• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

Would it be too much trouble for you to answer the questions I actually ask and stop deflecting?
 
phiwum said:
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?
Click to expand...

Look, chatting with your mates in a coffee shop is very different from survivors just pulled out of the water and questioned by police anxious to get their witness statements. Your mates can give it large and you can merrily disbelieve half of what they say. In the aftermath of a catastrophe someone saying it felt like a collision really isn't trying to ******** you. Honest!
 
Vixen said:
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...
Click to expand...

Who?

A quick glance at this site, where they summarize the sounds heard per witness testimony, doesn't show any examples. Obviously, that site may be incomplete and you know something they omit, but who claimed to hear explosions?

Perhaps we can see the English translation of that testimony and see.

Again, help me out here. You say people heard an explosion or collision, but you haven't given me much in the way of evidence.

One guy heard a scraping underneath, but that's not obviously a collision. Another said she thought they hit a rock at the time. Anyone else say they heard a collision? And which ones heard explosions?

Thanks.
 
Vixen said:
Saying something sounded like an explosion is not a simile.
Click to expand...

The difference between them is purely rhetorical and not linguistic. Saying that there are no similes in Finnish is like saying that there is no such thing as hyperbole in Finnish.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

This thread moves quickly. Can you at least tell me which post?

Is it the same source as I cited just above? If so, the answer is: no one. The page I cited listed no one claiming they heard an explosion. The only occurrence of the word "explosion" was a denial that a person heard one.

Of course, that site may be biased and you may have other information, so let me know.
 
Vixen said:
Look, chatting with your mates in a coffee shop is very different from survivors just pulled out of the water and questioned by police anxious to get their witness statements. Your mates can give it large and you can merrily disbelieve half of what they say. In the aftermath of a catastrophe someone saying it felt like a collision really isn't trying to ******** you. Honest!
Click to expand...

Um, that's nice.

I repeat my question again to see if you can muster an answer to it.

-------------------------------

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?

---------------------------------

In sum, do you believe that BOTH explosions and a collision occurred, or are you disrespecting survivors?
 
phiwum said:
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.
Click to expand...

They come from this site, here. As you can see, this one is in German. English translation of his 'bangs': "ca. 00.30 hours very hard bang;
slight heel to starboard, some minutes later another much stronger bang, more heeling;
another bang and vessel heeled further."


Carl-Erik Reintaam (Swedish) here.


Paul Barney (Swedish) here.


Even the Finnish guy, Pekka Ihalainen is in Swedish: here. "truck driver who had previously been with the Coast Guard/Navy at Russarö;
to bed at 22.30 hours, woke up due to radio music at 00.32 hours, turned down the sound and slept again;
woke up again shortly afterwards from 3 very hard bangs/crashes;
realised that engines were reduced and stopped;
then the vessel heeled and drifted with wind and sea;
saw the other two ferries at port side (could not believe that ESTONIA had changed course so much after the heel);
"


Perhaps someone can comment on whether these are good translations or not.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

So no real ethos of taking eyewitness testimony seriously, then.

Do you have any evidence for this "very great pressure" you mention? I mean, the fact that they were interviewed numerous times *could* suggest they were subjected to pressure, but does not necessarily.

Can this pressure be demonstrated to exist any place other than your own supposition, or in the uncorroborated claims of such people as Anders Bjorkman?
 
Axxman300 said:
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:



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.
Click to expand...

His statement as summarised is here. You decide whether 'a hard push' is a good translation of what he said.
 
JayUtah said:
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.



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



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?



You say from your vast experience as a forensic investigator.



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?



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.
Click to expand...

As I recall the deformation in the metal samples cut from the bow bulkhead were compatible with an explosive force, because of the pattern of twinning. This can also be caused in a laboratory by heating metal up to >700°. Since it had not been laboratory treated, this hypothesis was rejected. Three independent laboratories confirmed deformation compatible with a force of up to between 3,000 to 5,000 m/s.
 
phiwum said:
Who?

A quick glance at this site, where they summarize the sounds heard per witness testimony, doesn't show any examples. Obviously, that site may be incomplete and you know something they omit, but who claimed to hear explosions?

Perhaps we can see the English translation of that testimony and see.

Again, help me out here. You say people heard an explosion or collision, but you haven't given me much in the way of evidence.

One guy heard a scraping underneath, but that's not obviously a collision. Another said she thought they hit a rock at the time. Anyone else say they heard a collision? And which ones heard explosions?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

As I said, scroll back the messages dated 31 Aug and you'll find a long summary of the accounts. So all you need do is count them for yourself.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
The difference between them is purely rhetorical and not linguistic. Saying that there are no similes in Finnish is like saying that there is no such thing as hyperbole in Finnish.
Click to expand...

Of course there are similes in Finnish.

What I said was that whilst in English we might say 'I heard what sounded like an explosion', in Finnish we use a case ending which doesn't require the word 'like'.
 
phiwum said:
This thread moves quickly. Can you at least tell me which post?

Is it the same source as I cited just above? If so, the answer is: no one. The page I cited listed no one claiming they heard an explosion. The only occurrence of the word "explosion" was a denial that a person heard one.

Of course, that site may be biased and you may have other information, so let me know.
Click to expand...

How difficult is it to scroll back to messages dated 31 August GMT BST? I wonder how sincere your request is when you can't take the trouble but want me to list them all over again. I expect even then you will not be satisfied.
 
phiwum said:
Um, that's nice.

I repeat my question again to see if you can muster an answer to it.

-------------------------------

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?

---------------------------------

In sum, do you believe that BOTH explosions and a collision occurred, or are you disrespecting survivors?
Click to expand...

If there has been an accident on public transport, of course we want eye witness statements. Take Grenfell Tower, the eyewitness statements were invaluable at the public inquiry.

If you are claiming a whole bunch of survivors claimed they saw the bow visor falling off or witnessed it pounding, do provide the citations. We are all waiting in listening pose.
 
Vixen said:
His statement as summarised is here. You decide whether 'a hard push' is a good translation of what he said.
Click to expand...

I'm no expert in Swedish, but if your referring to "kraftig stöt", then "hard push" seems viable, if a bit underdramatic. Maybe "powerful shock"? But that still doesn't imply an explosion.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
So no real ethos of taking eyewitness testimony seriously, then.

Do you have any evidence for this "very great pressure" you mention? I mean, the fact that they were interviewed numerous times *could* suggest they were subjected to pressure, but does not necessarily.

Can this pressure be demonstrated to exist any place other than your own supposition, or in the uncorroborated claims of such people as Anders Bjorkman?
Click to expand...

Bjorkman thinks Linde was fitted up for his drug conviction.

I believe Linde was a properly convicted drug smuggler. He got nine years. The Finnish prosecutor wanted him to get eleven years. Linde conspired to smuggle 13 kilograms of amphetamines. He claimed his contacts with the truck driver of this cargo was merely to chat about building work. He claimed he was fitted up because of the Estonia. This is the same guy who claims he was at Turku Hospital with 'missing surivor' Vhadras, was a frined of his and they chatted. Linde says he Linde left the room for a few moments and when he came back, Vhadras had vanished, together with his bed. His body was washed up drowned later. Linde admitted he completely changed his initial statements to the JAIC re the Estonia sinking. He changed his story more times than jackanory. The guy is a compulsive liar, like most criminals. If you believe anything Linde says, you are gullible. Yet Linde was the JAIC's star witness.
 
Vixen said:
Bjorkman thinks Linde was fitted up for his drug conviction.

I believe Linde was a properly convicted drug smuggler. He got nine years. The Finnish prosecutor wanted him to get eleven years. Linde conspired to smuggle 13 kilograms of amphetamines. He claimed his contacts with the truck driver of this cargo was merely to chat about building work. He claimed he was fitted up because of the Estonia. This is the same guy who claims he was at Turku Hospital with 'missing surivor' Vhadras, was a frined of his and they chatted. Linde says he Linde left the room for a few moments and when he came back, Vhadras had vanished, together with his bed. His body was washed up drowned later. Linde admitted he completely changed his initial statements to the JAIC re the Estonia sinking. He changed his story more times than jackanory. The guy is a compulsive liar, like most criminals. If you believe anything Linde says, you are gullible. Yet Linde was the JAIC's star witness.
Click to expand...

Remember all this the next time you try to lecture us about not taking eyewitnesses seriously enough. I know I will. And I'll make sure everybody else does.
 
Vixen said:
As I recall the deformation in the metal samples cut from the bow bulkhead were compatible with an explosive force, because of the pattern of twinning. This can also be caused in a laboratory by heating metal up to >700°. Since it had not been laboratory treated, this hypothesis was rejected. Three independent laboratories confirmed deformation compatible with a force of up to between 3,000 to 5,000 m/s.
Click to expand...

And what was my rebuttal?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom