• 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.
Surface: 1,040 tons
Submerged: 1,150 tons

Smaller than the largest of the Swedish boats.

Still no 5000 tons
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Surface: 1,040 tons
Submerged: 1,150 tons

Still no 5000 tons
Click to expand...

And wrong country.
And wrong sea.
And not one of them sunk or damaged in this time period.

But who's counting the discrepancies? ;)

On the other hand.
With a name like this class, one can imagine a scene where one of them sinks the Estonia, while emitting deafing howls, which roar like thunder! :cool:
 
RolandRat said:
Perhaps I should be consulted, my experience is as relevant as this guys. I've been on boats, I know the pointy end normally goes forward.
Click to expand...

Not only have I made dozens of crossings on passenger ferries but I've managed to throw up in awful conditions on both the Dun Laoghaire - Holyhead and Dover - Calais runs. I'm therefore claiming specific expertise about ferries in stormy weather.
 
malbui said:
Not only have I made dozens of crossings on passenger ferries but I've managed to throw up in awful conditions on both the Dun Laoghaire - Holyhead and Dover - Calais runs. I'm therefore claiming specific expertise about ferries in stormy weather.
Click to expand...

I've driven all over the U.S. in my car. My opinion should therefore be consulted on vehicle accidents. I walk a lot. I should therefore be consulted as a knowledgeable expert in accidents involving pedestrians.
 
erwinl said:
And wrong country.
And wrong sea.
And not one of them sunk or damaged in this time period.

But who's counting the discrepancies? ;)
Click to expand...

Well, I am. Still rather slow, at 11 knots surface speed. And a bow shape inconsistent with the proposed impact damage. There are some reasonably sharp angles where the pressure hull meets the decking. But they are aft of the prow. Assuming a 45-degree difference in heading, the spherical, bulbous portion below the waterline is going to impact first, below the waterline (i.e., in the blue part).
 
Last edited:
Bombs on board and submarines ramming are right up there with the 9/11 claims for mini-nukes, 'dustification' and nano-thermite.
 
RolandRat said:
This. I don't get why people post threads like this when they absolutely refuse to consider they are wrong. They don't want discussion, they want an echo chamber.
Click to expand...

In my experience they want either an echo chamber or else a chorus of boos to prove that they're being persecuted by skeptics because of their more "enlightened" beliefs. Jeers from one side are the equivalent of applause from the other.

But what puzzles me is when people pretend that they weren't ever debating after the facts don't go their way.

"Hey, how about this that I found!? You guys need to account for this! Why is this so unreasonable? You guys are afraid of this!"
"Okay, here are the facts that make that proposition unlikely."
"I was never arguing that. Why are you trying to hold me accountable for it?"

I don't know if such a passive-aggressive style of debate is intended to irritate opponents. But it has that effect. And it's fundamentally dishonest. It belies a motive for self-aggrandizement, not for the discovery of truth.

Everyone relies on outsides sources to provide evidence for or against a point in a debate. And it often happens that some proponent will be asked a question about it that he can't answer, either because the source material doesn't answer it, or because he isn't familiar enough with the source to construct an answer. The honest response in that case isn't, "Well, you'll just have to go ask so-and-so about it. Next question?"

When you invoke someone else's knowledge or expertise in your argument, that doesn't stop it from being your argument. You chose to deploy someone else's work. You chose to rely on it for your purposes. And you chose to try to hold your critics accountable for responding to it. If they manage to do so materially in a way that refutes your source or your understanding of it, you lose your argument. It doesn't matter whether a different proponent, in a hypothetical debate elsewhere with someone else, would have had more luck.

Of course it does matter in the long run if the source can be ultimately vindicated or refuted. But those debates don't happen here. "I don't know how my source would answer that challenge," means you might lose at ISF, but that's a low-stakes loss. It's a debate between ad hoc volunteers for no more profound a purpose than the amusement of the participants and onlookers.
 
