• 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.

Cont: The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
I looked it up and it says the Green buoys are always on the port side. In the picture it is on the starboard side ergo it means the Viking Sally was off on its journey to the open sea. We know the photo is not transposed because you can read the name VIKING SALLY clearly.
Click to expand...

Not at sea, that is a river channel marker.
As there is unbroken land right across the picture, and looking at how close the buoy is to the shoreline, it looks like the ship is laid across the channel.
Looking at the lack of a wake, apart from a few ripples that appear to be coming from a thruster, I would say the ship is making a very low speed turn across the channel.

It's maneuvering at low speed
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
You are approaching it wrongly statistics-wise. This is because you haven't factored in nested variables. You've looked up the probability of two random US males having the same two discrete names together to match that of two random dogs in a foreign land. This is because members of the same family will be in their own distinct cultural group. If you factored in your particular cultural identity, the odds against wouldn't be so high (unless perhaps your son's mother comes from a completely different culture and she named him according to her culture). But, the fact of two dogs in the Netherlands having the same name as you and your son would not be so probable. So OK, that is a real coincidence, if your two names are genuinely unforeseeable in pet dogs.
Click to expand...


This is word salad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Vixen said:
Big deal, so I got mixed up with the 15kg Atlantic lock, also the object of blame.


The error was acknowledged and I issued a post correcting the weight of the visor as 55 tonnes.
Click to expand...


Did it never occur to you that 15 kg wasn’t remotely plausible as the weight of the visor?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Vixen said:
Phiwum might think it a coincidence but it is more likely to be an amusing story than a real coincidence. As I don't know the full facts and he swears that the probability of the two names together are one in ten million, I conceded it to him, on the assumption the two names would be most unlikely as a pet's name.
Click to expand...


What, exactly, is the difference between an amusing story and a coincidence? How do you, Vixen, distinguish between the two?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
junkshop said:
Ok, so comics is yet another thing you know **** all about.

As an aside my favourite comic book characters when I was properly into them were Batman and Marshall Law*, despite my being related to Frank Hampson.

Neither Roy of the Rovers, nor Beryl the Peril were anyone's superheroes, mostly because neither of those characters are superheroes.

*it could be argued that this supports Vixen's antihero = more popular in UK hypothesis, but how can that be squared with the ongoing popularity of Batman in the US?


Please note: this post has been heavily editied in order to not derail the thread any further than it has already been.

TLDR: Vixen doesn't know what she's talking about. Again.
Click to expand...

Not really, Marshall Law took down "Heros" who were corrupt, his appearance of being an anti-hero was only because he wouldn't play along with the pretense. And in what universe was Roy of the Rovers an anti-hero FFS?
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Not really, Marshall Law took down "Heros" who were corrupt, his appearance of being an anti-hero was only because he wouldn't play along with the pretense. And in what universe was Roy of the Rovers an anti-hero FFS?
Click to expand...

He's the only footballer to both score a goal and save a penalty in an F.A. Cup final :)
 
Mojo said:
You are "some random guy on the internet", and what's more you're some random guy on the internet who has been repeatedly demonstrated to tell untruths.




Most of that is irrelevant to what I posted, but your claim about having a birds eye view into the back yard of 10 Downing Street from where you claimed to have been is obviously untrue. Unless you were lying about where you were, you cannot possibly have seen any of it.




Here you go:


And here you are, claiming to actually have a copy of such an article, which means that you surely must be claiming to have seen it:


Would you care to apologise for accusing me of lying?
Click to expand...


No. 1: I couldn't care less whether you 'believe' me or not. That is your prerogative. What I object to is your spreading mean stories about me. For example the articles on Stalingrad were quite separate from the article about the views of Germans about Brits on the frontline. I have now told you that several times, but still you persist in spreading derogatory stories about me. The article didn't specify which frontline, so it is quite objectionable that you have taken to regularly claim that I lied about that article when you cannot possibly know for a fact The article exists, OK? Stop spreading lies about my having lied about it.

No. 2. Likewise I was a witness to the Downing Street bombings and again I didn't ask you whether you believed me or not. You forced me to provide you with the details of where I was working and even then you sneered and claimed it was all a lie, even though when others said they, too, had witnessed it, you didn't similarly go after them and spread disgusting stories about their being fraudulent. You were not there. Your claim that it was 'impossible' for me to have witnessed it is a malicious lie on your part and I would like you to stop spreading character assassinations of me based on just a whim on your part because you enjoy causing distress to others for trivial sport. You are welcome not to believe me. Just stop spreading false stories about me. OK?
 
Andy_Ross said:
No we won't disagree. You don't have any regulations on your side.
Beacons cannot be 'detuned'.
Those from the Estonia were recovered, they were manual activation and were in working order.
Click to expand...

He didn't say it was 'detuned' he said they were 'untuned'. This was a surprise as they had been inspected by the ships electricians the week before as being in working order. The fact the authorities demanded Bodon in Norway look through their messages logs to find out where the 'missing' messages went tells you they were expected to transmit a signal automatically on resurfacing after being submerged.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Not at sea, that is a river channel marker.
As there is unbroken land right across the picture, and looking at how close the buoy is to the shoreline, it looks like the ship is laid across the channel.
Looking at the lack of a wake, apart from a few ripples that appear to be coming from a thruster, I would say the ship is making a very low speed turn across the channel.

It's maneuvering at low speed
Click to expand...

It is not 'unbroken land'. They are islands in the background. It is in the archipelago. Literally thousands of such islands.
 
Vixen said:
He didn't say it was 'detuned' he said they were 'untuned'. This was a surprise as they had been inspected by the ships electricians the week before as being in working order. The fact the authorities demanded Bodon in Norway look through their messages logs to find out where the 'missing' messages went tells you they were expected to transmit a signal automatically on resurfacing after being submerged.
Click to expand...

Unturned or detuned, it's still bollocks. There's nothing that can be done by anyone outside the factory apart from checking the battery.

What messages?

They didn't transmit because they weren't activated by anyone aboard because they were manual activation.
We know this because they were recovered and we know what model they were.
When they were tested they worked exactly as they should.
 
Vixen said:
It is not 'unbroken land'. They are islands in the background. It is in the archipelago. Literally thousands of such islands.
Click to expand...

You haven't told us where the picture was taken. All we know is that it's not the open sea
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom