• 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:
Er, the Joint Accident Investigation Committee (JAIC) in its preliminary report, just SEVEN DAYS after the disaster.

HS

Impressive!!!

So that is settled then.
Click to expand...


And your point is..... what exactly?

Are you actually saying that once the investigating dive team had discovered that 1) the bow visor was no longer attached to the ship, 2) the bow visor was lying on the sea bed some considerable distance from the wreck of the ship, and 3) the bow ramp showed clear signs of deformation that could only have been caused by the detachment of the bow visor.......

.....it was somehow presumptive or wrong for the JAIC to report that.... the bow visor had detached from the ship, and the bow ramp had been badly compromised in the process?

What is it that you're actually criticising here? And precisely what is the basis for your criticism?

You don't know what you're talking about.
 
Vixen said:
Occam's razor tells you Bildt and Lehtola were sure of the bow visor having come off - although no-one, not even Sillaste reported this at the time - because they were already informed of this by the Swedish intelligence services. If you recall, the problems with radio and telephone networks notwithstanding, unlike MRCC Stockholm, Bildt seems to have recieved the news of the calamity immediately (witnesses saw him pulled away from his leaving party in a hotel shortly after one (0200 EET), and he is coy about when he first heard the news.

How did the security forces know? Probably because they were there at the scene. How else would they have known? Sillaste's testimony is so vague - saw water coming in via a monitor screen in the engine room (one witness out of 137) - it is hardly definitive hard evidence as of that date.
Click to expand...

Nope. You make William of Ockham sad. His razor tells you they probably got a report from the police about what the survivors were saying. That's a lot more parsimonious explanation than speculating about some unevidenced secret service suicide mission aboard the Estonia.
 
Vixen said:
Whether they expedited the rescue effort or not is not the issue. The JAIC was supposed to investigate the accident. Their entire scope was the bow visor and nothing else. It writes off the communications problems as a wee glitch by MRCC Turku and Helsinki Radio, together with the EPIRB's not reacting as they should, as, 'it matters not, as it would not have speeded up rescue'.

Imagine if they were tasked with investigating, say, a car crash. For some inexplicable reason the airbags didn't automatically work as they should. The JAIC would say, 'Ah well, they would have died anyway, so who cares about the non-activating airbags?'


Shocking.
Click to expand...

They investigated the EPIRBs. The part of the JAIC report discussing the EPIRB testing has been posted dozens of times. They didn't ignore it or brush it aside.

Maybe this will help: the JAIC was trying to find out what happened. For them, the question to answer about the EPRIBs was why no one received a signal from them. By testing the recovered EPIRBs, the JAIC found an answer.

The problem you are running into is that you are holding them to conspiracy theorist standards. The CT standard is that if something seems odd the first time you hear/read/see it, then it forever only points to a conspiracy. The lack of a signal from the EPIRBs was initially puzzling, so to conspiracy theorists, it must eternally and exclusively be considered evidence of a conspiracy. The question for conspiracy theorists is thus how the EPIRBs were part of a conspiracy. The JAIC, by using methods meant to show what actually happened (even if it was not a conspiracy), went directly against CT standards.

Their goal was to find out what happened, whereas the conspiracy theorist goal is to hold onto every suspicion forever. It's important to recognize the JAIC's completely different goals to understand why you disagree so strongly with the report.
 
Vixen said:
The preliminary report is the final report. The scope of the investigation was the bow area. Full stop. Period.
Click to expand...


The hits just keep on coming! Sterling work!!



So anyone who still has questions is a dirty little conspiracy theorist who should be hung upside down by the ankles and smeared with tar and feathered.
Click to expand...


No, Vixen. Anyone who puts forward conspiracy theories - which by their very nature a) are devoid of any reliable evidence, b) are entirely contradicted by actual reliable evidence, and c) show an ignorant and arrogant disregard for both the facts and the scientific method...... is a dirty little conspiracy theorist who should be hung upside down by the ankles and smeared with tar and feathered thoroughly taken to task for his/her total lack of understanding or reason.
 
