The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

Status
Not open for further replies.
Axxman300 said:
RMS Titanic has a pair of those caused by the impact of the bow section on the ocean floor. Looks more like a stress fracture than ship-to-ship contact. And it can't be too far away from one of the ship's expansion joints.

Had the boat sank on a sunny day you might have a claim, but look at the footage from the rescue operations. That is a wicked storm in an narrow sea. IMO that ship had no business sailing in that weather.
Click to expand...

It was not a 'wicked storm'. It was only the end of September/beginning of October and absolutely par for the course. Two other RORO cruise ships were also in the Baltic, the Mariella and the Symphony. Absolute pants to say the storm was anything they can't normally handle. In a severe weather warning, they do not depart at all. They do keep an eye on the weather forecast, you know.
 
JayUtah said:
All of a sudden you seem to know a whole lot about Jørgen Amdahl's methods and motives.



I have no idea what he's willing to risk or why, or even if he considers it especially risky. I do know that the claims made on the basis of a computer simulation are woefully underspecified, and don't really support the conclusions being drawn upon them, either by him or by others. And I was kind enough to explain in rather patient detail why I think that, based on my thirty years' experience in this field. If all you can do is point back to Prof. Amdahl and insist that he must be right, then I'm afraid you're not competent to have this discussion.



But you're not actually an expert in these matters, are you? Why is your judgment important here?
Click to expand...

I haven't insisted he was right. You do know that three sovereign states have decided to review the matter and amended the Treaty so that an investigation can reexamine the wreck up until 2024? It is not down to some professor in Oslo or a Swedish guy in Gothenburg. You seem unable to grasp that that this is not about some bespectacled nerd doing computer simulations in the basement.
 
JayUtah said:
You never claim to be an expert in anything, but you argue from a position that presumes you know what you're talking about even on highly specialized subjects. You're trying to educate people on subjects you obviously know nothing about. You clearly consider yourself some kind of expert, simply by the arguments you're trying to make; they rely heavily on nothing more substantial than your say-so. Only when you're directly challenged do you belatedly disclaim any relevant expertise.



You're trying all kinds of linguistic gymnastics to say that a deformation "really" means a crack or fracture. Instead you should have said, "My mistake." But you pressed forward and doubled down on your mistake.

The other day, you claimed that it would be "nonsense" to question your assessment of the psychology behind memory and eyewitness testimony. When you were confronted with both the scientific and legal invalidity of your claim, you lashed out against people you've never heard of and accused them of being nothing more than paid shills. Why? So that you could remain comfortable in your desired narrative of the unassailability of the survivor testimony.

You simply can't fathom the idea of being wrong. This is why your thread graduated to the Conspiracy Theory section. You're not objective. You're not just an inquisitive skeptic. You're trying to push a narrative that ultimately lacks factual support.
Click to expand...

I can't see what some criminal defence psychologist who hires herself out as an 'expert witness' for people facing criminal charges, to dispute their recollections has to do with the matter of M/S Estonia. The survivors have every right to expect their narrative to be told. Who cares if accounts vary? They are not criminals facing trial and therefore have to be on the defensive or even lie flat out. What is important for an enquiry is where observations corroborate amongst a broad range of people. If of the 137 survivors (not a great number, really, once you exclude the crew, who have all been heard) most claim events happened at such and such time and such and such then happened, what is the big problem. You really don't need this Loftus woman to come along and refute that they didn't experience what they know they experienced.


It is a fact that the case has been reopened so is not just a 'conspiracy theory' or a hoax, as you claim. (Maybe Fox news doesn't mention it, but reputable newspapers will have reported it, so you can rest assured it really is happening, even if you don't like it.)
 
Vixen said:
I haven't insisted he was right.
Click to expand...

You stressed (using italics) that his findings were based on "physics equations." And just an hour or so ago you asked us whether it was credible for him to risk his professional reputation unless he was sure he was right. Was that not intended to preclude criticism of those findings? Did you not intend his claims to be taken as competent scientific authority on the subject of an alleged collision between vessels?

You seem unable to grasp that that this is not about some bespectacled nerd doing computer simulations in the basement.
Click to expand...

Straw man -- I didn't accuse him of being a basement-dwelling nerd. However, he is the authority you chose to cite. I have given you a detailed analysis of the problems with his study as you reported it. If you are not willing to address the details of my analysis, then perhaps you should just concede that you are not adequately prepared to discuss the subjects you raise.
 
Vixen said:
I can't see what some criminal defence psychologist...
Click to expand...

You have no idea who that person is. You are simply unwilling to face the fact that neither science nor the law shares the beliefs you wish to attribute to them. You're still trying to save face, and doing so at the expense of the reputations of people you hadn't heard about until I told you about them.

The survivors have every right to expect their narrative to be told.
Click to expand...

Nothing prevents them from doing that. However, the fact that they endured a traumatic experience does not ensure that their recollections have unassailable evidentiary value.

Who cares if accounts vary?
Click to expand...

Forensic engineers.

You really don't need this Loftus woman to come along and refute that they didn't experience what they know they experienced.
Click to expand...

You're still just trying to insist that their memories cannot have been distorted. That is simply not realistic.
 
JayUtah said:
You have no idea who that person is. You are simply unwilling to face the fact that neither science nor the law shares the beliefs you wish to attribute to them. You're still trying to save face, and doing so at the expense of the reputations of people you hadn't heard about until I told you about them.



Nothing prevents them from doing that. However, the fact that they endured a traumatic experience does not ensure that their recollections have unassailable evidentiary value.



Forensic engineers.



You're still just trying to insist that their memories cannot have been distorted. That is simply not realistic.
Click to expand...

...And the memories of the crew weren't distorted? That is why they gave so many different versions until their accounts tallied with each other? Nobody has ever challenged whether the crews' time lines are credible. It is taken for granted that their versions in the JAIC is how it actually happened.

However, - stop! Hey, what's that's sound, everybody look what's going down - TEN YEARS LATER the Swedish government confirms it was transporting Soviet state secrets on the Estonia passenger ferry< in September, in 1994.


WHAT?!!!

Twenty-six years later a German film crew discover a massive hole at the side of the vessel, which has no mention in the JAIC report.


Case reopened.

JayUtah: no, no, the original report was right! We must trust it. Read Loftus, she'll tell you the survivors' memories cannot be trusted! Any damage to the ship must be due to the impact when it sank and how it has deteriorated over the years...and...but...erm.
 
Vixen said:
JayUtah: no, no, the original report was right! We must trust it.
Click to expand...

Not a claim I made.

Read Loftus, she'll tell you the survivors' memories cannot be trusted! Any damage to the ship must be due to the impact when it sank and how it has deteriorated over the years...and...but...erm.
Click to expand...

Not a claim anyone is making.

Take a break. You're pretty unhinged right now.
 
Edited by xjx388: 
<SNIP> Removed response to moderated content.


Care to address the arguments I actually made instead of those you're frantically trying to cram into everyone else's mouths?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vixen said:
...And the memories of the crew weren't distorted? That is why they gave so many different versions until their accounts tallied with each other? Nobody has ever challenged whether the crews' time lines are credible. It is taken for granted that their versions in the JAIC is how it actually happened.

However, - stop! Hey, what's that's sound, everybody look what's going down - TEN YEARS LATER the Swedish government confirms it was transporting Soviet state secrets on the Estonia passenger ferry< in September, in 1994.


WHAT?!!!

Twenty-six years later a German film crew discover a massive hole at the side of the vessel, which has no mention in the JAIC report.


Case reopened.

JayUtah: no, no, the original report was right! We must trust it. Read Loftus, she'll tell you the survivors' memories cannot be trusted! Any damage to the ship must be due to the impact when it sank and how it has deteriorated over the years...and...but...erm.
Click to expand...


All right, you've uncovered Sweden's plan to steal Russian technology to build crappy, smoking diesel engines, and develop automobiles with lousy gas mileage. They've had to suffer with SAAB making quality vehicles, submarines, and jet fighters for decades.

They even have the nerve to have a website where you can buy one for your own navy:

https://www.saab.com/products/naval/submarines

Kipper-eating monsters.

Anyway, by stealing Russian technology, Sweden could finally take twelve steps backward to produce third-rate weaponry to compete with Norenco. Not everyone can afford Bofors. Plus it makes way more sense than, I don't know, BUYING Russian technology through third-parties, like Israel and the CIA do.

I should add that all submarines track surface traffic with passive sonar, and they can do this from a safe distance, and have done so since WWII.
 
Axxman300 said:
All right, you've uncovered Sweden's plan to steal Russian technology to build crappy, smoking diesel engines, and develop automobiles with lousy gas mileage. They've had to suffer with SAAB making quality vehicles, submarines, and jet fighters for decades.
They even have the nerve to have a website where you can buy one for your own navy:

https://www.saab.com/products/naval/submarines

Kipper-eating monsters.

Anyway, by stealing Russian technology, Sweden could finally take twelve steps backward to produce third-rate weaponry to compete with Norenco. Not everyone can afford Bofors. Plus it makes way more sense than, I don't know, BUYING Russian technology through third-parties, like Israel and the CIA do.

I should add that all submarines track surface traffic with passive sonar, and they can do this from a safe distance, and have done so since WWII.
Click to expand...

Spying is always smart to do, if you can do it.
At the very least it gives confirmation concerning the capabilities of the stuff your weapons are expected to be used against.
In some cases it can give new insights or fresh ideas.

What is unreasonable is for Vixen to suggest that Russia would sink a ferry, just because it was used to transport some of said technology.
What they would do, was go after the people selling or stealing, this technology.
But sinking the transport out of spite? No, I don't believe this, not without an awful lot of more evidence than what Vixen is prepared to suggest here.

You're absolutely right concerning the shadowing capabilities of submarines.
The idea that a submarine, in order to track it, would have to get so close to a noisy vessel like the Estonia, even in a storm, as to be able to collide with it, is ludicrous beyond words.

Now. Accidents between surface vessels and submarines have happened in the past. But not as a result of the submarine trying to track said surface vessel. Trying to use the surface vessel as a noise shield in order to evade a closeby marine vessel. Yes that has happened, several times even. As a result of simply tracking it? No. Not to my knowledge.
 
Vixen said:
Anything as material as that should have been mentioned in the report, if only to state it had been noted and ruled out as a cause of the accident.
Click to expand...

How could it be mentioned if it wasn't there?
 
Vixen said:
I wouldn't know about his opinions elsewhere but he is an expert in his field:
Click to expand...

He has *credentials* in his field. But even in that field he is on record making ridiculous claims such as that a ship cannot sink unless its hull is breached. He made these claims on a flatearthsociety.org thread. Yes, he has one of those, still active; it's more than 420 pages. I can link it if you insist, but I'd rather not invite anyone down that rabbit hole otherwise.

He also demonstrably lied (in that same thread) about his own professional exploits. He has repeatedly claimed that the International Maritime Organization has stated that a hull design he helped come up with for tankers was superior to a traditional double hull design; it turns out all they said was that it was an acceptable alternative to it. He persisted in that lie even after somebody linked the IMO documents in question.

He claims to have actually performed a full-scale test, on an actual boat, that allegedly proves the loss of the bow visor would not have caused the ship to sink. That would require being entrusted with a vessel of considerable size. When asked the name of the ship, he refused to name it and grew evasive, saying only that it had since been scrapped, probably because there is no such test, and he knows full well people can check naval records and catch him in that lie as well.

Bjorkman cannot be trusted in *anything*, and I'd be willing to bet that few people in his field do. You should never rely on him, since anything he says that's any good you should be able to find better in some other source.
 
erwinl said:
Spying is always smart to do, if you can do it.
At the very least it gives confirmation concerning the capabilities of the stuff your weapons are expected to be used against.
In some cases it can give new insights or fresh ideas.

What is unreasonable is for Vixen to suggest that Russia would sink a ferry, just because it was used to transport some of said technology.
What they would do, was go after the people selling or stealing, this technology.
Click to expand...

And a "rogue ex-KGB agent" probably wouldn't even do that; most likely they'd ask for a piece of the action.
 
Anders Bjorkman:

"Costa Concordia - My personal opinion - you can quote me and, please do - is that the Costa Concordia ship was used for drug smuggling between America and Europe and that things got wrong. Someone aboard sabotaged the steering gear, when the fatal, final, stupid turn took place.

M/S AL SALAM BOCCACCIO 98 - Survivors testified that they heard explosions going off just prior the capsize and when they jumped into water and explosions can be heard on the VDR just prior capsize.... Personally I believe the vessel sank due to sabotage."


He seems to have a thing for sabotage. This Heiwa Co, I'm assuming it gives itself the title "European Agency" to give some air of authenticity.

What kind of nutjob is going to enlist the services of someone who is babbling on about nukes not really working etc on their company website? I mean this sentence "The web site also publishes information about fake atomic bombs, fake human space travel and fake collapses of skyscrapers" is right on the top of the homepage.

I didn't want to click the link to find out, but what on earth is "Assbook"? o.O
 
Reformed Offlian said:
And a "rogue ex-KGB agent" probably wouldn't even do that; most likely they'd ask for a piece of the action.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Rogue (and possibly rouge as well, this used to be the USSR, after all) KGB and army men earned a lot of money, selling all kinds of technology, including complete tanks, to the West, in the years after the fall of the Iron Curtain and that of the USSR.
 
RolandRat said:
I thought Vixen was alleging the Estonia was rammed by a Swedish sub?
Click to expand...

Vixen is alleging a large number of different things - a shotgun approach to try and find some detail of the original investigation that may be overturned. Some might even say (a favorite non-committal phrase of Vixen's) suggesting a conspiracy while at the same time pretending not to. Vixen's allegations are uniformly ill considered guesswork with no actual supporting expertise. Jay Utah has recently been doing an excellent job of exposing Vixen's allegations and arguments for what they really are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom