's an observation supported by experience. In his case, he has been on ships' crews and can therefore assess whether the description of how a ship's crew responds to an emergency evinces effective or ineffective training. In contrast, you often offer propositions that would seem or want to be from experience, but without the experience.

 

[JayUtah]

You claim to be outraged by repetition of facts, so please may I suggest you perform a search to save repeating oneself.

Having performed such a search, I remain unsatisfied. The claim that these two captains expressed "grave doubts" seems to be a new one for which you need to provide evidence.

Your previous mentions of Capt. Thörnroos say merely that he was surprised upon arrival to discover that MS Estonia had already sunk. You have never before claimed that he expressed any kind of doubt over the narrative later developed to explain the sinking. And therefore this new attribution of an opinion to him requires a citation in order to have evidentiary value.

In your previous discussions of Capt. Mäkelä, you allude to an article in popular media where he says he is skeptical that there was just one factor in the sinking. From that, you seem to have concluded that he rejected the JAIC findings.

Since you inevitably bring up Captains Thörnroos and Mäkelä in order to distract from your imprudent choice of Anders Björkman as an expert source, let's avoid repetition and short-circuit around your typical tap-dance. Yes, they were there and I was not. However, I am not questioning their observations. I am questioning their expectations—and even that not very vigorously. That each of these captains had an informal expectation that was contradicted by fact does not put them in the same category as Björkman. Neither of these captains presented any sort of reasoned or factual finding to support their expectations. Nor are they necessarily expected to in order to informally hold the beliefs they do. The captains did not attempt to supply rigor, and we weigh their opinions accordingly as "soft" expertise.

Björkman attempts rigor, but fails. In contrast to the captains, he says that the ship foundered suspiciously as a matter of testable assertions of fact. Then he tries to present and frame facts to say so. But his framing is inexpert and incorrect, and this is more likely why he concludes differently than the rest of the field who more effectively invoke rational methods to establish and justify their expectations. And it was to Björkman—not to the captains—that you first reached in order to question the buoyancy of the ship.

The consensus of the experts in why ships sink remains suitably aligned with the JAIC.

 

[SpitfireIX]

View attachment 65935

That says exactly what I said it does, and not what you seem to think it says. Here are their rankings of the top European universities for 2025.

13. Lund University, Lund

25. Uppsala University, Uppsala

27 (tied). KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm

44 (tied). Stockholm University, Stockholm

71. University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg

78. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg

107. Linköping University, Linköping

185. Umea University, Umeå

448. University College of Boras, Borås

489 (tied). Karlstad University, Karlstad

551-600. Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall

This is consistent with, as I said, and you ignored as usual, USN&WR's having ranked Chalmers 8th among Swedish colleges and universities. So, no, it's not a "prestigious naval academy" as you like to pretend, in order to inflate Björkman's credentials. It's at best a second-tier university, even if it does enjoy an excellent (and possibly undeserved) reputation among the Swedish public.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Has it crossed your mind to read what Bjorkman has to say about nuclear bombs? No it hasn't, because you're too intellectually dishonest and lazy to actually check yourself.

As I mentioned, I've even posted links to his website where he says these things for Vixen, but she said she doesn't want to read them, because she's "not interested." "You can lead a horse to water . . ."