Vixen said:
The survivors were treated as potential suspects and were not allowed to mix with others or speak to anyone on the phone without giving police the recipient's ID and in the presence of police.

One survivor complained of being roughly made to board a bus on dry land against his will.
Click to expand...


That, Vixen, is an absolute crock of crap. Disgraceful CT bollocks.
 
Vixen said:
So anyone who still has questions is a dirty little conspiracy theorist who should be hung upside down by the ankles and smeared with tar and feathered.
Click to expand...


Tar and feathers is so 19th century. These days we just point and laugh.
 
Vixen said:
The preliminary report is the final report. The scope of the investigation was the bow area. Full stop. Period.



So anyone who still has questions is a dirty little conspiracy theorist who should be hung upside down by the ankles and smeared with tar and feathered.
Click to expand...
Anyone who questions it on such flimsy and ill-informed ways, yes, metaphorically. Answering relatively easy evidentiary dilemmas with pretentious, conspiratorial nonsense. Nobody has a problem with questioning official reports. They have a problem with the way YOU are doing it. You just pretend you know everything and if people don't accept that premise then they are poor skeptics who inappropriately label things as conspiracy theories. You merit all the mockery you receive.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
I don't answer hypothetical questions. As the JAIC never investigated the possibility of sabotage, then it is a moot point.
Click to expand...
How do such investigations uncover evidence of sabotage normally? Since you're such an expert in forensic engineering investagation techniques, please enlighten us.
 
whoanellie said:
The picture at the top left is from here:
https://manualzz.com/doc/o/b8d3o/ka...e-procedure-2-.--kannas-406-ph---wh-container

which is a manual for more recent models, specifically WH, SW, and S. It doesn't mention the 406 F in question because:
"IMPORTANT: Epirbs > 12 years do not fulfil the current standard. They should be declared obsolete and replaced by a KANNAD 406 Epirb of new generation."
Click to expand...

A 12 year old buoy would be replaced when it came time to service it and have the batteries replaced. If they were for a commercial vessel or yacht over 500 tons then they would be required to be of the automatic type to comply with the SOLAS regulations updated following the Estonia sinking at the 1995 IMO Conference.
 
Vixen said:
<snip>the Swedish people, of whom one in five of the Swedish population had a relative, friend or colleague brutally killed in the accident<snip>
Click to expand...
Sweden had a population of 8.7 million people in 1994. 501 Swedes died on the Estonia.

So each Swede who died on the Estonia had an average of seventeen thousand people in Sweden who were relatives, friends or colleagues? :confused:
 
Last edited:
JesseCuster said:
Sweden had a population of 8.7 million people in 1994. 501 Swedes died on the Estonia.

So each Swede who died on the Estonia had an average of seventeen thousand people in Sweden who were relatives, friends or colleagues? :confused:
Click to expand...

Yours are better calculations than mine earlier. However, the point will be ignored by Vixen anyway.
 
JesseCuster said:
Sweden had a population of 8.7 million people in 1994. 501 Swedes died on the Estonia.

So each Swede who died on the Estonia had an average of seventeen thousand people in Sweden who were relatives, friends or colleagues? :confused:
Click to expand...

Clearly they're an extremely gregarious people. Probably those long winter nights...
 
Vixen said:
Look, if a huge cruise car ferry liner suddenly sinks like a stone killing up to a thousand people within minutes, how glib is it for Sweden's then [outgoing] Prime Minister to announce to the Swedish people, of whom one in five of the Swedish population had a relative, friend or colleague brutally killed in the accident - including 70 Stockholm policemen and policewomen - that the cause of the surprisingly rapid sinking was 'just an accident caused by the bow visor falling off because of a wave' before an accident committee had even been appointed. He announced this, a joint three-country committee was appointed shortly after, including his own appointment for the Swedish side.

How does Bildt know better than marine experts such as Johansson and Laar who openly said they suspected possible sabotage and many survivors reporting a series of what sounded like explosions? Why was he so quick to deny there had been any crime or atrocity?
Click to expand...

Who, in your opinion, brutally killed them? And no, telling us you have already said who did the killing would be a blatant lie. Who, Vixen, who?
 
JesseCuster said:
Sweden had a population of 8.7 million people in 1994. 501 Swedes died on the Estonia.

So each Swede who died on the Estonia had an average of seventeen thousand people in Sweden who were relatives, friends or colleagues? :confused:
Click to expand...

3.4 thousand. Only one in five Swedes. It could depend on how close the relatives are supposed to be (nth cousins?), or how broadly one defines colleagues. Is every police officer a "colleague" of every other police officer, even if they don't know their names? Or school teacher? If the implication is that one in five Swedes personally knew somebody they cared about on the Estonia, then, no, I'd call bs on that.
 
Last edited:
Reformed Offlian said:
3.4 thousand. Only one in five Swedes. It could depend on how close the relatives are supposed to be (nth cousins?), or how broadly one defines colleagues. Is every police officer a "colleague" of every other police officer, even if they don't know their names? Or school teacher? If the implication is that one in five Swedes personally knew somebody they cared about on the Estonia, then, no, I'd call bs on that.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, in the US a 'colleague' can mean somebody in the same line of work, such as a police officer, even if you've never met and even work in different cities. In UK-speak it generally means someone you actually work with, i.e. the equivalent of co-worker in US terminology (if I understand that term right).

And I'd suggest that 'a relative', in this context, should mean a family member with whom you're at least reasonably familiar.

All things considered, Vixen's claim was pulled from her nether regions. But she won't try to justify it, so it's academic.
 
GlennB said:
As I understand it, in the US a 'colleague' can mean somebody in the same line of work, such as a police officer, even if you've never met and even work in different cities. In UK-speak it generally means someone you actually work with, i.e. the equivalent of co-worker in US terminology (if I understand that term right).

And I'd suggest that 'a relative', in this context, should mean a family member with whom you're at least reasonably familiar.

All things considered, Vixen's claim was pulled from her nether regions. But she won't try to justify it, so it's academic.
Click to expand...
Well these terms are pretty hazy. Take "relative", for example. You and I and everyone are relatives to each other and to an amoeba in a pond somewhere and a gorilla in the Congo. If you stretch the term.

But that is how CTs work. Use ambiguous terms that can be stretched and bent to mean anything. Lee H. Oswald was related to John Lennon. That is true. So was I. So are you. If one stretches the definition.

Now since we are all related, then any sex at all is by definition incest. Therefore we get the RCC.
 
GlennB said:
As I understand it, in the US a 'colleague' can mean somebody in the same line of work, such as a police officer, even if you've never met and even work in different cities. In UK-speak it generally means someone you actually work with, i.e. the equivalent of co-worker in US terminology (if I understand that term right).

And I'd suggest that 'a relative', in this context, should mean a family member with whom you're at least reasonably familiar.

All things considered, Vixen's claim was pulled from her nether regions. But she won't try to justify it, so it's academic.
Click to expand...


When Vixen indulges in these evidence-free "factoids" that she's either a) read on a CT website about the case, and hasn't bothered to check the veracity/credibility/reliability of the claim for herself (because the "factoid" fits her agenda), or b) made up entirely out of whole cloth...... it makes a mockery of the debate/discussion frankly.

I called her out on another one today: the one where she claimed that all the survivors were "treated as potential suspects" in the hours after they were rescued, and that they were sequestered and prevented from having undocumented conversations with anyone else. I suspect that Vixen gleaned this particular piece of arrant nonsense from one or other of the CT websites.
 
LondonJohn said:
... I suspect that Vixen gleaned this particular piece of arrant nonsense from one or other of the CT websites.
Click to expand...

Or her nether regions? Mind you, people like Bjorkman also grab 'facts' from their arses, so it's the same thing really.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom