The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[JayUtah]

As they were in their cabins largely, there is no requirement to have actually seen anything for it to be credible.

There is a need for them to supply an appropriate level of observation to support any inferences they may wish to make regarding what was causing what they heard or felt. Otherwise their inferences must be considered in light of other non-inferential evidence, or rejected altogether.

 

[phiwum]

It depends where they were in the ship. Those on the lowest deck can hear every shift and clunk of the engine and even the waves. For example, Carl Ovberg - (- at about 22.30 hours (Swedish time) down to the cabin and to bed;
- he woke up suddenly from the strong noise of rushing water which he could hear from both sides, but loudest from starboard side; these noises alarmed him;
- in addition he heard quite strong metallic banging noises which definitely had not been there before; he sat up in bed and put his feet on the floor, since the bed was athwartships he was facing the door looking aft;
- he lit a cigarette and listened intently to the strange and frightening noise scenario;
- after a little while he suddenly heard the starting up noise of an hydraulic pump or pumps followed by the clicking of valves and then the typical noise created by an hydraulic system under load;
- simultaneously he heard the banging of sledge hammers;
- the noises came probably from forward;
- the hydraulic under load noise faded away and came back again whilst the sledge-hammer banging noise more or less continued. Both the hydraulic noise and the sledge-hammer banging noise continued for ca. 10-15 minutes whilst the other banging noises, then heard already for some 20-25 minutes, also continued;
- the hydraulic noise and the sledge-hammer noise stopped with a short, sharp metallic crash which gave him the impression that something heavy, metallic had broken;
- after a 'silence' of 30-40 seconds the next really extreme crash followed in connection with an abrupt stopping of the ferry which was so 'sudden' that he was thrown against the front wall of his bed) -
Those on the upper deck, such as Paul Barney - (woke up from a bang/shock and thought there had been a collision;
then he heard cracking and scraping noises and something was gliding along the vessel's hull side) - and Sara Hedrenius (=woke up from two heavy bangs which made the vessel shake (she thought they had hit a rock), vessel moved up and down) - experience it as a collision, with each saying they were woken up by the push, jolt, or noise.


If someone was asleep or falling asleep at the time (12:00/1:00 Swedish/Estonian Time) then their experience will be different from someone already wide awake.

Something like 38 people described either bangs, explosions, heavy noises and or collisions, crashes, a force strong enough to throw their entire body out of bed or off their feet. Thirty-eight people out of seventy-nine is an awfully large amount - 48% - nearly half of all of them.

I asked how many said they heard explosions and how many said they heard collisions. Those are two different (conclusory) claims. They are in conflict unless you suppose that both occurred.

Instead, you gave me a full account of someone who claimed neither explosion nor collision. You also mention someone else who thought they had hit a rock. But you ignore the question I asked.

Did they hit a rock, Vixen? An eyewitness thought so, right? So they did, unless you're a survivor-hater, right?

One more time: How many explicitly said, "I heard [what sounded like] an explosion"? How many said "I heard [what sounded like] a collision"? I don't care about bangs. I don't care about the sum total of people who heard loud noises. I care about two figures: those reporting the sound of an explosion and those the sound of a collision.

And then you can tell me whether respect for survivors requires you to believe there was both an explosion and a collision.

NOTE: Neither Barney nor Hedrenius say they heard what they thought to be a collision. Now, this is third person reporting, so who knows what they said, but each says they heard a sound and they thought a collision had occurred, not that they heard what they identified as a collision by the sound. They both heard bangs (and scraping) and concluded there had been a collision. So they don't belong in the list of folks who reported hearing a collision.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It depends where they were in the ship. Those on the lowest deck can hear every shift and clunk of the engine and even the waves. For example, Carl Ovberg - (- at about 22.30 hours (Swedish time) down to the cabin and to bed;
- he woke up suddenly from the strong noise of rushing water which he could hear from both sides, but loudest from starboard side; these noises alarmed him;
- in addition he heard quite strong metallic banging noises which definitely had not been there before; he sat up in bed and put his feet on the floor, since the bed was athwartships he was facing the door looking aft;
- he lit a cigarette and listened intently to the strange and frightening noise scenario;
- after a little while he suddenly heard the starting up noise of an hydraulic pump or pumps followed by the clicking of valves and then the typical noise created by an hydraulic system under load;
- simultaneously he heard the banging of sledge hammers;
- the noises came probably from forward;
- the hydraulic under load noise faded away and came back again whilst the sledge-hammer banging noise more or less continued. Both the hydraulic noise and the sledge-hammer banging noise continued for ca. 10-15 minutes whilst the other banging noises, then heard already for some 20-25 minutes, also continued;
- the hydraulic noise and the sledge-hammer noise stopped with a short, sharp metallic crash which gave him the impression that something heavy, metallic had broken;
- after a 'silence' of 30-40 seconds the next really extreme crash followed in connection with an abrupt stopping of the ferry which was so 'sudden' that he was thrown against the front wall of his bed) -
Those on the upper deck, such as Paul Barney - (woke up from a bang/shock and thought there had been a collision;
then he heard cracking and scraping noises and something was gliding along the vessel's hull side) - and Sara Hedrenius (=woke up from two heavy bangs which made the vessel shake (she thought they had hit a rock), vessel moved up and down) - experience it as a collision, with each saying they were woken up by the push, jolt, or noise.


If someone was asleep or falling asleep at the time (12:00/1:00 Swedish/Estonian Time) then their experience will be different from someone already wide awake.

Something like 38 people described either bangs, explosions, heavy noises and or collisions, crashes, a force strong enough to throw their entire body out of bed or off their feet. Thirty-eight people out of seventy-nine is an awfully large amount - 48% - nearly half of all of them.

Again with 'sounds like'

What 'hydraulic systems' would there be under strain?
I can't think of any hydraulic system that he could have heard.

'sledge hammers' and 'metallic banging'
Neither sounds like a bomb or collision.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As they were in their cabins largely, there is no requirement to have actually seen anything for it to be credible.

If they didn't see anything they can't know if there were any explosions or collisions.

 

[Mojo]

It depends where they were in the ship. Those on the lowest deck can hear every shift and clunk of the engine and even the waves. For example, Carl Ovberg - (- at about 22.30 hours (Swedish time) down to the cabin and to bed;
- he woke up suddenly from the strong noise of rushing water which he could hear from both sides, but loudest from starboard side; these noises alarmed him;
- in addition he heard quite strong metallic banging noises which definitely had not been there before; he sat up in bed and put his feet on the floor, since the bed was athwartships he was facing the door looking aft;
- he lit a cigarette and listened intently to the strange and frightening noise scenario;
- after a little while he suddenly heard the starting up noise of an hydraulic pump or pumps followed by the clicking of valves and then the typical noise created by an hydraulic system under load;
- simultaneously he heard the banging of sledge hammers;
- the noises came probably from forward;
- the hydraulic under load noise faded away and came back again whilst the sledge-hammer banging noise more or less continued. Both the hydraulic noise and the sledge-hammer banging noise continued for ca. 10-15 minutes whilst the other banging noises, then heard already for some 20-25 minutes, also continued;
- the hydraulic noise and the sledge-hammer noise stopped with a short, sharp metallic crash which gave him the impression that something heavy, metallic had broken;
- after a 'silence' of 30-40 seconds the next really extreme crash followed in connection with an abrupt stopping of the ferry which was so 'sudden' that he was thrown against the front wall of his bed)

Are you now claiming that the Estonia was sunk by people with sledgehammers?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Are you now claiming that the Estonia was sunk by people with sledgehammers?

Hydraulic sledgehammers.

 

[LondonJohn]

Are you now claiming that the Estonia was sunk by people with sledgehammers?

I particularly like the (ludicrous) inclusion of "He (Ovberg) lit a cigarette and listened intently to the strange and frightening noise scenario" in Vixen's account of Ovberg's alleged observations.

It's almost as if this was lifted from the pages of an editorially-slanted piece of feature writing or media production.... rather than an NPOV piece of proper reportage or investigative journalism

 

[Steve]

I particularly like the (ludicrous) inclusion of "He (Ovberg) lit a cigarette and listened intently to the strange and frightening noise scenario" in Vixen's account of Ovberg's alleged observations.

It's almost as if this was lifted from the pages of an editorially-slanted piece of feature writing or media production.... rather than an NPOV piece of proper reportage or investigative journalism

Well it was “A Dark And Stormy Night”. That could be the very next line.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hydraulic sledgehammers.

To be fair though, the (what he inferred to be) noises of "hydraulic pumps under load" (which seems curiously specific...) and "banging of sledgehammers" were apparently two separate things.


On that point though, has anyone* yet asked Vixen how she proposes to account for the very large number of repetitions of all these noises in this man's recollection? After all, he said that he heard repetitive loud banging noises for *checks his statement* for at least as long as 25 minutes.

Does Vixen suppose that the explanation for this is the same submarine repeatedly ramming the ship at (say) 10-second intervals for at least that 25-minute period? Or a gigantic succession of torpedoes at 10-second intervals hitting the ship (which was somehow doing a rope-a-dope and refusing to sink)? Enquiring minds need to know!


* There are so many increasingly barmy whack-a-moles going on (often simultaneously) within this thread right now that I've rather given up trying to figure out which ones have already been bludgeoned to death with the mallet of reason.

 

[Steve]

To be fair though, the (what he inferred to be) noises of "hydraulic pumps under load" (which seems curiously specific...) and "banging of sledgehammers" were apparently two separate things.


On that point though, has anyone* yet asked Vixen how she proposes to account for the very large number of repetitions of all these noises in this man's recollection? After all, he said that he heard repetitive loud banging noises for *checks his statement* for at least as long as 25 minutes.

Does Vixen suppose that the explanation for this is the same submarine repeatedly ramming the ship at (say) 10-second intervals for at least that 25-minute period? Or a gigantic succession of torpedoes at 10-second intervals hitting the ship (which was somehow doing a rope-a-dope and refusing to sink)? Enquiring minds need to know!


* There are so many increasingly barmy whack-a-moles going on (often simultaneously) within this thread right now that I've rather given up trying to figure out which ones have already been bludgeoned to death with the mallet sledgehammer of reason.

Fixed one word, for consistency.

 

[Andy_Ross]

To be fair though, the (what he inferred to be) noises of "hydraulic pumps under load" (which seems curiously specific...) and "banging of sledgehammers" were apparently two separate things.


On that point though, has anyone* yet asked Vixen how she proposes to account for the very large number of repetitions of all these noises in this man's recollection? After all, he said that he heard repetitive loud banging noises for *checks his statement* for at least as long as 25 minutes.

Does Vixen suppose that the explanation for this is the same submarine repeatedly ramming the ship at (say) 10-second intervals for at least that 25-minute period? Or a gigantic succession of torpedoes at 10-second intervals hitting the ship (which was somehow doing a rope-a-dope and refusing to sink)? Enquiring minds need to know!


* There are so many increasingly barmy whack-a-moles going on (often simultaneously) within this thread right now that I've rather given up trying to figure out which ones have already been bludgeoned to death with the mallet of reason.

Exactly.

Was it a bomb blowing a hole in the hull?

Bombs blowing off the bow visor?

A submarine ramming the ship?

A Submarine launching a torpedo at the ship?

Were there saboteurs aboard?

Did one of them shoot the captain?

 

[JayUtah]

I particularly like the (ludicrous) inclusion of "He (Ovberg) lit a cigarette and listened intently to the strange and frightening noise scenario" in Vixen's account of Ovberg's alleged observations.

It's almost as if this was lifted from the pages of an editorially-slanted piece of feature writing or media production.... rather than an NPOV piece of proper reportage or investigative journalism

It's obviously not the actual testimony. It's the summary of testimony provided by the authors and editors of the report commissioned by the German shipyard that built the ship. And yes, such language is completely out of place in a professional forensic engineering report. The report says that English translations of pertinent parts of witness statements and of the interviews conducted by these authors are available, so I wonder why Vixen didn't quote that instead.

 

[Axxman300]

Maybe someone should point out that explosives leave a fragrance after detonation, and this would be doubly obvious in a confined space like a large ship with internal air circulation.

All of those cops Vixen said reported the sound of explosions never reported the odor of explosions. Something a "trained observer" would have been adamant about.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Maybe someone should point out that explosives leave a fragrance after detonation, and this would be doubly obvious in a confined space like a large ship with internal air circulation.

.

Lots of 'yes but' that could be added here.

 

[malbui]

Exactly.

Was it a bomb blowing a hole in the hull?

Bombs blowing off the bow visor?

A submarine ramming the ship?

A Submarine launching a torpedo at the ship?

Were there saboteurs aboard?

Did one of them shoot the captain?

Well, I shot the sheriff.

 

[Axxman300]

These statements are not hearsay. These were statements given to the police at or near the time of the accident. Survivors were kept separate and put in separate wards. So your insinuation that they fabricated their stories shows you are unaware of the circumstances these statements were taken in.


They are first hand accounts and not hearsay, nor tarnished by false memory.

I need to point out that in my years as a ghost hunter I interviewed almost 200 people who "witnessed" all kinds of stuff. Some of these people were highly educated, and a few were police officers, soldiers, pilots, and other folks who do no commonly report things that go bump in the night.

Bottom Line: A sound without a visual source causes automatic confusion. Depending on the situation and the sound, people will investigate, but will look for the wrong thing because what they heard and what they thought they heard are two different things.

As a ghost hunter AND a studio musician I can categorically state that a lot of sounds share common frequencies and impulses which push air molecules in a similar fashion. I had a friend who did sound effects for movies and TV shows. Everything you hear in a movie or TV show is artificially recreated in a studio. EVERYTHING. And it's all done with items which sound like the real things, or what sounds good to the director (Until Saving Private Ryan I'd never heard accurate bullet and hand grenade sounds before).

People will assign a source to sounds whose origins are unknown. They will do this every time.

Just because passengers heard what they thought was an explosion doesn't mean that's what the noise was. They surveyed the ship, they recovered the hood. They know many of the vehicles, including trucks, were not tied down. Before explosives can be ruled in those other factors must be ruled out, and right now they cannot be ruled out as the sources of the loud bangs.

 

[Andy_Ross]

(Until Saving Private Ryan I'd never heard accurate bullet and hand grenade sounds before)..

What makes you think you did there?

 

[phiwum]

What makes you think you did there?

I don't know about Axxman, but I was told by movie reviewers that the opening sequence was very realistic and conveyed exactly what D-Day was like. If movie reviewers don't know, who does?

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I don't know about Axxman, but I was told by movie reviewers that the opening sequence was very realistic and conveyed exactly what D-Day was like. If movie reviewers don't know, who does?

It was not unusual for one or several very old gentleman to come out of the theater during the opening sequence, possibly needing a minute to collect themselves before asking for a refund.

 

[LondonJohn]

What makes you think you did there?

Exactly. I know you'll have a wealth of experience in this area, but I at least have some limited experience of being in/around small-arms fire, rifle/LMG fire, and a variety of heavier ordnance - as well as having been some 500m from a large car bomb in the middle east. And, as you say, it really doesn't sound like the movies. To me, small-arms fire sounded almost like pop guns, rifle/LMG sounded like loud pop guns (unless you're near the receiving end, when all you hear is the small crackle of the bullet's miniature sonic boom, followed by the muffled thud of the powder explosion catching up. And a fairly sizeable car bomb is, in my own case at least, experienced more than it's simply heard or seen. The initial visual registration is followed almost immediately by the shockwave, which is an incredible visceral (but noiseless) thump that jolts the whole body. Then there's the rush of explosive wind, and finally the dull thud of the explosion itself. It's so unlike it's portrayed in almost every movie or TV show*.

So yes, even if the passengers on the Estonia thought they knew what an explosion on a ship, or two ships colliding, might sound like, the very high probability is that they did not. The sounds they heard are valid evidence, as are the sounds from their own personal experience to which they likened the noises. However, their inferences as to what actually caused the noises within the ship that night have little or no evidential value.

* Funnily enough, I was talking about exactly this, a dozen or so years ago, with someone I knew (through a mutual friend) who worked at Pinewood Studios. And she said that film and TV studios have understood for a very long time now that what they depict on screen isn't realistic - but they continue with the misrepresentation because this is what audiences are now conditioned to think they look/sound like (and if they did accurate depictions, audiences would simply think they'd screwed it up). As another part of this, they also kept/keep showing people being thrown violently backwards if they're shot with a handgun/rifle - whereas in reality, even a direct hit to the torso from an AK-47 at close range will just make the victim crumple and fall to the floor on the spot.


ETA: Hoooo man, National Geographic channel is showing the first episode of its 4-night documentary about 9/11 in the UK right now. It's gut-wrenchingly powerful viewing (not sure if they've started showing it in the US yet). Try to catch it if you can.