• 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:
A Rockwell diver reported it, as did Andi Meister who was Head of the JAIC before he resigned. The Estonian JAIC members were all qualified marine experts who worked in the industry.
Click to expand...
A Rockwell diver reported an unidentified body on the bridge.

He did not report a possible hijacking of the bridge. THAT is a conspiracy theory. And that is an idea you have suggested is possible.

You have an egregious habit of responding to people's post and then going off on tangents that don't address what is actually being said.

I'm not calling someone seeing an unidentified body on the bridge a conspiracy theory, I'm calling the idea that the bridge might have been hijacked a conspiracy theory. That's not a fact being reported in the news, that's a fantasy that you're suggesting.
 
What would be the point of hijacking the bridge if you had blown the bow off and put a hole in the side of the ship? Why would the hijacker stay on the bridge to drown?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What would be the point of hijacking the bridge if you had blown the bow off and put a hole in the side of the ship? Why would the hijacker stay on the bridge to drown?
Click to expand...
Was the bridge hijacked while simultaneously a Russian submarine being sold to inexperienced buyers accidentally collided with the ship?

Was it hijacked by a rogue KGB agent who also destroyed the ship for revenge?

Was it hijacked by 9 crew members who mysteriously disappeared after the sinking?

Or at the same time as a UK sub escorting the ship accidentally collided with it?

Or at the same time as a mini-sub fired torpedoes at the ship and sank it?

Was whoever responsible for hijacking the bridge the same people that made sure that NATO didn't come to the rescue of the passengers for some reason?

Etc. etc.

Also, none of these batty ideas are conspiracy theories but are apparently current events in the news. Somehow.
 
Metullus said:
How could a submarine block sonar?
Click to expand...
Here we finally touch on a subject I know quite well. Not sonar precisely, but the physics of acoustics.

Something would have to be inducing acoustic energy. Which is to say kinetic induction in cyclical periods. This would create compression and rarefaction waves of one or various lengths (period, wavelength, and frequency being interrelated) through a given medium.

It would either be broadband or targeted to specific frequencies the sonar equipment in question being interfered with operates at.

Something preventing an accurate reading may have occurred. As I said a while back, the calibration may have been off. The density and stiffness of a medium effects speed of propagation and improper calibration could easily produce a visualization that looks like random noise.

Density and stiffness of a medium will vary by temperature, pressure, and other variables. The medium itself moving will alter the frequency. If you've ever been a mile or so downwind of a concert on a day with a variable breeze, you may have heard a wafting version of the music that sounds like someone toying with the playback speed. Higher pitched and fast, then suddenly dropping two octaves at slow speed. That would have to be accounted for as well.

As someone else said above, thermal layers at varying depths happen. These act in similar fashion to the surface where air and water meet. The result being various amounts of reflection, rejection, and/or absorption of acoustic energy.

So here's an analogy. A typical concert system with vertical stacks flanking the stage usually needs the highs tweaked down as the air warms up (faster propagation, sounds sharper) then turned back up later (sweaty people pumping moisture into the air, medium density increases, propgation speed decreases, sound gets flatter). Have you seen the roadies running new guitars out every other song? They are tuned and ready almost like we know exactly what to expect is going on with the air in the room down to the minute.

So the conditions as they existed may not have matched the calibration settings, giving a totally senseless looking reading.

"Interference" doesn't mean "a person operating equipment meant to cause interference on purpose."
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
Here we finally touch on a subject I know quite well. Not sonar precisely, but the physics of acoustics.

Something would have to be inducing acoustic energy. Which is to say kinetic induction in cyclical periods. This would create compression and rarefaction waves of one or various lengths (period, wavelength, and frequency being interrelated) through a given medium.

It would either be broadband or targeted to specific frequencies the sonar equipment in question being interfered with operates at.

Something preventing an accurate reading may have occurred. As I said a while back, the calibration may have been off. The density and stiffness of a medium effects speed of propagation and improper calibration could easily produce a visualization that looks like random noise.

Density and stiffness of a medium will vary by temperature, pressure, and other variables. The medium itself moving will alter the frequency. If you've ever been a mile or so downwind of a concert on a day with a variable breeze, you may have heard a wafting version of the music that sounds like someone toying with the playback speed. Higher pitched and fast, then suddenly dropping two octaves at slow speed. That would have to be accounted for as well.

As someone else said above, thermal layers at varying depths happen. These act in similar fashion to the surface where air and water meet. The result being various amounts of reflection, rejection, and/or absorption of acoustic energy.

So here's an analogy. A typical concert system with vertical stacks flanking the stage usually needs the highs tweaked down as the air warms up (faster propagation, sounds sharper) then turned back up later (sweaty people pumping moisture into the air, medium density increases, propgation speed decreases, sound gets flatter). Have you seen the roadies running new guitars out every other song? They are tuned and ready almost like we know exactly what to expect is going on with the air in the room down to the minute.

So the conditions as they existed may not have matched the calibration settings, giving a totally senseless looking reading.

"Interference" doesn't mean "a person operating equipment meant to cause interference on purpose."
Click to expand...

Submarines rely on the different thermal and salinity layers to hide from the sonar of a searching AS ship. To counter this a 'dipping' sonar on the end of a cable is used, this can be lowered by the ship to search at different depths. The ship can also switch the frequency of the active ping.
A sub would never broadcast any sound to try and blanket a sonar. It would be like a man hiding in the dark turning a torch on.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Submarines rely on the different thermal and salinity layers to hide from the sonar of a searching AS ship. To counter this a 'dipping' sonar on the end of a cable is used, this can be lowered by the ship to search at different depths. The ship can also switch the frequency of the active ping.
A sub would never broadcast any sound to try and blanket a sonar. It would be like a man hiding in the dark turning a torch on.
Click to expand...
Precisely.

Reflection, refraction, and diffraction can all "interfere" with such systems without any intentional human mustache twirling needed.

I remember a line from I believe Sea Wolf 2. If you did an active ping (a constant movie trope), the COB would declare, "well, Charlie sure knows were here now."
 
Last edited:
Sub hunting is done mainly with passive listening. There are several different types of hydrophones used depending on if it is a search or tracking an actual contact.
Trained and experienced operators can tell you the class of sub they are listening to and have a good estimate of depth and range.
An attacking ship will not 'ping' until a weapon is about to be engaged to get an exact range and depth fix.
 
In peacetime when on exercise or shadowing Soviet ships if we knew a sub was about snooping on us the active ping is turned on. It hammers the whole sub and gives them a headache.
 
I was impressed to learn about the complexity of the physics involved with SONAR, especially the way temperature and salinity changes in the water column deflect the sound waves and create blind spots.

 
Vixen said:
Here you go:

Baltic Times

Note also signal interference whilst they were scanning.



As everybody knew well in advance Arikas' team would be there, this could have been deliberate.
Click to expand...


Hmmmmm.

You quote Arikas as saying:

"Thus, the force that caused this damage had to be enormous"
Click to expand...


And you believe this adds strong credence to your belief that a fatally strong impact at the surface - presumably (in your view) caused either by another vessel colliding with the Estonia, or by something like a torpedo strike - was the primary cause of the sinking.

I'll park for now your apparent inability to realise that "force" is a very different thing from "impact" (you appear to think that they're virtually synonymous).


Yet you appear to have ignored (wilfully or through negligence/ignorance) the very next paragraph of Arikas' statement, in which he notes that:

"The area of the vessel that has sustained major damages is located next to hard rocks and the deformation matches the geometry thereof"
Click to expand...


What Arikas is saying here (and what you appear to have entirely missed or misunderstood) is that the damage to the side of the hull is a good match - in shape, depth and size - to the rock outcrop sited immediately next to the damaged hull. In other words, Arikas is more-or-less pointing out that it's very likely the rock outcrop that was responsible for the damage and deformation on the side of the hull.


Sheesh.
 
LondonJohn said:
Hmmmmm.

You quote Arikas as saying:




And you believe this adds strong credence to your belief that a fatally strong impact at the surface - presumably (in your view) caused either by another vessel colliding with the Estonia, or by something like a torpedo strike - was the primary cause of the sinking.

I'll park for now your apparent inability to realise that "force" is a very different thing from "impact" (you appear to think that they're virtually synonymous).


Yet you appear to have ignored (wilfully or through negligence/ignorance) the very next paragraph of Arikas' statement, in which he notes that:




What Arikas is saying here (and what you appear to have entirely missed or misunderstood) is that the damage to the side of the hull is a good match - in shape, depth and size - to the rock outcrop sited immediately next to the damaged hull. In other words, Arikas is more-or-less pointing out that it's very likely the rock outcrop that was responsible for the damage and deformation on the side of the hull.


Sheesh.
Click to expand...

Sheesh, yourself :D. Cherry picking quotes is an integral part of any long conspiracy theory discussion. The goal is to keep the discussion going, not to provide coherent evidence.
 
Submarine hunt with a Leander from 4 till 10 minutes (the ships I was on but a few years before my time)
 
Moving on from sonar, I'm still waiting for the link and/or quotes from the Aftonbladet reports that document what Vixen claims about the exploits of Y64 and Y74, respectively, such as the claim that Y64 rescued 9 people "sometime after two", or that Moberg rescued six people in Y74. This contradicts the quotes she herself presented, with much fanfare, in an earlier post that claimed that Svensson pulled "eight human beings" out of the water before being rescued by Moberg.
 
Axxman300 said:
They wish they could block sonar, that would be what the nerds call a "Cloaking Device" and there isn't submarine force in the world that wouldn't love to be invisible to sonar.

Pretty sure that doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

I''m reminded of a space flight denier I had an exchange with a few years back. She claimed that the ISS videos were shot in a studio using an "anti-gravity machine". I told her if they could do that, it would make going to the moon look like sailing a wooden boat.
 
Foster Zygote said:
I''m reminded of a space flight denier I had an exchange with a few years back. She claimed that the ISS videos were shot in a studio using an "anti-gravity machine". I told her if they could do that, it would make going to the moon look like sailing a wooden boat.
Click to expand...

Okay, this actually hurt my brain.:D

giphy.gif
 
LondonJohn said:
Hmmmmm.

You quote Arikas as saying:




And you believe this adds strong credence to your belief that a fatally strong impact at the surface - presumably (in your view) caused either by another vessel colliding with the Estonia, or by something like a torpedo strike - was the primary cause of the sinking.

I'll park for now your apparent inability to realise that "force" is a very different thing from "impact" (you appear to think that they're virtually synonymous).


Yet you appear to have ignored (wilfully or through negligence/ignorance) the very next paragraph of Arikas' statement, in which he notes that:




What Arikas is saying here (and what you appear to have entirely missed or misunderstood) is that the damage to the side of the hull is a good match - in shape, depth and size - to the rock outcrop sited immediately next to the damaged hull. In other words, Arikas is more-or-less pointing out that it's very likely the rock outcrop that was responsible for the damage and deformation on the side of the hull.


Sheesh.
Click to expand...

How would you translate from Estonian the term, 'penetrating damage'?

In fact, it turned out that the Estonian wreck had various deformations and injuries in many places. In the following days of the survey, we used a 3D scanner and an underwater robot to determine that there was a penetrating damage to the hull at least 4 x 22 meters on the starboard side of the vessel.
Click to expand...
ERR

You seem totally devoid of understanding that whilst there will be wear and tear and impact on hitting the seabed damage, that does not cancel out any damage that happened before the ship sank.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What cables were cut?
Were they on the boat or under the water?
If it was on the boat then she should know who is on the boat. If it was in the water then it was a diver or another ROV and they would have been visible.

Why would divers need cables to do the radioactivity test?

Sonar uses sound.
Click to expand...

It is difficult to measure radioactive contamination in water as water acts as a shield (hence the reason it hasn't been thought necessary to cover a radioactive submarine buried in the Norwegian Sea). So, therefore, to measure any radioactivity that might be contained within the wreck, you would need to place the Geiger counter within close proximity with the source. Obviously, even if a diver were to go down, he would still need cables to send down the gadgets required for this measurement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom