• 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 Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
LondonJohn said:
Yup. No vested interests there at all, noesurree.

(Just like the yard which designed and built the ship having zero vested interest in claiming that the cause of the sinking was nothing whatsoever to do with the design or construction of the ship...)
Click to expand...

Er you do know that Estonia was also part owned by the Swedes vis-a-vis Thule & Nordstrom.
 
Vixen said:
There was a huge NATO exercise at the time. How come not one of those vessels/aircraft overheard the May Day distress signals?
Click to expand...

They were many hundreds of miles away.

Whilst the crew were pretty hapless, it can't really be blamed on them as there would be no way to evacuate 1,000 within the ten minute time line they had, with about 80% tucked up asleep in their cabins across seven or eight decks. How can a few strong waves twist wrought iron/steel bolts and even if they did, the bow visor was not a plug, so even it did fall off that shouldn't have caused the ship to sink.
Click to expand...

If they had started to assemble the passengers at the first indication of trouble they would have stood a better chance.

It was not just a 'few strong waves' you keep saying it was but the ship had over a decade of storms and the bow visor was already faulty.

It was a plug. It was the front of the ship.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It was certified seaworthy. According to the JAIC report it was seaworthy, evne though the APIRB buous were switched off, the life rafts still had 'Viking Sally' written on them - indicating sheer age - and many of the provisions included in the life rafts were missing. The life jackets had straps that were impossible for an adult to clasp together under the legs/crutch, hence they kept riding up over people's head, yet the vessel was deemed 'seaworthy'.
Click to expand...

We just went through the buoys. They are always switched off until activated.

What does the name on the rafts have to do with it? They have a set life in their canisters at which point they are replaced at set intervals, if the ship name changes then the name on the rafts would be changed at their next renewal.
As for 'provisions' they can't be removed from rafts as they are sealed canisters, there is no way to get them out with out opening the raft canister which means the raft is useless and effectively destroyed. What 'provisions' do you think are included in a life raft specified for the Baltic?

Life jackets have been standard for decades. What instruction were the passengers given in putting on the jackets correctly?

If there was a deficiency in the lifesaving equipment then it is the responsibility of the ships owners to replace it.

What you have listed here doesn't seem to be a reason for not issuing a seaworthiness certificate for the ship.

It does speak to the sloppiness of the company and captain though.
 
Vixen said:
Yes, Drew Wilson was the source. Very good read.
Click to expand...
Drew Wilson was the source for the citation, but not the source for what you claim Meek said in the cited article, aside from the brief irrelevant excerpt. I was asking whether you had read the Meek article, which you clearly had not. Are you aware that it's considered intellectually dishonest to copy footnotes from secondary sources and pretend that you are familiar with the primary source on that basis?
 
JayUtah said:
Drew Wilson was the source for the citation, but not the source for what you claim Meek said in the cited article, aside from the brief irrelevant excerpt. I was asking whether you had read the Meek article, which you clearly had not. Are you aware that it's considered intellectually dishonest to copy footnotes from secondary sources and pretend that you are familiar with the primary source on that basis?
Click to expand...

It seems to me that it's been mentioned a time or two.

Vixen, citing your actual source rather than a source of a source is important. The summary of a newspaper report hasn't the same reliability as the newspaper report itself. It can be misleading, due to normal imprecision, bias or even dishonesty. When you claim that what you're repeating comes from the newspaper, you are giving unwarranted authority and trust to the information.

The same issue occurred when we discussed eyewitness accounts. We don't have the original accounts (or their translations), with rare exceptions, because the Estonia Ferry Disaster site is full of dead links, but we were trying to parse words and infer whether the eyewitnesses were really reporting explosions. Had the site author shared your own sloppiness and biases, he might have done as you did and written "explosion" even though the eyewitnesses did not use that term (with one exception I know of). Little changes like this make a big difference in our reasoning.

So, please, just tell us the source you're actually using. You can say that so-and-so reports that Aftonbladet said such-and-such, but you shouldn't say that Aftonbladet actually said it unless you've seen the article itself.
 
phiwum said:
The summary of a newspaper report hasn't the same reliability as the newspaper report itself. It can be misleading, due to normal imprecision, bias or even dishonesty.
Click to expand...

It's even more egregious here because Wilson cites to Meek as documentation for the interpretation of sonar images, a topic also evidently covered in the same article. The only information about mines one could glean from Wilson's reference is what's implied in the title. That's completely irresponsible. It's like trying to claim A Farewell to Arms is about amputees, based solely on seeing it cited in another work.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
It seems to me that it's been mentioned a time or two.

Vixen, citing your actual source rather than a source of a source is important. The summary of a newspaper report hasn't the same reliability as the newspaper report itself. It can be misleading, due to normal imprecision, bias or even dishonesty. When you claim that what you're repeating comes from the newspaper, you are giving unwarranted authority and trust to the information.

The same issue occurred when we discussed eyewitness accounts. We don't have the original accounts (or their translations), with rare exceptions, because the Estonia Ferry Disaster site is full of dead links, but we were trying to parse words and infer whether the eyewitnesses were really reporting explosions. Had the site author shared your own sloppiness and biases, he might have done as you did and written "explosion" even though the eyewitnesses did not use that term (with one exception I know of). Little changes like this make a big difference in our reasoning.

So, please, just tell us the source you're actually using. You can say that so-and-so reports that Aftonbladet said such-and-such, but you shouldn't say that Aftonbladet actually said it unless you've seen the article itself.
Click to expand...

Look, phiwum, original sources are gold dust to researchers, especially in history. On any topic there will be several books, maybe hundreds, most of which will be plagiarisms, for example, I spotted an entry in Macmillans Encylcopedia about rhinocerii that was totally incorrect but which was replicated in numerous other later texts. That is how people work. They find a textbook, as in a University 'reading list' and they quote from there. But wait! If you want to do original research, you start from scratch and find your own sources. Original newspaper articles are a gem for the historian. Whilst, yes, newspapers are prone to all kinds of inaccuracies and conjecture, they do provide a first hand account before the spin masters, politicians, newspaper barons and publishing houses (who will only publish historical accounts by first class honours Oxford students in History) put their revision of history interpretation of events on it.

Now, I have done quite a lot of historical research from eclectic resources. Should I do reams of research for the benefit of 'hecklers at the back of the hall' on a chat forum only to get mocked? No, I don't think so!

So, phiwum, state your case as to why you think one should, given I am merely reporting a current affairs topic and not carrying out research.
 
JayUtah said:
It's even more egregious here because Wilson cites to Meek as documentation for the interpretation of sonar images, a topic also evidently covered in the same article. The only information about mines one could glean from Wilson's reference is what's implied in the title. That's completely irresponsible. It's like trying to claim A Farewell to Arms is about amputees, based solely on seeing it cited in another work.
Click to expand...

Really? Or, 'Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears', was literal? Come on, JayUtah, you can do better than that. A Farewell to Arms is obviously about war is it not, except to someone who loves to argue pedantry?

Fact is, Meek did report in the GUARDIAN broadsheet that some CEO at Estlines did opine that it 'might have been a mine' that sank the Estonia in the early days.
 
Vixen said:
Look, phiwum, original sources are gold dust to researchers, especially in history. On any topic there will be several books, maybe hundreds, most of which will be plagiarisms, for example, I spotted an entry in Macmillans Encylcopedia about rhinocerii that was totally incorrect but which was replicated in numerous other later texts. That is how people work. They find a textbook, as in a University 'reading list' and they quote from there. But wait! If you want to do original research, you start from scratch and find your own sources. Original newspaper articles are a gem for the historian. Whilst, yes, newspapers are prone to all kinds of inaccuracies and conjecture, they do provide a first hand account before the spin masters, politicians, newspaper barons and publishing houses (who will only publish historical accounts by first class honours Oxford students in History) put their revision of history interpretation of events on it.

Now, I have done quite a lot of historical research from eclectic resources. Should I do reams of research for the benefit of 'hecklers at the back of the hall' on a chat forum only to get mocked? No, I don't think so!

So, phiwum, state your case as to why you think one should, given I am merely reporting a current affairs topic and not carrying out research.
Click to expand...

You should at least do some minimal checking before you post.
If you post it you own it.
 
Vixen said:
given I am merely reporting a current affairs topic and not carrying out research.
Click to expand...

But you're not doing just that. You're overlaying your own theories on top of that topic. You're citing sources in support of those theories without actually doing anything to check the veracity of those sources.

Claiming you are "merely reporting a current affairs topic" is dishonest.
 
Vixen said:
Look, phiwum, original sources are gold dust to researchers, especially in history. On any topic there will be several books, maybe hundreds, most of which will be plagiarisms, for example, I spotted an entry in Macmillans Encylcopedia about rhinocerii that was totally incorrect but which was replicated in numerous other later texts. That is how people work. They find a textbook, as in a University 'reading list' and they quote from there. But wait! If you want to do original research, you start from scratch and find your own sources. Original newspaper articles are a gem for the historian. Whilst, yes, newspapers are prone to all kinds of inaccuracies and conjecture, they do provide a first hand account before the spin masters, politicians, newspaper barons and publishing houses (who will only publish historical accounts by first class honours Oxford students in History) put their revision of history interpretation of events on it.

