The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Reformed Offlian]

The JAIC Report says:

Unresponsive. I did not ask you about what the JAIC report says; I can read that myself. I asked you about what Aftonbladet says.

You made several claims about that article which you did not subsequently document. For example:

Nope Y64 (Svensson) saved nine people 'just after two' according to Aftonbladet and airlifted them to hospital in Huddinge. The persons saved by Y74 (Moberg) refers to a time circa 4:00-5:00am when Moberg, too, saved six - eight persons. All Svensson did after that, as both men were injured was airlift Moberg's rescued, from Utö Island to TYKS Hospital in Turku

Please show where Aftonbladet claims that Svensson saved nine people 'just after two.'
Please show where it states that Moberg saved between six and eight people between 4 and 5.
Please show where Aftonbladet states that Svensson airlifted anybody from Uto to Turku (or indeed that Svensson airlifted anybody).

Failing that, show from where else you got that information.

 

[Vixen]

Estonian physics must differentiate between force and impact too. Physics is physics. Each language has precise words for physicists to use to maintain the distinction.

I wasn't talking Physics or Chemistry, which of course use precise jargon, I was paraphrasing a news item re Rene Arikas, that is, I was obviously writing in the vernacular.

 

[LondonJohn]

I am afraid that the person who writes about an unknown tattooed character on the bridge lying under a cabinet and Captain Andresson claimed to have been seen by a Rockwater diver with a bullet in his head is the former Head of the JAIC who resigned because he claimed the Swedish side were withholding and censoring information from him. For example, it only let them see an edited clip of what the outsourced Rockwater divers filmed. Your calling it 'wild-eyed nonsense' reflects on YOU. Because - hello? - the Treaty - an Act of government by three sovereign states - has been amended. Therefore it is not a conspiracy theory dreamt up by a Big Foot 9/11 truther.

No. It's a conspiracy theory because.... it's a wild and fanciful theory which a) makes no sense in the proper context of the incident and its aftermath, b) necessarily involves the complex involvement of multiple actors and/or agencies, in a manner which is rarely if ever seen in real life (and which even more rarely can be kept a secret for so long after the event), and c) which is unsupported by any evidence which can objectively be deemed credible and reliable.

That's why.

 

[Vixen]

Evidence please. If you're going to announce - in the face of the very press report that you yourself provided here(!!) - that I'm wrong, then I'm going to want to see your working. Or is this nothing more than your own (mis)interpretation?






Uhm this makes no logical sense at all. Firstly, how are you coming by the idea that if there's a paragraph separator in the text, this somehow means or implies that the thing being discussed in Para 2 must be different from the thing being discussed in Para 1? And secondly, what on earth does your last sentence above mean? What is - or is not - "controversial" here in your view, especially as it pertains to what you believe the original news agency report to have been? (Do you even have any evidence that this was indeed an instance of wire copy which was picked up by two different news media and re-reported slightly differently?)






Fact is, Arikas - by virtue of the press report which you yourself provided here(!!) - has very clearly expressed his own opinion, by way of an obvious implication, as to how that hull damage came about.

Herewith Arikas quote again:

A dive robot provided evidence that only a small part of the ramp is still attached to its hinge, while the ramp as a whole has, as noted, fallen fully open, for reasons still to be established.

The force that caused damage in the side of the hull, on the other hand, would have to be "enormous", Arikas said, adding that the exact extent of the damage is not known as it could also reach below the hull; the ferry's seventh and eighth decks (of 10) remained inaccessible, he said.

The dive robot also found significant volumes of debris inside the car deck, though it was not able to penetrate further inside, while some of the damage in the hull plating are on the opposite side from that which struck the seabed first, Arikas said.

Stern ramps remain closed

A deformation of 22 meters in length and four meters in height was registered in the middle part of the vessel on the starboard side.

The vessel's plating has outward deformations as well as in some inward ones, while a side fender has been forced inside the vessel. The deformations generally match the local geological profile.

So you see the matching of the local geology is a reference to the general wear and tear deformations and not the deformation in the starboard (a completely separate paragraph and the specific item of interest).



.

 

[LondonJohn]

I wasn't talking Physics or Chemistry, which of course use precise jargon, I was paraphrasing a news item re Rene Arikas, that is, I was obviously writing in the vernacular.

Then you should obviously have understood that there's a big difference - in the vernacular just as in more arcane jargon - between a "force" (which, in the vernacular, is any sort of weight imposed upon an object by another object) and an "impact" (which, in the vernacular, very specifically refers to one object hitting another object in a collision between the two).

 

[Steve]

No. It's a conspiracy theory because.... it's a wild and fanciful theory which a) makes no sense in the proper context of the incident and its aftermath, b) necessarily involves the complex involvement of multiple actors and/or agencies, in a manner which is rarely if ever seen in real life (and which even more rarely can be kept a secret for so long after the event), and c) which is unsupported by any evidence which can objectively be deemed credible and reliable.

That's why.

Probably the same gang that pulled off 9-11 in New York. They got tens of thousands of people to keep quiet and cover up that conspiracy. The relatively few thousand here would have been a snap. Conspiracies R' Us strikes again!

 

[Vixen]

No. It's a conspiracy theory because.... it's a wild and fanciful theory which a) makes no sense in the proper context of the incident and its aftermath, b) necessarily involves the complex involvement of multiple actors and/or agencies, in a manner which is rarely if ever seen in real life (and which even more rarely can be kept a secret for so long after the event), and c) which is unsupported by any evidence which can objectively be deemed credible and reliable.

That's why.

The Head of the original JAIC was Andi Meister - Minister for Transport and Communications and as such responsible for Estonian Sea Safety and Shipping matters including the E.N.M.B. and ESCO. He was/is an engineer by profession.

This was an official on the JAIC and in high government office. You cannot claim that his criticisms of the investigation are 'a conspiracy theory' in the usual meaning of the word.

 

[Vixen]

Then you should obviously have understood that there's a big difference - in the vernacular just as in more arcane jargon - between a "force" (which, in the vernacular, is any sort of weight imposed upon an object by another object) and an "impact" (which, in the vernacular, very specifically refers to one object hitting another object in a collision between the two).

As I had already extensively quoted Arikas in newspaper articles, then it should have been clear I was using my own words to sum up what Arikas said, from memory.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

The Head of the original JAIC was Andi Meister - Minister for Transport and Communications and as such responsible for Estonian Sea Safety and Shipping matters including the E.N.M.B. and ESCO. He was/is an engineer by profession.



This was an official on the JAIC and in high government office. You cannot claim that his criticisms of the investigation are 'a conspiracy theory' in the usual meaning of the word.

People in "high government office" spew nonsense all the time.

Sometimes they are merely idiots, other times they recognize enough idiots exist that saying such nonsense can work in their favor.

 

[JayUtah]

I wasn't talking Physics or Chemistry, which of course use precise jargon, I was paraphrasing a news item re Rene Arikas, that is, I was obviously writing in the vernacular.

And, not being well versed in physics, you conflated two dissimilar concepts, tried to claim them as synonyms, and continue to cite your source as an authority for your misinterpretation.

 

[LondonJohn]

Herewith Arikas quote again:

I refer you herewith, outwith reservation, to my aforementioned response of the 29th inst. Forsooth.

So you see the matching of the local geology is a reference to the general wear and tear deformations and not the deformation in the starboard (a completely separate paragraph and the specific item of interest).

So you see you're drawing adverse and unsupported inferences in an attempt to support your claim. Any reasonable reading of the statements you're providing is that the "deformations" under discussion are all constituent elements of the one overall (24m by 4m) deformation throughout (in support of this, for example, is the part which mentions the side fender being forced inside the vessel).

 

[JayUtah]

As I had already extensively quoted Arikas in newspaper articles, then it should have been clear I was using my own words to sum up what Arikas said, from memory.

If you are paraphrasing your source from memory, then you don't get to argue from the position that this is what your source said. There is nothing in the testimony you attribute to Arikas that supports the surface collision hypothesis.

 

[LondonJohn]

The Head of the original JAIC was Andi Meister - Minister for Transport and Communications and as such responsible for Estonian Sea Safety and Shipping matters including the E.N.M.B. and ESCO. He was/is an engineer by profession.

This was an official on the JAIC and in high government office. You cannot claim that his criticisms of the investigation are 'a conspiracy theory' in the usual meaning of the word.

I can and I have. If you're accurately representing his personal opinions, then he was probably not fit to have been handling this investigation in the first place.

(You do know, don't you, that some pretty eminent and well-qualified structural engineers maintain to this day that the Twin Towers were brought down by Thermite charges which were probably placed by a US Government agency....?)

 

[LondonJohn]

Unresponsive. I did not ask you about what the JAIC report says; I can read that myself. I asked you about what Aftonbladet says.

You made several claims about that article which you did not subsequently document. For example:



Please show where Aftonbladet claims that Svensson saved nine people 'just after two.'
Please show where it states that Moberg saved between six and eight people between 4 and 5.
Please show where Aftonbladet states that Svensson airlifted anybody from Uto to Turku (or indeed that Svensson airlifted anybody).

Failing that, show from where else you got that information.

What I'm struggling to understand is a) why Vixen is apparently so concerned (to the point of near-anger, it seems) about what Svensson did versus what he's credited with having done, and b) what difference Vixen believes any of this might make to the cause of the sinking and the post-incident narrative?

 

[Vixen]

Unresponsive. I did not ask you about what the JAIC report says; I can read that myself. I asked you about what Aftonbladet says.

You made several claims about that article which you did not subsequently document. For example:



Please show where Aftonbladet claims that Svensson saved nine people 'just after two.'
Please show where it states that Moberg saved between six and eight people between 4 and 5.
Please show where Aftonbladet states that Svensson airlifted anybody from Uto to Turku (or indeed that Svensson airlifted anybody).

Failing that, show from where else you got that information.

Read what the JAIC has to say:

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. At 0715 hrs Y 74 found a raft with three survivors, who were winched up into the helicopter. At one point the rescue man had to be brought up be- cause his flippers had been torn off by the waves.

At 0740 hrs Y 69 reported that it, too, had had to leave its rescue man in the water because of a malfunction of the winch. In addition, this rescue man was suffering from concussion, since he had hit his head on a lifeboat that was upside-down in the water.

Y 74 went to Y 69's assistance. A hook and harness were dropped to the rescue man, and he was able to use them to get up to the helicopter.

Three survivors were hanging on to the keel of an upside-down lifeboat. Y 64's rescue man was lowered, and all three survivors were winched up. In connection with the rescue of the last of the three, a strong wave threw the rescue man against the lifeboat, injuring him. Since Y 74 now had three injured rescue men, it had to interrupt its rescue operations. In addition, fuel was running low. The six survivors, the injured rescue men and the body were taken to Huddinge Hospital, where the helicopter arrived at 0930 hrs. Y 74 returned to Berga at 0940 hrs to change crew.

Y 74 took off again from Berga at 1025 hrs with a new mechanic and two new rescue men. A fresh physician and nurse were taken on board from Huddinge Hospital. On reaching the scene of the accident, the helicopter recovered four of the five bodies on a liferaft. The fifth, which was not wearing a lifejacket, was washed overboard and disappeared in the waves.

Y 74 was then assigned a search area along the southern edge of the scene of the accident, but did not observe any- thing related to the accident. Y 74 proceeded to Hanko for refuelling. While in Hanko the helicopter was informed by ARCC Arlanda that it did not need to continue the search. The helicopter returned to Berga, landing at Utö on the way to leave the bodies. It landed at Berga at 1657 hrs.

It is clear it has Y74 (Moberg) arriving about an hour after Y64 (Svensson) to Heap Big Confusion with Y64 flailing around in the water with Y74 needing to rescue him. Then Y74 gets injured, and Y64's rescuemen have to take over from Y74. So, when the JAIC continues to talk about Y74, it is actually referring to Y64 (see aforementioned) and then astonishingly, this Y74 (actually Y64, according to JAIC) also has to come to the rescue of a Y69. So here we have Y64 rescuing six people plus one (alive) and two (dead) of his own, depending on whether one counts the dead = 9 people rescued by Y64, which is conflated as six of them actually being Y74's rescue, albeit his being injured and unable to do anything more.

Y74 (under Y64, Svensson) then takes the bodies at least to Uto (and presumably the nine survivors - credited to Y74 Moberg instead - to Berga in Sweden.

Very cleverly done to obfuscate that Y64 - according to Aftonbladet - rescued eight people of his own accord long before eight minutes to six in the morning .

The way the JAIC does it means both Moberg and Svensson get to be credited with eight or nine survivors whilst deleting at a stroke nine 'survivors' which had been listed but were now deleted.

The JAIC makes no attempt to explain how nine to eleven people got listed as survivors - and not just by ships' officers but by hospitals, police, the Red Cross Crisis Point and the Estonian Embassy in Stockholm but then were written off.

BTW as this is a newspaper from 1994, it is not generally available on the internet so can't give you a link.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

What I'm struggling to understand is a) why Vixen is apparently so concerned (to the point of near-anger, it seems) about what Svensson did versus what he's credited with having done, and b) what difference Vixen believes any of this might make to the cause of the sinking and the post-incident narrative?

The narrative she's trying to shore up with this particular tangent is that the JAIC is concealing the existence of additional survivors. It's part of the whole "nine vanishing crew members" thing.

wrt to Svensson, her contention was that the JAIC only credited Svensson with rescuing one person, whereas an Aftonbladet article she read states that he "pulled eight human beings out of the sea". The alleged shortfall presumably points to deliberately concealed survivors.

Problem is, the JAIC also credits Svensson (referred to in the report as "Y64's rescue man") with having "pulled eight human beings out of the sea, so the shortfall doesn't actually exist. Vixen is trying to spin things so as to keep her failed claim alive.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Read what the JAIC has to say:

Still unresponsive. I didn't ask you about what the JAIC report has to say; I asked you about what your Aftonblad article says.

Please show where Aftonbladet claims that Svensson saved nine people just after two.
Please show where it states that Moberg saved between six and eight people between 4 and 5.
Please show where Aftonbladet states that Svensson airlifted anybody from Uto to Turku (or indeed that Svensson airlifted anybody).

Failing that, show from where else you got that information.


ETA: In an earlier draft of the above list, I had asked where the article says anything about survivors being evacuated to Huddinge, but I realized that it does report that, so I deleted it.

BTW as this is a newspaper from 1994, it is not generally available on the internet so can't give you a link.

What I'm hearing is: "I don't have any documentary support for the claims in question."

 

[Vixen]

People in "high government office" spew nonsense all the time.

Sometimes they are merely idiots, other times they recognize enough idiots exist that saying such nonsense can work in their favor.

Oh I see. So everything in the Politics section should really be in the Conspiracy Theory section, according to your logic.

Politics = law = mainstream news.

The new review of the sinking of the Estonia meets the above criteria. It is political, it is law, it is mainstream news. What is it you are disbelieving?

You'll be claiming 'Nixon was not corrupt', next.

 

[Vixen]

And, not being well versed in physics, you conflated two dissimilar concepts, tried to claim them as synonyms, and continue to cite your source as an authority for your misinterpretation.

Well I did have to do Physics for five years at school.

 

[Vixen]

I refer you herewith, outwith reservation, to my aforementioned response of the 29th inst. Forsooth.






So you see you're drawing adverse and unsupported inferences in an attempt to support your claim. Any reasonable reading of the statements you're providing is that the "deformations" under discussion are all constituent elements of the one overall (24m by 4m) deformation throughout (in support of this, for example, is the part which mentions the side fender being forced inside the vessel).

What? Side fender? So you are now admitting that the hole in the starboard is below the water line after all. Snookered.