• 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.
MarkCorrigan said:
Because that would be admitting error, which Vixen cannot do. I'm reminded of a post from another thread where she blatantly lied rather than admit to a typo.
Click to expand...

Not an error. I was the one who read the article. It was my opinion that the correspondent must have had contacts on the German front line to have written it. I am entitled to have an opinion. I don't see how else he got the story.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Not at all. Estonia was allowed to use the manual buoys until they expired and needed routine replacement. As we're other ships.
Click to expand...

Trying a new angle? Do you have a specific citation that said passenger ships were categorically exempt from IMO CHAPTER III regulations, as per amendment 1988 arising from the 1987 Herald of Free Enterprise inquiry, and becoming mandatory by August 1993?


In addition, prove that a manually-activated-only buoy is placed in a bracket with an HRU.
 
Andy_Ross said:
For a good and thorough overview I recommend The Secret War: Spies, Codes and Guerrillas 1939-1945 by Max Hastings.

It will leave you in no doubt as to why Vixen's ideas on British spies on the front line at Stalingrad, or anywhere else for that matter is laughable.
Click to expand...

I didn't say the correspondent specified a location.

Anyway, I've ordered it as it is quite cheap here.
 
JayUtah said:
No. The design program began in 1973. The system was considered in development all through the 1980s (although early commercial use was allowed to U.S. airlines) and not considered operational until the 1990s. Sea navigation had heavily invested in LORAN and held onto it until the mid to late 1990s. It's ludicrous to supposed GPS would have been required for ships in, say, 1994.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they were. I was pointing out to the poster who thought maritime radio communications in respect of VHF installment on ships in particular or free-floating automatic EPIRB beacons were somehow NEW in 1999 was quite misconceived.
 
Vixen said:
I didn't say the correspondent specified a location.
Click to expand...


You said:
Vixen said:
...
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.
...
Click to expand...
Which German front line did The Times have reporters on?
 
lobosrul5 said:
Lol your own link has a map of the Axis powers with... Finland as one of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers#/media/File:Map_of_participants_in_World_War_II.svg

I actually would disagree with this. It was a separate alliance, and Finland never signed the Tripartite Pact. But a majority of Finnish historians surveyed in 2008 agreed that Finland HAD AN ALLIANCE with Nazi Germany during the Continuation War.

https://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/art-2000004606365.html

But you do you. Go on being confidently incorrect to godlike levels. Please keep on telling us that buoys going back to 1988 had GPS capabilities, and pretend that Andy Ross didn't know that Italy was a member of the Axis by pointing out that they sent a relatively small contingent to fight against the Soviets.
Click to expand...

For once I am impressed. You managed to discern a trendy academic historian revision of history on wikipedia. Historians interpret history and we have to remember, the winning side calls the shots. Thus, it was USSR that made sure Finland was 'named and shamed' in the Paris Treaty. The PM at the time, Risto Ryti was also imprisoned. Most Finns believe, unfairly. Yes, 16 out of 28 historians in 2008 in a quick poll agree it was 'an alliance' but the fact 12 did not or were unsure highlights the difference of opinion in this area and how opinion shifts over time.

Think about it. Your country allied with Stalin, as big a P.O.S. as Hitler.
 
Vixen said:
I didn't say they were. I was pointing out to the poster who thought maritime radio communications in respect of VHF installment on ships in particular or free-floating automatic EPIRB beacons were somehow NEW in 1999 was quite misconceived.
Click to expand...

Will you ever admit to a mistake? You said:

Vixen said:
GPS had been in use by the USA since 1973.
Click to expand...


Which is, as was pointed out to you, blatantly wrong.
 
https://gmdsstesters.com/radio-survey/epirb/evolution-of-epirb-testers.html

Since 1998 beacons with GPS were presented on the market. So the manufacturers of beacon testers faced a new challenge - to update their devices and its firmware to support the coordinates decoding, which allowed them to test the GPS module performance (previously, the coordinates of emergency beacons were determined using the Doppler effect only).

Vixen, would you like to drop your assertation that GPS was not only available, but mandatory, in 1994 or would you like to keep on being confidently incorrect?
 
lobosrul5 said:
Then you need to learn to be more succinct. You were using "eye rolling emoji's" at the very idea that Finland and Nazi Germany were co-belligerents during the Continuation War.
Click to expand...

You misread. I clearly said I was quoting Erwnl who used the term 'co-belligerent' together with an eye roll and a 'wink wink'.

Not my eye roll. His eye roll.
 
zooterkin said:
Will you ever admit to a mistake? You said:




Which is, as was pointed out to you, blatantly wrong.
Click to expand...

I was pointing out to the poster that GMDSS was nothing new. That the USA had been using GPS since 1973 and that radio communications had been used in the maritime industry for a hundred years. He seemed to think GMDSS was a new standard in 1999, when in fact every passenger ship and other relevant vessel already had been using VHF installments and VHF channels for years. The 1999 IMO GMDSS was simply a harmonization of existing standards. The only thing that was new was the Chapter IV change in regulation that required a trained and fully qualified, certified, inspector on every relevant vessel to ensure conformity with GMDSS standards.

The standards were set in 1988 as per IMO CHAPTER III pursuant to the Herald of Free Enterprise inquiry of 1987 and which stated that all relevant vessels must have free-floating automatic EPIRB's by August 1993.
 
lobosrul5 said:
https://gmdsstesters.com/radio-survey/epirb/evolution-of-epirb-testers.html

Since 1998 beacons with GPS were presented on the market. So the manufacturers of beacon testers faced a new challenge - to update their devices and its firmware to support the coordinates decoding, which allowed them to test the GPS module performance (previously, the coordinates of emergency beacons were determined using the Doppler effect only).

Vixen, would you like to drop your assertation that GPS was not only available, but mandatory, in 1994 or would you like to keep on being confidently incorrect?
Click to expand...

I've never said GPS was mandatory in 1994. If you recall, I corrected you when you erroneously referred to the MV Estonia free-float automatic beacons as 'GPS' compliant.
 
Vixen said:
For once I am impressed. You managed to discern a trendy academic historian revision of history on wikipedia. Historians interpret history and we have to remember, the winning side calls the shots. Thus, it was USSR that made sure Finland was 'named and shamed' in the Paris Treaty. The PM at the time, Risto Ryti was also imprisoned. Most Finns believe, unfairly. Yes, 16 out of 28 historians in 2008 in a quick poll agree it was 'an alliance' but the fact 12 did not or were unsure highlights the difference of opinion in this area and how opinion shifts over time.

Think about it. Your country allied with Stalin, as big a P.O.S. as Hitler.
Click to expand...

A majority of Finnish historians consider it an alliance. Finland signed the Anti-Comitern pact. They voluntarily allowed German troops in their country with express permission to attack the Soviet Union. They planned operations with them. It was an alliance by any coherent definition of the word 'alliance' . That Finland had justification for attacking the USSR, that they didn't participate in the Holocaust, and they didn't join the war against the West are also, all true statements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom