• 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:
MV Viking Sally was not even built until 1980. When it became MV Estonia in 1993 and refurbished of course it was fully compliant with IOM Chapter III re EPIRBS; it even had brackets for the beacon built either side of the bridge, as specified in IOM Chapter III! Manually-activated-beacons-only are kept inside the vessel and ready to hand. Otherwise, how else are you supposed to switch them on manually?
Click to expand...

You are making things up again. Floating buoys are not kept inside the vessel.
 
Vixen said:
That is not what Helsingin Sanomat says, quoting Lt Capn Montonen, Coastguard and Asser Koivisto Marine Communications expert, dated Jan 1995 FOUR YEARS before the year you claimed it came into being. The IOM Resolution clearly shows 'by Aug 1993'. You can not pretend it doesn't exist as I reproduced it here.
Click to expand...

Who gives a **** what a newspaper said.

We know what model they were as they were recovered.
We know they were in working order when recovered and operated as designed.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Who gives a **** what a newspaper said.

We know what model they were as they were recovered.
We know they were in working order when recovered and operated as designed.
Click to expand...

Existing dhips with manual buoys were given time to exchange them, this was 1999.

If you are going to cite regulations you can't ignore the the inconvenient bits.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Who gives a **** what a newspaper said.

We know what model they were as they were recovered.
We know they were in working order when recovered and operated as designed.
Click to expand...

Because the Times made accurate reporting of the Battle of Stalingrad in near-real time in 1944 (lol) we must take everything reported by newspapers about the Estonia sinking as 100% without error.
 
Vixen said:
Nobody said it was the same. They do work together. THe HRU's sole purpose is to release the free-float automatic EPIRB when immersed in up to 4m of water, so that it can float freely to the surface and begin emitting a signal conveying its location to the satellite.
Click to expand...

At that time the manufacturer only made a single enclosed holder for their buoys. It was used for all of them. Details of their product range was posted earlier in the thread
 
lobosrul5 said:
Thankyou for the English language and WW2 history lesson Vixen. Next time I crack a book about the Eastern Front of WW2 I will remember your pointer that it was Germany v USSR, and not "tommies" fighting over there. I will forget the Romanians though. /s

Is it really that hard to admit that you were mistaken?
Click to expand...

Don't forget the Italian division.
 
Vixen said:
Nobody said it was the same. They do work together. THe HRU's sole purpose is to release the free-float automatic EPIRB when immersed in up to 4m of water, so that it can float freely to the surface and begin emitting a signal conveying its location to the satellite.
Click to expand...

Andy_Ross said:
At that time the manufacturer only made a single enclosed holder for their buoys. It was used for all of them. Details of their product range was posted earlier in the thread
Click to expand...


To follow on, also no to the highlighted.

Ship radiocommunications entered a new era on 1 February 1999 with the full implementation of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS), an integrated communications system using satellite and terrestrial radiocommunication systems.

https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Safety/Pages/RadioCommunications-Default.aspx

Vixen, I look forward to you contradicting this.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I don't recall exactly what I wrote yonks ago but I am flattered you have carefully retrieved it to go through it with a fine-tooth comb. It still doesn't specifically refer to the Stalingrad frontline as the correspondent would need to be pretty dim to think Brits are on German minds in that situation, as insular as the press has always been.
Click to expand...

You don't need to recall exactly what you wrote yonks ago as posters have helpfully quoted what you wrote. As you know, I suggested that you might argue that the reference to reporters on the front line was a different front line to your Stalingrad remark. So I asked if you still believed that the British had secret agents infiltrate a German front line in order that their reports on what the German soldiers were talking about could be published in the Times.

You replied "Yawn".

I take that to mean you do not intend to defend this ludicrous suggestion, yet you won't disavow it either, so that in another hundred pages or so you can recycle it just as if nothing had ever been said about it.
 
erwinl said:
I said Nazi Germany and Finland were allies in the war against the Soviet Union (and alluded to the usual complains by, mostly, Finnish people, that they were only (wink wink) co-belligerents ).
I said nothing about jews in Finland whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Whats a bit "hilarious" is that Vixen took issue with your use of the term "co-belligerent" when in reality Finland was actually allied with Germany during the Continuation War. They were not only at war with Germany at the same time, they planned operations together, and Finland allowed German troops on their territory etc.

Vixen, please realize I'm an admirer of Finland. They were put between a rock and a hard place through no fault of their own. And the fact they've kept their independence since the fall of the Russian Empire is admirable. But, they were allied with Nazi Germany for a time, that's a fact.
 
GlennB said:
Bollocks. Your statement, yet again :

"The daily on-the-spot TIMES newspaper report on the Battle of Stalingrad, together with maps and charts brought it to life for me. They even had reporters on the German front line, who must have been British secret agents to have infiltrated it in the first place. "

"They", here and in any sane world, can only refer to The Times newspaper.
Click to expand...

Hey, those maps and charts have spies everywhere, you know. Here To Learn even photographed one of them.
 
Vixen said:
I don't recall exactly what I wrote yonks ago but I am flattered you have carefully retrieved it to go through it with a fine-tooth comb. It still doesn't specifically refer to the Stalingrad frontline as the correspondent would need to be pretty dim to think Brits are on German minds in that situation, as insular as the press has always been.
Click to expand...


No. You made a ridiculous statement, and then you attempted to lie your way out of it by claiming that you'd actually said something else entirely. Then, when confronted with your actual words, you attempted to claim that those words really mean something other than their plain and unambiguous meaning.
 
erwinl said:
I said Nazi Germany and Finland were allies in the war against the Soviet Union (and alluded to the usual complains by, mostly, Finnish people, that they were only (wink wink) co-belligerents ).
I said nothing about jews in Finland whatsoever.
Click to expand...

They were not allied forces in the same sense as the USA and the UK. It was more a facilitation in that it let the Germans set up a base at Salla on the eastern side and a minor barracks at Kilpisjarvi on the NW side near the Norwegian border.

It was not Axis either.

I hope that sets the factual record straight. No need for any sly 'wink wink'.
 
lobosrul5 said:
They were co-belligerents against the USSR during the Continuation War. What do you think co-belligerent means?! Unlike Germany, Finland (and Romania too) had very sound reasons for being belligerents against the USSR.

Time for English language lessons from me:

The older sense (“waging war”) is generally used to refer to the actions or combatants of a nation at war, or to the nation itself ("belligerent operations"; "belligerent troops"; “the belligerent state”); it is paralleled by the earliest sense of the noun, “a nation at war” (“the belligerents assembled at the peace conference”).

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belligerent

Being a belligerent nation in a war does not mean the aggressive side, or going to war without justification.
Click to expand...

You misread my post. They were co-belligerents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom