• 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.
Vixen said:
Svensson was the pilot of Y64.
Click to expand...

No, he was not a pilot. He was a RESCUE MAN. As in: the guy who goes down on a cable and pulls people out of the water. The pilot is the guy who stays in the helicopter while this is going on, flying the craft.

Oh, and Olli Molberg was a rescue man, too, not the pilot. Your own newspaper clipping makes this clear.
 
Vixen said:
Er, JayUtah is ranting that I ought to be an expert in metallurgy and forensic engineering. Nope. I do not need to be.
Click to expand...

Of course you do. A fundamental requirement for any useful debate is that the proponents know what they're talking about.

You've spend dozens of pages telling the world how a certain investigation got this or that wrong. You've pontificated about how it should have been done instead. You've pointed to other investigations of the same event as alleged examples of how to do it right, ignoring their flaws. That kind of argument is valid only if you can demonstrate that you have some prior expertise in forensic engineering: how such investigations are undertaken and reported. Your argument is the Zookeeper's Fallacy. No one is obliged to take your uninformed beliefs as evidence, or even to take them seriously. That other people have instigated another investigation is not per se evidence that anything you believe to be right or wrong in previous investigations has anything to do with it. It is certainly not evidence of the affirmative claim that a grand coverup occurred. Presuming that their reasons must be your reasons is, well, presumptuous.

You are the one who brought up twinning as metallurgical evidence of an explosion. But you have no training or experience in the relevant field. Thus it means you cannot know for yourself whether the authors you cited gave you a complete picture of the science or honestly represented the findings. Admissions of ignorance notwithstanding, you're okay with borrowing someone else's expertise and pretending you know something about metallurgy when it supports your belief. But when you discover that there's something about metallurgy that you didn't know, and it undermines your argument, it becomes this emotional song-and-dance -- you getting all butthurt because people are supposedly picking on you.

If you don't know what you're talking about, you don't get to pretend you do. It's really that simple.
 
Vixen said:
Svensson was the pilot of Y64. The JAIC times his first rescue at 5:22 yet early sources have him rescuing eight or nine (depending on the edition) at circa 3:00 am and delivering them to hospital circa four.

The Aftonbladet itself reports he rescued eight people from the water. The JAIC credits him with one.
Click to expand...

The JAIC credits him, AFAICT, with seven. Six of them while working from Y74. It also credits him with retrieving one body.

And then flying some people from Utö Island (which is part of Parainen) to Turku Hospital, all of which was a strraight forward mainland transfer of rescued and dead passengers, not a rescue from the water itself.
Click to expand...

Svensson wasn't the pilot of Y64; he was the rescueman. And when Y64 arrived at Uto Island, Svensson was no longer on it.

Oh, and BTW, eight minus one isn't nine.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Yes, and I asked him to provide the context. When he provided the context, it showed that I was quoting wikipedia, which he omitted to mention.
Click to expand...
He didn't mention it because it was irrelevant. His point was about your flip-flopping on how seaworthy the Estonia was. You're all over the place with your claims from post to post which was what he was pointing out. He was correct when he says that you had claimed that Estonia was "the most reliable in a storm".

You were wrong when you said the post he referenced was you talking about the Baltica and he never accused you of anything when he correctly said what you had said about the Estonia.

What do you think he was accusing you of when he said that you said the Estonia was "the most reliable in a storm"?
 
Vixen said:
My post was about the Baltica. Do get it right. And it was said about Wasa King:



In addition, I correctly stated that these cruise ro-ro ferries are design to withstand stormy weather.

Stop making wild accusations.
Click to expand...

Point is you are now saying it had a faulty bow door and was not the best ship in a storm.
 
Vixen said:
Look. The Estonia was formerly The Wasa King and I pointed out to Captain_Swoop within the context of that post that in her carnation as The Wasa King she was regarded as the most reliable ship in a storm on that route.

That means I was sceptical that the bow visor simply fell off 'due to a strong wave' and I still am.

I said absolutely nothing remiss in that post. If you would like to explain exactly what I am being accused then I am all ears.
Click to expand...

You never mentioned routes at the time.
 
That was about a ship called the Baltica, which actually, at one time had been used by the Soviets as a war ship.
Click to expand...

War ship?

How was a ferry used as a 'war ship'?
 
Vixen said:
You came racing to Captain_Swoop's defence when he accused me of claiming the Estonia - when she was known as Wasa King was the most reliable ship in a storm, when I was factually correct all along, and I provided you with the wikipedia reference.

In addition I said the ships that sail the Baltic - for example, the Baltica are designed to withstand the high waves of that sea. There is nothing at all remiss in anything I said.

I used the Baltica as an example of my own experience in storms, particularly in the North Sea. So now I am being accused of goodness knows what.
Click to expand...

Early in the thread you claimed the Estonia was the best ship in storms, very safe and built by the best yard in the world to high standards and that it had no faults.

Yesterday you changed your mind and decided that the bow visor was faulty and it wasn't very well maintained and it wasn't suitable for the routes it was being used over.
 
Air Sea Rescue helicopters usually have a crew of 3, a pilot, winch man and a diver.
The winch man operates the winch and instructs the pilot who can't see what is happening below the helicopter.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Air Sea Rescue helicopters usually have a crew of 3, a pilot, winch man and a diver.
The winch man operates the winch and instructs the pilot who can't see what is happening below the helicopter.
Click to expand...

The Boeing Kawasakis such as Y64 and Y74 had a pilot, a co pilot, a tactical officer, one or two rescue men, and a mechanic. It's in the report that Vixen still can't read.
 
Last edited:
Reformed Offlian said:
The Boeing Kawasakis such as Y64 and Y74 had a pilot, a co pilot, a tactical officer, one or two rescue men, and a mechanic. It's in the report that Vixen still can't read.
Click to expand...

That will be for military use. I would think that would be stripped down for rescue missions to allow more survivors to be carried.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
War ship?

How was a ferry used as a 'war ship'?
Click to expand...

Wikipedia said:
[re:January 1991]Later in the same month the ship was sub-chartered to the Russian army for transporting troops out of former East Germany.
Click to expand...
This is what Vixen was referring to. It has absolutely no relevance to anything being discussed in this thread and it's just another red herring thrown out to confuse things.

First Vixen incorrectly claimed that her remark about the Estonia being "the most reliable in a storm" was about the Baltica at which time she made the remark about the Baltica being used as a "war ship" which has no bearing on anything in this thread, notwithstanding it being a rather overblown claim about the Baltica being a "war ship".
 
JesseCuster said:
This is what Vixen was referring to. It has absolutely no relevance to anything being discussed in this thread and it's just another red herring thrown out to confuse things.

First Vixen incorrectly claimed that her remark about the Estonia being "the most reliable in a storm" was about the Baltica at which time she made the remark about the Baltica being used as a "war ship" which has no bearing on anything in this thread, notwithstanding it being a rather overblown claim about the Baltica being a "war ship".
Click to expand...

By that standard, the bus that took our soldiers to Hungary from Germany for Joint Endeavor was a "war bus". And the DB train that transported our Bradleys would be a "war train."
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Point is you are now saying it had a faulty bow door and was not the best ship in a storm.
Click to expand...

The point I was making was that the JAIC never tested whether the Estonia was actually seaworthy and fit for purpose. That fact seawater kept leaking into the car ramp, that they needed to stuff the edges with blankets, doesn't ipso facto follow that the car ramp was the cause of the accident.

How Carl Bildt arrived at that conclusion pronto when Laar's immediate thought was terrorism is questionable.

Nobody should be above the law. Calling it 'classified' sounds like someone covering their back. Whether it was Yeltsin, Putin, Bildt, Clinton or Major or Uncle Tom Cobbly nobody should be exempt from being answerable. The Estonian Defence Secretary at the time was actaully selling Estonia's and the EU's secrets to the Russians, for which he was sent to prison for a very long time in 1996 for treason, and no doubt he thought his high office protected him, too.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Early in the thread you claimed the Estonia was the best ship in storms, very safe and built by the best yard in the world to high standards and that it had no faults.

Yesterday you changed your mind and decided that the bow visor was faulty and it wasn't very well maintained and it wasn't suitable for the routes it was being used over.
Click to expand...

It had no faults when it was built or operated by Viking Line. Even it it developed a problem with a leaky car ramp, it doesn't follow that was the cause of the accident.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
The JAIC credits him, AFAICT, with seven. Six of them while working from Y74. It also credits him with retrieving one body.



Svensson wasn't the pilot of Y64; he was the rescueman. And when Y64 arrived at Uto Island, Svensson was no longer on it.

Oh, and BTW, eight minus one isn't nine.
Click to expand...

Y74 was Olli Moberg. Y64 was Svensson, who was proclaimed a hero who winched 8 or 9 up in the very early hours. JAIC doesn't mention him until much later, circa 5:22. Then it confudges him with Moberg, when in fact according to Aftonbladet 29.8.1994, it was Svensson who rescued eight or nine individuals who suddenly ceased to be mentioned and instead in the JAIC report we have Svensson seeming to retrieve two bodies and one survivor and Y74 takes over and rescues a few more, including Svensson himself.

Fact is, not only were nine extra persons reported surivivors in the early days by several authorities - and how can a pilot make a log that he took nine people to hospital but mysteriously they were never rescued in the first place AND also be hailed a hero by the Swedish press at the time? Then later, his tally is brought down to one survivor. It is good he got a medal for that one but he should be credited with all nine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom