The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Vixen said:
But the bow visor falling off isn't necessarily due to a couple of strong wave impacts.
Click to expand...

As you've now been told well over a dozen times probably....

The failure of the bottom lock on the bow visor was due to cumulative factors: it was poorly designed, poorly maintained, and should never have been operable in a ship sailing in oceanic waters.. The lock was visibly in poor repair well before the night of the disaster, and had been improperly hammered shut more than once by the crew. As a result, there was creeping metal fatigue progressively weakening the lock. The strong oncoming waves on the night of the accident were more-or-less a case of "the straw that broke the camel's back".

So please stop with this "a couple of strong waves" nonsense.
 
LondonJohn said:
Totally incomparable attempt at an analogy. For shame.
Click to expand...

"I went to Tesco"

"But there's no Tesco in the town you went to, the carrier bag says Aldi, the receipt says Aldi, a the own brand stuff you bought is labeled Aldi.."

"Stop picking on me. Everyone knows that when you say you went to Tesco it means you went to Aldi"
 
Vixen said:
I quoted the parts salient to my point. Nobody wants to wade through stuff about what passengers were doing when we were specifically talking about the listing. Why would the JAIC assume that Sillaste seeing water entering the sides of the car ramp explains the ingress of water causing ithe vessel to sink. The Jan Heweliusz was in terrible condition yet it did capsize and floated keel up for at least five hours. So the premise is that the accommodation windows should have smashed (it was in hurricane force conditions of >44 m/s and a gust of wind caused it to list over, similarly).
Click to expand...
You missed the bit about the Estonia sinking, not floating, after it reached a list of 90°. Why do you think this is not "salient to [your] point", which, if you scroll back up the thread, you will find was your claim that the JAIC said that it floated, not sank, after reaching a 90° list? Are you just ignoring it because it's inconvenient to your argument?
Vixen said:
But the bow visor falling off isn't necessarily due to a couple of strong wave impacts.
Click to expand...
Nobody has said that it was. But then you know that.

You claim that the JAIC said that the Estonia "floated on its superstructure", "floated on a 90° list", or even "was functioning on a 90° list". Please quote the passage or passages where they said this, and provide precise citations for them.

Or withdraw the claims.
 
Mojo said:
If Mark claimed that the JAIC had said he'd visited Tescos, but when challenged was unable to cite or quote them saying this, would you believe his claim about the JAIC?
Click to expand...
Spectacularly missed the point. To underline the point I was making about your 'not being able to find it in the Oxford dictionary or google'. Here's an excerpt from a trial re a multi-million pound watch heist recently:

Phone downloads taken from Pedro's phone after his arrest revealed a 'three–way conversation between Pedro, Mehmet and another unknown man' throughout March 2024, the court heard.

One voice note sent from Pedro to Mehmet stated: 'The box and papers for the kettles are in there', jurors heard.

'Kettles' is a slang term for watch.

Other voice notes said: 'Don't play with them when you are in there', and 'all the money 155k bare jewels.'

The prosecutor said Pedro's instruction not to 'play with' Mr White meant: 'Don't hold back, use the force that is necessary.'

Pedro also referred in voice notes to 'Cartier bracelet', 'the dweller', 'sky dweller', and told the group: 'I want everything'. Daily Mail
Click to expand...

Why do you think they are talking in slang in the first place? I am not going to bother explaining it any further as clearly ignorance seems to be preferable to knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Spectacularly missed the point. To underline the point I was making about your 'not being able to find it in the Oxford dictionary or google'. Here's an excerpt from a trial re a multi-million pound watch heist recently:



Why do you think they are talking in slang in the first place? I am not going to bother explaining it any further as clearly ignorance seems to be preferable to knowledge.
Click to expand...

And you think this supports your claim......how exactly??
 
P.J. Denyer said:
"I went to Tesco"

"But there's no Tesco in the town you went to, the carrier bag says Aldi, the receipt says Aldi, a the own brand stuff you bought is labeled Aldi.."

"Stop picking on me. Everyone knows that when you say you went to Tesco it means you went to Aldi"
Click to expand...
If a man goes to Tesco it remains a fact whether or not you choose to believe him.
 
Mojo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Let's recap what the JAIC preliminary report of April 1995 says:

View attachment 66321
View attachment 66322

View attachment 66323
Click to expand...
There you go again, asked for a reference in the JAIC where it says the Estonia "floated on its superstructure", "floated on a 90 degree list" and was "functioning on a 90 degree list" and you've just posted a bunch of text from the JAIC report which says none of those things.

BTW, before you attempt to do so, the fact that a 90 degree list is mentioned in the JAIC is not evidence that the JAIC says it "floated on its superstructure", "floated at a 90 degree list" or "functioned at a 90 degree list". You know what happened just after the ship reached a 90 degree list?

It sank, not floated. Can you not read properly or do you think none of the rest of us can?
 
Vixen said:
Look. If you mentioned you went to Tescos a few weeks ago and I said, you are a liar, you did not go to Tescos a few weeks ago, and you went to some trouble to explain where Tescos was and why you went and yet I still insisted you hadn't proven it and were a disgusting scurrilous liar, what would your thoughts be?
Click to expand...
Meaningless gibberish.

You made a claim, support the claim and stop running away like a coward.
 
Vixen said:
JAIC hasn't old us what this tipping point is or how they calculated 90°.
Click to expand...

In the absence of any data recorders, how do you think the JAIC would have been able to say with accuracy precisely what angle of list the ship reached before it started sinking proper? All of this narrative would most likely have been based on survivor testimony - and none of the survivors had their protractors out that night.
 
Vixen said:
If a man goes to Tesco it remains a fact whether or not you choose to believe him.
Click to expand...
We're not debating whether a man went to Tesco. We're asking for evidence for your claim that "kemosabe" is Cockney slang for "do you understand?". You have provided exactly zero citations or references for this supposed fact despite being asked countless times.

Mange tout Vixen, mange tout?
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
In the absence of any data recorders, how do you think the JAIC would have been able to say with accuracy precisely what angle of list the ship reached before it started sinking proper? All of this narrative would most likely have been based on survivor testimony - and none of the survivors had their protractors out that night.
Click to expand...
Vixen has repeatedly upbraided other forum members for not respecting survivor testimony (when they have in fact been challenging Vixen's interpretation of the survivor testimony). But I'm sure that survivor testimony will now turn out to be utterly worthless.
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
There you go again, asked for a reference in the JAIC where it says the Estonia "floated on its superstructure", "floated on a 90 degree list" and was "functioning on a 90 degree list" and you've just posted a bunch of text from the JAIC report which says none of those things.

BTW, before you attempt to do so, the fact that a 90 degree list is mentioned in the JAIC is not evidence that the JAIC says it "floated on its superstructure", "floated at a 90 degree list" or "functioned at a 90 degree list". You know what happened just after the ship reached a 90 degree list?

It sank, not floated. Can you not read properly or do you think none of the rest of us can?
Click to expand...
For some reason Vixen doesn't seem to be able to read that far down the page.
 
Mojo said:
Vixen has repeatedly upbraided other forum members for not respecting survivor testimony (when they have in fact been doubting Vixen's interpretation of the survivor testimony). But I'm sure that survivor testimony will now turn out to be utterly worthless.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I suspect that many of the survivors remember looking back at the foundering ship and seeing that the upper deck windows (ie superstructure) had become submerged - which gave the JAIC the datum point of a greater-than-90-degree list - before the stern began to sink. But it's clear from the narrative that the 90-degree point was simply a moment on the continuum of capsize and sinking. The ship obviously didn't list to 90 degrees and then just float like that for a while.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I quoted the parts salient to my point. Nobody wants to wade through stuff about what passengers were doing when we were specifically talking about the listing. Why would the JAIC assume that Sillaste seeing water entering the sides of the car ramp explains the ingress of water causing ithe vessel to sink. The Jan Heweliusz was in terrible condition yet it did capsize and floated keel up for at least five hours. So the premise is that the accommodation windows should have smashed (it was in hurricane force conditions of >44 m/s and
a gust of wind caused it to list over, similarly).
Click to expand...
"A gust of wind caused it to list over"? Nobody has claimed that the Estonia listed because of "a gust of wind".

More complete and total BS from Vixen.

I'm going to ask for evidence of when and where this was claimed, knowing that you will not provide said evidence, but you'll probably quote something from the JAIC (or somewhere else) which says nothing about "a gust of wind" causing the Estonia to list over.
 
Vixen said:
I've never understood group bullying but as long as it's me and not some other poor sod, that's fne with me as I understand the psychology behind it.
Click to expand...
What do the psychologists say about people who accuse others of mistreating them but then keep voluntarily coming back for more?

Vixen said:
Oh dear. Let's move away from personalities and look at the FACTS of the sinking.
Click to expand...
Yes, lets.

This whole thread started because someone lately rediscovered an unexpected hole in the ship and you thought it meant some conspiracy theories should be given another chance to explain it. Years of investigation later, we're on the cusp of agreeing that the hole was most likely caused by contact with the seabed after the ship sank. But you tell us that explanation suffers from a lack of rigor in the physical sciences, a lack you're not only able to demonstrate from your allegedly superior intelligence, but one that you say you have demonstrated.

You've spent hundreds of pages spinning every conspiracy theory on the planet about the accident, including some that weren't meant to be taken seriously. And you've disavowed every single one of them as soon as you're invited to do more with them than trash-talk your betters. And now it comes down to seeing whether that cowardice extends even to disavowing your own demonstration.

You did write the post I've repeatedly linked to, just as surely as a man walked into a Tesco. And it does have all the hallmarks of someone trying to demonstrate how to calculate how hard a sinking ship hits the seabed. It uses an "online calculator" in the form of a web-based LLM artificial intelligence. It mentions a "gravity bit" in the form of Earth's gravity field strength. Before you favored us with that demonstration, you straight up said you had solved the problem. You gave a figure purporting to be the "pressure" of the ship's impact, and it was exactly the figure computed in that demonstration. Those are all facts, even if they make you uncomfortable.

In sum, I already have plenty of evidence that you intended that post to be the "demonstration" of which you have lately spoken. Asking you to confirm it is merely a formality—a courtesy, even. And in the real world of investigation—not your little fantasy world—an investigator is quite justified in drawing adverse inferences from your unwillingness to answer. You whine about being so badly treated, but when one of your critics grants you the courtesy of verifying something before proceeding, you throw that courtesy back in their face. Oh, the psychologists would have a field day...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom