The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Vixen]

The theory you mention and correctly attribute to Dr Loftus is not her only theory. In more recent years she also took on false memories. Before that she dealt in the problems with eyewitness testimony and, as I've mentioned several times, wrote the definitive textbook on the subject, which is now in its second edition. The vast majority of that book discusses the essential malleability of human memory. It does not even discuss the issue of falsely implanted memories.

You did more than simply note your opinion that Loftus' more recent research doesn't directly address the kind of eyewitness testimony that the Estonia investigators relied upon. You characterized her as merely a hired gun who worked to exonerate child molesters at trial, a practice you spared no words in describing as morally reprehensible. Your objection to Loftus is not merely an intellectual difference of opinion. You're trying to undermine her credibility by any means possible, including character assassination.

In any case, I mentioned three other researchers who have done more recent research on the same topic, including the issue of vivid recall associated with PTSD and its relationship to the accuracy of testimony. You didn't even bother to acknowledge their existence.

Your common layperson's misperceptions of how memory works and how accurate witnesses are measured to be simply doesn't stand up against the weight of scientific scholarship.

Good for Dr. Loftus.

 

[JayUtah]

So now you have joined in because perhaps you don't have a mind of your own and just copy others because you enjoy the sport of haranguing the chosen prey.

Insult noted.

Consider first that your claims are being criticized because you're posting them in a forum that specializes in testing claims for factual accuracy and logical consistency. You have enough postings at this forum to know that's what its culture is. Consider that I'm not copying others; I'm making my own rebuttals and my own arguments, in my case from a position of professional competence. Consider that some people are motivated not by piling onto the designated prey, but instead by simply wanting to get at the truth. Consider also that the reason you're receiving such widespread criticism is because your arguments truly lack merit, not because your critics lack character.

Water off a duck's back.

Apparently not. You spend considerable effort complaining about how you're being treated.

I didn't say 'my' critics were deluded, I said anyone who thinks the presence of the hole in the Estonia is some kind of conspiracy theory is deluded...

And they would be, if that was the claim your critics were making. No one disputes the presence of the hole. What they're calling a conspiracy theory is your various, ever-changing hypotheses for how the hole got there. And they're right -- all the theories you've come up with for how the hole got there, and how those activities have been deliberately and nefariously covered up by government authorities, are literal conspiracy theories.

The rest of your post is quite the harangue itself. And as others have pointed out, you really do have a predilection for absurd straw-man arguments.

 

[Vixen]

Not that it matters because certain other posters don't do math, but the kinetic energy of Estonia at the time of the accident was 578MJ.

If a 5,000 ton sub hit the Estonia and stopped it, the sub would have had to be travelling at around 55km/h pretty much on the surface in bad weather.

If the imaginary sub was a 1,000 ton minisub, it was doing 122km/h on the surface in bad weather

People with knowledge in this area can spot a couple of problems pretty quickly...

If you look at this clip of Professor Amdahl form circa 38" onwards you can see his professional opinion for yourself.



Prof Amdahl does indeed either have a skip of tongue and says the hole appears to have been caused by an impact of about '500 tonnes', when he obviously meant 'MJ's' (not tonnes), or perhaps he was just trying to make it easy for the viewer to understand by saying 'tons' instead of 'MJ's'.

 

[JayUtah]

Good for Dr. Loftus.

But unfortunately bad for your claims regarding eyewitness testimony, which have been refuted by multiple scientific sources that you don't care to respect, or -- in some cases -- even look at.

 

[JayUtah]

Prof Amdahl does indeed either have a skip of tongue and says the hole appears to have been caused by an impact of about '500 tonnes', when he obviously meant 'MJ's' (not tonnes), or perhaps he was just trying to make it easy for the viewer to understand by saying 'tons' instead of 'MJ's'.

How do you know he "obviously" meant megajoules? Why are you able to second-guess your witness but your critics are not?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I was asked for my view on the matter as people were complaining they didn't know what my opinion was, so I gave it. And then people complained, who do you think you are, having an opinion?

If you can't accurately recall what occurred within just the last few days, a mere few downwards flicks of the thumb ago, your credibility sinks yet further.

As for the ridiculous claim that I never admit to being wrong, that comes from a thread under 'crime' in which a certain group of people resented that I considered the person guilty whilst they they did not, so they started a campaign of personal attack that they now follow me around with from thread to thread, disparaging me on a personal level, always the same people, so nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. It's pathetic, isn't it, that a person can't bear someone else to have a different opinion, so they take it as a great affront and think it gives them a licence to be vindictive. So now you have joined in because perhaps you don't have a mind of your own and just copy others because you enjoy the sport of haranguing the chosen prey. Water off a duck's back.

We don't have to wander off to some other thread of times gone by. But, attempted change of subject noted. Attempted positioning of self as tragic victim and mass character assassination noted.

 

[JayUtah]

A Swedish diver, Hakan Bergman, who...

Bergmark, according to the sources you quote from. Care to share the links from which you copypasted those accounts?

...claimed he was on navy standby as early as 28 September 1994 itself, said he saw and filmed a large hole on the side of the ship.

What corroborates his claim to have dived on the wreck in 1994?

This was published in Swedish newspapers as early as 1999, so it has been known of since at least then.

So Bergmark reports being "surprised" when the JAIC report came out in 1994, but he didn't tell anyone until 1999? And none of the other divers allegedly on this dive want to talk about it?

Can you reconcile his description of the hole with the photograph that Evertsson took. They differ in important ways. Can you reconcile Bergmark's allegedly experienced opinion that a bomb on the car deck blew a hole outward with Prof. Amdahl's experienced opinion that the damage was the result of a collision, resulting inward-bowing shell plating?

 

[Vixen]

Sorry for the late follow-up, but I just wanted to point out that during her career the Olympic collided with a cruiser, a submarine, and a lightship (the latter two of which sank as a result). Yet she didn't sink. So please explain to us, Vixen, exactly how the Titanic was unseaworthy.

Its specifications weren't fit for the type of conditions it encountered. The rivets in the hull simply gave way causing a breach in the hull, as triggered by hitting the iceberg.

The Titanic took four hours to sink.

One clue about the Olympia not sinking after being hit by a Uboat, is that its size was huge:

Class and type Olympic-class ocean liner
Tonnage 45,324 gross register tons; 46,358 after 1913; 46,439 after 1920
Displacement 52,067 tons
Length 882 ft 9 in (269.1 m)[2]

Whereas the Uboat, a U-103, was emerging and ready to torpedo it:

In the early hours of 12 May 1918, while en route for France with U.S. troops under the command of Captain Hayes, Olympic sighted a surfaced U-boat 500 m (1,600 ft) ahead.[94] Olympic's gunners opened fire at once, and the ship turned to ram the submarine, which immediately crash dived to 30 m (98 ft) and turned to a parallel course. Almost immediately afterwards Olympic struck the submarine just aft of her conning tower with her port propeller slicing through U-103's pressure hull. The crew of U-103 blew her ballast tanks, scuttled and abandoned the submarine. Olympic did not stop to pick up survivors, but continued on to Cherbourg. Meanwhile, USS Davis had sighted a distress flare and picked up 31 survivors from U-103. Olympic returned to Southampton with at least two hull plates dented and her prow twisted to one side, but not breached.[95]

wiki

The U-103 seems to have been very small in comparison

Class and type German Type U 57 submarine
Displacement
750 t (740 long tons) surfaced
952 t (937 long tons) submerged

wiki


Less than 1,000 tonnes. Might be a factor that enabled Olympic to limp home after repelling the attack.

 

[Vixen]

That's now how things work in this case.

Witness statements are taken, key points are plotted along a time-line, and a narrative is constructed. These statements are balanced by physical evidence. Unlike Titanic, investigators had/have access to the wreck, and can survey details to get a firm conclusion. In this case the physical evidence (the failed bolt/lock mounts, and the hood) are the center of gravity for the evidence, and the witness statements are a distant second relating to why more people didn't escape the ship (which is much more important, BTW).

Titanic survivors told conflicting stories about the ship breaking in half, and the 1912 report stated the ship sank intact. When the wreck was finally located in 1985 it was in two pieces.

I don't know a better way to illustrate how survivor testimony is not always 100% accurate since those who swore to their dying day that Titanic went down in one piece. The physical evidence proved to be different.

You can talk submarines, bombs, and whatnot all you want. You haven't shown anything which overrules the facts and we know them.

I don't see how it is a problem survivors giving conflicting accounts. I would be suspicious if the accounts were all identical. (cf JAIC)

If some survivors perceived the ship cut in half and others didn't maybe the former were just more observant on the day or nearer to the evidence, as they were right, whereas the others likely just didn't notice.

 

[Vixen]

The righteous solidarity with survivors is a sham, anyway. She doesn't show much solidarity with survivors like Sillaste whose accounts don't fit the narrative she wishes to construct. Somehow *those* survivors are villains. Their trauma, the fact that they lost comrades in the tragedy, is less important than their drug use.

On the contrary. However, their actions don't really match their words, and this is understandable, as they were under great pressure from their employers to watch what they said.

They could only report what they experienced but they were interrogated over and over again throughout the years which brought about a final concurring with the JAIC's hypothesis. The 'halo' effect.

 

[Vixen]

The report didn't "rewrite his statement" though, did it? That's just disingenuous.

The report took note of his statement, then sought inferences/explanations which both a) feasibly accounted for his stated experience and (importantly) b) feasibly matched with all of the known reliable evidence (and lack of evidence).

In this particular matter, there is zero credible evidence that there were any vessels or other large-mass objects in the waters anywhere near the Estonia at any point leading up to the sinking; and plenty of credible evidence that there were no vessels or any other large-mass objects in the waters anywhere near the Estonia at any point leading up to the sinking. And that being the case, Reintamm's experience can only have one of two realistic explanations: 1) he was mistaken about seeing anything significant in the water moving away from the ship; or 2 what he saw must have been something that had broken away from the ship.

Thus the report suggests that what he might have seen were stair rail structures which had come free from the superstructure. No biggie whatsoever.

On the other hand, I'll happily provide further grist to the conspiracy mill by noting that Reintamm has been Estonia's Consul General in St Petersburg, Russia, since 2018......

That is just not ethical. The JAIC should quote him accurately, not change an essential element of his words, which were that he saw the thing moving of its own accord and emphasised the waves caused by its motion through the water. A broken off piece of railing just floats and tosses about hither and thither in the waves. It doesn't move through the water.

Not only was it incredibly patronising for the JAIC to claim he didn't see what he considered he saw and recounted it in good faith, it was also totally inaccurate to call it 'broken stair rails', if not an outright lie.

 

[JayUtah]

That is just not ethical.

Yes it is. You are not trained or experienced in this field. Your opinion doesn't matter.

Not only was it incredibly patronising for the JAIC to claim he didn't see what he considered he saw and recounted it in good faith, it was also totally inaccurate to call it 'broken stair rails', if not an outright lie.

Nonsense. It is entirely within the purview of investigators to speculate on the identity of the object the witness claims to have seen.

Your pearl-clutching indignance does not compensate for your lack of experience in this field.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Its specifications weren't fit for the type of conditions it encountered. The rivets in the hull simply gave way causing a breach in the hull, as triggered by hitting the iceberg.
.

Why wasn't it fit for the conditions it encountered?
It was constructed in exactly the same way and from the same materials as every other passenger liner of the time.

 

[JayUtah]

I disagree with this.

Too bad. Your presumptions of how investigations are properly carried out in a field you are not trained or experienced in does not compel others to justify their behavior to you. The world is not obliged to endorse your ignorance.

...If a whole bunch of eyewitnesses claim to have seen some kind of missile hitting TWA800, even if they were mistaken, should stand as what they claim they saw and not rewritten in any way.

Stating what else could be the case instead of what the witness believes to be the case is not "rewriting" their testimony. It's the standard practice of reconciling conflicting evidence based on an analysis of how each kind of evidence could be in error.

Contrary to your opinion, it's consummately irresponsible in a forensic engineering investigation to take a witness' interpretation, speculation, or conclusion at face value without additional questioning. And in law, it's strictly forbidden.

 

[Vixen]

Too bad. Your presumptions of how investigations are properly carried out in a field you are not trained or experienced in does not compel others to justify their behavior to you. The world is not obliged to endorse your ignorance.



Stating what else could be the case instead of what the witness believes to be the case is not "rewriting" their testimony. It's the standard practice of reconciling conflicting evidence based on an analysis of how each kind of evidence could be in error.

Contrary to your opinion, it's consummately irresponsible in a forensic engineering investigation to take a witness' interpretation, speculation, or conclusion at face value without additional questioning. And in law, it's strictly forbidden.

Isn't that what the Former Soviet Union used to do? Rewrite history? So that it was the first nation to fly a plane and its biologists beat Lamarck to it.

If you gather together a bunch of eye witnesses together after an accident and ask them to relate their very recent memory of what happened, it really doesn't matter if the accounts vary. It is not the end of the world. It is to be expected.

Rewriting someone's eyewitness account because you disagree with how they saw events unfold is totally wrong.

 

[Vixen]

Why wasn't it fit for the conditions it encountered?
It was constructed in exactly the same way and from the same materials as every other passenger liner of the time.

The Victorians were very great engineers. Could have tested it for strength in the event of a collision.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Less than 1,000 tonnes. Might be a factor that enabled Olympic to limp home after repelling the attack.

"Limp home". You just can't resist massaging the facts to tell your own version.

 

[Vixen]

Bergmark, according to the sources you quote from. Care to share the links from which you copypasted those accounts?



What corroborates his claim to have dived on the wreck in 1994?



So Bergmark reports being "surprised" when the JAIC report came out in 1994, but he didn't tell anyone until 1999? And none of the other divers allegedly on this dive want to talk about it?

Can you reconcile his description of the hole with the photograph that Evertsson took. They differ in important ways. Can you reconcile Bergmark's allegedly experienced opinion that a bomb on the car deck blew a hole outward with Prof. Amdahl's experienced opinion that the damage was the result of a collision, resulting inward-bowing shell plating?

I should imagine they were covered by the Swedish version of the Offical Secrets Act. Certainly, the Rockwell divers were sworn to great confidentiality and had to certify it had destroyed all tapes of the dive in its possession after handing the original over to the JAIC.

Berman is believed to be speaking on behalf of a diver who was there but cannot speak about it due to gagging clauses, as Bergman has never been arrested (privacy laws are strong). However, it is inescapable that that he highlighted the presence of a hole in the side of the ship by 1999 public domain.

ETA From about 42:48 onwards you can see Professor Amdahl analyse the hole in the starboard quite comprehenisively. OK, so there is a boo-boo when he says '500 tons' instead of '500 MJ' but perhaps he though 'megajoules' would go over viewers' heads.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The Victorians were very great engineers. Could have tested it for strength in the event of a collision.

So you don't know that it wasn't fit for the conditions?
Other ships built at the same time sailed or many years without sinking.
Titanic's own sister ship is the example we cited.

 

[Vixen]

"Limp home". You just can't resist massaging the facts to tell your own version.

What would you like me to say?

Nothing stopping you from telling it your way,