The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Vixen]

I'm not at all being disrespectful and you know it. You are deflecting.

My question is simple. In any language, one can say "I heard an explosion." How many said that? How many said "I heard a collision"? I'll accept close paraphrases, of course, even "I thought I heard a collision" or "it sounded like a collision".

Let's leave bangs out of it. How many said they heard a collision and how many an explosion. Are they all correct? Was there both a collision and one or more explosions?

And, long as we're trusting the survivors, did Estonia hit a rock too?

It is worth bearing in mind the witness statements were mostly in Swedish or translated into Swedish. The English versions are likely translations of translations, so whist it might have been translated as 'like an explosion' to put it into proper English, it wouldn't be proper Finnish to use the word 'like' (kuin) as a simile requires a comparative (for example, 'you, like me). Even in English the overuse of the word, 'like' denotes someone not very well-spoken, like. Know what I mean, like.

As for hitting a rock, Paul Barney and a couple of others, said, they thought the ship had hit a rock, because they perceived the ship had collided with something. In the middle of the sea, a rock is the most probable. Paul Barney says in the Graham Philips video that he thought it had hit rocks because of a scraping sensation in the hull but then realised it had not yet reached the archipelago, which is actually about 25,000 rocks, islands and skerries, hence he was following a logical thought pattern and he was able to explain his line of reasoning.

 

[phiwum]

If thirty-four survivors mentioned it then the accident investigators should have investigated it.

But did 34 survivors mention the same event? How many said explosion? How many said collision? How many just said it was a bang?

 

[JayUtah]

...so whist it might have been translated as 'like an explosion' to put it into proper English, it wouldn't be proper Finnish to use the word 'like' (kuin) as a simile requires a comparative (for example, 'you, like me).

Can you reconcile this claim with the paper I linked to about translating similes among English, Swedish, and Finnish?

 

[JayUtah]

As for hitting a rock, Paul Barney and a couple of others, said, they thought the ship had hit a rock, because they perceived the ship had collided with something. In the middle of the sea, a rock is the most probable.

More probable than a submarine?

 

[Vixen]

The quoted material comes from this site. I've only skimmed it. Noticed that they dismissed explosives at one point, but I was interested in the testimonies, not the summaries, and those aren't presented in an easily searchable form.

Jay, I think you mentioned that the JAIC report has English translations of testimony. Do you have a link? I'm just curious about answering my own question since Vixen is reluctant or unable to answer it.

Unfortunately, that is all we have because the original statements are in the possession of the Swedish police and they are labelled 'classified'. Several survivors have asked to see their original statements and that is what they were told. For example, Carl-Erik Reintaam denies he ever said he saw what looked like broken stairs in the water.

 

[Axxman300]

What makes you think you did there?

Armed Forces Day(s) at Fort Ord, plus 30 years of the US Army conducting live-fire exercises. By 1989 I could tell the difference between a 105 round and an 82mm mortar round, 40mm grenades vs the M-67, and so on. I never got to see a Bangalore do its thing, but I've been hiking in areas where private EOD were clearing old 75mm rounds with C-4.

I'm not an expert, never had this stuff fired in my direction or anything, but I am comfortable around things going boom (within a reasonable safe distance). A few weeks back there were Special Operations types out at the old MOUT site practicing breaching doors with shape charges. Pretty cool from a mile away.

The movies will never be 100% because there is no way to record what the human ear hears when military-grade ordinance detonates, but Private Ryan and Band of Brothers was a vast improvement over The Longest Day and A Bridge Too Far sound-wise.

 

[Kid Eager]

More probable than a submarine?

I’m not familiar with the area, but drifting rocks in well charted and well travelled water are probably not a thing…

 

[Vixen]

But the people claiming they found evidence of explosives on the wreck didn't consider every single type of available explosive. The suspicious items in photographs were easily enough identified, according to you, by experts in explosives. So they must be of a known type. What type were they? Were they the kind that's odorless?



I have heard many car crashes and many explosions and I categorically deny that the two sound anything alike.



Straw man. Chemical explosives produce odors. No one reported suspicious odors. Your claim that some sort of odorless explosive must have been used is your burden of proof.

I have no idea whether there were explosives or not. All I know is that some survivors claim to have heard explosions - in fact a series of them - and a naval military explosives expert, Brian Braidwood, claims to have identified possible explosive devices at the bow bulkhead.

The JAIC should have investigated these claims. It is all very well their saying no trace of explosives was found on the bow visor but maybe it didn't realise that certain explosives are not traceable after two days in water

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed material which sparked a derail which has been moved to another thread

. This is why Braidwood's team sent samples for deformation analysis instead.

Is it a sound premise? The answer is, I don't know.

 

[ferd burfle]

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.

These particular moles are reason-proof. They pop right back up, just like in the amusement game.

 

[phiwum]

It is worth bearing in mind the witness statements were mostly in Swedish or translated into Swedish. The English versions are likely translations of translations, so whist it might have been translated as 'like an explosion' to put it into proper English, it wouldn't be proper Finnish to use the word 'like' (kuin) as a simile requires a comparative (for example, 'you, like me). Even in English the overuse of the word, 'like' denotes someone not very well-spoken, like. Know what I mean, like.

As for hitting a rock, Paul Barney and a couple of others, said, they thought the ship had hit a rock, because they perceived the ship had collided with something. In the middle of the sea, a rock is the most probable. Paul Barney says in the Graham Philips video that he thought it had hit rocks because of a scraping sensation in the hull but then realised it had not yet reached the archipelago, which is actually about 25,000 rocks, islands and skerries, hence he was following a logical thought pattern and he was able to explain his line of reasoning.

Ah, so we don't takes his first impression literally.

What about collisions? If they say they hit something, does respect require that we believe them?

And explosions? If they say they heard an explosion, must we conclude there was an explosion?

Or, if we're allowed to say the reports of explosions were really collisions (or vice-versa), then how are you respecting the survivors than those who say the noises of the storm and visor damage is what they really heard?

 

[JayUtah]

For example, Carl-Erik Reintaam denies he ever said he saw what looked like broken stairs in the water.

You keep bringing this up, but you can't seem to be bothered to answer what I said about it.

 

[Vixen]

I don't recall all of this respect for eyewitnesses when it comes to Sillaste or Silvers Linde. Lots of mockery there, dismissal, second-guessing, and dwelling on drug use and extraneous criminal activities, etc.

Sillaste, Treu and Linde, I am afraid, were put under very great pressure by the police and by the investigators, being interviewed over and over again over several years and unfortunately their stories changed over time to fit the JAIC narrative. Linde in particular is not a credible witness IMV so I can't believe anything he says.

 

[phiwum]

Unfortunately, that is all we have because the original statements are in the possession of the Swedish police and they are labelled 'classified'. Several survivors have asked to see their original statements and that is what they were told. For example, Carl-Erik Reintaam denies he ever said he saw what looked like broken stairs in the water.

I'm interested only in English translations. I don't know where this site got these statements from, but I sure wish they had made them searchable.

Which ones mention explosions? Which ones collisions? I guess you haven't read them all, but list those you know who mention one or the other, please. Thanks.

 

[Vixen]

You have clearly said we must take some literally, but not others. The criterion by which you take some literally but others figuratively seems to be whether the statement agrees with your belief.

I said we should take survivor eyewitness statements seriously, not literally. We know each one of us has our own unique perception of the world. Personally, I believe the JAIC erred in ignoring the passenger eyewitnesses, other than to use their accounts as a nodding agreement with the JAIC conclusions and leaving out accounts that they claimed were 'inconsistent' (with the bow visor falling off).

The psychologist who did all of this summarising resigned. The Swedes even set up a ministry of information defense to help persuade the public to agree with the JAIC.

 

[Axxman300]

Out of the seventy cops from Stockholm, only four survived, two of whom were in the bar, which I believe is adjacent to the promenade deck and the cafeteria aft of the vessel.



There are a hundred and one different types of explosives and in addition, a collision can very much also sound like an explosion, if you have ever heard two cars crash into each other. It is not a given you will smell anything. This isn't a Chemistry laboratory where you get hydrochloric acid burning holes in your tights or the sulphuric acid giving off alarming fumes.

I could be wrong but I suspect they would keep the doors and windows closed during a storm.

And thanks to my job location I have heard more than 30 car accidents and witnessed 12. Not one sounded like an explosion. Most sounded like the old steel trash can/bins being thrown off a roof.

As for this:

vessel started to shake and vibrate;
bar personnel took down the bottles from the shelves;
just after 01.00 hours the vessel heeled first to port, then followed a very hard push combined with a bang/crash and then the vessel heeled very severely to starboard.
all loose objects flew over to the deep side

I don't see a description of an explosion, I see a description of large wave hitting a ship whose hood is - by this man's own words - already loose on its hinges.

 

[JayUtah]

I have no idea whether there were explosives or not.

You cited testimony and evidence alleging that there were, and tried to tell us all about metallurgy in order to convince us that this evidence was worth considering.

All I know is that some survivors claim to have heard explosions...

Which you choose to take literally, whereas other witness testimony you say can be interpreted less strictly.

...and a naval military explosives expert, Brian Braidwood, claims to have identified possible explosive devices at the bow bulkhead.

In order to do that, they must have been of a type he recognized and which others with similar experience would also recognize. What type were they? Were they odorless explosives?

The JAIC should have investigated these claims.

You say from your vast experience as a forensic investigator.

This is why Braidwood's team sent samples for deformation analysis instead.

And that deformation analysis was consistent with several things, but they reported only one of them. Remember how you tried to lecture us about metallurgy and had your head handed to you?

Is it a sound premise? The answer is, I don't know.

Sound enough for you to deploy a knee-jerk rebuttal suggesting that some kind of odorless explosive was used, in order to preclude any witnesses reporting a strange smell. The motte-and-bailey strategy grows tedious. You either know enough to know whether the explosives some say were used could have been odorless, or you don't.

 

[Vixen]

But did 34 survivors mention the same event? How many said explosion? How many said collision? How many just said it was a bang?

If you scroll back a few messages dated today, you will see a summary of the statements, which you can quickly add up for yourself.

 

[JayUtah]

I said we should take survivor eyewitness statements seriously, not literally.

It has been clearly pointed out how you take some statements literally and others figuratively, and dismiss some witnesses altogether. Kindly stop trying to transform my argument into something else.

Personally, I believe the JAIC erred...

Explain why anyone else should take you seriously.

 

[Vixen]

Can you reconcile this claim with the paper I linked to about translating similes among English, Swedish, and Finnish?

Saying something sounded like an explosion is not a simile.

You need a comparative.

 

[Vixen]

More probable than a submarine?

In Paul Barney's mind as of the point in time he felt the crash that woke him up. When he realised it could not have been a rock - later, on reflection - because the ship had not yet reached the archipelago who knows what thoughts crossed his mind, as we are not told.