The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Jack by the hedge]

You own your experiences. If you are in an accident, you can only relate your experience of it. If you felt a collision or heard an explosion or felt yourself suddenly stopping, who am I to tell you you didn't experience any of those things?

I have no problem with a witness saying it felt like the ship suddenly stopped while I also consider it extraordinarily unlikely that the ship literally stopped. Clearly the witness had no point of reference to tell if the ship had stopped. It's not like being in a car crash where you can see your stationary surroundings and tell that car had stopped. I'm not going to be shamed into accepting that the witness must have been literally correct because he was brave.

 

[LondonJohn]

Do bravery and courage make one better at sensing whether a ship has stopped? I get that the report indicates he was thrown forward. But he's inside a cabin in a ship at sea in a storm at night. He has no reference. No way to tell if the ship has stopped.

This talk of the Estonia "coming to a sudden stop" is so ridiculous to anyone who does understand the laws of physics.

In general terms, the only things that might have brought that ship to a sudden stop would have been along the lines of: 1) colliding with solid ground (eg the ship hitting shoreline cliffs or running aground on submerged rocks); or 2) hitting a similar-sized ship (travelling at a similar speed, in the opposite direction) head on (ie bow to bow); or 3) ramming an extremely large & heavy ship (eg a fully-laden oil tanker) broadside.

None of those things (nor anything remotely similar) happened in this instance. There is zero possibility that the Estonia came to a sudden stop - or, indeed, that the Estonia experienced any significant sudden deceleration at all.

 

[Vixen]

A literal interpretation of Övberg's testimony cannot be reconciled with a collision with a 5,000-tonne submarine according to physical law. I don't have to apply a value judgment either to the witness or to the testimony in order to note that the evidence cannot be explained by a proffered hypothesis.



The credibility of a witness is measured solely in the degree to which their report coincides with what actually happened, and with objectively obtained evidence. Their courage or bravery has nothing to do with it. I can look critically at their testimony and attempt to reconcile it with what can be known by other means without having to comment on their character.

You, in contrast, seem to want certain eyewitness testimony to be taken as literally and incontrovertibly true, including all the attendant interpretation and inference, and that anything other than that is an attack on the character of the witness. That is simply not how a credible forensic investigation occurs.



I dismiss the literal interpretation of the witness you cite as evidence of the submarine collision you've hypothesized to explain it by the simple fact that it's physically impossible. I have no problem believing that the witness exaggerated his perception of whether the ship actually ceased forward motion. I have no problem with the witness simply having been jolted off his feet by the unexpected motion of the ship. These are not disrespectful interpretations, in light of other evidence. This does not call his character or fitness into question.

As to the science, you've made it plain you have no use for science that doesn't confirm your beliefs, and you have no problem defaming the experts who disagree with you. It's therefore rather disingenuous that you're trying to trump up an emotional argument for why we should consider eyewitness claims paramount.

Sorry but my belief that Dr Loftus' theories have nothing or little to do with this incident is not defamation. Her theory is that false memory occurs when something is long past, such as child sex abuse, or when someone is interrogated by police and they are urged to 'remember'. In those cases, she argues, the human mind fills in gaps in memory and that is how they become false memories. Now we can see this with the surviving crew. They were interviewed six or seven times, and one, Silver Linde actually changes his story a few times, and each of them seem to add new things each time they were interviewed, often over two or three years. The passenger survivors gave their eye witness statements whilst in hospital and visited by the police. Unlike the crew, the memory was fresh in their minds, they were not pressed to 'remember' , had no motive to paint themselves in a good light, as did the crew, were quite independent of each other, unlike the crew, came from a random sample of the general population and included four police officers who lost 66 of their police colleagues. They were never contacted again and not by the JAIC, either, except one or two reported a quick phone call (which the JAIC labelled as extensive interviews). So, you see, my criticism of applying Dr Loftus' theory of false memory to the survivor passengers is not defamation and your insistence that I apply her theory of false memory to the Estonia survivors is pure conceit on your part.

 

[Vixen]

If your claim is that what the witness saw was a 5,000-tonne submarine that had just collided with Estonia hard enough to stop it, then how fast would that submarine need to have been traveling in order to do that? How could impact with the side of a ship slow its forward progress?

Eyewitness testimony must be reconciled with other evidence. You can't simply pretend physics doesn't exist just so you can feel righteously in solidarity with survivors.

If you recall Professor Amdahl suggested a 1,000 tonne submarine travelling at 5 knots. (Knots are roughly equivalent to miles per hour.) We know the Russians were very into mini subs and slimline subs (Komsomelets-style K-178 and Whisky glass iirc) and were caught snooping around on quite a few occasions. One Swedish captain said he knew Russians attached mini-subs to his ship and whilst he unloaded they detached to spy on him and then reattached themselves when he sailed off again.

So not as unlikely as you might want to claim.

 

[JayUtah]

Professor Jørgen Amdahl, an expert in marine collisions, estimated that if it was 5,000 tonnes in weight, it will have been travelling at 1.9 knots...

That was his estimate in order to cause the damage he was shown, which he interpreted to be evidence of a collision. That is not the speed a 5,000-tonne submarine would need to be traveling in order to stop an 18,000-tonne ship dead in its tracks. That's a computation Prof. Amdahl did not perform and did not report.

He decisively ruled out a bow visor weight 55 tonnes could have made that type of damage.

I showed my own calculations, which you did not address.

Yet JayUtah thinks Professor Amdahl doesn't know what he is talking about.

No, I claim you don't know what you're talking about, and that includes misrepresenting the question Prof. Amdahl was asked to answer. You're taking the answer he gave to one question and pretending it also must answer the other. You are the one conflating two dissimilar ideas.

With respect to Prof. Amdahl in general, if he wants to publish his findings in the usual way, I will be happy to review them. As Evertsson presented it, it's not of much scientific value because too much information is missing. This is why we generally don't do science by documentary.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Survivor eye witness, Carl Ovberg related that he saw the military vehciles being loaded onto the ferry

Do you have a reference for this please? The only one I could find is a conspiracy theory site and there it claims Ovberg said he saw a military escort for two trucks, and it was the trucks (and not the military vehicles) which boarded the ferry. It goes on to speculate a connection to "secret space weapons" which it also suggests Estonia was carrying, so it would be nice to have a credible source instead.

 

[JayUtah]

If you recall Professor Amdahl suggested a 1,000 tonne submarine travelling at 5 knots.

Again, that was a very broad range of masses and velocities which would have produced another broad range of kinetic energies, which I discussed thoroughly earlier. But those were the parameters needed to cause the damage to the ship, if the damage is interpreted as a collision impact. They are not the parameters by which a collision would have stopped the ship dead. That's a different sort of calculation and involves completely different numbers. Prof. Amdahl was not asked to compute the masses and velocities that would have stopped the ship dead; he was asked to compute the masses and velocities consistent with the kinetic energy that would have produced the wound he was shown.

And yes, I was a sailor. I don't need to have you explain what a knot is.

So not as unlikely as you might want to claim.

You're not competent to determine that on your own.

 

[Vixen]

I have no problem with a witness saying it felt like the ship suddenly stopped while I also consider it extraordinarily unlikely that the ship literally stopped. Clearly the witness had no point of reference to tell if the ship had stopped. It's not like being in a car crash where you can see your stationary surroundings and tell that car had stopped. I'm not going to be shamed into accepting that the witness must have been literally correct because he was brave.

Ovberg was very exact and precise. He said 'momentarily' stopped. Now when there is a collision in which you are stopped albeit momentarily, that indicates something has impeded your path. For example a sleeping policeman when driving along a road. And if it is a head-on collision of course you will stop or be flung backwards or sideways.


Of course eyewitnesses are mistaken oftentimes. However, if a whole bunch of witnesses independently of each other in the same accident agree on certain points then it can't be dismissed so easily.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Professor Jørgen Amdahl, an expert in marine collisions, estimated that if it was 5,000 tonnes in weight, it will have been travelling at 1.9 knots, or as speed and weight are inversely proportional, at the other end of the possible scale of what caused such an impact, it could be something weighing 1,000 tonnes moving at 5 knots.

As already pointed out (and IIRC I pointed it out first) those two examples would have neither the same momentum nor the same kinetic energy. I am going to be charitable and assume that Professor Amdahl was using examples and not actually specifying a range, and that it is you who are mangling it. Because if he really said that those two scenarios are *equivalent* and define the same requirements, then he has forgotten his education and training.

He decisively ruled out a bow visor weight 55 tonnes could have made that type of damage.


Yet JayUtah thinks Professor Amdahl doesn't know what he is talking about.

If Professor Amdahl thinks that a 5000 tonne vessel at 1.9 knots strikes with the same impact as a 1000 tonne vessel at 5 knots, then no, he does not know what he is talking about.

If Professor Amdahl thinks that a 5000 tonne vessel moving at 1.9 knots can stop a 15000 tonne ferry at 14 knots in its tracks, then no, he does not know what he is talking about.

 

[JayUtah]

He said 'momentarily' stopped.

What exactly does that mean in physical terms? That the ship stopped all forward motion for a brief time, and then started moving forward again? That the ship merely decelerated suddenly?

What does that phrase indicate to you as a hypothetical graph of velocity over time? Draw the graph, if necessary. It's essential that we agree on what is meant by the witness's statement.

And if it is a head-on collision of course you will stop or be flung backwards or sideways.

But that's not "momentary" stop, except perhaps in the sense that your velocity drops to zero in a "moment." If you're stopped, you stay stopped until something propels you again.

Of course eyewitnesses are mistaken oftentimes. However, if a whole bunch of witnesses independently of each other in the same accident agree on certain points then it can't be dismissed so easily.

Another say-so from someone who already admitted no prior training or experience in the relevant fields.

 

[JayUtah]

If Professor Amdahl thinks that a 5000 tonne vessel at 1.9 knots strikes with the same impact as a 1000 tonne vessel at 5 knots, then no, he does not know what he is talking about.

If Professor Amdahl thinks that a 5000 tonne vessel moving at 1.9 knots can stop a 15000 tonne ferry at 14 knots in its tracks, then no, he does not know what he is talking about.

I provided the actual numbers in a post long since past.

 

[Vixen]

Do you have a reference for this please? The only one I could find is a conspiracy theory site and there it claims Ovberg said he saw a military escort for two trucks, and it was the trucks (and not the military vehicles) which boarded the ferry. It goes on to speculate a connection to "secret space weapons" which it also suggests Estonia was carrying, so it would be nice to have a credible source instead.

He is interviewed in Evertsson's documentary series. Episode 4 circa 36:12 mark.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

I provided the actual numbers in a post long since past.

So you did. Credit where credit is due. And a reminder that Vixen never pointed out anything wrong with your figures and could only rejoin with "muh expurt"

 

[JayUtah]

So you did. Credit where credit is due. And a reminder that Vixen never pointed out anything wrong with your figures and could only rejoin with "muh expurt"

You may indeed have pointed it out first. The point remains that Prof. Amdahl's findings as Evertsson reports them are problematic. He may deign at some time to publish more formal findings and show his work, but until then there is little justification in using his estimates. They're simply too broadly specified to be a useful or credible calculation of collision energy.

 

[Kid Eager]

Why is it it ludicrous? There is a massive hole in the starboard, which has almost certainly been there since Oct/Nov 1994, when the first team of divers went down to make a report (Rockwater). Don't you think the JAIC should have mentioned it and investigated it? It is not something that can be missed.

It's ludicrous because it is. Retconning a complete fabrication out of something observed, when you lack the expertise to even start the journey, is prima facie ludicrous.

If you'd like to demonstrate that it's not ludicrous feel free to list all your claims and speculations in chronological order, stating why you believe each is valid. See how far you get.

 

[Andy_Ross]

One Swedish captain said he knew Russians attached mini-subs to his ship and whilst he unloaded they detached to spy on him and then reattached themselves when he sailed off again.

So not as unlikely as you might want to claim.

Aahaha!

Was he drunk?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Ovberg was very exact and precise. He said 'momentarily' stopped. Now when there is a collision in which you are stopped albeit momentarily, that indicates something has impeded your path. For example a sleeping policeman when driving along a road. And if it is a head-on collision of course you will stop or be flung backwards or sideways.


Of course eyewitnesses are mistaken oftentimes. However, if a whole bunch of witnesses independently of each other in the same accident agree on certain points then it can't be dismissed so easily.

If the ship was stopped it would be stopped.

What could stop it 'momentarily'?

What do you think the inertia of a 15,000 ton ship moving at around 15 knots is?

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry but my belief that Dr Loftus' theories have nothing or little to do with this incident is not defamation.

But your disparagement of her as little more than a defense-witness hack is.

So, you see, my criticism of applying Dr Loftus' theory of false memory to the survivor passengers is not defamation and your insistence that I apply her theory of false memory to the Estonia survivors is pure conceit on your part.

I didn't insist that you apply her theory of false memory. I asked you to apply her theories relating to eyewitness testimony, for which she wrote the definitive textbook.

Your say-so is uninformed and irrelevant.

 

[JayUtah]

...which has almost certainly been there since Oct/Nov 1994...

How do you know that?

 

[JayUtah]

Where did I say my ideas were correct?

Where have you ever admitted you were wrong? You told your critics they were "deluded" if they didn't accept the conspiracy theory you were presenting.

I have an opinion. Look up the meaning of the word opinion.

You are making allegations of fact. Labeling them opinion doesn't change their essential nature.

I explained what my opinion was based on.

And when that basis is questioned you strenuously defend your position. Again, don't debate and then pretend you aren't debating after you get stuck.