Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part III

[Jack by the hedge]

I've looked into this some more and have gleaned the following:

They had been recently serviced:

"... it has to be assumed that both were left in "switched-on" condition after the test."

Does that have to be assumed? Why?

 

[Vixen]

Who cares about his opinion of the 'interference' it would have had no effect on the Estonia. VHF is a short range system.

The JAIC and the Estonian government cared about it for a start.

 

[lobosrul5]

Hoagland Island is former Finnish territory which the Soviet military took over after the Continuation War.

Wiki


It seems to be quite high up.

I should imagine someone very high up in the Finnish Defence Forces (Iivonen) knew what he was talking about when he testified to the JAIC there was constant interference from a Russian transmitter from this military base. An American-Estonian turned Estonian minister, repeatedly demanded an explanation from Russia via diplomatic means but then had to just give up.

That island appears to be 120 to 130 miles form the sinking. Not close enough to interfere with VHF signals in the vicinity of the Estonia sinking.

Its highest point is 173 m (568 ft) per wiki. That's not enough to extend VHF range more than marginally.

 

[Vixen]

Does that have to be assumed? Why?

Because the manual for this type of APIRB states it needs to be on 'standby' position, so one assumes the radio operator having received back the buoys from the service engineers would have routinely done this at least.

 

[Vixen]

That island appears to be 120 to 130 miles form the sinking. Not close enough to interfere with VHF signals in the vicinity of the Estonia sinking.

Its highest point is 173 m (568 ft) per wiki. That's not enough to extend VHF range more than marginally.

It is all very strange.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I've looked into this some more and have gleaned the following:

They had been recently serviced:

Quote:
EPIRB buoys
The ESTONIA was equipped with two modern EPIRB buoys (Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons) of type Kannad 406 F.

The last check of the radio beacons was reported to have been made about one week prior to the disaster by the radio operator. The check confirmed that the EPIRBs were in full working order and it has to be assumed that both were left in "switched-on" condition after the test.

They are tested by pressing a test button that confirms the batteries are still charged.
They are not 'switched on' at any time apart from when a distress signal is to be sent.

What do you not understand about this?

Nevertheless, no signals from the two buoys were received in the course of the rescue operation.

Which means they were never switched on and activated when the ship sank.

All the JAIC report says in Chapter 7:

Quote:
7.3.4 EPIRB beacons

No signals from the ESTONIA`s EPIRBs were received.

That's it! No comment or expansion on how usual or unusual this is.

Where are you getting a manual for the Kannad 406 F?

All I can find is the Kannad 406 AF which is an aircraft unit and completely different to a marine unit.

If they weren't activated when the ship sank then no signal will have been received.

Why are you belabouring this ?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Does that have to be assumed? Why?

If they were switched on then they would have been transmitting a distress signal and they would have continued to transmit until the batteries went flat.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Because the manual for this type of APIRB states it needs to be on 'standby' position, so one assumes the radio operator having received back the buoys from the service engineers would have routinely done this at least.

There is no 'standby' position.

There is an on and off switch and a battery test switch.

If you turn it on it transmits until you turn it off.

Do we have to keep repeating this?

 

[Axxman300]

Common knowledge. It was one of the first large passenger ships to utilise the concept of watertight bulkheads in the hull. It spotted the iceberg ahead and went full throttle in reverse to try to avoid it, turning sharply - it was too late to miss it - and the iceberg scraped its side, causing ocean water to seep into its for'ard bulkheads as they were not quite high enough to withstand water flooding in over the top.

You really need to stop referencing other shipwrecks, your lack of research capabilities are on full display when you do.

There was a lot more to Titanic's sinking than the bulkhead design, and it didn't "scrape" the iceberg - it struck it. The true damage to Titanic remains unknown. All we know is what the crew and engineers reported, and unlike the Estonia's crew, Titanic's crew was on top of the situation right up to the point the hull fractured.

 

[Axxman300]

"Many of those promoting conspiracy are Green Party members"...what?

.

Maybe stop and read the articles you've posted before you post them.

Clinton had a PR image of being 'Peace Maker Extraordinaire' for the Middle East. He was far too vain to let the Palestinians know he was firmly in bed with Yitzhak Rabin thus we had a cover up, using his well-tried formula of making any such accident involving civilian collateral 'classified'.

I believe Australians and Somalians would disagree being that by 1994 the Clinton Administration had killed over 1,000 Somalis on October 3, 1993, and a large number of Australians at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. But yeah, I guess he swept all that under the rug.

According to Wikileaks, Bildt was a CIA agent.

Lie.

And, let's face it, if you can botch the Titanic stuff then understanding the Wikileaks stuff is out of your wheel house.

1. He wasn't an CIA agent.
2. The CIA does not have Agents, they have officers and assets.
3. Bildt was a willing asset.
4. He passed along documents on negotiation in 1976. Wow, great to have him on the team.

Here is the actual Wikileak document [warning: it will melt your brain]:

https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1976STOCKH05429_b.html

Then again, the Russians, those same Russians you accuse of sinking Estonia, ran a smear campaign against Bildt...I guess to send a message:

https://www.thelocal.se/20150313/russia-targeted-carl-bildt-in-smear-campaign/

Sweden’s former Foreign Minister and Prime Minister Carl Bildt was accused by Russian media of being a CIA agent who sought revenge for Karl XII’s defeat in a battle against Russia in 1709, as the Ukraine crisis unfolded, it has emerged.
The Swedish Defence Research Agency has revealed Carl Bildt, one of the country’s most senior politicians in the previous centre-right coalition government, was the victim of a smear campaign.

Allegations that he was spying on Russia to see retribution for a failed battle three hundred years ago were made by state-controlled Russian media in 2013.

At the time, Carl Bildt was Sweden’s Foreign Minister and had helped set up the Eastern Partnership (EAP), an EU initiative designed to bring eastern European countries closer to the EU, including Ukraine, Moldova and Ukraine.

So you gotta help us all out here, are the Russians the good guys or the bad guys, and if they're the bad guys why are you spreading Russian propaganda?

Good for Bildt supporting the western democratisation of the former Soviet Baltic States and getting them into the EU out of Russian hands. It should not mean not being accountable for the terrible mistake of using a public passenger ferry to transport smuggled defense and space secrets. Time for Sweden to put up its hand, as it were

You have yet to prove that arms smuggling had anything to do with the sinking. Time to put up your hand, as it were.

 

[LondonJohn]

If there was a Mayday half an hour earlier then the bridge controls would have been fully functional.

In any case, it is the opinion of Rear Admiral Iivonen that there was interference from a Russian military transmitter to Channel 16.

Yeah.... I personally can't think of any reason why the Estonia wouldn't have sent out a Mayday before the bow visor's bottom lock even broke.......

 

[LondonJohn]

I've looked into this some more and have gleaned the following:

They had been recently serviced:

EFD

All the JAIC report says in Chapter 7:



That's it! No comment or expansion on how usual or unusual this is.

From Finnish Broadcasters YLE, 26.1.2020 (similar to BBC):

YLE

Curiouser and curiouser.

No. It's not curious in the slightest.

Your main mistake (aside from that nonsense article you quoted at the end) is your continued reliance on estoniaferrydisaster.net as a trusted source.

In this particular instance, you're led astray by the boneheaded and incorrect "conclusion" from those technical geniuses over at EFD when they write, wrt the condition the inspectors would have left the EPIRBs:

...it has to be assumed that both were left in "switched-on" condition after the test.

Y'see Vixen, your friends over at EFD don't understand how these EPIRBs worked any more than you do. It's the blind leading the blind. If the inspectors had "left (the transmitters on the EPIRBs) in "switched on" condition", their batteries would have discharged completely long before the Estonia ever set sail from Tallinn on the night it sank.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: stop using EFD as a trusted source. They are simply not to be trusted. OK?

 

[LondonJohn]

But it shows how loyal their ex-agents are.

Regardless of how true that may or may not be, it's wholly irrelevant when it comes to the matter that was actually under discussion.

 

[LondonJohn]

Does that have to be assumed? Why?

Not only does it not have to be assumed, it actually has to be assumed that this is what did not happen.

Had the inspection team left the EPIRB transmitters switched on when they left, the batteries would have run totally flat long before the night of the sinking.

It has, instead, to be assumed that the inspectors left the EPIRB transmitters switched off when they left. For them to have left the transmitters switched on would have been a monstrous error with significant safety ramifications.

 

[LondonJohn]

Because the manual for this type of APIRB states it needs to be on 'standby' position, so one assumes the radio operator having received back the buoys from the service engineers would have routinely done this at least.

I don't think the above information is even correct. Is this from your friends at EFD again? (I wouldn't be at all surprised).

But just for the sake of argument: when you switch your TV onto standby at the end of the night..... would you say that your TV is "on" or "off"?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Not only does it not have to be assumed, it actually has to be assumed that this is what did not happen.

Had the inspection team left the EPIRB transmitters switched on when they left, the batteries would have run totally flat long before the night of the sinking.

It has, instead, to be assumed that the inspectors left the EPIRB transmitters switched off when they left. For them to have left the transmitters switched on would have been a monstrous error with significant safety ramifications.

It's more than the batteries. If they were on they would be transmitting.

They have a battery check button to test them. It flashes a LED to show the battery is still good.

 

[Mojo]

Think about it: why would Sweden cover it up except to protect itself?

Where’s William of Ockham when we need him?

 

[Mojo]

But it shows how loyal their ex-agents are.

It’s a characteristic of conspiracy theorists that evidence against the theory is portrayed as evidence that the theory is true.

 

[Mojo]

Does that have to be assumed? Why?

Because Vixen’s argument requires it.

 

[Mojo]

Not only does it not have to be assumed, it actually has to be assumed that this is what did not happen.

Had the inspection team left the EPIRB transmitters switched on when they left, the batteries would have run totally flat long before the night of the sinking.

It has, instead, to be assumed that the inspectors left the EPIRB transmitters switched off when they left. For them to have left the transmitters switched on would have been a monstrous error with significant safety ramifications.

It's more than the batteries. If they were on they would be transmitting.

If they were transmitting the whole time, wouldn’t they have been detected at some point before the batteries ran down, while the Estonia was going backwards and forwards across the Baltic, or in port?