The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Vixen]

If it wasn't there at the time why would it be in the report?

Sorry, are you saying a submarine collided with it whilst it was on the sea bed? So how come it wasn't reported?

Why would the case be reopened if they already know what caused the hole and the explanation is innocuous?

 

[Vixen]

I didn't urge you to change anything, I agreed with others that the thread had veered into CT territitory, and should be moved to the subforum where it now resides.

My main point was that your list of questions was addressed to people making a claim that no one had made, otherwise known as a strawman.

And I should have moved it, how?

 

[Andy_Ross]

There was some kind of generator that caused lights to come on automatically. The ship was fully lit up as it sank stern first. Witnesses state this.

Then they were mistaken. If the main power failed all that would have been on would be emergency lights in passageways and the navigation lights.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Sorry, are you saying a submarine collided with it whilst it was on the sea bed? So how come it wasn't reported?

Why would the case be reopened if they already know what caused the hole and the explanation is innocuous?

Again with the submarine colliding with it.

Why not just claim Godzilla?

 

[Vixen]

First paragraph of chapter 6 in the final report.



Table 7.8 in chapter 7 lists the number of survivors brought to each hospital.

The survivors dispute this. They are claiming at the most, they had a quick phone call. Hardly a face-to-face 'interrogation'.

I can't find the table you mention but without the names of the persons, it means little. Were they all identified? Were some unidentified? Some may not have had proper tickets and thus were not on the passenger list.

From what I gather, a comprehensive list of the names of the survivors and of the recovered dead has never been provided.

 

[Vixen]

Then they were mistaken. If the main power failed all that would have been on would be emergency lights in passageways and the navigation lights.

Emergency lights.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

The survivors dispute this. They are claiming at the most, they had a quick phone call. Hardly a face-to-face 'interrogation'.

Irrelevant if the question is one of accounting for people.

I can't find the table you mention but without the names of the persons, it means little. Were they all identified? Were some unidentified? Some may not have had proper tickets and thus were not on the passenger list.

From what I gather, a comprehensive list of the names of the survivors and of the recovered dead has never been provided.

You haven't gathered very much.

https://web.archive.org/web/20041207162431/http://muhu.www.ee/ms_estonia/paastetud.html

And I don't know what to say about your not being able to find a table in the final report. Here's the link I used:


https://web.archive.org/web/2004062...nettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt07_2.html#1

Whether the interview in question was "adequate" isn't really the point here. The point is that the number of people the various ships and helicopters reported pulling out of the water matches the number of people admitted to hospitals when they landed, and the number of people the JAIC subsequently contacted for statements. There are no missing nine crew members.

Speaking of comprehensive lists, do you have a "comprehensive list" of the "Estonia Nine"? Can you find whether they are or are not on the final list?

 

[Steve]

I'll bear it in mind. Thanks for sharing your opinion of my various shortcomings with me. As for myself, I am far too polite to return the compliment.

Well you are the one who claimed "As I say, objectivity is my middle name." I merely said that the preponderance of evidence is to the contrary. If you view that as a shortcoming then it is your issue, not mine.

The thread is really not about you anyway. It would be interesting to see some objective claims made and sourced so that they can be properly discussed. Things like "some people say" and "some people are resentful" have no objectivity attached to them and are, along with just asking questions, rightfully and easily dismissed.

 

[Steve]

First paragraph of chapter 6 in the final report.



Table 7.8 in chapter 7 lists the number of survivors brought to each hospital.

Hmm, evidence. Who would have thought!

The survivors dispute this. They are claiming at the most, they had a quick phone call. Hardly a face-to-face 'interrogation'.

I can't find the table you mention but without the names of the persons, it means little. Were they all identified? Were some unidentified? Some may not have had proper tickets and thus were not on the passenger list.

From what I gather, a comprehensive list of the names of the survivors and of the recovered dead has never been provided.

Hmm, unevidenced opinion and straw grasping, with a little goalpost moving. Not something to be expected from someone whose middle name is Objectivity.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Emergency lights.

Which is far from fully lit. they work off batteries.

 

[Steve]

Which is far from fully lit. they work off batteries.

I wonder if our correspondent has ever experienced emergency lighting in a dark building during a power failure.

 

[JayUtah]

Send a PM and I might consider it.

I don't accept private evidence for public claims. If you're claiming to be an expert on memory as it relates to witnesses in an investigation, and basing an argument on that premise which you expect others to accept, then you're responsible for substantiating that claim to their satisfaction.

Would you at least summarize Loftus for us, please, on the point you raised?

You fail to understand it is not me who has brought about the investigation. I don't have to produce anything.

Whereas somehow your critics are on the hook to substantiate to you their positions challenging your claims. If you're advocating in this forum regarding the validity of an investigation, then of course you're responsible to produce evidence and argument. You seem to want to advocate a point, but only insofar as it requires only the small effort you're willing to undertake. If your argument in favor of the new investigation begins and ends with your ipse dixit, then why attempt to discuss it with anyone?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

How do you work it out that there must be military trucks on the M/S Estonia on the night of the accident?

Maybe I'm misunderstand the conspiracy theory. Wasn't the whole point of bringing up the military equipment to insinuate that they were on the Estonia that night, and that it was sunk as part of some cloak-and-dagger intrigue to prevent its tippy-top secret cargo from reaching its destination?

I will get into my listening pose as to how that would have anything to do with some kind of collision from without.

Actually, you should be get into your explaining pose and explain why the military trucks are relevant at all. You brought them up, after all.

Eyewitness survivor, Sara Hedrenius reported seeing last minute military trucks loaded at the time, together with guys in military gear. The ship was late leaving and she was watching over the railings as one does.

Oh, so *are* insinuating that there was tippy-top secret military equipment on the Estonia that night. Otherwise, what relevance does any of this have?

Of course, this was 'nonsense' so the JAIC left this key observation out.

Why is it a "key observation". What would it suggest, and why is it even relevant?

Ten years later, thanks to a customs officer coming forward, it turned out that the Swedes had indeed been doing this. So Ms Hedrenius didn't have a faulty recollection, after all.


The customs officer was on holiday 28 Sept but vouched for 14th September and the 20th.

So why was the Estonia sunk on the 28th?

 

[Vixen]

Irrelevant if the question is one of accounting for people.



You haven't gathered very much.

https://web.archive.org/web/20041207162431/http://muhu.www.ee/ms_estonia/paastetud.html

And I don't know what to say about your not being able to find a table in the final report. Here's the link I used:


https://web.archive.org/web/2004062...nettomuustutkinta.fi/estonia/chapt07_2.html#1

Whether the interview in question was "adequate" isn't really the point here. The point is that the number of people the various ships and helicopters reported pulling out of the water matches the number of people admitted to hospitals when they landed, and the number of people the JAIC subsequently contacted for statements. There are no missing nine crew members.

Speaking of comprehensive lists, do you have a "comprehensive list" of the "Estonia Nine"? Can you find whether they are or are not on the final list?

Thanks, RO. There is a list somewhere showing this. I'll have to search it.

 

[junkshop]

And I should have moved it, how?

I didn't ask, urge, order cajole, request or suggest for you to move it. I agreed with other posters that the mods may wish to move it.

Apparently at least one of them also agreed.

 

[Vixen]

I don't accept private evidence for public claims. If you're claiming to be an expert on memory as it relates to witnesses in an investigation, and basing an argument on that premise which you expect others to accept, then you're responsible for substantiating that claim to their satisfaction.

Would you at least summarize Loftus for us, please, on the point you raised?



Whereas somehow your critics are on the hook to substantiate to you their positions challenging your claims. If you're advocating in this forum regarding the validity of an investigation, then of course you're responsible to produce evidence and argument. You seem to want to advocate a point, but only insofar as it requires only the small effort you're willing to undertake. If your argument in favor of a new investigation begins and ends with your ipse dixit, then why attempt to discuss it with anyone?

I didn't say I was an expert. I said I did a dissertation on memory (academic). I am quite aware that eye witness accounts can be faulty. These types of experiments tend to revolve around how many people spotted the gorilla whilst they counted a basketball being bounced around by a team, or similar party tricks. Also key are events that happen towards the beginning or a sequence or the end. HOWEVER, when it comes to traumatic incidents, actually your memory is likely to be OVER-vivid coming to hit you as 'flashbacks'. This is seen in post-traumatic stress disorder. For example, soldiers from war zones, whenever they hear a loud noise may trigger unpleasant memories of gunshot in the war zone. If an event has an emotional impact on a survivor (as a rapidly sinking ship will and seeing your fellow passengers vanish before your eyes, presumed drowned, then you are likely to remember events clearly, as though in slow motion. It is nonsense to claim the passenger survivors' memories might be poor when the reverse is probably true.

I am not going to summarise Loftus because I am not interested enough in her work to look at it right now. I might do some time.

 

[Vixen]

I didn't ask, urge, order cajole, request or suggest for you to move it. I agreed with other posters that the mods may wish to move it.

Apparently at least one of them also agreed.

Then what was with the grand standing?

 

[Steve]

Then what was with the grand standing?

Oooh, another strawman.

 

[junkshop]

Then what was with the grand standing?

What?

 

[Vixen]

Maybe I'm misunderstand the conspiracy theory. Wasn't the whole point of bringing up the military equipment to insinuate that they were on the Estonia that night, and that it was sunk as part of some cloak-and-dagger intrigue to prevent its tippy-top secret cargo from reaching its destination?



Actually, you should be get into your explaining pose and explain why the military trucks are relevant at all. You brought them up, after all.



Oh, so *are* insinuating that there was tippy-top secret military equipment on the Estonia that night. Otherwise, what relevance does any of this have?



Why is it a "key observation". What would it suggest, and why is it even relevant?



So why was the Estonia sunk on the 28th?

Investigative journalist Henrik Evertsson discovered a hole in the hull from sending down a ROV (robotic observer). He then went to various independent experts, including a military explosives expert, experienced in marine explosions and a marine physicist and professor, Jorgen Ahmdahl. The explosives boff from the appearance of the hole didn't think it was an explosion. Professor Amdahl did various calculations. Having initially said the hole could have been caused by the bow visor falling off, said his findings based on physics equations seemed to indicate a force of either for example a 1,000tonne fishing vessel collision at 5 knots or a 5,000 tonne submarine at 1.9 knots (obviously there are a whole range of weights and speeds that would deliver such an impact). Amdahl pointed out that the bow visor weighed only 55 tonnes so in his expert opinion, could not have caused the damage.

Like myself, Evertsson is neutral but wants to understand what caused the hole in the hull and the implications.

Let's say for example the Russians found out about Sweden sneaking out its defence secrets on the Estonia. Thanks to Stalin, 25% of Estonia's population is Russian. Estonia became independent 1991. As you know, with a crew off almost 150, some of them will shoot off their mouths in bars and the Russians found out about the Swedish intelligence activities.

There doesn't have to be any military equipment on board at all for some rogue ex-KGB type to take revenge. Perhaps as a way of saying, 'You thought 1,000 civilian passengers would be a human shield, huh? Well we'll prove you wrong!'

I don't think anyone is claiming there were bombs in the trucks. Who knows what the truth is. However, you have seen planes ruthlessly shot down over the Ukraine and British ships threatened in the Black Sea over Crimea. The cold war didn't stop with Gorbachov.