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

[Andy_Ross]

From HS:

"The so-called EPIRB emergency buoys had been recently serviced and had been placed in place in accordance with the rules. However, during the installation phase, the activation of the buoys was forgotten: the protective cover must be opened and turned on the coupling head. Activation of the emergency buoy was one of the tasks of radio electricians in Estonia, of which there were two on board."

This was in January 1995, he gave his presentation. In Dec 1994 Rockwater retrieved the HRU.

"Rockwater Survey Report

Also under the direction of the authorities, divers accessed the Bridge of the vessel and retrieved a number of navigational aids, a man-overboard beacon and the hydrostatic release mechanism for one of the vessel’s EPIRB beacons. The bodies of 3 of the victims of the disaster were found on the Bridge."

End of. You can the last word again.

OK so the electricians were responsible for taking them out of the brackets and turning them on.

That is the only sensible meaning that can be taken from his words if the translation is correct.

If he thinks something had to be done to the buoys by the electricians before they would work as designed then he is wrong.

I would think he is familiar with the design and operation of the buoys so I will be charitable and suggest that there is something wrong with the translation or with the interpretation of his words.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Be that as it may, that is what the JAIC appointed marine navigation expert in marine electronics reported. He saw them, he touched them, he examined them, he wrote a report, acquired identical models and did a presentation to the JAIC.

At no point does he or the JAIC say they were manually-activated models only and that whoever threw them in the sea forgot to turn them on. Nowhere.

Then he is wrong. in what he is saying or you are mistranslating his words or someone else with more knowledge was involved and the JAIC listened to them.

He did not recover or test the buoys.

We can see from the official reports that the buoys were found in the water in working condition and worked as expected.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The Russian 'research' ship the Leonid Byshkoff was there. We know because Turku MRCC had to warn them as they were headed straight to the rocks at Utö.

Where was it? at what time was it warned?

Section 7.5 lists all the vessels in the area at the time of the sinking and rescue.
It is an embedded table in the report

https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt07_1.html#5

Leonid Byshkoff is not listed as being in the area.

 

[Vixen]

You understand that is a common claim of conspiracy wingnuts? Are you certain that you want to position yourself there?

As we can all read from your various threads.

But not your own.

That is called bias. Look it up.


Ever been involved in a serious incident resulting in death? I have. Ever had someone bleed out in front of you while he died and nothing you could do but hold his hand while he died? I have.

You seem to think that unless you can witness the people die yourself, it is a conspiracy. Try the fresh smell of blood spilt on the ground. Once one smells it, one will never forget it.

I don't see what this has to do with the news item.

 

[Vixen]

They were found in the water, they were picked up by boats.

They can still be sandy.

 

[Andy_Ross]

They can still be sandy.

how? unless the sand adhered after they were taken from the water.

What difference does it make?

 

[abaddon]

Wrong. Assertions without any back up.

What? you want the Channel 16 traffic which you claim was blocked by the Russkis?

blocked is it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5tbah19qo8

 

[JayUtah]

I don't see what this has to do with the news item.

No, you no longer get to retreat behind your "I'm just reporting the news" fiction. You're clearly promoting any of several conspiracy theories from various sources you've elected to pay attention to. The accident now being thrust back into the news after so many years is just your excuse to wax conspiratorial in the same way that many people have been stewing over it for many years.

 

[Vixen]

Where was it? at what time was it warned?

Section 7.5 lists all the vessels in the area at the time of the sinking and rescue.
It is an embedded table in the report

https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt07_1.html#5

Leonid Byshkoff is not listed as being in the area.

ll traffic in the Baltic sea were plotted by radar during the night of the disaster. In spite of that there are some ships that have not been officially in the area. One of the ships, Russian Leonid Bykov, was reported in a strange maneuver outside Jussarö, quite close to the place of the accident. Leonid Bykov did not respond to the distress calls and did not go to the place of the accident.

Date: 29 Sep 1994
From Aamulehti, bottom corner of page 13:

On Wednesday night, an hour after "Estonia" had sunk, the coast guards of Jussarö lighthouse noticed a ship sailing off course towards underwater rocks. They tried to alert the crew with searchlights and radio messages in Finnish, Swedish and English. No response. The ship passed the lighthouse, averted the first rocks by sheer luck, then turned sharply to south and safety. After this radio contact was established and the captain of the "Leonid Bykov" explained that the fresh First Officer keeping watch didn't know any English but when radio messages continued had figured out that maybe he needed to wake up the captain (who had made the safety move).

Ridderstolpe https://members.tripod.com/mv_estonia/rusship.html

Yet Russia claimed none of its vessels had been around.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Dispositions of vessels at the time of the sinking, from report

 

[Vixen]

That whole post I responded to demonstrates otherwise. You invented a whole analogy scenario just to assert how indisputable your claim must be. Likewise your claim wasn't that they were disagreeing with you but that they were disagreeing with facts.




If your "poor reasoning and debating skills" are irritating your them try improving them. Claiming and showing your assertions are wrong is not an " ad hominem", "playground" or otherwise nor is it "point-scoring", "pathetic" or otherwise. It is simply demonstrating errors on your part.




Actually I think it has quite a lot to do with you being shown to be wrong here and simply not admitting it. Again demonstrated above by the assertion of the "poor reasoning and debating skills" of others and "playground ad hominem, or pathetic point-scoring" instead of simply an error on your part. Will you even admit to the possibility that your claims on the EPIRBs could be in error?

You might see it as an exercise in proving I was wrong but were this in 'Current Affairs' would this still be the case? If this was in Philosophical Discussion, then you might have a point. I am not a great one for navel gazing to be honest.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Ridderstolpe https://members.tripod.com/mv_estonia/rusship.html

Yet Russia claimed none of its vessels had been around.

Jussarö lighthouse is over 100 kilometers from the Estonia sinking.

How is that 'close'?

 

[Vixen]

Stockholm University Geology Department Findings

There is an excellently presented report by Stockholm University Geology Department, which was presented at the press conference 16.11.2021.

It is well worth a read, with plenty of graphics. It is 98 pages, so I have highlighted some key points for those who do not have the time or inclination to peruse it.

• A geological map at the scale of 1:5000 including interpreted sediment thicknesses was compiled in 1995 by the Naval Research Institute in Helsinki, Finland (Fig. I2) (Nuorteva, 1995). This map shows that the shipwreck of MS Estonia is situated at the border between post glacial clay and glacial clay. Postglacial clay is generally very soft and the more recent deposited clay commonly has high organic content implying biogenic production of gas, which fits well with available descriptions. The geological map shows areas with till and bedrock at the seafloor, including directly north of the shipwreck
• Patches of till are in those areas commonly found on top of the bedrock. This till was deposited by the Scandinavian Ice Sheet, which completely filled the Baltic Basin during the Last Glacial Maximum approximately 19000–26000 years ago (Andrén et al., 2011) and thus flowed over the bedrock. The ice sheet retreated from the MS Estonia site at about 12000 years ago (Hughes et al., 2016). Glacial clay was subsequently deposited on top of the bedrock/till during the ice-sheet retreat. This clay has the characteristic varved appearance as finer grain sizes were deposited during winter and coarser during summer when more melting and erosion took place.
• A slope map compiled using the detailed bathymetry shows that MS Estonia rests on a seafloor generally sloping between about 5 and 10° towards southeast (Fig. MB4). This conforms to previous coarser bathymetric surveys where the general slope where MS Estonia is situated was found to be between about 7 and 10°. The 75–80m depth interval is outlining the steepest seafloor. Beginning midship at the northern side of the shipwreck and continuing north-eastward, this depth interval becomes steeper than 10°.
• The trench is clearly visible in both the bathymetry and slope maps (Figs. MB5–MB6). It is roughly 6m wide and 4m deep along the aft of the shipwreck. The trench widens to >8m and deepens to about 7m along the northern side (Fig. MB5). Following the trench for about 55m from the aft, the bottom of the trench becomes shallower and the wall is less steep (Fig. MB5). The shallowest part of MS Estonia is the port bottom furthest aft, which rises to a depth of about 57m.
• They concluded from published reports that at least four mass-wasting events have occurred to the east, west and south of the shipwreck.
• The form of the upper slide scarp appears to correspond to the edge of the geotextile placed on the seafloor, making it tenable to suggest that it is the dumped sand that slid downslope on top of the geotextile

About the bedrock:

• The report by Tuukritööde OÜ (2021) includes notes of visible bedrock along the starboard side of the hull in contact with the seabed:
  
  Dive one, page 5: “1.05.08: The movement went along the seabed, and a rupture and a crushed spot opposite a pink corner of granite was observed, that had initiated the entire survey.”
  
  Second Dive, page 6: “16.27 The ROV moves towards the stern and at 18.00 reaches the second major damage above the granite rock.”
  
  The notes above refer to two main areas of damage observed in the hull of MS Estonia, of which the one located closer to the bow was first filmed and shown in the Discovery+ documentary by Henrik Evertsson. This damage is situated approximately 89m from the shipwreck’s stern and bedrock is clearly visible in the ROV film next to it (Fig. SBI12).
  
  From the texture and parallel jointing, it appears from ocular inspection to be granite or perhaps syenite (Alasdair Skelton, Stockholm University, personal comment). The second damaged region is situated approximately 20m further towards the stern, where a large hole in the hull is seen (Fig. SBI13).
  
  The hull rests here on bedrock, which appears to be of the same composition as by the other damaged area. Furthermore, bedrock is observed between the two major damaged regions in MS Estonia’s hull. Where bedrock lies close to the hull it seems to have caused denting.

And their conclusions:

Conclusions

Seafloor and sub-bottom geology

The geophysical mapping broadly confirms the previously published maps on seafloor deposits by the Naval Research Institute in Finland (Nuorteva, 1995), but provides a more detailed view of exposed bedrock and the boundaries between different sediment types and adds information on seafloor morphology and the occurrence of mass-wasting.

• Mass-wasting on the seafloor is mapped both on the northeastern and southwestern sides of MS Estonia as well as south and east of the area where forced penetration strings were placed.

• A section of a 230m long slide scarp west of MS Estonia corresponds to the edge of the geotextile placed on the seafloor according to Delft Geotechnic’s map (1996-09-19), suggesting that the dumped sand here slid downslope on top of the geotextile.

• Exposed bedrock is identified next to where the two major holes in MS Estonia’s hull are found along the northern side, approximately 69m and 89m from the stern respectively. From ocular inspection of its texture and visible parallel jointing, the bedrock appears to be igneous, likely granite or syenite. Denting in the hull is visible where it comes close to exposed bedrock in-between the two major holes.

• A compiled sediment thickness model based on the geophysical mapping, CPT probing by Delft Geotechnics in 1996, sediment cores, and the exposed bedrock identified along the northern side of MS Estonia suggests that a ridge of bedrock rises up underneath the hull midship.

• Large (>20m) sediment thicknesses are generally found in the surveyed area in the deeper bathymetric troughs between highs with thinner coverage, where exposed till and bedrock are found.

• South-east of the shipwreck, the sediment thickness is >20m in agreement with previous surveys.

• The sediment thickness model supports previous suggestions that MS Estonia is resting on firm seafloor midship but is poorly supported by soft sediments under the bow section.​

Credit: Department of Geological Sciences Stockholms universitet SE-106 91 Stockholm www.geo.su.se

EL21-Estonia Report of the MS Estonia shipwreck site survey with RV Electra Martin Jakobsson, Christian Stranne, Rickard Fornander, Matt O’Regan, Anton Wagner and the EL21-Estonia Shipboard Party

https://www.su.se/stockholms-univer...ndersökningen-av-estonia-presenteras-1.583151

 

[The Man]

You might see it as an exercise in proving I was wrong but were this in 'Current Affairs' would this still be the case? If this was in Philosophical Discussion, then you might have a point. I am not a great one for navel gazing to be honest.

So, no assertion of even just the possibility.


No exercise here and yes it would still be the case in 'Current Affairs'.


While proclaiming not to be great at it you certainly seem to try to do a lot of it.

 

[Vixen]

Jussarö lighthouse is over 100 kilometers from the Estonia sinking.

How is that 'close'?

"several Finnish cost guard vessels left from Jussarö shortly after the time of the accident." ibid

 

[Vixen]

So, no assertion of even just the possibility.


No exercise here and yes it would still be the case in 'Current Affairs'.


While proclaiming not to be great at it you certainly seem to try to do a lot of it.

If I am quoting a newspaper article or a section from a report, then if the content it wrong, the way to challenge it is to produce a citation or document of your own. Simply saying, "That's wrong and you just have to take my word for it", doesn't wash.

 

[JayUtah]

If I am quoting a newspaper article or a section from a report, then if the content it wrong, the way to challenge it is to produce a citation or document of your own. Simply saying, "That's wrong and you just have to take my word for it", doesn't wash.

No. The rebuttal to cited content doesn't have to be other cited content. People have knowledge and expertise of their own. Also it's generally considered presumptuous to tell people what forms their rebuttals to your claims must take.

 

[Andy_Ross]

"several Finnish cost guard vessels left from Jussarö shortly after the time of the accident." ibid

Your point?

At 15 knots it would have taken 10 hours to get to the site of the sinking, there were already 14 ships involved.

Why would a ship over 100 k away have even heard the mayday?

If every ship in a 100 km radius went to the scene how many ships would have been there?

MarineTraffic is currently showing over 90 vessels under way within 100 k radius of the area that the Estonia sank.

Can you think of a reason that coastguard vessels might have been sent to the area?

 

[The Man]

If I am quoting a newspaper article or a section from a report, then if the content it wrong, the way to challenge it is to produce a citation or document of your own. Simply saying, "That's wrong and you just have to take my word for it", doesn't wash.

Again, that was done, multiple times and multiple ways. No one has said "That's wrong and you just have to take my word for it". As such, your assertion that the content you have presented has not been challenged in that specific way, is likewise wrong.

 

[LondonJohn]

Look. I do not mind people disagreeing with me or disputing a presumed fact. What is irritating is poor reasoning and debating skills. Let's face it, much of it is playground ad hominem, or pathetic point-scoring. One poster claims 'you never admit you are wrong', because I once wrote 'Sterling hit the bar' when I meant to say 'goalpost' and forever more he persistently claims I am a liar unable to admit it was not a typo. (What he doesn't know is that I was a season ticket holder for several years of two different football clubs, so I think I do know the difference) thus his smug confidence that it was not a typo and that I should be jeered at by him that I am supposedly 'too embarrassed' to admit it was not a typo at every opportunity, and frankly, it is annoying.

Brinkmanship, likewise.

Uhhhh..... what??

I can be almost certain that whoever said of you "you never admit you are wrong" was referring either predominantly or solely to your contributions to this thread.

Because there is ample evidence in this thread alone which strongly supports the proposition that you never admit you're wrong.

Including plenty of evidence just within the past 12 hours or so......