The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Vixen said:
What do you mean 'support the claim'? Someone asked a question and I provided an answer. The truth doesn't stop being the truth just because you don't like it.
Click to expand...
You can't be this thick.

You made a very specific claim. Kemo Sabe is cockney slang.

Support the claim. Stop deflecting and dancing around.
 
Vixen said:
I must have missed your post in which you correctly identified the original source as the University of Strathclyde after you confidently declared you knew it was from Edinburgh Uni, bearing in mind I am not interested in such trivia.
Click to expand...
JesseCuster said:
The image, without the text, arrows, etc. overlaid, appears in this PDF from the University of Strathclyde (not the University of Edinburgh).


As usual, Vixen remembers wrong. IIRC? No, you don't recall correctly.
Click to expand...
Here you go.

This was after you firstly misremembered and claimed the source was Edinburgh Uni (if you recalled correctly, which you didn't), then declared that you KNEW it was Edinburgh Uni, then when asked if that's where you got the image, you arrogantly declared that "if that's where I said I got it then that's where I got it"

After I correctly told you that the original image (that Bjorkman later added graphics to) was actually from the University of Strathclyde, you then told us that the original source of the image was the University of Strathclyde, as if someone else (i.e. me) hadn't already found and posted the source of the original image (i.e. the one without Bjorkman's editing).

Also, this was after I said that the image as you posted (i.e. the version that Bjorkman posted on his website, with his graphics overlaid on it), came from Bjorkman's website, and you told me I was "incorrect".

And you then later casually said that your version did indeed come from Bjorkman's website without acknowledging that you had earlier denied getting it from Bjorkman's website.

I'm pretty sure I can predict your response, because you are extremely predictable in your responses (or the nature of your non-responses really). You're now going to (because of dishonesty and/or abysmal reading comprehension) misread and misinterpret this post, get confused with what has actually been said in this thread and who said what (because your ability to remember recent discussion you've taken part with is absolutely atrocious), maybe ramble on about something irrelevant, and try to somehow spin the fact that you did in fact get the image you posted from Bjorkman's website into you somehow being right all along about where you got the image you posted even though you explicitly told me I was incorrect when I correctly said you'd gotten it from Bjorkman's website.

Have at it.
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
Here you go.

This was after you firstly misremembered and claimed the source was Edinburgh Uni (if you recalled correctly, which you didn't), then declared that you KNEW it was Edinburgh Uni, then when asked if that's where you got the image, you arrogantly declared that "if that's where I said I got it then that's where I got it"

After I correctly told you that the original image (that Bjorkman later added graphics to) was actually from the University of Strathclyde, you then told us that the original source of the image was the University of Strathclyde, as if someone else (i.e. me) hadn't already found and posted the source of the original image (i.e. the one without Bjorkman's editing).

Also, this was after I said that the image as you posted (i.e. the version that Bjorkman posted on his website, with his graphics overlaid on it), came from Bjorkman's website, and you told me I was "incorrect".

And you then later casually said that your version did indeed come from Bjorkman's website without acknowledging that you had earlier denied getting it from Bjorkman's website.
Click to expand...
And, because unlike Vixen the Strathclyde Uni document cites its sources, it was possible to follow the original source of the graphic up and discover that the graphic was not, as Vixen claimed, based on the JAIC report, and is therefore irrelevant to the claim Vixen was trying to use it to support, which was variously that the JAIC said that the Estonia "floated on its superstructure", "floated on a 90° list", and "was functioning on a 90° list".
 
MarkCorrigan said:
You can't be this thick.

You made a very specific claim. Kemo Sabe is cockney slang.

Support the claim. Stop deflecting and dancing around.
Click to expand...

JesseCuster said:
Here you go.

This was after you firstly misremembered and claimed the source was Edinburgh Uni (if you recalled correctly, which you didn't), then declared that you KNEW it was Edinburgh Uni, then when asked if that's where you got the image, you arrogantly declared that "if that's where I said I got it then that's where I got it"

After I correctly told you that the original image (that Bjorkman later added graphics to) was actually from the University of Strathclyde, you then told us that the original source of the image was the University of Strathclyde, as if someone else (i.e. me) hadn't already found and posted the source of the original image (i.e. the one without Bjorkman's editing).

Also, this was after I said that the image as you posted (i.e. the version that Bjorkman posted on his website, with his graphics overlaid on it), came from Bjorkman's website, and you told me I was "incorrect".

And you then later casually said that your version did indeed come from Bjorkman's website without acknowledging that you had earlier denied getting it from Bjorkman's website.

I'm pretty sure I can predict your response, because you are extremely predictable in your responses (or the nature of your non-responses really). You're now going to (because of dishonesty and/or abysmal reading comprehension) misread and misinterpret this post, get confused with what has actually been said in this thread and who said what (because your ability to remember recent discussion you've taken part with is absolutely atrocious), maybe ramble on about something irrelevant, and try to somehow spin the fact that you did in fact get the image you posted from Bjorkman's website into you somehow being right all along about where you got the image you posted even though you explicitly told me I was incorrect when I correctly said you'd gotten it from Bjorkman's website.

Have at it.
Click to expand...
What do you think 'IIRC', means? I acknowledged it was Strathclyde rather than Edinburgh. Are we now going to never hear the end of it?
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
And, because unlike Vixen the Strathclyde Uni document cites its sources, it was possible to follow the original source of the graphic up and discover that the graphic was not, as Vixen claimed, based on the JAIC report, and is therefore irrelevant to the claim Vixen was trying to use it to support, which was variously that the JAIC said that the Estonia "floated on its superstructure", "floated on a 90° list", and "was functioning on a 90° list".
Click to expand...
JAIC must have got the 90° list from somewhere but we are not shown its workings. Strathclyde simply attempted to illustrate it graphically based on JAIC information.
 
Vixen said:
JAIC must have got the 90° list from somewhere but we are not shown its workings. Strathclyde simply attempted to illustrate it graphically based on JAIC information.
Click to expand...
Once again, please provide a reference that supports your claim that the JAIC said that the Estonia "floated on its superstructure", "floated on a 90° list", and "was functioning on a 90° list".
 
Vixen said:
JAIC must have got the 90° list from somewhere but we are not shown its workings. Strathclyde simply attempted to illustrate it graphically based on JAIC information.
Click to expand...
The issue is not where the JAIC got the 90° list from, it is whether that said that it floated at a 90° list.

The graphic that you claim was "based on JAIC information" is actually stated in its original source to be "based on simulation by PROTEUS3".

Please can you provide precise references and quotations for the JAIC saying that the Estonia "floated on its superstructure", "floated on a 90° list", and "was functioning on a 90° list", all of which you have claimed it said.
 
Vixen said:
It is either listing or it has capsized. JAIC says it is listing.
Click to expand...
The JAIC say, in the sources you have cited to support your claim, that it reached a list of somewhere over 90° and then sank, completely disappearing within about 13 minutes. You have claimed that they said that it "floated on a 90° list", and "was functioning on a 90° list". Do you understand that sinking is not the same as floating? Do you seriously imagine that a ship at a 90° list can be said to be "functioning"?
 
Mojo said:
The JAIC say, in the sources you have cited to support your claim, that it reached a list of somewhere over 90° and then sank, completely disappearing within about 13 minutes. You have claimed that they said that it "floated on a 90° list", and "was functioning on a 90° list". Do you understand that sinking is not the same as floating? Do you seriously imagine that a ship at a 90° list can be said to be "functioning"?
Click to expand...
The question is, if it reached 90° without capsizing then the hull proper cannot have been intact. OK, so enter the hypothesis windows on the superstructure must have smashed and an extra 4,000 tonnes of water must have swept in that way, as the alternative explanation to fit the preconcluded determination as announced by PM Carl Bildt to PM Laur on the same day they all met up at Turku with Finnish PM Aho.
 
Oh, and please can you provide precise references and quotations for the JAIC saying that the Estonia "floated on its superstructure", "floated on a 90° list", and "was functioning on a 90° list", all of which you have claimed it said?

Or, alternatively, withdraw your claims that they said this.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
What do you think 'IIRC', means? I acknowledged it was Strathclyde rather than Edinburgh. Are we now going to never hear the end of it?
Click to expand...
I know what IIRC means. I also know what "I know it's from Edinburgh Uni" means. I know what "if that's where I said I got it then that's where I got it from" means when you were asked if Edinburgh Uni was in fact the source of the image. Do you remember saying those things about where the image came from?

I also know that you denied that you got the version you used from Bjorkman's website and that you later admitted that you did get it from Bjorkman's website.

We're not going to hear the end of it because you are incapable of being direct and honest about your sources, about answering simple questions, etc. and you will continue to post links and blocks of texts in responses to posts asking for evidence wherein none of the evidence being asked for is contained. You will repeatedly post bogus links and text and then when that repeatedly fails, you will ask others to do your homework and figure out themselves where you're getting your claims from...

Etc. etc. This pattern of egregious behaviour is well documented and incredibly predictable.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom