• 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:
See above re the JAIC technical report and press release (94/95) already referred to. What did I advise about listening?
Click to expand...
I've searched the thread for the word "technical" in one of your posts. The only "JAIC technical report" you have referred to is "its part-report, 1995, which was a technical report". The only report I've found corresponding to this is the April 1995 JAIC "PART-REPORT covering the technical issues on the capsizing...", but this doesn't say anything about the ship floating on a 90° list, it says, at section 1.3, that the ship listed to over 90° and sank. You say that Bjorkman cites sections "1.12.5, 2.16 and 5.5", but the part-report doesn't include these section numbers. Are you referring to a different "part-report, 1995, which was a technical report"? If so, please provide a proper citation, and preferably a link, to the report you mean.

The JAIC final report, by the way, also says nothing about the ship "floating on a 90° list". It reports the ship listing to somewhere over 90° and then sinking. See section 13.2.6 and figure 13.3.

The mere fact that the ship didn't sink within 35" of reaching a 90° list doesn't mean that it "floated on a 90° list".
 
JayUtah said:
Why does that create a difference between hitting a rock while moving horizontally versus hitting a rock while moving vertically? How do the circumstances you've mentioned here affect the physics of the collision?
Click to expand...
Come on, Vixen. Rev up that triple-niner brain and give us the benefit of your knowledge.

Let's say a car hits a concrete barrier at 10 meters per second because the driver was distracted by something in the cabin. And an identical car hits an identical concrete barrier at 10 meters per second because the car's brakes failed. Tell me how the circumstances leading to the collision in these cases would create a different physics outcome in the collision per se.
 
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
Click to expand...
Mojo said:
Incidentally, what is your source for this picture?
Click to expand...
JesseCuster said:
Bjorkman's website. It appears there multiple times, this is clearly Vixens source.
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
Incorrect. The drawing is a reproduction by Edinburgh University IIRC.
Click to expand...
Mojo said:
What was your source for it?
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
Can't remember now but I dare say you could do a search if you are that interested.
Click to expand...
MarkCorrigan said:
You can't remember your source for something?

I don't believe you. I think you know it's Bjorkman but don't want to admit it.
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
If I said it was a certain source, then it was.
Click to expand...
Vixen said:
So says some guy who claims to be the only cockney in the village,

Because that was whom the diagram was credited to. It appears to originate from this youtube reconstruction by Safety at Sea, which may or may not be the original. (Skip to 7:16):

Click to expand...
That YouTube video does not contain the image (diagram) that @Vixen says it contains. In particular, it takes a considerable degree of imagination to say that image resembles what that YouTube video shows at 7:16.

@Vixen's image is bit-level identical to the image at Björkman's web site. That image was created at 2008:12:16 17:13:30 using Microsoft Windows Photo Gallery 6.0.6001.18000. Björkman attributes that image to "The Swedish scientists at SSPA/Chalmers" in 2008. Most of Björkman's links to SSPA have gone 404.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that
  1. @Vixen took that image from Björkman's web site,
  2. Björkman either created the image himself or took it from an SSPA/Chalmers document or web site
  3. that is no longer online (so @Vixen could not have obtained it from any source other than Björkman).
  4. @Vixen was probably either mistaken or lying when she attributed the image to Edinburgh University.
  5. @Vixen might have been telling the truth when she said she "Can't remember now" the source.
  6. @Vixen was blowing smoke when she said "If I said it was a certain source, then it was."
  7. @Vixen was blowing smoke when she said "Because that was whom the diagram was credited to."
  8. @Vixen was blowing smoke when she said "It appears to originate from this youtube reconstruction by Safety at Sea".
 
Vixen said:
I think if you are the captain and part of his bridge team faced with a sudden emergency, you will be frantically trying to rectify it.
Click to expand...
How about a direct and simple answer to the question, let's see how many non-answers you're willing to provide. It's a simple question, yet I can confidently predict you won't answer it with a simple answer.

Do you think the crew didn't have time to put on emergency gear (i.e. immersion suits)?
 
Vixen said:
Can't remember now but I dare say you could do a search if you are that interested.
Click to expand...
You can't remember your source for a diagram you're relying on in your argument? You have no record of where you got it from and thus can't properly cite the source? That is evidence of exactly the kind of sloppy, shoddy "research" methodology typical of you, despite your claims to being an able researcher.
 
Vixen said:
So says some guy who claims to be the only cockney in the village,

Because that was whom the diagram was credited to. It appears to originate from this youtube reconstruction by Safety at Sea, which may or may not be the original. (Skip to 7:16):

Click to expand...
The diagram as you posted it does not appear at 7:16 in that video. That video (or the original video) definitely looks like where the image used in the diagram came from, but it doesn't contain the text overlays which your diagram has, so that is not the actual source for your diagram.

Someone (possibly Bjorkman) took an image probably from that video (or the original) and put their own text, arrows, etc. on top of it to make the image you posted. The question is where did YOU get the image from? You can't and won't tell us where you got the image from, with a proper citation. The best you've offered is that you think it came from the University of Edinburgh, which is frankly pathetic for someone who claims that everything she posts is properly cited and sourced. Your ability and willingness to actual properly cite your sources is atrocious and beyond amateurish.
 
Vixen said:
As I said, the Myers-Brigg thing was a questionnaire sent around British Mensa by a psychologist around the late-80's or early-90's. Did you not hear this the first time? No, we didn't have Myers-Briggs re psychometrics.
Click to expand...
Some psychologist sent a Myers-Brigg test around British Mensa in the late 80s or early 90s. Ok, so what? What's that supposed to prove?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom