• 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.
Captain_Swoop said:
Where does it 'clearly show' this?

What is your explanation?
Is the image a forgery?
Was the visor moved a 1000m?
Click to expand...

Underneath the bulbous bow.

I think Bildt was surprised by Lehtola's memo as his intelligence services had informed him of the bow visor falling off, thus Lehtola was sharply told he had no authority (which Lehtola states in his second memo retracting his first) to say the bow visor had been found.

I don't believe the image is a forgery because Lehtola describes it very clearly in his memo of the 8/9 October 1994 and the Swedish Maritime Administration sent the group AgnEf a copy of it some years later.

How the image came to show up at all or be identified as a piece of plate metal nothing to do with the vessel is one of those strange mysteries surrounding this case.
 
Vixen said:
I am not sure it is fair to blame the crew for the disaster. Sure, they were woefully ill-prepared - although they knew when to get the warm clothing and survivors suits on and to ensure they got a life raft! - plus I believe they were worn down by interrogations into playing along with the JAIC line (nobody wants to be blamed for the deaths of 900 people). However, the ship sank so fast from the first sign of trouble, it isn't realistic to expect any great success in evacuation. In addition, the chief Finnish Coastguard at the time, Heimo Iivonoen said in his report to the JAIC that there was continuous signal interference from the Russians for the duration of the accident plus the international May Day channel 16 was down from 1:02 to 1:58 for the entire duration of the accident - there was no VHF signal at all as by coincidence the entire network was down. In addition, Helsinki had to use a pan-pan to get the SOS out yet many important personnel involved in coast guard rescue never received it. It was heroic of Tammes to even get through at all.
Click to expand...

The crew got their survival suits on because that is what they are trained to do.
If the command team on the bridge had responded to the first indication of the problem, had loaded the ship correctly and taken notice of previous problems with the bow then the ship might not have sunk.

What is the evidence for the Russians interfering with radio apart from a claim by a Finnish coastguard?

Is it not more likely that the weather conditions had more to do with radio problems than Russian skulduggery?

What do you mean there was 'there was no VHF signal at all as by coincidence the entire network was down'? Do you know how radio works?
Do you know what a 'Pan-Pan' is?
If the ship had issued a Pan and a Mayday in good time they would have still had their main transmitter working before they lost power and they woudn't have had to rely on a low power handset.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Underneath the bulbous bow.

I think Bildt was surprised by Lehtola's memo as his intelligence services had informed him of the bow visor falling off, thus Lehtola was sharply told he had no authority (which Lehtola states in his second memo retracting his first) to say the bow visor had been found.

I don't believe the image is a forgery because Lehtola describes it very clearly in his memo of the 8/9 October 1994 and the Swedish Maritime Administration sent the group AgnEf a copy of it some years later.

How the image came to show up at all or be identified as a piece of plate metal nothing to do with the vessel is one of those strange mysteries surrounding this case.
Click to expand...

It was a guess from the image available.

What do you think it shows?
Do you think it was the bow visor?
 
Vixen said:
It was a while ago so I have no citation. However, there is an interesting piece in the GRAUNIAD that explains the link between the overseas correspondents and the intelligence agencies.
Click to expand...

So you have no evidence to support your claim that Kate Adie was an intelligence agent?
 
Vixen said:
In that special place that jokes go that Dante wrote about.
Click to expand...


No.

You claimed - falsely, and for effect - that there had been "a stream of cruel and callous jokes about (the victims') fates". That's simply a lie. You should be ashamed of what you wrote.
 
Vixen said:
Underneath the bulbous bow.
Click to expand...


Where? Draw an outline around what you think shows the bow visor. And after you've done that, explain to us exactly how & why you believe the thing you've outlined is the ship's bow visor.



I think Bildt was surprised by Lehtola's memo as his intelligence services had informed him of the bow visor falling off, thus Lehtola was sharply told he had no authority (which Lehtola states in his second memo retracting his first) to say the bow visor had been found.

I don't believe the image is a forgery because Lehtola describes it very clearly in his memo of the 8/9 October 1994 and the Swedish Maritime Administration sent the group AgnEf a copy of it some years later.

How the image came to show up at all or be identified as a piece of plate metal nothing to do with the vessel is one of those strange mysteries surrounding this case.
Click to expand...


It "came to show up at all (and) be identified as a piece of plate metal" because it was looked at by people who a) obviously have no idea about sonar interpretation, nor its limitations or propensity to artefacts; and b) who may well have been operating on (false) assumptions that prompted them to see things which weren't actually there.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
The crew got their survival suits on because that is what they are trained to do.
If the command team on the bridge had responded to the first indication of the problem, had loaded the ship correctly and taken notice of previous problems with the bow then the ship might not have sunk.

What is the evidence for the Russians interfering with radio apart from a claim by a Finnish coastguard?

Is it not more likely that the weather conditions had more to do with radio problems than Russian skulduggery?

What do you mean there was 'there was no VHF signal at all as by coincidence the entire network was down'? Do you know how radio works?
Do you know what a 'Pan-Pan' is?
If the ship had issued a Pan and a Mayday in good time they would have still had their main transmitter working before they lost power and they woudn't have had to rely on a low power handset.
Click to expand...

The Captain of the nearby M/S Viking Mariella had to use his handheld phone to contact the coastguards.


May Day should be done via the international channel 16. Tammes had to use another localised channel to communicate. The GPS locator which would have told the nearby vessels of the Estonia location was down. The ships ARIP (_?) buoys were inactive. Tammes had to go away and find out the vessel's location by manual means - five minutes wasted! - and in his nervousness initially gave the wrong coordinates, having to repeat it three times.

Helsinki used a pan-pan which does not have the same level of urgency as Channel 16 was down and it never received the initial reports. The JAIC blame Helsinki for using pan-pan instead of more urgent channels but the entire communications network was kaput as of the time of the accident.
 
LondonJohn said:
No.

You claimed - falsely, and for effect - that there had been "a stream of cruel and callous jokes about (the victims') fates". That's simply a lie. You should be ashamed of what you wrote.
Click to expand...

It is cruel and callous to call the opening of a new review of the accident 'a conspiracy theory' as though it is some kind of Big Foot nuttery, and removing it away from 'Current Affairs' which it is, and claiming the survivors had no idea what they were talking about. Denial of survivors' experiences is cold-blooded IMV.
 
Vixen said:
Evidence is a stupid word as classified top secret means exactly that.
Click to expand...


No. Look: if a person makes a claim, then - unless that person is a straight-up fabulist - he/she must hold that belief based upon at least some evidence. It might be weak evidence (eg: "Someone I play golf with knows someone who said Kate Adie was a secret agent"), or it could be moderately-strong evidence (eg: "a New Statesman article in 2004 stated that it had a well-place source who'd named Kate Adie as a secret agent, but the security services declined to confirm or deny the story". Or it could be strong evidence (eg: "Here's a link to a piece written by Kate Adie for the Guardian, in which she states that she was a secret agent in addition to being a journalist, and in which MI6 confirms this as true").

Are you actually saying that you're basing your claim that Kate Adie was a secret agent on....... no discernible evidence whatsoever?
 
Vixen said:
It is cruel and callous to call the opening of a new review of the accident 'a conspiracy theory' as though it is some kind of Big Foot nuttery, and removing it away from 'Current Affairs' which it is, and claiming the survivors had no idea what they were talking about. Denial of survivors' experiences is cold-blooded IMV.
Click to expand...


No.

(And now you're shifting the goalposts from 1) claiming that it was posters' "jokes" that were cruel and callous towards the victims..... to 2) claiming that it is/was the categorisation of your claims* as conspiracy theories that is/was cruel and callous)


* And note also that it's irrelevant how many of the victims' families or survivors might also attach credence or possible credence to such claims - it'd certainly be sad if many of them do hold that belief (and, as with 9/11, it's actually the conspiracy theories themselves that are inflicting a cruel and callous trick on these vulnerable groups), but it's entirely irrelevant when it comes to classification of those theories as conspiracy theories.
 
Vixen said:
It is a fact there is a massive hole in the starboard and which has been known about since the early days. Yet posters here keep claiming that is a conspiracy theory and that it must have been deformation from shifting in the seabed and that they should just accept that it was the bow visor and the hand of God.
Click to expand...
In what way is this any defence of your disgusting and untrue claim that there has been constant cruel mockery of the victims?

The only thing that has been mocked in this thread is your scattergun theorizing about outlandish plots and your seeming fixation with joining the dots to make a conspiracy-shaped answer.

And you need to knock off claiming that anyone here says there shouldn't be another investigation because that's bull crap and everyone can plainly see it.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
In what way is this any defence of your disgusting and untrue claim that there has been constant cruel mockery of the victims?

The only thing that has been mocked in this thread is your scattergun theorizing about outlandish plots and your seeming fixation with joining the dots to make a conspiracy-shaped answer.

And you need to knock off claiming that anyone here says there shouldn't be another investigation because that's bull crap and everyone can plainly see it.
Click to expand...

When you look at Vixen's lack of ability to comprehend the words that are posted in this very thread it is a simple matter to understand how and why Vixen misinterprets (and twists) so many other things that have been written elsewhere about the sinking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom