• 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.
Vixen said:
I didn't give it any credence so I didn't bother chasing it up.
Click to expand...
Can we then assume that anything you say that doesn't have citations, sources and proper references doesn't have any credence?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
He would have been briefed by his experts and that is how he came to his opinion as of that date. Note the salient point is how fast the vessel sank.

Even the JAIC had to admit it needed more than the bow visor dropping off.

It had to create a scenario of the car ramp door also coming off to fit the Herald of Free Enterprise prototype.
Click to expand...

Which 'experts' would have briefed him?

I thought you said he was the 'expert'?
 
Vixen said:
I am pretty sure I did explain in detail how the Russians were selling old submarine stock to Iran and tinpot third world dictatorships.
Click to expand...
But you didn't give any sources, citations or references to the hypothesis that the Estonia might have been sank by a Russian submarine which was being sold to inexperienced third world buyers.

Either that hypothesis is yours or it is someone elses. If it is someone else's then you didn't cite them, source them or properly reference them, and you are repeatedly telling us that the hypotheses being put forth in this thread are not yours, you are merely reporting others claims, and you have said that your posts are cited, sourced and properly referenced.

Can you understand why people don't believe you when you say that your posts are sourced, cited and properly referenced? They aren't.

Or that none of the fantastical hypotheses being forth are yours, but you are merely repeating others claims? There's a stunning lack of sources for lots of your lurid stories about mine laying submarines, torpedo shooting minisubs, bridge hijackings, etc.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Context is all. The original context is London John claiming that no way would anyone think it was a mine. So I pointed out that actually there was such a claim.
Click to expand...
Any you claimed that James Meek agreed with that claim. Which he didn't.
 
Vixen said:
A Baltic maritime expert likely knows better than London John as to whether there are mines in the Baltic Sea.
Click to expand...
The claim wasn't that there were mines in the Baltic sea, the claim was that the Estonia might have been sank by one of them.

Seriously, are you entirely incapable of following the discussion?
 
Vixen said:
Somebody questioned whether anybody could be so idiotic as to think it could have been a mine that sunk the ship.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about 'anybody'?

Vixen said:
Rescuer: You speaky Eenglish?

Survivor: Me no speaky Eenglish, me half dead, me just want sleepy byes.
Click to expand...

Who's disrespecting the survivors now?

Vixen said:
Oh for crying out oud. These guys literally faced death in the face. Do you really think they would even begin to be experts into the cause of the accident. She-eesh.

Rolf Sörman, first-hand eyewitness survivor says:

Baltic Times

How could any responsible person know as of Day One the cause of the accident before (a) the ship was even located or (b) there had even been an initial investigation.
Click to expand...

So we shouldn't make to much of the eyewitness reports of 'bangs', etc.? What about the witness who reported seeing something white flash by in the water? The next time 'anybody' posts such reports I'll remember this.
 
It seems to me that those who are arguing that Bildt's early claims about the cause of the sinking were reliable are missing the point.

Whether Bildt knew what he was talking about in the days following the accident is irrelevant really. Maybe he was talking out his ass. The fact is, what he said isn't particularly relevant because Bildt's early claims aren't a reason to believe the cause was the failure of the bow visor in a storm. The subsequent, well-informed report by JAIC provides all the evidence needed, especially when coupled with the numerous counterarguments to Vixen's theories du jour.

I mean, I don't know about you, but when I first saw this thread, I believed I knew the cause just because I knew of the expert conclusions from the investigation. I've learned a little more about the evidence while reading this thread. I also learned what Bildt said, but I don't reckon that what he said matters much. He might have been well-informed or maybe not. Whatever. It's the bulk of the evidence and reasoning in the report that matters.

Indeed, if a new investigation were to revise the conclusion, I would not be all that puzzled about why a new conclusion would be inconsistent with Bildt's early claims. Initial impressions about what caused the accident have little weight, whether well-informed (considering the information available at the time) or not.

Now, JayUtah has it right. He's pointed out that Bildt doesn't matter. Others have presented explanations of why Bildt would be better informed or less biased than Estine. These arguments are a distraction.
 
Vixen said:
Do you think Meek a reputable journalist for a respected British broadsheet, the GRAUNIAD would have published the story if he did not think it credible? He is not writing for the SUN or NATIONAL ENQUIRER where any old gossip will do. GRAUNIAD readers are sandal-wearing middle-class lefties who are conscious of climate change, social inequality and the need for reform. They could not give a toss about sensationalist stories. Enter James Meek with his reasonable story that Estonia 'might have been sunk by a mine claim'. Note the word 'claim'.
Click to expand...

We've just had several years of the press dutifully reporting a very long line of Trump's falsehoods. Oh, eventually, they started saying that what Trump was saying is false, but not at the start. They simply said this is what Trump said.

That's the job of the press in normal times. You report newsworthy comments. Doing so doesn't imply credibility of any sort. You're only reporting what this person, whose comments are newsworthy for various reasons, said. Erstine's comments at the time of the accident would be newsworthy because of his position, so it's reasonable to report them.

Whether Erstine's comments were credible is not necessarily considered by the reporter. That's really for others to judge.
 
Mojo said:
I’m also curious about how a claim could sink a ferry.
Click to expand...
A lot of people have been killed over mine claims. See the Treasure of Sierra Madre.

But I guess "killed over" is not the same as "sunk by a mine claim".
 
Last edited:
junkshop said:
Sorry, i should have been clearer in my post. I was responding to this:


By reminding you that you had earlier posted this:


Note the part I have bolded, which shows your later assertion to be either mistaken, or dishonest. I wasn't addressing or making any claims about expertise in mines.

I hope that clears things up.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
If Meek didn't think his source was reliable he would not have bothered to quote it.

Whilst a professional journalist is bound by his professional ethics to present a balanced article at the same time they still have to make a decision as to whether the source of their story is reliable and they are expected to check the reliability of their sources. In other words they won't publish something that in their professional opinion and training does not ring true.

So in that sense, Meek did indeed believe that the Chief of Estline's opinion was a newsworthy and one, as spoken by a maritime expert.


He is not quoting some unnamed keyboard warrior on a conspiracy theory chat forum.


So, as I said, it is not conspiracy theory, it is current affairs.
Click to expand...

Once again, you have missed the point of my post. I really don't think I could have been any clearer, and can only conclude that it is deliberate on your part.
 
phiwum said:
It seems to me that those who are arguing that Bildt's early claims about the cause of the sinking were reliable are missing the point.

Whether Bildt knew what he was talking about in the days following the accident is irrelevant really. Maybe he was talking out his ass. The fact is, what he said isn't particularly relevant because Bildt's early claims aren't a reason to believe the cause was the failure of the bow visor in a storm. The subsequent, well-informed report by JAIC provides all the evidence needed, especially when coupled with the numerous counterarguments to Vixen's theories du jour.

I mean, I don't know about you, but when I first saw this thread, I believed I knew the cause just because I knew of the expert conclusions from the investigation. I've learned a little more about the evidence while reading this thread. I also learned what Bildt said, but I don't reckon that what he said matters much. He might have been well-informed or maybe not. Whatever. It's the bulk of the evidence and reasoning in the report that matters.

Indeed, if a new investigation were to revise the conclusion, I would not be all that puzzled about why a new conclusion would be inconsistent with Bildt's early claims. Initial impressions about what caused the accident have little weight, whether well-informed (considering the information available at the time) or not.

Now, JayUtah has it right. He's pointed out that Bildt doesn't matter. Others have presented explanations of why Bildt would be better informed or less biased than Estine. These arguments are a distraction.
Click to expand...

Indeed. What Carl Bildt said in the immediate aftermath of the disaster is of interest *only* if we concede the premise that there was some sort of coverup right from the get go. It's not a resource for making the claim that there was one. To use it that way is to beg the question.

First establish that there is some reason to think a coverup happened. Then what Carl Bildt said will matter to the rest of the discussion
 
Vixen said:
Do read the GUARDIAN report, which states:



Do you really think these guys are uneducated about the layout of their own seas?
Click to expand...

When evaluating reliability of an authority, like Estine or Johanson, there are a couple of questions to ask. Is he an expert in the relevant matters? Is he trustworthy?

Let's focus on Johanson. He is probably pretty knowledgeable about the waters his ferries operated in. So far, so good. He knows more than most about the kinds of things that would cause his ferries to sink too, I'd guess. Again, so far, so good.

But he is commenting in a period of relative ignorance compared to those who prepared the JAIC report. They had a lot more evidence about what happened. They had seen the wreck itself. While I might give Johanson's claims credence when they were made, I'd have to say that when he made them, he lacked the information that came later.

Now about trustworthiness. This isn't just asking, "Is he being dishonest?" It's obvious that there are various reasons that I could prefer one conclusion over another and that preference can affect my judgment. This has to be taken into account whenever we are evaluating the reliability of an authority (and cannot evaluate his reasoning directly because we lack his expertise). Clearly, both Estine and Johanson have an interest in the accident being caused by a mine. This interest could well have swayed their analysis, intentionally or not.

I know that the latter comment sounds like an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy, but it is not. We rely on expert testimony (in the logical, not legal, sense) when we are not capable of evaluating their reasoning ourselves. In such a situation, trustworthiness and hence conflicts of interest are indeed relevant.
 
Vixen said:
If Meek didn't think his source was reliable he would not have bothered to quote it.
Click to expand...

Per this reasoning, every reporter who quoted Trump over the past several years was attesting to Trump's reliability.
 
Vixen said:
If anyone had access to the crew - who were a majority Estonian - then it would surely have been the bosses ar Estline. Meek's article was dated 3 Oct 1994. By then, the Estline managers will certainly have taken steps to contact all available crew or vice versa so IMV Johanson's opinion was just as good as PM Bildt's, as of that stage. In fact, more so, as he likely had Naval Academy and navy military training, rising through the ranks.
Click to expand...

Look, I don't really care about early conjectures regarding the cause, but let's look at this.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the survivors were evacuated to Sweden, right? And Johanson was in Estonia, right?

So, how is it that the Estline bosses were more likely to have access to the surviving crew than the Swedes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom