• 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

JayUtah said:
I've already debated Björkman himself at length. But since you claim his ideas are sound, why don't you restate this in your own words. Then I'll ask you some questions about it. (Hint: they'll be very similar to the questions I asked you earlier about metacentric height, which you never answered.)
Click to expand...
I haven't said his ideas were sound. Stop sneaking words into my mouth.
 
Vixen said:
I haven't said his ideas were sound.
Click to expand...
You said his "diagrams" were correct. You said his discussion of buoyancy was correct. Further, it's clear you've been borrowing his argument all along regarding ship buoyancy, using such otherwise undocumented figures as 50º of list, which you seem to regard as some universal magical point of no return. You also misunderstand metacentric height in exactly the same way as he misrepresents it. You don't attribute the argument to him, but it's obvious because it's uniquely and characteristically wrong.

Vixen said:
Stop sneaking words into my mouth.
Click to expand...
Stop lying about your sources.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
No, there's nothing praiseworthy about relying on an obvious crackpot as a source. You've been excoriating your critics for what you said was their obsession with Anders Björkman: a person you supposedly hardly knew or cared about. Come to find out you own his book and he has been your primary source all along for your beliefs about ship buoyancy and stability. You can flap your gums all you want about being lofty and high-minded. But as usual, in the end your critics were right all along and you're just lying.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. I have several books on the topic. I am now beginning to piece together what likely happened based on ALL the publicly available material.
 
Vixen said:
Wrong again. I have several books on the topic.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. You said you did not rely on Björkman, and instead tried to position the two rescuing captains as your source for the claim that the ship sank suspiciously quickly. You lied. Your source was Björkman all along.

Vixen said:
I am now beginning to piece together what likely happened based on ALL the publicly available material.
Click to expand...
You're not suitably qualified to do so. You are not suitably qualified to determine whether others can do so.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Er, was it not you who asked about superstructure..?
Click to expand...
Yes, but that was not the context of the post you were replying to, and you have complained about people not giving your posts their context. The context was your claim that you only brought up Bjorkman in response to other posters, when in fact, without a prompt from another poster, you cited his book the very same day.

But, now you mention it, you have never answered the question of what your source was for the JAIC saying that a ship would float on its superstructure. What was your source for this?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
According to someone I follow of Quora:


That is her view. My view is that to be objective, you have to have an understanding of what stands in its way.
Click to expand...
Haven't you claimed to be a psychologist? Surely you should known that the Briggs-Myers personality types aren't taken seriously by psychologists and are consider pseudo-scientific?

Also. you were asked what you meant by open-minded, not someone on Quora's made-up definition of "original thinker".

Are you even aware of how continually you respond to questions but post something that is in no way an answer to the question asked? You were asked a simple question. what do you mean by "open-minded" and your response is to tell us stuff about being an original thinker or being objective, and ironically couldn't even provide your own thoughts on being an original thinker.

Surely as a psychologist (current or former or whatever you claim to be) you should be familiar with the personality traits of openness to experience, intellectual curiosity, etc. and should be able to provide your understanding of being open-minded in your own words.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Well Linde and Treu got away sharpish in their emergency wetsuits, complete with wallets and passports. Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...
As a former professional sailor, both RN and merchant marine with Offshore qualifications I would say the whole crew would be in rough weather gear and when it was obvious the ship was sinking any professional would have got in to a SOLAS flotation and exposure suit.
Any experienced crew would likely have had their own suite and a grab bag with all their papers in it.
When the engines stopped and machinery spaces flooded the engine room crew would be told to abandon.
Why would they have hung around?
 
Mojo said:
But, now you mention it, you have never answered the question of what your source was for the JAIC saying that a ship would float on its superstructure. What was your source for this?
Click to expand...
The notion that a ship floats "on" some particular part of its anatomy is a Björkmanism. From my academic experience, I've noted how students always think they'll be able to get away with plagiarism, and they're always genuinely surprised at how easy it is to detect. Certain idioms are like fingerprints.

A ship is either floating or sinking. The only thing that determines which it's doing is the sign on the buoyancy value. It has absolutely nothing to do with what part of the ship is underwater or what part of it is above water. Sure, we use colloquialisms like "on its beam ends" to describe a ship in an extreme roll. But Björkman specifically tries to tie certain structural parts of the ship to assumed buoyancy behavior. Of course the JAIC didn't write about the ship "floating on its superstructure" because that's a nonsensical statement. More accurately, it's nonsensical in exactly the unique way Björkman spews nonsense. In her haste to sane-wash Björkman, she has assumed that what he says would be said in much the same way by any expert, such that her particular borrowings from him can't be firmly identified. She's out there standing in the same unique patch of weeds as Björkman, making all his characteristic mistakes without acknowledging their source.
 
Vixen said:
Well Linde and Treu got away sharpish in their emergency wetsuits, complete with wallets and passports. Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...
In 2002 when HMS Nottingham ran aground on Wolf Rock off Australia and it looked like it would sink because of the 160-foot (49 m) hole that was torn down her side from bow to bridge, all the crew not directly engaged in damage control were mustered on the upper deck in SOLAS suits ready to go over the side.
Because of the superb training and leadership of the damage control party the flooding was controlled enough to keep her afloat and the number 2 engine room providing power to the pumps.

what would have been the point of keeping unnecessary crew aboard if the ship was sinking?
 
JayUtah said:
The notion that a ship floats "on" some particular part of its anatomy is a Björkmanism. From my academic experience, I've noted how students always think they'll be able to get away with plagiarism, and they're always genuinely surprised at how easy it is to detect. Certain idioms are like fingerprints.

A ship is either floating or sinking. The only thing that determines which it's doing is the sign on the buoyancy value. It has absolutely nothing to do with what part of the ship is underwater or what part of it is above water. Sure, we use colloquialisms like "on its beam ends" to describe a ship in an extreme roll. But Björkman specifically tries to tie certain structural parts of the ship to assumed buoyancy behavior. Of course the JAIC didn't write about the ship "floating on its superstructure" because that's a nonsensical statement. More accurately, it's nonsensical in exactly the unique way Björkman spews nonsense. In her haste to sane-wash Björkman, she has assumed that what he says would be said in much the same way by any expert, such that her particular borrowings from him can't be firmly identified. She's out there standing in the same unique patch of weeds as Björkman, making all his characteristic mistakes without acknowledging their source.
Click to expand...
It also ignores that a ships 'superstructure' isn't water tight and would flood anyway even if the windows didn't break.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom