Try this: look up James Patterson's latest book re The Idaho 4, a quick look at 'view sample' perhaps. Now, you might hate his style of writing but you'll note he has all sorts of quotes from the relatives, friends and colleagues of the murdered victims. Think hard, JesseCuster, think hard. How did Patterson get those quotes when the subjects of his book are (sadly) deceased?
They were taken away by the submarines that left the tracks.
You are simply providing your own 'alternative view'. Andy Meister was head of the JAIC and it was the JAIC's remit to investigate the disaster. That is what they were appointed to do! Settling for a 'strong wave' unproven hypothesis was abnegating their duty. They weren't supposed to guess. "Oh well, we can't agree, and the police and the naval divers won't tell us anything, so we'll just do a descriptive narrative for a peaceful life".
Please explain.
Already done, many times. Read this thread and previous parts thereof.
I don't understand, if I read a sample of James Patteron's book re The Idaho 4, will it explain how Jack Nelson's Flashes in the Night (a "harrowing life-or-death survival epic") contains accurate information about Aleksandr Voronin? I don't care how James Patterson (never heard of him before) gets quotations for some book I've never heard about. I'm interested in what your claimed source, Flashes in the Night, by Jack A Nelson, actually says about Voronin's weight and health and why it's a reliable source. You've quoted a few sentences from the book, but nothing that actually says he was very unfit or grossly overweight or had already had multiple strokes and heart attacks.
I'll bear it in mind.
Yes. And Nokia is Finish. But there were around 1 million cell phone users in Europe. However, there were a thing. I stand corrected. [see how easy that was?]
Do you know where the "245 lb" figure for Voronin's weight came from or not?
Asked and answered. While they may not strictly be conspiracy theorists, they were hired by an engineering company implicated in a major disaster. This is fairly common in the industry. Their job was to salvage Meyer Werft's reputation by casting doubt on the official narrative.
Meister left the JAIC in a conspiratorial pique and then wrote a book that seems to contain significant errors and speculation, based on your representation of it.
They did not guess. You are not even the slightest bit qualified to determine whether a forensic engineering investigation was done properly.
The explanation is that in several hundred pages of debate in this thread alone, plus hundreds of other pages discussing other tragedies and their ensuing forensic examination, we who are professionally qualified or otherwise experienced in such matters have tested your knowledge of the relevant sciences, procedures, and methods and have found you not only lacking any credible expertise in them but lacking also the level of understanding a typical lay person would possess. You are in no way, shape, or form knowledgeable enough to determine whether expert investigators have performed their jobs correctly. You are simply arrogantly assuming an understanding you cannot demonstrate and then whining petulantly when people point this out to you.
The bow visor is quite visible from the bridge when raised and obstructs the view forward from the bridge. Your ridiculous suggestion that it was raised—and the ramp lowered—in a storm to offload an allegedly problematic truck is patently absurd.
It explains how skilled biographers and historians engage readers by obtaining quotes - from letters, court files, school reports, etc - and that it is a well-respected genre. The fact Alexander Voronin's son, Vassili - who also went through a terrible ordeal - was obviously the person who supplied the details of how they escaped the ship. It would be considered highly unethical to make up fake quotes.
You haven't yet. This discussion has gone in endless circles because you are demonstrably unable to recall what you have said before, what others have said before, what your sources say, and which sources you're going to embrace or disavow on any given day. Since we are forbidden to speculate on what possible cognitive decline on your part might account for this (aside from your admission to having a poor memory), we have to assume it is either careless or willful and therefore that your contribution is bereft of any good faith. Whatever the case, there is no reason to hope you will bear anything in mind.
So, the 245 lb claim. Is that a fake quote or a real quote? Where did you get it from?
We're not talking generally about "skilled biographers and historians." We're talking about what your source was for a specific claim you have made several times now. Deflecting specific objections with glittering generalities doesn't work. You either have a source for the claim that Voronin weighed 245 pounds or you do not. If you do not, then continuing to play games is not arguing in good faith.