Now, I have done quite a lot of historical research from eclectic resources. Should I do reams of research for the benefit of 'hecklers at the back of the hall' on a chat forum only to get mocked? No, I don't think so!

So, phiwum, state your case as to why you think one should, given I am merely reporting a current affairs topic and not carrying out research.
Click to expand...
You agree that newspapers are valuable. That's why you illegitimately cite them. You're pretending to use a more valuable source than you really use. It's dishonest.

As far as why you should give accurate citations, well, because that's how discussion works. We don't accept claims on your say so. We want to know where they come from because that's relevant to evaluating them. It's how discussion works.

Hiding your sources is asinine and evidence that you realize they are unreliable. See again the bit about dishonesty.

Sourced material is not buried treasure. Its only value comes from sharing it.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Fact is, Meek did report in the GUARDIAN broadsheet that some CEO at Estlines did opine that it 'might have been a mine' that sank the Estonia in the early days.
Click to expand...

But you didn't know any of that when you assured us that the reporting of sea mines came from a reputable source that should be trusted more than LondonJohn, or any of the other people who have spoken about sea mines in this thread. Only when someone else did your homework for you did we find out it's the company head trying to spin-doctor the tragedy, handwaving up a "personal opinion" that it's someone else's fault and reaching for a patently absurd explanation that he later had to discard. Meek's reporting doesn't strengthen the case that sea mines could have caused the accident. You completely misrepresented what the report was, because you hadn't read it, but insinuated you had.
 
phiwum said:
You agree that newspapers are valuable. That's why you illegitimately cite them. You're pretending to use a more valuable source than you really use. It's dishonest.

As far as why you should give accurate citations, well, because that's how discussion works. We don't accept claims on your say so. We want to know where they come from because that's relevant to evaluating them. It's how discussion works.

Hiding your sources is asinine and evidence that you realize they are unreliable. See again the bit about dishonesty.

Sourced material is not buried treasure. Its only value comes from sharing it.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It was a direct quote from BNS ('Baltic News Service') a perfectly respectable source.
 
JayUtah said:
But you didn't know any of that when you assured us that the reporting of sea mines came from a reputable source that should be trusted more than LondonJohn, or any of the other people who have spoken about sea mines in this thread. Only when someone else did your homework for you did we find out it's the company head trying to spin-doctor the tragedy, handwaving up a "personal opinion" that it's someone else's fault and reaching for a patently absurd explanation that he later had to discard. Meek's reporting doesn't strengthen the case that sea mines could have caused the accident. You completely misrepresented what the report was, because you hadn't read it, but insinuated you had.
Click to expand...

The CEO of Estline, trust me, knows more about the Baltic and its history than any keyboarder on ISF. He and a reputable prize-winning journalist James Meek thought a mine was a genuine possibility as of the time of the incident.
 
Vixen said:
The CEO of Estline, trust me...
Click to expand...

No, I don't trust you. The CEO of Estline was on the cusp of having his company blamed for the worst maritime disaster in recent memory. He's obviously spin-doctoring. In other sources he made the same handwaving allusions to sea mines or rocks, but with no details.

The fact remains that in thousands of passages a year through those waters, no one else has encountered a sea mine. It's a farfetched possibility. You know it. I know it. Johanson knows it. But he's trying to save face.

He and a reputable prize-winning journalist James Meek thought a mine was a genuine possibility...
Click to expand...

No. Whatever the CEO of Estline says at a time like this is newsworthy, even if it's utter bollocks. You have no evidence that Meek agreed with Johanson. Other articles written by Meek, including the one he wrote the next day after seeing the video footage, are highly critical of the ship's owners and operators and how they operated the vessel, citing sources that attest to that effect.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The CEO of Estline ... and a reputable prize-winning journalist James Meek thought a mine was a genuine possibility as of the time of the incident.
Click to expand...

This is not true, Vixen. Go back and read the quote that Whoanellie provided. Meek reported what Johanson had claimed, he did not offer an opinion on that claim. There is nothing in what he wrote to suggest that he shared Johanson's view.

ETA: Beaten to the punch by JayUtah. That'll teach me for replying before reading all the posts.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom