• 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.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
That is dated 1995. Can you show that that edict was not already enacted in 1993?

AIUI
Passengers ships had to have two of which at least one had to be automatically activated.
Click to expand...

It wasn't enacted because it didn't exist in 93.
Do you think it travelled in time?

Where does it say that passenger ships had to have one automatic buoy in 93?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Re the thriving post-Former Soviet Union arms trading. The huge military base in Estonia which was decommissioned was at Paldiksi, from whence brisk trading of FSU submarines, uranium, caesium and decommissioned nuclear rods was taking place against the background of Estonia's sinking in 1994, having been independent just three years. Sweden was under instructions from the USA to requisition FSU military secrets and this it did in part by using the Estonia passenger ferry to transport FSU materiel out. This happened at least twice in September 1994, and as confirmed by the Swedish Rikstag in 2005 after years of denial.


This gem of youtube video from Feb 2021 takes a tour round Paldinksi by 'Daily Bald', an intrepid Englishman, who really knows his stuff about the Soviet Union. He's quite addictive as well and I can recommend his other videos of his adventures around Estonia, Belarus and Russia. Part irreverential in true Brit-style but actually very informative.



Paldiski is 75km from Dirhami.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the bow visor getting knocked off in rough seas due to the reckless actions of the captian.
 
Vixen said:
Oh dear. If the automatically activated HRU compatible EPIRBs were removed then that is why they did not activate.

Postimees apparently had an article 8 Oct 1994 that claimed early Finnish divers discovered the EPIRBS caught up in the roof structure of the bridge.


Instead of brushing it aside and shrugging their shoulders, JAIC should have put more effort in understanding what happened to the epirbs: where they in place as of the time of the accident, what did the ship's electrician have to say (if he or she survived), how did they end up in Dirhami unactivated.

Instead we get a bald statement: there were no signals from Estonia's epirbs.
Click to expand...

I'm not quite following here.

I think you're saying the following:

(1) The EPIRBs would have activated if they were in the water (others dispute this).
(2) The EPIRBs didn't activate (true)
(3) The reason they didn't activate is that DIVERS found them on the BRIDGE (which, I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but that BRIDGE was underwater...).

Is that the idea? That there's a mystery why the hydrostatically activated EPIRBs didn't activate when they hit the water and your solution is because they were underwater?
 
Vixen said:
That is dated 1995. Can you show that that edict was not already enacted in 1993?

AIUI
Passengers ships had to have two of which at least one had to be automatically activated.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this information?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Is it now your claim that the buoys were removed from the ship?
Click to expand...


It is now Vixen’s claim that the buoys were removed from the ship and present but failed to release properly:
Vixen said:
Oh dear. If the automatically activated HRU compatible EPIRBs were removed then that is why they did not activate.

Postimees apparently had an article 8 Oct 1994 that claimed early Finnish divers discovered the EPIRBS caught up in the roof structure of the bridge.
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
Oh dear. If the automatically activated HRU compatible EPIRBs were removed then that is why they did not activate.
Click to expand...
So you are insinuating that the EPIRBs were removed from the ship before it sailed, and later planted where they could be "found".

And the reason you think so is that you insist they were the automatically activated type and your proposed conspiracy theory would explain their failure to activate.

There's just this teeny tiny mountain of reasons to think it's crap. More than one source says they were not automatic types. The information we have says they were found by fishermen i.e. afloat. Also that they were working properly when switched on, indicating that this was the functional test which was thought to be appropriate for that model. Also that they had not transmitted a signal that any satellite had detected. Also that no authority regarded the failure of the two buoys to activate themselves to be mysterious or alarming or worthy of investigation in its own right which very clearly indicates they were not automatic types.

Postimees apparently had an article 8 Oct 1994 that claimed early Finnish divers discovered the EPIRBS caught up in the roof structure of the bridge.
Click to expand...
Well that is a different conspiracy theory entirely. Do you have a favourite yet? Do you believe Postimees report is accurate? Did Postimees say whether these claimed Finnish divers took the two buoys they allegedly found and dumped them on a beach somewhere to appear as if they had just washed up?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
...
Well that is a different conspiracy theory entirely. Do you have a favourite yet? Do you believe Postimees report is accurate? Did Postimees say whether these claimed Finnish divers took the two buoys they allegedly found and dumped them on a beach somewhere to appear as if they had just washed up?
Click to expand...

Maybe they were paid to let the buoys float free and keep quiet about it, but forgot their orders and blabbed. Or maybe the Russians got to them first and the divers were actually 'double agents', deliberately scuppering the investigations?

Or something. It's all very confusing.
 
Vixen said:
AIUI
Passengers ships had to have two of which at least one had to be automatically activated.
Click to expand...
Remember when you said "At least my posts are cited, sourced and properly referenced"

We're you trying to fool yourself or the rest of us?
 
JesseCuster said:
Remember when you said "At least my posts are cited, sourced and properly referenced"

We're you trying to fool yourself or the rest of us?
Click to expand...

Regardless of anything Vixen may be trying to do there is substantial evidence that only one poster here is being fooled by any of the information presented.
 
Vixen said:
Postimees apparently had an article 8 Oct 1994 that claimed early Finnish divers discovered the EPIRBs caught up in the roof structure of the bridge.
Click to expand...
If the EPIRBs were discovered "caught up in the roof structure of the bridge" then how were they...

Vixen said:
instead found two days later covered in sand near Dirhami about 200km away?
Click to expand...
Were they found 200km away or in the roof structure of the bridge?

:confused:
 
JesseCuster said:
If the EPIRBs were discovered "caught up in the roof structure of the bridge" then how were they...

"found two days later covered in sand near Dirhami about 200km away" ?

Were they found 200km away or in the roof structure of the bridge?

:confused:
Click to expand...

They were also found just bobbing around by a fishing boat.

Clearly there were at least 6 of them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom