• 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:
The Swedish Accident officials gave them open access to the bow visor.

When will it sink in it is current affairs news and not a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...


The US Government is giving the all the conspiracy-theory nutters full access to its formerly-sealed files on 9/11.

When will it sink in it is a conspiracy theory and not current affairs news.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
They may have had access but they are just spewing speculation.
Click to expand...


Exactly. It doesn't appear to have crossed Vixen's mind that if the relevant governments denied access to evidence. they'd stand accused of having something to hide.

Whereas by contrast, the very fact that they've granted this group access to evidence is evidence in itself that they've got nothing to hide*.


* Or...... maybe, in Vixen's world, the Swedish accident investigators - who (in Vixen's world) are covering up the "real" cause of the sinking with some bogus nonsense about the bow visor, are engaging in some sort of elaborate double-bluff along the lines of "Hey Sven, why don't we give these guys access to the bow visor - we'll just have to hope they're too stupid to notice that our story about the bottom lock failing due to fatigue and stress is a load of nonsense, and that the real evidence on the visor indicates the true cause of the accident. Fingers crossed!"
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
Rogue KGB agents, disappearing crew members, mysterious cargo flights used to disappear people, mine laying minisubs, torpedo shooting minisubs, explosive charges, nuclear waste dissolving the bow visor, secret escort submarines, a government led cover-up, bridge hijackings, arms deals to Israel, CIA/KGB/MI6/Spetsnaz involvement, etc.

You can scream till you're blue in the face that you're not promoting conspiracy theories, but you are.

The fact that there is a current new investigation into the sinking of the Estonia does not absolve all the guff you've dropped in this thread from being common or garden conspiracy theory nonsense.

Even your tactics and talking points are straight out of the conspiracy theory playbook, accusing your critics of being unable to think for themselves and swallowing what the mainstream media tells them (your repeated references to Fox News, the Daily Mail and Rupert Murdoch), a government led cover-up by an investigation designed to tell a false narrative, a willingness to give credence to all sorts of mutually exclusive hypotheses just because they're something other than the "official theory".
Click to expand...

You are in denial.

The Swedish government itself is now releasing the original Rockwater videos to new investigators, which they will do bit by bit, after removing sensitive material showing human remains.

Sweden has accepted that this needs to be re-investigated, thanks to the new evidence of Evertsson's film and Linus Andersson's clear pictures of the hole in the starboard. Once Arikas report comes back in the Spring then there will be a review of what the next steps will be.

I am so proud of these guys. At last the relatives of the victims will get real answers, assuming Sweden retains its transparency. What is needed next is for Sweden to come clean and declassify all of the stuff that prevents the victims' loved ones from knowing the circumstances surrounding the accident. It is always better to know than not know.
 
LondonJohn said:
Ah this old chestnut again.

Does your worldview consider the mainstream media to be part of this grand conspiracy, in cahoots with governments, big business, and "the establishment"?

And are your views on the Estonia disaster motivated, at least in part, by a latent mistrust of those involved in this grand conspiracy? That you're speaking "truth to power"?
Click to expand...

What do you mean my 'worldview'? My world view is extremely down to earth and objective. ******** detector top of the range.
 
Vixen said:
The Swedish Accident officials gave them open access to the bow visor.

When will it sink in it is current affairs news and not a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

*Looks around* Huh, well how about that? This thread is in the Conspiracy Theories section of the forum.

looks that that claim died a flaming death on the same pyre as the claim of "hey, I'm only reporting this..."
 
Vixen said:
You are in denial.
Click to expand...

Hardly. Do you really think your ignorant waffling about in this forum has the slightest thing to do with real investigators doing the real work of investigation? You've simply latched onto whatever source tells you a different story than the conventional narrative, no matter how farfetched, contradictory, or ludicrous. Do you understand how your critics can support addition investigation without indulging the nonsense you've clung to in this thread? The fact that you can't see any difference between those two concepts speaks volumes.
 
LondonJohn said:
The US Government is giving the all the conspiracy-theory nutters full access to its formerly-sealed files on 9/11.

When will it sink in it is a conspiracy theory and not current affairs news.
Click to expand...

The only connection between the Estonia and 9/11 is the involvement of the CIA and information being unnecessarily made 'classified'. I find it interesting that you label the relatives of the deceased in 9/11 'conspiracy-theory nutters' as it shows not only a knee-jerk reaction to anyone with a contrary view to the 'given wisdom' as it were but also a deep contempt for the loved ones of the victims the right to understand why their lives were cut short. I don't know enough about 9/11 to comment. Each case should be determined on its own merits.

Your attitude is rather like someone deciding that 'all vegans must be green-voting lefties [add all kinds of additional stereotypes]' which portrays a laziness in thinking, prejudice and a narrow mind, not to mention fallacious reasoning because it should be obvious that not all people who question the cause of mass fatality accidents are 'conspiracy theory nutters'. That contemptuous sneering attitude says more about you than about them.

Reminds me of Alf Garnett calling labour voters 'long-haired gits'.
 
Vixen said:
What do you mean my 'worldview'? My world view is extremely down to earth and objective.
Click to expand...

Not in the least. As I mentioned before, you aren't weighing all the hypotheses with equal fairness. You've pre-rejected the conventional narrative. Then having done that, you consider only other hypotheses that aren't associated with the conventional narrative, no matter how objectively improbable they are. Your criteria for plausibility clearly begins and ends with whether a hypothesis supports or opposes the mainstream story. When asked to come up with a single narrative that explains more evidence better than the mainstream narrative, you can't do it. We get just vague hand-waving.

Your constant straw-manning reveals you don't consider your critics' arguments worth considering or treating fairly. You can't be bothered to represent their claims accurately, when you can be bothered to remember and acknowledge them at all. Nothing about your approach here is even slightly fair-minded.

******** detector top of the range.
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
LondonJohn said:
Exactly. It doesn't appear to have crossed Vixen's mind that if the relevant governments denied access to evidence. they'd stand accused of having something to hide.

Whereas by contrast, the very fact that they've granted this group access to evidence is evidence in itself that they've got nothing to hide*.


* Or...... maybe, in Vixen's world, the Swedish accident investigators - who (in Vixen's world) are covering up the "real" cause of the sinking with some bogus nonsense about the bow visor, are engaging in some sort of elaborate double-bluff along the lines of "Hey Sven, why don't we give these guys access to the bow visor - we'll just have to hope they're too stupid to notice that our story about the bottom lock failing due to fatigue and stress is a load of nonsense, and that the real evidence on the visor indicates the true cause of the accident. Fingers crossed!"
Click to expand...

The Swedish government of 1994 - 2020 did label documents 'classified' and even prevented the Estonian members of the JAIC (who were nominally its appointed 'Head' [Meister, Kurm]) access to film of the wreck. Survivors were denied seeing their own witness statements. The bow visor has been unavailable for viewing until now.

You really do not get that the new evidence of the starboard rupture changes everything.

It's like a kid clinging onto the belief of Father Christmas well into late childhood because it cannot accept that Mummy and Daddy were actually lying.
 
JayUtah said:
Hardly. Do you really think your ignorant waffling about in this forum has the slightest thing to do with real investigators doing the real work of investigation? You've simply latched onto whatever source tells you a different story than the conventional narrative, no matter how farfetched, contradictory, or ludicrous. Do you understand how your critics can support addition investigation without indulging the nonsense you've clung to in this thread? The fact that you can't see any difference between those two concepts speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

Oh deary, deary, me. You still think this topic is the same as a thread about grape seed extract, simply here for you to take the piss out of.
 
Vixen said:
It's like a kid clinging onto the belief of Father Christmas well into late childhood because it cannot accept that Mummy and Daddy were actually lying.
Click to expand...

So give us the end-to-end narrative that more parsimoniously explains all the evidence. If you accuse your critics of clinging to fantasy, can you provide something more grounded in actual reality, and not just more endless speculation?
 
Vixen said:
Oh deary, deary, me. You still think this topic is the same as a thread about grape seed extract, simply here for you to take the piss out of.
Click to expand...

No, I was making a legitimate point that you don't seem capable of grasping. Can you see the difference between what you're doing and what other people are doing?
 
Vixen said:
I am interested to know how you evaluate whether the information you receive is verified or fake.
Click to expand...

In my case, I generally have the professional training to evaluate reports pertaining to transportation accidents.

What did you do to verify that the information you got from Anders Bjorkman was verified or fake? Seriously, tell us what you did to vet him as a source.
 
JayUtah said:
Not in the least. As I mentioned before, you aren't weighing all the hypotheses with equal fairness. You've pre-rejected the conventional narrative. Then having done that, you consider only other hypotheses that aren't associated with the conventional narrative, no matter how objectively improbable they are. Your criteria for plausibility clearly begins and ends with whether a hypothesis supports or opposes the mainstream story. When asked to come up with a single narrative that explains more evidence better than the mainstream narrative, you can't do it. We get just vague hand-waving.

Your constant straw-manning reveals you don't consider your critics' arguments worth considering or treating fairly. You can't be bothered to represent their claims accurately, when you can be bothered to remember and acknowledge them at all. Nothing about your approach here is even slightly fair-minded.



Yes.
Click to expand...

:sdl: You would be hard-pressed to find anyone more 'establishment' than myself.
 
Vixen said:
:sdl: You would be hard-pressed to find anyone more 'establishment' than myself.
Click to expand...

A one-sentence denial that ignored all the points I raised. The question is not whether you're "establishment." The question is whether you're treating all the competing hypotheses with equal fairness. The next question is whether you can come up with a cogent narrative that does a more parsimonious job of answering all the evidence than what others hold as presently the best available. So far all you can do is flit from one incompatible narrative to another while "ruling nothing out" except the mainstream account.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom