• 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.
Well, the Swedish government already confirmed it was real..

What *exactly* do you mean by "it" here? You definitely do not mean that the Swedish government confirmed the Russians sank the ship in retaliation for the CIA blah blah etc. Even if you mean the Swedish government admit they were involved in smuggling ex-Soviet military equipment I can't tell if that's fact or your own assumption.

Once again you are a *terrible* reporter of facts, using ambiguity to inflate your claim to a ludicrous degree. Every time you make a factual claim you make your reader work to try to glean whether you're reporting corroborated facts, speculation, misunderstanding, idle fantasy or some mixture of all of these things because you never make it clear.
 
I've known about thermal layers and other such natural phenomena since playing Sea Wolf in the 90s. I've had to apply similar understanding to work I've done in audio system design both in terms of environment (a layer of warm, moist air forms over a crowd during a show) and how this phenomena is analogous to impedance matching issues in signal flow (some energy is reflected from source to destination).

I was never aware it was the Russians who were making my job so much more difficult. I suppose some intermittent feedback can sound like sonar pings.

It all makes sense now!

I worked on A/S Frigates I was a Weapons Engineering Mechanician. We learned all about thermal and density layers.

You need someone that worked on a Minehunter for information on seabed imaging using sonar though.
 
It is not likely.

In that case, I'm not sure what the point was, that you were trying to make by listing the various types of weapons carried by the Komsomolets.

Could you clarify that, please?
 
It is not 'suspected' by anyone who thinks rationally.

Why Would the Royal Navy sink a civilian passenger vessel in someone else's territorial waters?
It's not something they would do in a war.

Maybe you can explain why the Estonia 'accident' is a classified secret with the US National Security Agency (NSA) and a simple query under the Freedom of Information Act asking why the UK is a signatory to the Estonia Gravesite Treaty is consistently ignored? Someone must have authorised it. Laws and treaties made in the UK surely have to pass through parliament and persons credited with them, yet...complete silence. Under the FOI Act, the body is obliged to release the information. So it is classified in the UK as well...?


Why would that be, if it was a straightforward accident like the Herald of Free Enterpise.

And if it turns out it is 'classified' because of US/UK involvement, then that makes your statement that the UK armed forces would never put civilians at harm rather a grim joke.
 
What would this 'transmission' be?

Where would it come from?

Changes in salinity and temperature at different depth block sonar.
Anti Submarine vessels use variable depth sonar arrays to dip down through the various blocking layers to hunt for submarines which are very good at exploiting them to avoid detection.

Don't underestimate Russian activity. Up until the fall of the Soviet Union, the Baltic region was one of the most militarised in the world (and it still controls the old Prussia region, now called Kaliningrad, which is one massive Russian military base). Likewise, the remnants of the old Paldiski Soviet base in Estonia by 1994 was one massive military junk yard, after the nuclear reactors were decommissioned. This effectively was like an Iron Curtain / Berlin Wall between East and West. Russian presence, even if unofficial is ubiquitous as was apparent from seabed tracks and acoustic signalling.

Russian military presence includes signal blocking. On the night of the accident 28 Sept 1994, the two nearby cruise liners, Viking Mariella and Silja Europa used their emergency VHF channel 16 from which they'd got the May Day to rescue centre but had to switch to Channel 2182, which covers the whole Baltic Sea. When they received no response they had to call the inland rescue centres on their mobile phones. In addition, because of this signal failure - coinciding with Estonia sinking, the Helsinki Rescue centre used a pan-pan instead of relaying the high alert one.

There was also silence at St Petersburg, at Russia's Marine Rescue Coordinating Centre, which links up to Russian and US satellites providing emergency beacon signals that send the exact coordinates of the ship in distress to the rescue centre. You recall, the Europa captain had to wait whilst third mate Tammes* had to go away and find out the coordinates, which he couldn't provide because of a 'black out'. He called back some minutes later and a voice in the background provides Tammes with the corrodinates, which in Tammes' distress he misrelay's once or twice. At this point Tammes says the ship is at 30° - 40°, within minutes it was 90°. So a whole series of totally avoidable delays because the signals were jammed. This COPSAS-SARSAT collection of satellites relay the ships location to the rescue centres. Yet on the night of the accident, just when the ship was fated to sink completely outside of radar within 26 minutes the satellite system was down.

When Jutta Rabe and Gregg Bemis made their expedition to the wreck, on approaching they discovered their GPS was suddenly unavailable. They had to use old-fashioned methods of navigation to locate the wreck, not easy as few maps provide coordinates for one object measuring 'just' 155m.

In addition, all of the Estonia emergency buoys transmitting EPIRB were mysteriously switched off on the night of the 'accident'.

The telephone company concerned said its entire network was down from 1:03 to 1:58 within the exact time frame of the accident, from the time of the bangs/collision sensation through the May Day and throughout the rapid sinking.

In addition, there was a continuous radio signal from Russia's Hoagland Island transmitter, which a Finnish commission member Heimo Iivonen believed blocked VHF international May Day channel 16.

So given the Russians' absolutely undoubted history of stealthy incursions into Swedish and Finnish waters, there is little doubt it had the technology to not only evade sonar listening posts and being registered with an acoustic signature, it likely also had techniques to block the sonar equipment of others. These secret submarine manoeuvres were not even known by Yeltsin and had nothing to do with the Russian Northern Fleet (its official navy) but was run by the KGB and its successor - which in 1991 - 1994 was one V Putin. This is how Yeltsin could categorically deny it had any vessels in the region of the Estonia - even though the Leonid Bykhof was caught just an hour later, about to run into rocks. Yeltsin likely never knew what Vladimir was up to.

So, when Rene Arikas turned up for his eight-day survey 8-16 July 2021 of the wreck for digital imaging - whoa! lo and behold! - strange difficulties in getting a proper signal, as reported in Baltic News.

Coincidence? I think not.

Whoever wanted those secrets stopped from reaching Sweden, the US and the UK, made darn sure they would not reach their destination...and took almost 1,000 innocent people with them.

*Re Tammes: we need to ask why was he using a handheld contraption to send the May Day? Where was Captain Andresson? How did Tammes manage to get the heck out of the bridge at that late stage? (His body was recovered from the sea.)
 
Last edited:
I've known about thermal layers and other such natural phenomena since playing Sea Wolf in the 90s. I've had to apply similar understanding to work I've done in audio system design both in terms of environment (a layer of warm, moist air forms over a crowd during a show) and how this phenomena is analogous to impedance matching issues in signal flow (some energy is reflected from source to destination).

I was never aware it was the Russians who were making my job so much more difficult. I suppose some intermittent feedback can sound like sonar pings.

It all makes sense now!

Best avoid smuggling Russian secrets within the Baltic region and I am sure you will be quite safe.
 
What *exactly* do you mean by "it" here? You definitely do not mean that the Swedish government confirmed the Russians sank the ship in retaliation for the CIA blah blah etc. Even if you mean the Swedish government admit they were involved in smuggling ex-Soviet military equipment I can't tell if that's fact or your own assumption.

Once again you are a *terrible* reporter of facts, using ambiguity to inflate your claim to a ludicrous degree. Every time you make a factual claim you make your reader work to try to glean whether you're reporting corroborated facts, speculation, misunderstanding, idle fantasy or some mixture of all of these things because you never make it clear.


It's no win, isn't it? If I quote sources and cite experts I am accused of having a 'superstitious' dependence on experts and science, and when I don't I am lambasted anyway. <shrug>
 
It's no win, isn't it? If I quote sources and cite experts I am accused of having a 'superstitious' dependence on experts and science, and when I don't I am lambasted anyway. <shrug>

You are expected to cite your sources. That doesn't mean the testimony of your sources is exempt from criticism and correction, including from other sources of equal authority. Your unwillingness to address challenges to the authority and correctness of your sources while simultaneously insisting that their evidence is unassailable is what earns you the criticism that you rely "superstitiously" upon them. You don't get to demand that you will cite sources only if your critics promise not to challenge them.
 
In that case, I'm not sure what the point was, that you were trying to make by listing the various types of weapons carried by the Komsomolets.

Could you clarify that, please?

I thought it an interesting detail that perhaps the Russian sub (if that is what it was) had the ability to shoot torpedoes. However, maybe the thing failed to go off or maybe it was designed to fire localised shots enough to sink a ship surreptiously.

This is how one animator imagines the submarine strike:




Maybe it was like the M/S Expess Zamina, which grazed a rock and sunk in 45 minutes. A similar scenario for Estonia could be grazing a resting sub or a mini-sub which attached itself to track the cargo. (There were no rocks in that part of the Baltic Sea were she sank, so could not have been a rock, yet several survivors report 'scraping noises', which the JAIC reported but failed to actually explain.

MS Express Samina (Greek: Εξπρές Σαμίνα) was a French-built RoPax ferry that collided with a rock off the coast of Paros island in the central Aegean Sea on 26 September 2000. The accident resulted in 82 deaths[4] and the loss of the ship. The cause of the accident was crew negligence, for which several members were found criminally liable.
wiki

Note how people were charged with criminal negligence in the case of Express Zamina, yet whoever was responsible for the Estonia tragedy has never been brought to justice or to answer for it. The Bureau Veritas who certified the ship as seaworthy will have had a detailed specification of all the faults of the Estonia yet seems to confidently hide behind state protection.

If the Estonia 'accident' was labelled 'classified' to save the face of shadowy military activity then that is despicable IMV and the agencies should now come clean.
 
You are expected to cite your sources. That doesn't mean the testimony of your sources is exempt from criticism and correction, including from other sources of equal authority. Your unwillingness to address challenges to the authority and correctness of your sources while simultaneously insisting that their evidence is unassailable is what earns you the criticism that you rely "superstitiously" upon them. You don't get to demand that you will cite sources only if your critics promise not to challenge them.

Challenge away. Have at it.
 
Russian military presence includes signal blocking. On the night of the accident 28 Sept 1994, the two nearby cruisers, Viking Sally and Silja Europa used their emergency VHF channel 16 from which they'd got the May Day to rescue centre but had to switch to Channel 2182, which covers the whole Baltic Sea. When they received no response they had to call the inland rescue centres on their mobile phones. In addition, because of this signal failure - coinciding with Estonia sinking, the Helsinki Rescue centre used a pan-pan instead of relaying the high alert one.


Hmmmmm. You stated more than once in this thread that you'd travelled on the Estonia "when it was named Viking Sally". Yet here you are saying that Viking Sally was one of the other ships near the Estonia on the night of the sinking.

Care to expand further...?


PS: none of these ships - including the Estonia - was a "cruiser" in any generally-understood meaning of that term*. They were vehicle/passenger ferries.

* In any case, the term "cruiser", in English-language usage, solely refers to a military warship. I suspect you probably meant to (mis)use the term "cruise liner".
 
Hmmmmm. You stated more than once in this thread that you'd travelled on the Estonia "when it was named Viking Sally". Yet here you are saying that Viking Sally was one of the other ships near the Estonia on the night of the sinking.

Care to expand further...?


PS: none of these ships - including the Estonia - was a "cruiser" in any generally-understood meaning of that term*. They were vehicle/passenger ferries.

* In any case, the term "cruiser", in English-language usage, solely refers to a military warship. I suspect you probably meant to (mis)use the term "cruise liner".

Erratum: Viking Mariella, now corrected.
 
It's no win, isn't it? If I quote sources and cite experts I am accused of having a 'superstitious' dependence on experts and science, and when I don't I am lambasted anyway. <shrug>


If your sources are credible, and if they've published their claims in a manner which allows for independent scrutiny and verification/criticism by accredited experts, then you're on the right track. If some or all of the above isn't the case, then your sources' claims are more-or-less worthless from the get-go.

And if you do present credible sources with properly-documented claims, where those claims have been able to be tested by objective experts then a) if the claims stand up to scrutiny, they're accepted; but b) if those claims don't stand up to scrutiny, they're rejected.

If you refuse to reveal sources at all, then it's a slam-dunk rejection of the claims.

It's called the scientific method. You should try it some time.
 
Challenge away. Have at it.

I have, plenty of times. But as others have noted, you respond to those challenges simply by repeating the credentials of the experts favorable to your beliefs and ignoring the substance of the challenge. Thus the criticism that you treat your experts "superstitiously" seems well supported by evidence. You're incapable of discussing intelligently what your expert sources actually say, which makes informed conversation with you impossible. Other times, when you rely on your own uninformed beliefs, and expert testimony contradicts you, you resort quickly to name-calling and character assassination. You simply aren't sufficiently informed to discuss the topics you raise, and you seem to have little interest in expanding your knowledge or questioning your beliefs.
 
I thought it an interesting detail that perhaps the Russian sub (if that is what it was) had the ability to shoot torpedoes. However, maybe the thing failed to go off or maybe it was designed to fire localised shots enough to sink a ship surreptiously.

This is how one animator imagines the submarine strike:



LOL. This evidence-free "animator" has the bow of the Estonia ramming a mythical surfaced submarine broadside. On top of many other humungous reasons why this couldn't/wouldn't have happened in this case..... it's rather easy for the captain of a surfaced submarine to avoid being rammed by a large ferry travelling in a slow straight line.

Next!



A similar scenario for Estonia could be grazing a resting sub or a mini-sub which attached itself to track the cargo.


"Grazing a resting sub"? :jaw-dropp

Next!


(There were no rocks in that part of the Baltic Sea were she sank, so could not have been a rock, yet several survivors report 'scraping noises', which the JAIC reported but failed to actually explain.


Cars and trucks/lorries sliding around on the flooded vehicle deck, particularly if/when they were sliding longitudinally along the inner bulkheads, would very probably have made metal-on-metal scraping noises which would have transferred throughout the metal superstructure.

Nex......... oh no, actually, no more please.
 
Don't underestimate Russian activity.

To block a radio signal you have to broadcast a more powerful signal to swamp it.
For example in WW2 the RAF used equipment called 'Airborne Cigar' It was fitted to one aircraft per bomber squadron, an extra crewman was aboard to operate it. It scanned the voice frequencies used by the German AA defences and any that were 'in traffic' would have jamming noise transmitted over them. The noise came from a microphone in one of the aircraft's engine bays.

If the Russians were broadcasting signals strong enough to block radio across the Baltic everyone would have heard it over many hundreds of square miles of sea.
It would have been heard.

Similarly, to block Sonar you have to broadcast a noise that will swamp your return echoes.
A/S Escorts I served on had a towed array that produced noise louder than the ship and stopped any subs hunting us from getting a direct fix. It would also attract any acoustic homing torpedoes away from the ship.
It would be deadly for a sub trying the same trick though as the A/S weapons we used had an area effect and anything reasonably close to the sub would overpressure the hull and destroy it.
Subs avoid being attacked by being very quiet.



You have no clue.
 
Last edited:
To block a radio signal you have to broadcast a more powerful signal to swamp it.

If the Russians were broadcasting signals strong enough to block radio across the Baltic everyone would have heard it over many hundreds of square miles of sea.

Similarly, to block Sonar you have to broadcast a noise that will swamp your return echoes.

It would have been heard.

You have no clue.
Sounds like the equipment may have not been properly calibrated to the conditions. If the calibration is off, the visualization generated by the return will essentially look like random "noise" (i.e. not an accurate 3d model).
 
Maybe you can explain why the Estonia 'accident' is a classified secret with the US National Security Agency (NSA) and a simple query under the Freedom of Information Act asking why the UK is a signatory to the Estonia Gravesite Treaty is consistently ignored? Someone must have authorised it. Laws and treaties made in the UK surely have to pass through parliament and persons credited with them, yet...complete silence. Under the FOI Act, the body is obliged to release the information. So it is classified in the UK as well...?

The answer to that one is easy: The NSA's operations are all clandestine making everything they do "SECRET" by default.

In this case, the NSA obviously monitors friendly counties like Sweden, Norway, Finland, the UK, and Germany which is awkward. Releasing the file could reveal to what extent we listen to their communications, which would be more awkward.

The NSA eavesdrops, they record communications. They are mostly passive in their collection activities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom