The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Vixen]

Question: are the conspiracy theories you have presented here your own opinions?

They are the opinions of informed persons. They seem perfectly reasonable to me. Especially given access to primary sources in the case of Andi Meister, for example, and Jutta Rabe being a well-known hack who worked with broadcaster Der Spiegel claiming to have informants in the know, as many gum shoe journalists do, as well as Carl Reitnum(_sp?) who was actually on the ship and is now or was a diplomat, together with Kurm, another government minister and lawyer, yes, being an open-minded person, I will listen carefully to what they have to say. Why shouldn't I?

 

[catsmate]

They are the opinions of informed persons. They seem perfectly reasonable to me. Especially given access to primary sources in the case of Andi Meister, for example, and Jutta Rabe being a well-known hack who worked with broadcaster Der Spiegel claiming to have informants in the know, as many gum shoe journalists do, as well as Carl Reitnum(_sp?) who was actually on the ship and is now or was a diplomat, together with Kurm, another government minister and lawyer, yes, being an open-minded person, I will listen carefully to what they have to say. Why shouldn't I?

What is this supposed to mean?

 

[JayUtah]

When people come out with logical fallacies instead of reasoning...

No.

You attempt to deflect quite appropriate rebuttals by hurling the names of logical fallacies at them and believing that your work is done. You don't know what those fallacies are.

So I found Evertsson's documentary fascinating and gave reasoning, including what various experts and eye-witnesses related, arising from it.

The question for skeptics is not whether it is fascinating but whether it is well founded on testable fact and whether it is appropriately and fairly reasoned. You didn't present it as something merely "fascinating." You presented it as something you believed should legitimately challenge the conventional narrative. You vilified the JAIC for their dereliction in not having discussed the damage Evertsson found.

AFAICS this is a perfectly reasonable method of debating. Not sure why I anyone should get upset about it.

Because that's not what you do. Among your more dishonest behaviors is your constant gaslighting about what it is you do here and why. In all your threads, the path between the motte and the bailey is worn smooth.

Evertsson's treatment of experts was suspect. He fed them assumptions and asked them to apply their expertise under those assumptions. Then their findings were postured as supportive of the assumptions. That's circular reasoning. It may make for a fascinating movie, but it fails when the goal is to present a legitimate challenge to the mainstream narrative. Evertsson eventually had to admit he cherry-picked the available evidence, and he had to further admit that he did that in order to tell the particular tale he wanted to tell. Yes, that may end up being a fascinating tale, but lying about your evidence is not a suitable basis from which to challenge the prevailing narrative.

When you posture something as a legitimate factual challenge to a claim, and it gets properly rebutted, you don't get to reframe your failure as if you were just merely interested in it for no apparent reason. That's childish and dishonest.

 

[Vixen]

Yet you still repeat his claims.

Irrelevant nonsense.

When it comes to basic buoyancy, his reasoning is perfectly sound. He is an MSc in Naval Architecture. Compare and contrast to the M/S Jan Heweliusz, a ferry in terrible condition, hit by winds of 44 m/s yet none of its windows smashed allowing the ingress of 4,000 tonnes as it capsized. So it floated upside down on the water for at at least five hours. Estonia sank almost immediately. You really don't need to be a rocket scientist to want to understand how and why. Captain Mäkelä expressed surprise there was no sign of it at all when he arrived as CSO. Seriously, are you really saying people shouldn't be interested in it because <fx Baldrick voice> 'It bain't be for the likes of us, Sir'. For goodness sake, it is common or garden current affairs news.

 

[Mojo]

They are the opinions of informed persons. They seem perfectly reasonable to me. Especially given access to primary sources in the case of Andi Meister, for example, and Jutta Rabe being a well-known hack who worked with broadcaster Der Spiegel claiming to have informants in the know, as many gum shoe journalists do, as well as Carl Reitnum(_sp?) who was actually on the ship and is now or was a diplomat, together with Kurm, another government minister and lawyer, yes, being an open-minded person, I will listen carefully to what they have to say. Why shouldn't I?

And those "informed persons" whose ideas you think "perfectly reasonable" have repeatedly been demonstrated to lack expertise and credibility.

You claim that you have "opinions ... formed by [your]self (not by some crank)". What are they?

 

[Vixen]

What is this supposed to mean?

These are the opinions I became interested in and as to how and why they came about.

 

[Mojo]

Incidentally, Vixen, you have said that the JAIC claimed that a ship will float on its superstructure. What is your source for this?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Chalmers is ranked as #165 in world leading research universities.

Apropos of nothing, I had a higher opinion of Chalmers University of Technology before this almost entirely irrelevant discussion of Chalmers led me to learn more about the school. Because precedent has now established this thread as a repository of facts and fantasies that have almost nothing to do with the MS Estonia, I hereby report that The Times Higher Education's world ranking of research universities puts Chalmers somewhere between 201 and 250. (They don't bother to make small distinctions within that tier.) Among Swedish research universities, that places Chalmers behind Karolinska Institute (53), Lund University (95), KTH Royal Institute of Technology (98), and Uppsala University (128). Three other Swedish universities fall into the same 201-250 tier as Chalmers: Linköping University, Stockholm University, and the University of Gothenburg.

Whether that ranking should be taken seriously is of course a question. They gave second place to a technical institute, for crying out loud.

If someone wants to understand how the atom bomb worked or how live signals were broadcast to earth from the moon or whatever, I honestly can't see anything wrong with it. Nerds will be nerds.

There is a distinction to be drawn between (1) understanding how the atom bomb worked, (2) misunderstanding how it worked, and (3) denying that it worked. There is a distinction to be drawn between (1) understanding how radio signals were sent from the moon to earth, (2) misunderstanding how radio signals were sent from the moon to earth, and (3) denying that radio signals were sent from the moon to earth.

One needn't be a nerd to recognize the importance of those distinctions.

No. They have very good reasons not to consider him as an expert on physics, which is what you needed him to be. Your inability to understand the real reason for rejecting him as an expert baffles me.

It doesn't baffle me.

I offered my opinion that the communication gap - the refusal to believe that my opinions are formed by myself (not by some crank) and ignoring my reasoning - could be to do with the Simonton gap because others seemed not to understand that one can hold an opinion by means of careful and considered reasoning which isn't going to be changed by a stream of swear words demanding I change it.

I agree with @Vixen that her inability to convince others of her opinions might well have to do with a Simonton gap.

Your critics are not so much dumber than you that they can't appreciate the genius with which you form your arguments.

When person X suggests a Simonton gap might explain why X is unable to explain its views to person Y, we shouldn't assume X is saying Y is dumber than X. It might be the other way around.

I would stick my neck out and say I am the sceptic here.

A skeptic would want to see evidence of such claims.

 

[Mojo]

When person X suggests a Simonton gap might explain why X is unable to explain its views to person Y, we shouldn't assume X is saying Y is dumber than X. It might be the other way around.

But in the current case the implication is patently obvious (if mistaken).

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I already gave the example of the M/S Jan Heweliusz* but everybody preferred to ignore it.

So you didn't mean anything other than shock and surprise on finding the ship had already sunk. Never mind then.

I don't think you're going to get many takers for your game of "isn't it suspicious that this sinking was not identical to that sinking?". Not when your opening gambit is that the difference must mean that, mysteriously, none of the windows broke on one ship otherwise they ought to have been identical.

 

[JayUtah]

They are the opinions of informed persons.

The evidentiary support of those claims can be tested and has been tested many times in this thread. You are largely disinterested in what we discover about that evidentiary support, and thus unwilling to relax your beliefs that their proponents are well-informed.

They seem perfectly reasonable to me.

You don't evaluate them for reasonableness. Your indifference is so profound that you accepted satire as if it were fact. And on the technical aspects, you are simply not well enough informed to be able to determine whether the claims are reasonable.

Especially given access to primary sources in the case of Andi Meister, for example...

Asked and answered. Meister's conspiracy theory claims are based on evidence he developed after leaving the JAIC.

...being an open-minded person, I will listen carefully to what they have to say. Why shouldn't I?

Open-mindedness is not the complete absence of discretion. As they say, don't keep your mind so open that your brain falls out. Open-mindedness means considering claims on their merits rather than categorically dismissing or accepting them. It doesn't mean accepting uncritically whatever someone says.

It's pretty hilarious that you've run the whole gamut today between, "Don't listen to what others say; think for yourself," and "Listen carefully to what everyone else says."

 

[W.D.Clinger]

But in the current case the implication is patently obvious (if mistaken).

People often say one thing while thinking they are saying something different.

 

[JayUtah]

Expressing initial surprise at the speed of the sinking before the cause was known does not mean doubt in the cause.

I was surprised that only one of two flight recorders survived the Air India crash, given that it was low-energy impact compared to other air crashes. I can even cite an example of a similar sized airframe in a similar crash (UPS in Louisville) with a similar fuel load in which both flight recorders survived with minimal damage. Does that mean I'm "skeptical" that the Air India crash was anything other than what it appeared to be? No, not at all.

 

[Andy_Ross]

When it comes to basic buoyancy, his reasoning is perfectly sound.

How do you know this?

 

[Steve]

Yes, I note people enjoy that kind of language. Identification of the bodies on the bridge (or lack thereof) is a real thing to those of us interested in it. Amazing you think you can order me not to care about it.

So, so defensive . I have not "ordered" you to do anything. On the contrary it is my sincerest hope that you keep on posting your outlandish and bizarre comments. The entertainment is what keeps me coming back to these threads.

 

[JayUtah]

When it comes to basic buoyancy, his reasoning is perfectly sound.

No, it isn't. And you're not qualified to determine whether it is or not.

He is an MSc in Naval Architecture.

Irrelevant. His error was explained to you.

Compare and contrast to the M/S Jan Heweliusz...

No, that's not how it works.

You really don't need to be a rocket scientist to want to understand how and why.

No, you need to be familiar with buoyancy, stability, and flooding models and ships and to represent them accurately in an analysis. No, you are not competent in the sciences required to understand those things and apply them to a particular accident. We tested you.

Captain Mäkelä expressed surprise there was no sign of it at all when he arrived as CSO.

Asked and answered. On the basis of this, you are claiming he had "grave doubts" about the explanations offered. That's a non sequitur.

Seriously, are you really saying people shouldn't be interested in it...

No. Literally no one is saying that. What they are saying is that people who want to be taken seriously must demonstrate they know what they are talking about.

 

[Vixen]

Incidentally, Vixen, you have said that the JAIC claimed that a ship will float on its superstructure. What is your source for this?

OK, so were there to be excess water ingressing on the car deck only, the capsize would look like this:

Water on the car deck by Username Vixen, on Flickr

Were the excess water also to come from above and below it would look like so:

Water below the car deck by Username Vixen, on Flickr

JAIC realised the water could not have just been in the car garage so formed a theoretical model of how windows on decks four and five must have smashed.

 

[Axxman300]

I will wait to see what the pundits involved in this issue have to say about the final report when it is released.

There's your problem. Why wait for someone else to read the report to tell you what their interpretation is? Why wouldn't you read it yourself?

 

[Vixen]

There's your problem. Why wait for someone else to read the report to tell you what their interpretation is? Why wouldn't you read it yourself?

Of course, I'll read it carefully and hear what the various experts have to say about it.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

No, you need to be familiar with buoyancy, stability, and flooding models and ships and to represent them accurately in an analysis. No, you are not competent in the sciences required to understand those things and apply them to a particular accident. We tested you.

I would imagine that (other than basic engineering, physics and applying the appropriate rigor) being a rocket scientist wouldn't be particularly more helpful in investigating a sinking than any other kind of physical scientist. Although I suppose someone from SpaceX would have the experience to identify if something was destroyed in an explosion or not...