• 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.

The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
Ah, but the report doesn't mention that.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Only those whose narrative fit their theory.
Click to expand...

This seems like an inconsistent approach to the source. On the one hand, the supposed absence from the report of a particular detail means the detail -- if asserted in some other way -- cannot be considered evidence. On the other hand, the absence of some other detail -- similarly asserted -- from the report should be considered evidence that the report is biased, and the detail should be accepted as evidence anyway.
 
JayUtah said:
This seems like an inconsistent approach to the source. On the one hand, the supposed absence from the report of a particular detail means the detail -- if asserted in some other way -- cannot be considered evidence. On the other hand, the absence of some other detail -- similarly asserted -- from the report should be considered evidence that the report is biased, and the detail should be accepted as evidence anyway.
Click to expand...

Nailed it! Describes the entire thread, from one particular point of view.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
No, let's not. The question I asked was: What if anything was suspicious about how the crew was dressed and equipped, or with their knowledge of escape procedures? Why would that indicate illicit foreknowledge of anything?

The POV of the JAIC has SFA to do with that.
Click to expand...

*I* didn't say it was suspicious. I said some people have said it was.

It goes to show the lack of confidence in the JAIC report.


Why would having a boat ready and correct clothing be suspicious before anyone knew the ship was sinking? Think about it and you will have answered your own question.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Doesn't mention what?

It mentions that noises were heard before the part actually fell off.
What else should it mention?
Click to expand...

It should include an appendix with all the witness statements including names. Everything is possible in this digital age.

From the report, for example:

A few witnesses have reported seeing the ESTONIA sink. She went down, upside down, stern first, with the fore up in the air, clearly visible at a 45-degree angle. Part of the bridge was visible, the bulbous bow being the highest point. The ship maintained this position for several minutes and then gradually turned and sank into a sea of bubbles. Several people clinging to the ship followed her down. Two witnesses in liferafts saw people still climbing and clinging to the ship's bottom or hanging onto the rail. One witness saw several people climbing on the rail which broke and they all fell into the water. Another witness stated that he could see the ship sinking but with no people visible. There was much screaming at the moment she sank, but then a sudden silence. One witness reported that the ship was illuminated as she sank, and presumed it was the moonlight.
Click to expand...
JAIC Report

Shocking!!! This is the same technique used by cod journalists writing for COSMOPOLITAN. It is the technique that uses a pseudonym, say, 'Caroline', or similar, as revealing a true life situation narrative of various women (all with fake first names), when for all the reader knows, these persons don't really exist but allows the writer to publish a load of intimate claptrap, so that the reader doesn't feel alone in the world with his or her fetish for seven-inch heels, PVC leather mini skirts and need to go swinging at the weekends, because hey! 'Caroline' right here does the same.

Some people can spot a fake report, others cannot.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Herald Of Free Enterprise enquiry had only 8 statements and 10 letters from passengers read in to the record.
No passengers were called as witnesses to give oral evidence.

It had oral evidence from 18 crew members and 31 crew depositions read.

(See appendix I)

https://assets.publishing.service.g...estigation_HeraldofFreeEnterprise-MSA1894.pdf
Click to expand...

So, in other words, you are saying the persons who took three years to write the report, completely ignoring the huge hole in the hull, were simply copying the Herald of Free Enterprise?


So the guys - whose families get millions in compensation through their lost loved ones' employers (in that case, Townsend Thoresen, who swiftly changed its name to P&O Ferries and blamed the crew) - who are deemed responsible for the tragedy (the boatswain was asleep in his cabin and forgot to shut the ramp!) get to be considered credible witnesses, whilst the passengers, whose loved ones have to fight for compensation, are not regarded as being of the slightest importance or worthy of anybody's time.


Nice.
 
There is a good German news broadcast here that describes the recent trial of investigative journalist Henrik Evertsson, who was charged in Sweden for 'breaking the peace of a grave' (the M/S Estonia filming of the hole in the hull). It is in German, but English subtitles are available if you click on the settings.



It is explained that he was acquitted - after a long two-week trial - as he was under a boat with a German flag (Germany are not signatories to the so-called Estonia Treaty) and it was international waters.

One wonders how this treaty has any bite, when the largest Baltic nation declined to sign up for it.
 
Questions for those who believe the news of the M/S Estonia being reinvestigated is 'fake news':

  1. Do you believe the hole found in the hull, as captured in pictures by a documentary filmmaker and the Estonian investigation team more recently, does not exist?
  2. Do you consider that if such a hole existed in the hull of a sunken ship, it ought not to be investigated?
  3. Do you claim it is untrue that the Swedish government admitted in 2005 some ten years after the accident that it had been transporting ex-Soviet military equipment?
  4. Are you of the opinion that the hole in the hull and the arms smuggling should continue to be censored and the new investigation should be abandoned?
  5. Would you agree that the families of the victims and the survivors are entitled to have full transparency as to why and how the accident happened?
  6. Would you say the average person is so brainwashed, even in a supposed 'sceptics' forum they are afraid to ask questions, as in China or Russia?
  7. What is it you fear about receiving new information about the M/S Estonia, when you have no apparent need for loyalty towards the governments involved?
 
Vixen said:
It should include an appendix with all the witness statements including names. Everything is possible in this digital age.

From the report, for example:

JAIC Report

Shocking!!! This is the same technique used by cod journalists writing for COSMOPOLITAN. It is the technique that uses a pseudonym, say, 'Caroline', or similar, as revealing a true life situation narrative of various women (all with fake first names), when for all the reader knows, these persons don't really exist but allows the writer to publish a load of intimate claptrap, so that the reader doesn't feel alone in the world with his or her fetish for seven-inch heels, PVC leather mini skirts and need to go swinging at the weekends, because hey! 'Caroline' right here does the same.

Some people can spot a fake report, others cannot.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it is a 'fake report'?

What is there about the section that you quoted that is 'fake'?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
"Just asking questions"
Click to expand...

Except it is not. There are also many, many, completely unfounded and unevidenced, and frankly ignorant, assertions and accusations.

As I said upthread - throwing so much **** against the wall that some small aspect might actually be found to have a shred of truth to it. That will allow our CT'ist to ignore all the rest and come back with an "I told you!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom