IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 22nd October 2021, 06:34 AM   #401
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,491
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
JayUtah, dahlink
Don't call me names.

Quote:
...you know as well as I do a ship does not float on its superstructure.
Don't try to tell me what I know and don't know.

Quote:
You sound like you are obsessed with this 'crackpot' fellah. He must have really rattled your cage.
You're the one obsessed with parroting his nonsense as if it's a magic incantation that somehow overcomes all objections. Are you trying to rehabilitate Anders Björkman as a witness?

Last edited by JayUtah; 22nd October 2021 at 07:33 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 06:43 AM   #402
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,491
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The MS Express Samina hit the reefs.
Correct.

Quote:
Hull smashed.
Breached, yes, but hardly smashed. Just one hole below the waterline, at least to start. There were two hull breaches, one above the waterline and one below. But as the ship rolled, the higher breach was drawn under water and accelerated the ship's flood rate. Hm, what if such a hole had been a design feature such as an opening into engineering spaces?

Quote:
End of.
End of what? Why? Tell us why it didn't turn all the way over, as Björkman tells you it must. Tell us why Herald arguably remained stable on her side on the surface before settling to the seabed. Use physics, not name-calling or magic reasoning.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Because the hull was breached? This affects buoyancy?
As would shipping water over the side, or through openings in the weather deck. We're not talking about buoyancy. We're talking about stability in the roll axis, something that you just can't seem to grasp as different from buoyancy. Tell us why having the hull breached somehow makes the ship behave differently in the roll axis. Use your big-girl physics and explain the forces involved.

No, it has zilch to do with Archimedes' Law. No, you can't just allude to what Björkman told you. You have to tell us using your own "five years of physics" knowledge. Can you do it? Will you do it?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 06:45 AM   #403
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,491
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
From the starboard breach in the hull.
You mean the one above the waterline? You mean the one you can't prove was there while the ship was on the surface? You mean the one whose flood rate you've been asked to compute but, as usual, declined to do because you have no idea how?
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 07:02 AM   #404
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 21,491
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Look, let's make this really simple.
No, let's stop trying to oversimplify. Let's examine the problem as it actually occurs, in all the relevant detail.

Quote:
A swimmer.
A swimmer is not a ship whose mass distribution can vary.

Quote:
He or she knows that it is easier to float on your back than your stomach.
Assumes facts not in evidence.

Quote:
Likewise, a boat can float either upright or upside down.
No, not all vessels can do this.

Quote:
In fact, buoyancy is invariably better when it is upside down.
No, rolling a hull such that it ships water has a markedly detrimental effect on buoyancy, and a separate effect on later stability. Buoyancy and stability are still separate concepts governed by completely different laws of physics. You're still conflating them.

Quote:
So, upside down or upright, we have neutral stability.
No, you're trying to borrow terms from buoyancy to describe stability. That doesn't make them the same thing.

Quote:
Question: what happens when the swimmer turns on to his or her side?
Since swimmers can't ship water by altering their orientation with respect to the water's surface, suggesting that a ship would do the same thing as a swimmer is wrong.

Quote:
Think about it and let me know how long this person will float in that position and why.
Think about why a swimmer is not like a ship. And then stop trying to argue by irrelevant analogy and just explain how the physics of a ship work when describing stability in the roll axis. What defines the center of gravity in a ship? What defines the center of buoyancy in a ship? What causes a roll moment when those points are in certain positions relative to each other? Where do those points shift as the roll occurs? Do they stay in the same place they were? Or do they move about as air and water redistribute themselves? How would that affect the duration of the roll moment? What other moments act in a freely rotating body? Did the video you posted cover that, or did it oversimplify the problem as you're trying to do now?

When you understand the answers to these questions, then perhaps you can see why your condescending attitude does you little good in the way of credibility.

Last edited by JayUtah; 22nd October 2021 at 07:12 AM.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 07:07 AM   #405
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,054
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
In the case in question the snorkel is not an aid to buoyancy, merely an aid to conducting a casual experiment. However, phiwum has just posted another refutation of your claim that requires no breathing aid.
Well, that and the whole argument is silly. An upside down human body allegedly floats better and hence so does a boat.

But one might as well say a dead fish floats sideways and hence do does a boat.

Refutations about human bodies are beside the point. It's a crap argument that reminds me of some of Aristotle's worst bits.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 07:52 AM   #406
Stamuel
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 588
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
A swimmer is not a ship.

How is the buoyancy of a boat 'better' if it is upside down?
I think this is a misstatement of part of Anders Björkman's argument about how much buoyancy the MS Estonia would have if it was upside down. He points out that even if the superstructure is submerged and completely full of water, the walls and floors, etc. still displace water and thus contribute to buoyancy. On the other hand, when the ship is upright and not sinking, these structures do not directly contribute to the buoyant force.

While this is correct, as far as I can tell, it is obviously very different from the claim that the ship is more buoyant when it is upside down.
__________________
A+
Stamuel is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 09:37 AM   #407
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Look, let's make this really simple. A swimmer. He or she knows that it is easier to float on your back than your stomach. Likewise, a boat can float either upright or upside down. In fact, buoyancy is invariably better when it is upside down. So, upside down or upright, we have neutral stability. Question: what happens when the swimmer turns on to his or her side?

Think about it and let me know how long this person will float in that position and why.

What happens as this person sinks? Does he or she stay rigidly sideways?

So, if you're right, why don't all ships - as soon as they're untied at the dockside and set off - turn upside-down? If, as you claim, the buoyancy of a ship is "invariably better when it is upside down"?

Once more with (lack of) feeling: you don't know what you're talking about.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 09:40 AM   #408
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The Fokus group is reorting a news item I missed from last week, citing, the Aftonbladet.se newspaper 13.10.2021.

The Estonian Foreign Minister, Urmas Reinsalu, has sent a formal letter to the Swedish counterpart, Ann Linde (S) and the Finnish Foreign Minister, Pekka Haavisto (Green), setting out the following demands:
  • To identify how the wreck lies on the seabed and investigate how and if the ferry has turned over the years.
  • To investigate the surface of the seabed below and around Estonia.
  • To identify any holes in the wreck and in that case carefully document where on the wreck the hole is located, how big it is and what kind of damage it may be.
  • To find out when in time the injury occurred and how the injury affected the course of the disaster.

The Swedish minister overseeing the M/S Estonia issue, Minister of the Interior Mikael Damberg (S), wrote back in reply: "There is a need to jointly discuss possible alternative measures and analyze the conditions for these in a way that takes into account the international agreement on grave peace to protect Estonia from all forms of disruptive activities".

In other words, playing the 'grave peace' card, when there was nothing to stop them from recovering the bodies at the outset and salvaging the wreck.

"Demands" ahahahaha!

I think you mean "requests".
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 09:42 AM   #409
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I am sure it is but the fact remains it is easier to float on your back than on your stomach. This is to do with centre of buoyancy and little to do with whether you have a snorkel or not. The snorkel simply enables you to examine what is going on underwater and hence you need to be facing down.

Oh, brother. Where to start with all this crap?

You're wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about.
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 09:43 AM   #410
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
From the starboard breach in the hull. If you recall, there were a series of bangs/or a bang, as witnessed by some survivors, and/or sensations of a collision/massive jolt just before the vessel listed violently towards starboard.

That breach 1) was caused when the ship hit the seabed on the night it sank, and 2) was above the waterline in any case.

Are you really this blinded by the requirement to find a conspiracy theory (where none actually exists)?
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 09:46 AM   #411
Matthew Best
Philosopher
 
Matthew Best's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Leicester Square, London
Posts: 8,998
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Can you do it? Will you do it?
Look, let's make this really simple. The answers to these questions are:

"No", and "no".
Matthew Best is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 10:25 AM   #412
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
So, if you're right, why don't all ships - as soon as they're untied at the dockside and set off - turn upside-down? If, as you claim, the buoyancy of a ship is "invariably better when it is upside down"?

Once more with (lack of) feeling: you don't know what you're talking about.
Oh dear.
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 10:26 AM   #413
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,836
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The JAIC clearly states it was the windows on the 'aft deck' that were likely broken by the waves, ditto the Rockwater report of where they had to cut the windows with a marlin spike and breakdown dividers (doors) with oxy-acetyline cutters.
Just to remind folk, this evasive answer relates to Vixen's insinuation that the report might be wrong to claim windows on decks 4 and 5 broke under pressure, hastening flooding, since divers later found windows on those decks still intact.

Since Vixen either can't say or won't admit that the windows which the report suggests broke were on the side to which the ship was listing, i.e. the starboard side, while the still-intact windows the divers smashed for access were on the upper side of the wreck i.e. the port side, here's what the report actually said:

"After the main engines stopped, the ESTONIA drifted with a list of about 40 degrees and the starboard side towards the waves. Water continued to enter the car deck through the bow but at a significantly lower rate. Waves were pounding against the windows on deck 4. Window panels and aft doors broke, allowing flooding of the accommodation to start."
https://web.archive.org/web/20040819...apt13_1.html#2

So the windows they claim broke were on the starboard side.

Here are pictures from the report of the route the divers took when investigating inside the wreck, their routes in green;
https://web.archive.org/web/20051016...kuva8_271s.gif
https://web.archive.org/web/20051016...kuva8_272s.gif

As you will see, none of the entry points the divers used was on the starboard side.

I'm sorry to belabour this point, but I hope it forestalls Vixen's continuing to insinuate that windows found to be intact were those the report said would have broken. Or at least to make it plain she hasn't a leg to stand on when she does.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 10:30 AM   #414
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,836
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Oh dear.
It looks rather silly to use empty condescension when you plainly know much less about the subject than the person you're "oh dearing" at.

Oh and by the way, condescension means talking down to people.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 10:34 AM   #415
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Just to remind folk, this evasive answer relates to Vixen's insinuation that the report might be wrong to claim windows on decks 4 and 5 broke under pressure, hastening flooding, since divers later found windows on those decks still intact.

Since Vixen either can't say or won't admit that the windows which the report suggests broke were on the side to which the ship was listing, i.e. the starboard side, while the still-intact windows the divers smashed for access were on the upper side of the wreck i.e. the port side, here's what the report actually said:

"After the main engines stopped, the ESTONIA drifted with a list of about 40 degrees and the starboard side towards the waves. Water continued to enter the car deck through the bow but at a significantly lower rate. Waves were pounding against the windows on deck 4. Window panels and aft doors broke, allowing flooding of the accommodation to start."
https://web.archive.org/web/20040819...apt13_1.html#2

So the windows they claim broke were on the starboard side.

Here are pictures from the report of the route the divers took when investigating inside the wreck, their routes in green;
https://web.archive.org/web/20051016...kuva8_271s.gif
https://web.archive.org/web/20051016...kuva8_272s.gif

As you will see, none of the entry points the divers used was on the starboard side.

I'm sorry to belabour this point, but I hope it forestalls Vixen's continuing to insinuate that windows found to be intact were those the report said would have broken. Or at least to make it plain she hasn't a leg to stand on when she does.
The report as quoted by yourself, clearly states: " Window panels and aft doors broke".

The Rockwater divers make no mention of investigating the starboard side specifically but why not? Is it at all likely or even probable they did not survey the side of the ship which had the violent list?

In fact, the Estonians sent a report to the JAIC suggesting a breach in the starboard side in 1997 yet this was ignored and the report published without considering it, after a long unexplained delay anyway.

In the latest expedition in September, Kurm confirms that a set of doors inside the car deck are intact, closed and undamaged, which is contrary to the JAIC's assertion they must have broken due to the force of seawater versus air pressure.
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 10:38 AM   #416
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
It looks rather silly to use empty condescension when you plainly know much less about the subject than the person you're "oh dearing" at.

Oh and by the way, condescension means talking down to people.
It is certainly better than a ridiculous childish repetition of a mantra of the 'yah boo shucks to you' variety.
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 10:46 AM   #417
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,836
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The report as quoted by yourself, clearly states: " Window panels and aft doors broke".
You evaded the context. They stated that, right after describing the severe starboard list and the sea pounding on the starboard side. Which part still has you confused?

Quote:
The Rockwater divers make no mention of investigating the starboard side specifically but why not?
Do you mean the starboard side that's lying on the sea bed? That starboard side? Do you mean the starboard side that has all the interior debris collected on top of it? That starboard side?

Yeah, I wonder why they didn't examine it.

Quote:
In the latest expedition in September, Kurm confirms that a set of doors inside the car deck are intact, closed and undamaged, which is contrary to the JAIC's assertion they must have broken due to the force of seawater versus air pressure.
And we've gone full circle. When you made this claim before I asked you to substantiate it. And you backed off and said you meant decks 4 & 5. Now your stuff about 4 and 5 is laid to rest you've leapt back to claiming stuff about the car deck.

Well, the question still stands: Can you substantiate your claim that the JAIC asserts the car deck doors must have broken or can you not?
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 11:16 AM   #418
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 5,922
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The Rockwater divers make no mention of investigating the starboard side specifically but why not? Is it at all likely or even probable they did not survey the side of the ship which had the violent list?
Lemme see...I'm a scuba diver, I'm working a wreck that has just sank. I'm an experienced salvage diver, the wreck is laying on it's side, but at a slight angle where I could possibly swim under for a short distance.

But...

The wreck is new, and wrecks have a tendency to settle in the first days, weeks, and months they are on the sea floor. So...Only an idiot would risk swimming under the starboard side so soon after the sinking. And where the known breach is located it would not have been visible at the time.

Why would I risk my dive team when the cause of the accident is the missing bow visor?

Quote:
In fact, the Estonians sent a report to the JAIC suggesting a breach in the starboard side in 1997 yet this was ignored and the report published without considering it, after a long unexplained delay anyway.
Without confirmation an official accident report will not include rumors.

Quote:
In the latest expedition in September, Kurm confirms that a set of doors inside the car deck are intact, closed and undamaged, which is contrary to the JAIC's assertion they must have broken due to the force of seawater versus air pressure.
And?

There are other ways, AS ALREADY MENTIONED, for sea water to advance throughout the ship.

You are not very good at this.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 11:18 AM   #419
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It is certainly better than a ridiculous childish repetition of a mantra of the 'yah boo shucks to you' variety.

Oh dear.


(Written for effect, in case you were incapable of discerning that for yourself)
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 11:31 AM   #420
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Lemme see...I'm a scuba diver, I'm working a wreck that has just sank. I'm an experienced salvage diver, the wreck is laying on it's side, but at a slight angle where I could possibly swim under for a short distance.

But...

The wreck is new, and wrecks have a tendency to settle in the first days, weeks, and months they are on the sea floor. So...Only an idiot would risk swimming under the starboard side so soon after the sinking. And where the known breach is located it would not have been visible at the time.

Why would I risk my dive team when the cause of the accident is the missing bow visor?



Without confirmation an official accident report will not include rumors.



And?

There are other ways, AS ALREADY MENTIONED, for sea water to advance throughout the ship.

You are not very good at this.

The phrase "No ****, Sherlock" would seem appropriate at this point.


As you allude to in your post here, the official investigators had more than enough evidence and knowledge to know what caused this ship to sink (and, as importantly, what didn't cause this ship to sink). I suspect the primary - if not the only - reason for them to have attempted to gain entry into the ship through the (port) windows was to better assess the realistic possibility of recovering victims' bodies. It more-than-likely wouldn't have been anything to do with determining the cause of the disaster.

Vixen (and organisations such as this Fokus Group) seem to be of the (mis)understanding that it's incumbent on official investigators to keep on looking for causes of an accident long after it's become abundantly clear to them (the investigators) what the actual cause of the accident really was. At the risk of doing something which is probably close to Godwinning: Warren et al were right all along about the cause of the JFK assassination.....
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 12:31 PM   #421
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 10,718
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
It looks rather silly to use empty condescension when you plainly know much less about the subject than the person you're "oh dearing" at.

Oh and by the way, condescension means talking down to people.
I have it on good authority that Vixen is merely reporting facts gleaned from other sources. There is no editorializing or condescension whatsoever.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 04:20 PM   #422
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
You evaded the context. They stated that, right after describing the severe starboard list and the sea pounding on the starboard side. Which part still has you confused?


Do you mean the starboard side that's lying on the sea bed? That starboard side? Do you mean the starboard side that has all the interior debris collected on top of it? That starboard side?

Yeah, I wonder why they didn't examine it.



And we've gone full circle. When you made this claim before I asked you to substantiate it. And you backed off and said you meant decks 4 & 5. Now your stuff about 4 and 5 is laid to rest you've leapt back to claiming stuff about the car deck.

Well, the question still stands: Can you substantiate your claim that the JAIC asserts the car deck doors must have broken or can you not?
Let's do the chronology.

JAIC Report 1997

Quote:
Even though the list developed rapidly; the water on the car deck would not alone be sufficient to make the ship capsize and lose its survivability As long as the hull was intact and watertight below and above the car deck, the residual stability with water on the car deck would not have been significantly changed at large heel angles. The capsize could only have been completed through water entering other areas of the vessel.
Next para specifically about the car deck doors and aft windows. If the JAIC were only talking about portside windows then they are lying by omission and should have said so.

Quote:
According to the hydrostatic calculations, a continuously increasing amount of water on the car deck would make the aft windows of deck 4 the first possible flooding point to other areas. Soon thereafter the windows and the aft entrance doors of deck 5 would also be submerged.
Follow it, so far? The JAIC specifies the aft windows of deck 4 the first 'possible' point of flooding. (=therefore an assumption, see the word 'possible').

Fast forward to JAIC 13.2.6

Quote:
After the main engines stopped, the ESTONIA drifted with a list of about 40 degrees and the starboard side towards the waves. Water continued to enter the car deck through the bow but at a significantly lower rate. Waves were pounding against the windows on deck 4. Window panels and aft doors broke, allowing flooding of the accommodation to start. As the flooding progressed, the list and the trim by the stern increased and the vessel started to sink.
Again it clearly states window panels and aft doors broke. It doesn't say 'port side only'.

It reasons:

Quote:
If the windows and doors had remained unbroken the vessel may have remained in a stable heel condition for some time. It is, however, less likely that any reasonable strength of the large windows would have been adequate to with- stand the wave impact forces.

It can be concluded that, although the vessel fulfilled the SOLAS damage stability requirements valid for its building period, she had no possibilities to withstand progressive flooding through the superstructure openings once the heel angle approached 40o. When windows on the accommodation decks were broken by wave forces, subsequent sinking was inevitable.
A Swedish ex-navy man claims to the Swedish press in 1999 that he was a diver in early Dec and he witnessed a large hole in the starboard.

Kurm in 2007 points out the following re what witnesses saw happeningg on the car deck:

Quote:
1) First, when they saw on the monitor that water was pressing in from the sides of the ramp, the ramp was in the closed position. Treu looked at this monitor picture once. Sillaste did several times. Kadak was watching and clicking the monitor practically all the time when he was in the engine room. Not once did anyone see that the ramp had opened.

2) Secondly, when they saw on the monitor that water was pressing in from the sides of the ramp, the ship was in the list. The ship was in the list already when Treu was alone and looking at the monitor. Because the list was the reason why he stood up and went to the control board. The list was also the reason why Sillaste left the sewage room and Kadak left the workshop. And the list was gradually increasing. When Sillaste and Kadak left, the list
was about 30 degrees; when Treu left, it was more than that.

As we know, according to the Final Report, the cause that brought about the shipwreck was that the bow visor locks broke, the visor fell into water and the ramp opened completely.

<snip>

This scenario can only be valid if we consider the above testimony of the three crew members to be wrong. I claim that the contradiction between the JAIC scenario and the witnesses' statements cannot be eliminated otherwise.
Kurm Glasgow

Update October re the Kurm Expedition:

Quote:
Kurm: "Car deck doors being shut contradicts the JAIC report"
________________________________________
TS today reports an interview with Margus Kurm, leading the private investigation on RS Sentinel in which Kurm believes that having filmed inside the car ramp deck and found two doors completely shut and intact, then this directly contradicts the JAIC findings that the ingress of water from the bow ramp quickly led to the flooding in deck four (decks one and two of the ground level car ramp represented Decks 3 and 4 on the ship).

Quote:
The color images show that the two sliding doors leading to the stairs leading up and down the car deck are closed and intact.

Margus Kurm , the former prosecutor leading the investigation team, considered the finding significant. He recently commented on the research ship to Postimees that closing the doors is inconsistent with the previous official version.

One sure achievement Kurm considered was the fact that the Swedish diving robot operator Linus Andersson managed to photograph almost the entire wreck. The images are intended to be a detailed three-dimensional imaging.
TS

Kurm was the Chief Prosecutor during the time of the accident. He was Head of the JAIC at one stage. He interviewed about 50 people, includin the crew members several times. He has been on the spot at the wreckage.

Don't have a go at me. This is the expert opinion of someone who has been deeply involved in the case from the start.


It is YOUR claim 'the JAIC are only talking about port side windows. The JAIC said nothing of the kind.
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 04:33 PM   #423
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
The phrase "No ****, Sherlock" would seem appropriate at this point.


As you allude to in your post here, the official investigators had more than enough evidence and knowledge to know what caused this ship to sink (and, as importantly, what didn't cause this ship to sink). I suspect the primary - if not the only - reason for them to have attempted to gain entry into the ship through the (port) windows was to better assess the realistic possibility of recovering victims' bodies. It more-than-likely wouldn't have been anything to do with determining the cause of the disaster.

Vixen (and organisations such as this Fokus Group) seem to be of the (mis)understanding that it's incumbent on official investigators to keep on looking for causes of an accident long after it's become abundantly clear to them (the investigators) what the actual cause of the accident really was. At the risk of doing something which is probably close to Godwinning: Warren et al were right all along about the cause of the JFK assassination.....
Stop lying. Neither the JAIC report or the Rockwater report said it was port or starboard windows. The Rockwater Report, like the JAIC, very clearly refers to the aft windows on deck 4 and 5. They had to use a marlin spike and hammer to remove the tough panes, together with ocxyacetyline cutters to cut through dividers and panels.

Stop making unwarranted claims and presenting them as fact. It shows a lack of intellectual honesty and integrity. If you one of those people who think that merely refuting a thing makes it so, may I suggest you add the term 'IMV' after it and not pretend it is official.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 2021-10-23 (2).jpg (37.7 KB, 7 views)
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 05:10 PM   #424
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 39,329
If the ship was on it's starboard side how could they get access to the windows on the starboard side?

The power was lost when the engine sand generators stopped due to flooding (ships have generators powered from the prop shafts when the main engines are running and separate diesel sets.

Water was getting down in to the hull before any windows broke. There are as we keep saying lots of access points like intakes and exhausts to the engineering spaces from above which water will enter.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 05:54 PM   #425
whoanellie
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,052
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Stop lying. Neither the JAIC report or the Rockwater report said it was port or starboard windows. The Rockwater Report, like the JAIC, very clearly refers to the aft windows on deck 4 and 5. They had to use a marlin spike and hammer to remove the tough panes, together with ocxyacetyline cutters to cut through dividers and panels.

Stop making unwarranted claims and presenting them as fact. It shows a lack of intellectual honesty and integrity. If you one of those people who think that merely refuting a thing makes it so, may I suggest you add the term 'IMV' after it and not pretend it is official.
Guess who is the one who is actually lying.

Here's what the JAIC says in section 13.2.6 about the breaking of the windows. (Jack by the hedge already posted the same quotation).
Originally Posted by JAIC
After the main engines stopped, the ESTONIA drifted with a list of about 40 degrees and the starboard side towards the waves. Water continued to enter the car deck through the bow but at a significantly lower rate. Waves were pounding against the windows on deck 4. Window panels and aft doors broke, allowing flooding of the accommodation to start.
I think it would be clear to most people whether the waves broke the windows on the port or starboard side of the ship. If Vixen is not lying then she is not very good at reading comprehension. Which is it, Vixen?

Last edited by whoanellie; 22nd October 2021 at 05:59 PM.
whoanellie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 05:55 PM   #426
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Let's do the chronology.

JAIC Report 1997



Next para specifically about the car deck doors and aft windows. If the JAIC were only talking about portside windows then they are lying by omission and should have said so.



Follow it, so far? The JAIC specifies the aft windows of deck 4 the first 'possible' point of flooding. (=therefore an assumption, see the word 'possible').

Fast forward to JAIC 13.2.6



Again it clearly states window panels and aft doors broke. It doesn't say 'port side only'.

It reasons:



A Swedish ex-navy man claims to the Swedish press in 1999 that he was a diver in early Dec and he witnessed a large hole in the starboard.

Kurm in 2007 points out the following re what witnesses saw happeningg on the car deck:

Kurm Glasgow

Update October re the Kurm Expedition:

TS

Kurm was the Chief Prosecutor during the time of the accident. He was Head of the JAIC at one stage. He interviewed about 50 people, includin the crew members several times. He has been on the spot at the wreckage.

Don't have a go at me. This is the expert opinion of someone who has been deeply involved in the case from the start.


It is YOUR claim 'the JAIC are only talking about port side windows. The JAIC said nothing of the kind.

I think you're in one almight mix-up here.

You're conflating two separate things: 1) the windows/doors which gave under significant water pressure during the capsize on the night of the sinking; and 2) the windows which the investigators broke open when they surveyed the wreck on the seabed.

In the case of (1), it was the aft starboard windows/doors which gave in as the ship listed to starboard. As the ship leaned further and further, the windows/doors on that side of the ship disappeared under water, and encountered exterior water pressures that they'd never been designed to withstand.

In the case of (2), it was the port windows that were broken open by the investigators as they surveyed the wreck. The investigators only had access to the port windows at that time - the wreck was lying on its starboard side at that time, making it functionally impossible for the surveyors to access any starboard windows.

Hope this helps..............
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2021, 06:03 PM   #427
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 19,093
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Stop lying. Neither the JAIC report or the Rockwater report said it was port or starboard windows. The Rockwater Report, like the JAIC, very clearly refers to the aft windows on deck 4 and 5. They had to use a marlin spike and hammer to remove the tough panes, together with ocxyacetyline cutters to cut through dividers and panels.

Stop making unwarranted claims and presenting them as fact. It shows a lack of intellectual honesty and integrity. If you one of those people who think that merely refuting a thing makes it so, may I suggest you add the term 'IMV' after it and not pretend it is official.

Why do you keep groundlessly accusing me of lying? You know what "lying" actually means, don't you? If we're in the business of telling people to stop doing things, I'll respond by telling you to stop groundlessly accusing me of lying. OK?

In this particular instance, your intemperate outburst is even more puzzling. It's an absolute given that when the JAIC investigators were talking about having broken in through windows, these windows cannot have been on the starboard side - because at that time the starboard side was lying on the seabed. Likewise, the windows/doors that gave in under water pressure as the ship capsized must have been on the starboard side - because it was the starboard side which entered the water as the ship rolled over onto that side (before, incidentally, sinking in the same 90-degree-rolled attitude and coming to rest on the seabed still in that 90-degre-rolled attitude).
LondonJohn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2021, 02:43 AM   #428
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
If the ship was on it's starboard side how could they get access to the windows on the starboard side?

The power was lost when the engine sand generators stopped due to flooding (ships have generators powered from the prop shafts when the main engines are running and separate diesel sets.

Water was getting down in to the hull before any windows broke. There are as we keep saying lots of access points like intakes and exhausts to the engineering spaces from above which water will enter.
AFT. The windows, doors and panels on the AFT. You know, the area that runs parallel to the stern.


The JAIC did not say it was to the left or to the right. Just 'aft'.
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2021, 02:44 AM   #429
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
Guess who is the one who is actually lying.

Here's what the JAIC says in section 13.2.6 about the breaking of the windows. (Jack by the hedge already posted the same quotation).


I think it would be clear to most people whether the waves broke the windows on the port or starboard side of the ship. If Vixen is not lying then she is not very good at reading comprehension. Which is it, Vixen?
By your own account the JAIC report reads: 'Window panels and aft doors broke, allowing flooding of the accommodation to start.'
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2021, 02:48 AM   #430
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
I think you're in one almight mix-up here.

You're conflating two separate things: 1) the windows/doors which gave under significant water pressure during the capsize on the night of the sinking; and 2) the windows which the investigators broke open when they surveyed the wreck on the seabed.

In the case of (1), it was the aft starboard windows/doors which gave in as the ship listed to starboard. As the ship leaned further and further, the windows/doors on that side of the ship disappeared under water, and encountered exterior water pressures that they'd never been designed to withstand.

In the case of (2), it was the port windows that were broken open by the investigators as they surveyed the wreck. The investigators only had access to the port windows at that time - the wreck was lying on its starboard side at that time, making it functionally impossible for the surveyors to access any starboard windows.

Hope this helps..............
No. When the JAIC and Rockwater are referring to the aft they are talking about the stern area: you know, the part that sank first? Yet the divers arrived and found they had to break the windows and doors by means of marlin spikes, hammers and oxy-acetyline cutters.

Penny dropped now?
Attached Images
File Type: png l9wY8xj.png (15.7 KB, 8 views)
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2021, 02:51 AM   #431
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 39,329
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
AFT. The windows, doors and panels on the AFT. You know, the area that runs parallel to the stern.


The JAIC did not say it was to the left or to the right. Just 'aft'.
No, they would be the Stern windows. Aft means everything from the middle of the ship to the stern.

Words have meanings.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2021, 02:52 AM   #432
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 39,329
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
By your own account the JAIC report reads: 'Window panels and aft doors broke, allowing flooding of the accommodation to start.'
Yes, the After part of a ship is from the middle of the ship to the stern.
As the ship sank by the stern the aft windows will have been submerged first.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2021, 02:52 AM   #433
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Why do you keep groundlessly accusing me of lying? You know what "lying" actually means, don't you? If we're in the business of telling people to stop doing things, I'll respond by telling you to stop groundlessly accusing me of lying. OK?

In this particular instance, your intemperate outburst is even more puzzling. It's an absolute given that when the JAIC investigators were talking about having broken in through windows, these windows cannot have been on the starboard side - because at that time the starboard side was lying on the seabed. Likewise, the windows/doors that gave in under water pressure as the ship capsized must have been on the starboard side - because it was the starboard side which entered the water as the ship rolled over onto that side (before, incidentally, sinking in the same 90-degree-rolled attitude and coming to rest on the seabed still in that 90-degre-rolled attitude).
For the umpty-ninth time, neither they or the Rockwater guys mention the starboard. They clearly state it was the aft windows and doors, referring to the stern area, or they would have said 'starboard' or 'port'.

Just because it might seem intuitively obvious to you that if the boat tips to starboard then these are the windows that broke. However, we were discussing whether the JAIC were correct to assume that the pressure of water ingressing via the bow caused the windows and doors on the aft fourth and fifth decks to break.

Stop substituting the JAIC's words for your own.
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2021, 02:56 AM   #434
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 39,329
As the ship was listing to starboard the windows on that side of the ship would have been submerged first. As the ship was sinking by the stern the windows towards the rear of the ship would have been battered and underwater first.
As the ship had lost power it would be the windows on the starboard side being battered, not those on the ster.

Aft is everything from the midships line to the stern.

Aft is not the same as Stern. They are specific terms with specific meanings at sea.

You are the one substituting the term Aft for Stern.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2021, 02:58 AM   #435
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
No, they would be the Stern windows. Aft means everything from the middle of the ship to the stern.

Words have meanings.
The JAIC didn't say that did they? They didn't say starboard aft they said the aft every time, as did Rockwater, who were very specific.

These are the aft windows and doors of a cruise ferry.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 2021-10-23 (3).jpg (36.9 KB, 6 views)
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2021, 03:01 AM   #436
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 39,329
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The JAIC didn't say that did they? They didn't say starboard aft they said the aft every time, as did Rockwater, who were very specific.

These are the aft windows and doors of a cruise ferry.
that is the stern. That is not the Estonia

This is the stern of the Estonia

Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2021, 03:02 AM   #437
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 27,474
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
As the ship was listing to starboard the windows on that side of the ship would have been submerged first. As the ship was sinking by the stern the windows towards the rear of the ship would have been battered and underwater first.
As the ship had lost power it would be the windows on the starboard side being battered, not those on the ster.

Aft is everything from the midships line to the stern.

Aft is not the same as Stern. They are specific terms with specific meanings at sea.

You are the one substituting the term Aft for Stern.
Yes it might be so to assume these would be the windows to break first but the JAIC / Rockwater does not say this. They do not commit themselves to 'starboard broke first' or 'starboard aft' they merely say 'aft' and let's face it the righthand stern area was under the greatest list.
__________________
Abaddon: "But perhaps Vixen should reflect on the fact that I would kill myself before leaving them in her care." 22.1.2022
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2021, 03:02 AM   #438
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 39,329
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The JAIC didn't say that did they? They didn't say starboard aft they said the aft every time, as did Rockwater, who were very specific.

These are the aft windows and doors of a cruise ferry.
Saying aft is not 'specific'

It means everything from midships to the stern. As the ship was on it's side with the starboard side submerged first and then on the sea bed with the port side up. We know they mean that the starboard windows went first and the port windows were the ones the divers entered.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2021, 03:03 AM   #439
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 39,329
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Yes it might be so to assume these would be the windows to break first but the JAIC / Rockwater does not say this. They do not commit themselves to 'starboard broke first' or 'starboard aft' they merely say 'aft' and let's face it the righthand stern area was under the greatest list.
the ship listed heavily to starboard and sank by the stern.
Which windows do you think they mean?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2021, 03:19 AM   #440
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,836
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
...

Don't have a go at me. This is the expert opinion of someone who has been deeply involved in the case from the start.





It is YOUR claim 'the JAIC are only talking about port side windows. The JAIC said nothing of the kind.
This is *your interpretation* of a secondhand report of what an investigator said. And you have a poor track record of correctly grasping what people actually mean in this case. What exactly does his finding contradict about the JAIC report? *Your* claim is that it contradicts the JAIC's assumption that the car deck doors must have failed. Well *show us* the JAIC's claim that the car deck doors must have failed or get off your high horse.

If you are not capable of making the leap to infer that the windows the JAIC say were smashed by the sea and then allowed the sea to flood in were the ones which were dipping into the sea due to the list and facing the oncoming waves as the ship drifted, and not the ones on the sheltered side of the ship which were being lifted ever higher away from the water by the list, then why would we listen to any of your confused wot-I-reckon at all?

And it's the starboard side. The port side windows were the high up, sheltered and not-in-the sea ones. The starboard ones were the low down, pounded by waves, ever-more-underwater ones.

Just to fully father-Dougal the point, the water came in through the windows which were *in* the water, and not through the windows which were far away from the water.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.