JayUtah said:
Well, I am. Still rather slow, at 11 knots surface speed. And a bow shape inconsistent with the proposed impact damage. There are some reasonably sharp angles where the pressure hull meets the decking. But they are aft of the prow. Assuming a 45-degree difference in heading, the spherical, bulbous portion below the waterline is going to impact first, below the waterline (i.e., in the blue part).
Click to expand...

Yeah.
That is another one of these minor discrepancies.
The shapes of the submarines bows.
 
JayUtah said:
In my experience they want either an echo chamber or else a chorus of boos to prove that they're being persecuted by skeptics because of their more "enlightened" beliefs. Jeers from one side are the equivalent of applause from the other.

But what puzzles me is when people pretend that they weren't ever debating after the facts don't go their way.

"Hey, how about this that I found!? You guys need to account for this! Why is this so unreasonable? You guys are afraid of this!"
"Okay, here are the facts that make that proposition unlikely."
"I was never arguing that. Why are you trying to hold me accountable for it?"

I don't know if such a passive-aggressive style of debate is intended to irritate opponents. But it has that effect. And it's fundamentally dishonest. It belies a motive for self-aggrandizement, not for the discovery of truth.

Everyone relies on outsides sources to provide evidence for or against a point in a debate. And it often happens that some proponent will be asked a question about it that he can't answer, either because the source material doesn't answer it, or because he isn't familiar enough with the source to construct an answer. The honest response in that case isn't, "Well, you'll just have to go ask so-and-so about it. Next question?"

When you invoke someone else's knowledge or expertise in your argument, that doesn't stop it from being your argument. You chose to deploy someone else's work. You chose to rely on it for your purposes. And you chose to try to hold your critics accountable for responding to it. If they manage to do so materially in a way that refutes your source or your understanding of it, you lose your argument. It doesn't matter whether a different proponent, in a hypothetical debate elsewhere with someone else, would have had more luck.

Of course it does matter in the long run if the source can be ultimately vindicated or refuted. But those debates don't happen here. "I don't know how my source would answer that challenge," means you might lose at ISF, but that's a low-stakes loss. It's a debate between ad hoc volunteers for no more profound a purpose than the amusement of the participants and onlookers.
Click to expand...

I actually wouldn't see this as a loss, but as a piece of knowledge gained.
 
erwinl said:
I actually wouldn't see this as a loss, but as a piece of knowledge gained.
Click to expand...

Yes. We should always learn from "loss," loss in this case being simply having to concede a point that, in these debates, shouldn't have much emotional attachment to muddy things up. At worst, you would simply know what is going to be expected of you later if you defer to other sources in a future argument. You're better prepared to debate a point. At best, you'll learn something about the subject matter.
 
erwinl said:
And wrong country.
And wrong sea.
And not one of them sunk or damaged in this time period.
Click to expand...

It was a false flag operation!! You see Sweden realized someone had seen *gasp* a camo colored vehicle board the Estonia. Knowing that they were caught smuggling out ultra cool Soviet weapons from the 80's by taking advantage of the chaos that was Yeltsin's Russia which of course contravened.. err some international law or something... Anyways, them being best buds with Norway (VIKINGS 4EVER!), they loaded up one of their subs with a skeleton crew of ultra-patriotic Swedes willing to die for their country on demand, and rammed the Estonia. Norway of course had an extra sub of that class hidden away just for some such operation. The German shipyard that built it was paid on the sly with "black" money and of course remained quiet.

This is the conspiracy theory as I see it.
 
Maybe the crew member s that were in the lifeboat then disappeared were the escapingsub crew and were never actually aboard the ferry?
 
I'm pretty sure I saw a documentary once about the Yanks possessing some kind of technology that could make naval vessels travel in time. I'm sure they must be involved in this somewhere.
 
erwinl said:
Gentlemen.

I think you’re on to something!
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom