• 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:
The criticism comes from people using it as a ready job-interview tool. Rather like the online IQ tests. There is validity in psychometrics - correlation and reliability - but not in the hands of amateur HR bods or popular magazine writer puff pieces with their silly ten-question quizzes..
Click to expand...
With all due respect (very little), bollocks.

Most, in fact the vast majority, of supposed "psychometric" testing is utter garbage, possessing neither a scientific foundation (not that that is easy given the generally unscientific nature of psychology) nor the basic attributes of consistency and reproducibility. They're generally used as an excuse to intrusively question candidates.

Myers-Briggs, which you specifically cited, is utter garbage from top to bottom. No amount of proper application can gather useful data from such an inherently flawed system.

If you want to discuss this further start a dedicated thread and stop evading the questions asked of you regarding your conspiracy theories regarding the sinking of the Estonia.
 
Mojo said:
No, you are missing the point, which is that you have failed to cite a source for your claim that the JAIC said that a ship would float on its superstructure. What was your source for this claim?
Click to expand...
Let's try again as the previous diagrams seem to have gone over your head. This is a picture of what the JAIC said the Estonia did. What do you notice?

1763372877358.jpeg

Why did it not do what the M/V Jan Heweliusz did, which was a vessel in which repairs had been made with CONCRETE.

1763373050124.png


Penny dropped?
 
Vixen said:
Well, the latest investigation - which the Swedish prosecutors have said is 'closed' and they are not investigating further - claims the breach in the hull was due to the vessel hitting a 'rocky outcrop' as it sank. OK, so there is a rocky ridge nearby (but then the whole area consists of granite boulders, a remnant from the Ice Age) but here's the thing: these rocks are not sharp and jagged as the average person not familiar with the Finnish archipelago terrain imagines they are (and even further inland) they are as smooth and round as a baby's bottom. In summer you can walk barefoot over them without fear of jagged edges. So yeah, let's see if Evertsson is the scoundrel that you make him out to be. So let's see if the forthcoming report can convince sceptics the massive holes in the hull were due to abnormal pointy rocks jabbing through, bearing in mind the resistance from falling into a body of water.
Click to expand...
How much does a ship weigh?
How thick is the hull plating?
 
Vixen said:
Let's try again as the previous diagrams seem to have gone over your head. This is a picture of what the JAIC said the Estonia did. What do you notice?

View attachment 66091

Why did it not do what the M/V Jan Heweliusz did, which was a vessel in which repairs had been made with CONCRETE.

View attachment 66092


Penny dropped?
Click to expand...
Because it was a different ship and the bow had fallen off.
 
Andy_Ross said:
How much does a ship weigh?
How thick is the hull plating?
Click to expand...
Look. It could well be the Estonian crew were crap, the Captain was going too fast, the visor fell off due to weakened locks and lugs AND the hull was damaged/perforated when it hit bottom. All of these can be true but yet doesn't PROVE it was the 18 m/s wind, waves or speed that caused the disaster. After all, the supposed damaged Atlantic lock was thrown back into the sea unexamined and nor were the lugs recovered. So all we have is a hypothetical situation of what COULD have happened which is not the same as DID happen. Without identifying the captain and his movement before, during and after the catastrophe, how is it possible to come to any conclusion? Especially when divers reported seeing the captain with bullet wounds to the head.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
What do you notice?
Click to expand...

I notice you're still trying to imply you have some perceptive insight while displaying none.

A couple of days ago you decided the reason two sinkings were not identical must have been because some windows broke, and you guessed they didn't on the other ship. Today you're implying a concrete repair is a difference therefore it must be the critical difference. None of this is even slightly useful.
 
Mojo said:
No, you are missing the point, which is that you have failed to cite a source for your claim that the JAIC said that a ship would float on its superstructure. What was your source for this claim?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Let's try again as the previous diagrams seem to have gone over your head. This is a picture of what the JAIC said the Estonia did. What do you notice?

View attachment 66091

Why did it not do what the M/V Jan Heweliusz did, which was a vessel in which repairs had been made with CONCRETE.

View attachment 66092


Penny dropped?
Click to expand...
Obviously not, because if it had you would have realised that I was asking for the source for your claim that the JAIC said that a ship would float on its superstructure.

Here's the question again: what was the source for your claim that the JAIC said that a ship would float on its superstructure?
 
Vixen said:
The criticism comes from people using it as a ready job-interview tool. Rather like the online IQ tests. There is validity in psychometrics - correlation and reliability - but not in the hands of amateur HR bods or popular magazine writer puff pieces with their silly ten-question quizzes..
Click to expand...
You claim to have a degree in psychology. Was Myers-Briggs covered in the course? If so, was it regarded as valid for any purpose? If so, what purpose?
 
Vixen said:
You are missing the point.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not.

Vixen said:
What Bjorkman was saying is that JAIC didn't appear to show its GOM and GZ calculations (for example stability at 90° list).
Click to expand...
No. What Björkman is claiming is ridiculously, obviously wrong for the reasons I gave.

The question was where did the JAIC claim that MS Estonia "floated on its superstructure."

Vixen said:
Well, the latest investigation ...
Click to expand...
No. This meandering distraction has nothing to do with stability or buoyancy. Anders Björkman is egregiously wrong for the reasons I've given.

Vixen said:
Let's try again as the previous diagrams seem to have gone over your head.
Click to expand...
No, you're not smarter than everyone else.
 
Vixen said:
OK, so there is a rocky ridge nearby ... but here's the thing: these rocks are not sharp and jagged...
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.

Vixen said:
So yeah, let's see if Evertsson is the scoundrel that you make him out to be.
Click to expand...
Evertsson lied. He admitted he lied. Deal with it.

Vixen said:
So let's see if the forthcoming report can convince sceptics the massive holes in the hull were due to abnormal pointy rocks jabbing through...
Click to expand...
Straw man.

Vixen said:
...bearing in mind the resistance from falling into a body of water.
Click to expand...
Ships don't sink by "falling into" water. Objects moving through fluids is something I've practiced professionally for decades. Show me your calculations. Impact of objects with other objects is also part of my decades of engineering experience. Show me your calculations there too.

I'll wait.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom