Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
Remember the German guy who breached the pilots' cockpit and brought down an entire plane? It seems obvious to me that there should not be any unauthorised personnel in a ship's bridge. The fact that in this case there was a sudden sinking lasting barely half hour then anyone seen in the bridge in my mind becomes a suspect at a crime scene. The JAIC should have treated the whole thing as an initial crime scene but they did not and went straight in for Swedish PM Carl Bildt's 'bow fell off' conclusion.
The unknown tattooed guy on the bridge may well be innocuous and a crew member after all. However, it was never investigated.
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.
Remember the German guy who breached the pilots' cockpit and brought down an entire plane? It seems obvious to me that there should not be any unauthorised personnel in a ship's bridge. The fact that in this case there was a sudden sinking lasting barely half hour then anyone seen in the bridge in my mind becomes a suspect at a crime scene. The JAIC should have treated the whole thing as an initial crime scene but they did not and went straight in for Swedish PM Carl Bildt's 'bow fell off' conclusion.
The unknown tattooed guy on the bridge may well be innocuous and a crew member after all. However, it was never investigated.
Because it isn't important. Do you think there are only ever the same few people on a bridge?
Crew come and go from the bridge all the time, making reports or performing duties.
If a ship is in trouble then various crew members would be coming and going as part of their duty.
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.
1) talks about the damage to the side of the hull (the damage you seem to be insinuating came from a colliding vessel or a torpedo or some other unsubstantiated crap)
then
2) points out that this damage (the damage he's talking about in (1) above) correlates in its geometry (ie size, shape) with the rock outcrop which is right next to this damaged part of the hull.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that the only reasonable inference to take from Arikas' statement is that it was the rock outcrop which caused the damage to the side of the hull. (the precise area of damage which you insinuate was caused by your batguano conspiracy theories)
Let me know if you'd like any further clarification.
Remember the German guy who breached the pilots' cockpit and brought down an entire plane? It seems obvious to me that there should not be any unauthorised personnel in a ship's bridge. The fact that in this case there was a sudden sinking lasting barely half hour then anyone seen in the bridge in my mind becomes a suspect at a crime scene. The JAIC should have treated the whole thing as an initial crime scene but they did not and went straight in for Swedish PM Carl Bildt's 'bow fell off' conclusion.
The unknown tattooed guy on the bridge may well be innocuous and a crew member after all. However, it was never investigated.
The "German guy" who "brought down an entire plane" was in fact the aircraft's First Officer (a position which is usually colloquially referred to in the media as "co-pilot"). He was a member of the flight crew. He waited until the Captain - his senior colleague pilot on the flight deck - went to use the bathroom, then locked him out of the cockpit and flew the aircraft into the ground.
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.
Which damaged occurred before as opposed to after the ship sank is precisely the point under discussion. You don't get to beg the question that the hole in question was formed before.
She claimed she learned about the "anti-gravity machine" from her science teacher, and seemed to think that it was common knowledge. The best I could figure was that she'd seen a video shot aboard the Vomit Comet during a high school class and had only half paid attention to it, and thought that they were in some device on the ground that was able to negate gravity.
You claimed that "force" and "impact" are synonymous. So the gas must be exerting a static 550N impact on each square cm of the inner surface of the bottle, right?
Probably no good reason to investigate it, certainly no reason to think that he was involved in a hijacking of the bridge.
The idea that the bridge might have been hijacked is your fantasy and is not just a "current news item", no matter how much you twist and turn and refuse to take responsibility for your inane ideas.
You've thrown out ideas of hijacked bridges, accidental collisions with escorting British subs, accidental collisions with spying Russian subs, revenge seeking rogue KGB agents, the sinking being caused by explosives planted on the ship, nine crew members mysteriously disappearing after the sinking, a NATO naval exercise suspiciously not getting involved in a rescue effort, a submarine torpedoing the Estonia... I can't even remember all the nutty mutually exclusive ideas you've bombarded the thread with.
Your wild-eyed speculation about rogue KGB agents seeking revenge, or unidentified people hijacking the bridge, or submarines surreptitiously torpedoing the ship, or Russian spy submarines accidentally sinking the ship and other arrant nonsense are straight up conspiracy theory lunacy, no matter how much you claim otherwise.
"Penetrating damage" is an English phrase, not an Estonian phrase.
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.
You seem totally devoid of understanding that if someone says that damage occurred and infers from the degree of damage that it involved considerable force, that's not evidence for what someone else speculates could have caused it.
Yes, a coroner examining a body with a large, apparently penetrating injury can make some general observations and inferences about what kind of thing might have happened. But without more context and further examination, it would be irresponsible of someone else to think that the coroner supports "KGB narwhal attack" as the cause of death.
This is an eminently bad example because the kinetic-molecular theory of gases states that static pressure of a contained gas is exactly the sum of collisions of moving gas molecules with the container. But the point everyone's trying to make with it is clear and correct: static loading and dynamic loading are very different kinds of things.
Structural engineers are laboring diligently to preserve Frank Lloyd Wright's famous house Fallingwater, which he infamously designed in about an hour after hearing that the client was on his way to see Lloyd Wright's progress. Sadly after many years, the cantilevered steel beams are "hogging," threatening the integrity of the building. That's persistent static loading, involving only the building's dead weight (which means almost the exact opposite in architecture as it does in seafaring). Yes, the same result could have been obtained by dropping giant heavy weights onto the structure when it was freshly built. But that's not what happened.
A ship sitting on its side (or nearly upside down) on an uneven surface is subject to the same sort of problem, just from static loading. And the result will be buckling and tearing. There was posted plenty of photographic evidence of this happening to ships on the surface (because sagging and hogging occur there too), with very similar results to what we see on Estonia. Certainly I haven't ruled out a penetrating injury. But to me there are two points of evidence that make stress fracture the best hypothesis for Evertsson's hole: the lack of coating transfer or damage, and the buckle in the indented portion of the hole. If that were a penetrating injury it would have been more likely to tear at that point. But since I don't get to inspect the hole close up, and others do, what those others have to say is more important than what I have to say.
Oh good. Off we go again.
[...]
[Arikas] points out that this damage (the damage he's talking about in (1) above) correlates in its geometry (ie size, shape) with the rock outcrop which is right next to this damaged part of the hull.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that the only reasonable inference to take from Arikas' statement is that it was the rock outcrop which caused the damage to the side of the hull.
Indeed, after lecturing us about the importance of respecting context in quotations, Vixen largely ignores the context of Arikas' statement in which he clearly opines that the damage occurred on the seabed, not on the surface. Of course it doesn't rule out that it could have occurred on the surface, but to continue trying to cite the witness as sustaining authority for the surface-collision hypothesis is completely wrong. The witness here clearly makes a case for a different specific cause.
They are the theories of respected persons in office, not my theory. It was the government-sponsored Rockwater divers who reported an unknown person on the bridge. I am afraid these are all reported news items.
What they and you are overlooking is that Estonia was not a conventional RORO design. It was a variant called a RORORO (roll-on/roll-off/roll-over), which has a much more limited operational envelope. Specifically, by international admiralty law, when your boat is a RORORO you may only proceed gently down the stream. If you go cruising merrily, merrily, merrily into stormy ocean waters, you'll soon find your life turning into nothing besides a nightmare. These are nautical facts (so well known there's even a mnemonic rhyme sung by children) which, unlike a RORORO, cannot be overturned.
What they and you are overlooking is that Estonia was not a conventional RORO design. It was a variant called a RORORO (roll-on/roll-off/roll-over), which has a much more limited operational envelope. Specifically, by international admiralty law, when your boat is a RORORO you may only proceed gently down the stream. If you go cruising merrily, merrily, merrily into stormy ocean waters, you'll soon find your life turning into nothing besides a nightmare. These are nautical facts (so well known there's even a mnemonic rhyme sung by children) which, unlike a RORORO, cannot be overturned.
So we've gone from phantom submarines to a hijacking?
Seems to me that at least one of the survivors would have said something considering you'd need at least 20 guys if you hope to get control of a ship that size. It's not like an airplane where 1 guy with a shoebox he claims is a bomb can dictate what the pilots do next. You need to control the bridge, access to the bridge, the engine room, and you need to round up the *checks notes* 909 passengers and crew to hold them in a central location or locations.
And if you're successful and take control of the ship, then what?
Hold it for ransom? In an region where the SBS, US Navy SEALS, and Spetznaz can and will show up and ruin your day?
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.
The Swedish stand-by helicopter Q 97 took off from Visby at 0250 hrs, arriving at the scene of the accident at 0350 hrs. The OSC requested the helicopter to pick up as many people as possible from the sea.
1. Q97, Super Puma, took off 2:50 one hour after MS Estonia disappeared from the radar (=sank), arrived two hours after the sinking, 3:50am.
Y 65 (Boeing Kawasaki)
The Swedish stand-by helicopter Y 65 took off from Berga at 0320 hrs. Because the MBS system was shut down that night due to a malfunction, the alerting of the crew was delayed ten minutes. When the pilot heard from Berga that the ESTONIA had presumably sunk, he decided to fly directly to the scene of the accident without, according to routines, picking up medical personnel from Huddinge Hospital.
On arriving at the scene of the accident at 0400 hrs,
2. The Y65, Boeing Kawasaki, left Berga at 3:20, arrived 4:00am.
Q 99 landed at 0325 hrs at Visby for refuelling and maintenance of equipment and took off from Visby at 0355 hrs, reaching the scene of the acci- dent at 0440 hrs.
6. Y74 left Berga 5:46, arrived at scene of accident 6:42.
So, we see from the above, of the five Swedish helicopters to arrive, according to JAIC, the first didn't even leave until 2:50am. ( The Q97 Super Puma.)
According to the JAIC 'Hero' Q64, Kenneth Svensson, in the Boeing Kawasaki, didn't even arrive until 5:52am - the second to last Swedish helicopters out of six - whereupon he had to be immediately rescued by Ollie Moberg in the Y74 Boeing Kawasaki, that arrived at twenty to seven in the morning.
Dawn had already broken. At the beginning of the operation, Y 74 found a raft containing a body with the head under water. At the same time the helicopter received a radio message that Y 64 had had to leave its rescue man in the sea. Y 74 went to assist Y 64.
Y 74 had difficulties in locating Y 64 since the OSC lacked exact information on the position of each helicopter. The Y 64 rescue man was holding onto a body, which was winched up to Y 74 with the assistance of Y 74's own rescue man. When the body had been recovered, the Y 74's rescue man fell about one metre, receiving a heavy blow from the harness to the lower part of his body Nonetheless, he requested that he be lowered to bring up one more body. This body, however, had become badly tangled with the ropes on the raft and could not be winched up.
At this stage the pilot decided to interrupt the recovery of the body since there might still be survivors in the sea and on rafts. Finally a spare harness was lowered to the Y 64's rescue man and used to winch him up to the helicopter. The injury to the Y 74 rescue man proved so serious that he was unable to do more. The work was continued by Y 64's rescue man.
7. Y69 Boeing Kawasaki didn't arrive until quarter to seven am.
8. Y68
9. O95
These three helicopter arrived after the other six.
In the JAIC scenario, we have Kenneth Svensson rescuing three people, of whom two died. He helps Ollie Moberg rescue a further six and takes them from Finnish mainland island of Uto to Turku, which is not a rescue from the sea but straightforward transportation of victims from place of nearest rescue to the nearest hospital. Uto, was were the rescued and the dead were taken from the Mariella to be transferred to hospital.
So of the first six Swedish helicopters to arrive, Svensson is fifth, doesn't arrive until 5:52 and has to be rescued himself by Y74, Ollie Moberg.
Yet in that day's Aftonbladet, journalist, Sven Anders Eriksson, for a Swedish national newspaper, on 28 September 1994, Svensson is hailed a hero who rescued
Kenneth - one of the many Heroes of the Night
… Kenneth Svensson 27 years old. One of the many heroes in connection with the ferry disaster. Kenneth Svensson ... is a rescue man. ... Kenneth Svensson, who was first on site of the rescue men, was lowered under dramatic conditions down to the persons in danger. ... The first rescue attempt failed and he was hauled up again to the helicopter. ... people called for help ... -After only just half a minute I made a new attempt and it went better.
-On a capsized raft sat three frozen and apathic men.
Kenneth Svensson could hardly fit the rescue harness around them. ... Eight humans Kenneth Svensson managed to pick up from the sea.
Svensson rescued 'eight humans from the sea'. note, not take to hospital on behalf of another rescueman.
According to the JAIC, the first Swedish helicopter didn't arrive until 3:50. But wait, listen to the live radio communications between the ships in the area. At circa 18:43, the message very clearly states that 'the Swedish helicopter will be here in ten minutes'.
At circa 23:00 (after the May Day from Tammes) the Mariella and Symphony confirm their helicopter decks are ready.
So Svensson got a medal ostensibly for saving just one person's life, if the JAIC is to be believed, in its long convoluted story about how Y64, Svensson and Y74 Moberg, somehow shared the survivors between them. With Y74 not even arriving until eighteen minutes to seven in the morning and Y64 not even there until eight minutes to six, some five hours after Estonia vanished beneath the waves.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
