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

[Stamuel]

You don't seriously believe a lawyer knows how to read a sonar imaging printout? Clearly, he was briefed by the sonar imaging guys of TURSAS, that's why he sent the memo and the press release out saying the visor had been found. Problem is, the Swedes forgot to tell the Finns that - psst! shhh! - the bow visor is not with the wreck, remember what Bildt said? _DOH!

Does anyone know what claim this is supposed to support? Vixen has never and will never explain their "reasoning," being content just to describe things using ominous-sounding language. I honestly can't imagine how one guy changing his mind once about the location of the bow visor is supposed to be evidence of a conspiracy.

Is the conclusion supposed to be that the ship went down with the bow visor attached, which was visible via early sonar imaging? And they explained this to Lehtola, who then publicly revealed what he learned, which he wasn't supposed to do even though they apparently didn't tell him that, so then was forced to recant? And then Swedish divers went down and moved the bow visor to fit with the conclusion they wanted? This is supposed to be more reasonable than concluding that a guy was wrong once and then corrected himself?

I dunno seems pretty stupid.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why would "dodgy crew members" try and open the car ramp in the middle of the Baltic sea and during a storm?

Does this have anything to do with detonation charges or an entirely scenario completely?

It's to do with the idea that the 'dodgy crew members' were trying to dump either a lorry load of stolen Russian weapons so that Customs didn't find them., Or that the lorry was on fire for some reason. Of course they decided that the best way to extinguish it would be to open the bows of the ship and either push it out in to the storm, or maybe let the incoming waves extinguish it?

 

[GlennB]

It's to do with the idea that the 'dodgy crew members' were trying to dump either a lorry load of stolen Russian weapons so that Customs didn't find them., Or that the lorry was on fire for some reason. Of course they decided that the best way to extinguish it would be to open the bows of the ship and either push it out in to the storm, or maybe let the incoming waves extinguish it?

Quite how you're supposed to push a truck uphill (at times) and stop it rolling downhill (at other times) as the ship pitched in the waves has always been a mystery to me. The cunning and timely use of chocks? How do you achieve the final push into the sea?

******* mad idea.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

No, but if some dodgy crew members did try to open the car ramp, that would explain a lot.

It wouldn't explain why you're leaping from talking about radioactive waste to imagining some lunatic trying to open the bow doors and car ramp while the ship is plunging into 6m waves, in a storm, at night.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Stenström took part in the dive.

You appear somehow to have convinced yourself that he examined the bolt underwater and then threw it away without ever bringing it to the surface, yet someone recently quoted a JAIC memo saying "As the bolt did not show any changes except for some notchings, it was left behind on the diving support vessel".

Now who posted that? Oh, yes, it was you, Vixen.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

None of them sank.

You noticed that? Did you notice that several of them survived because unlike the Estonia they took immediate action to protect their exposed car ramp from the heavy seas?

 

[junkshop]

Vixen, we're nearly 3000 posts into part three of this thread, and you're just recycling stuff from part one. Haven't you got any new ideas? Any new evidence?

You've presented all these theories before, and persuaded no-one. What makes you think you can convince anyone this time around?

 

[LondonJohn]

The Atlantic lock is the bolt. It was a bolt lock. The bolt is indeed key to the whole thing, as the JAIC has the bow visor hanging from this bolt. Thus we need to see it. It was available. It was not 'too big for the helicopter' . Even if it had weighed a ludicrous 150kg it is still only the weight of two people (or one heavyweight boxer).

"The atlantic lock is the bolt".

No, Vixen. No it is not.

Part of the bottom lock is the bolt.

And the bolt isn't the part of that bottom lock which actually failed. The lugs (which are also part of the bottom lock) are what failed. Are you still this ignorant about the bottom lock, what it consisted of, and how it failed? Really?


What you've written there is precisely as stupid as saying "the door lock is the latch".

But you wouldn't understand that, would you?

 

[LondonJohn]

..By diver Stenström, Swedish head engineer and head of Swedish JAIC. He looked at it on the sea bed and threw it back in (so he claims). We literally only have his word for it, examined whilst underwater.

Primary-source evidence for exactly this claim, please.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, the bolt was recovered, inspected and measured. It was found to be in good condition. It was the lugs that failed, not the bolt.

Please read the report.

Chapter 8 Section 8.6 Damage to the visor and ramp attachment devices

8.6.1 The visor bottom lock

So what precisely was "thrown back into the sea"? Vixen - care to explain?

 

[LondonJohn]

You appear somehow to have convinced yourself that he examined the bolt underwater and then threw it away without ever bringing it to the surface, yet someone recently quoted a JAIC memo saying "As the bolt did not show any changes except for some notchings, it was left behind on the diving support vessel".

Now who posted that? Oh, yes, it was you, Vixen.

Vixen: how are you coming along with primary-source evidence for your ridiculous claim that they "threw the bottom lock back onto the sea bed"?

We await with bated breath!!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Primary-source evidence for exactly this claim, please.

Particularly ironic that you need to ask that when the quote says "we literally only have his word for it". If only we did.

 

[Steve]

Quite how you're supposed to push a truck uphill (at times) and stop it rolling downhill (at other times) as the ship pitched in the waves has always been a mystery to me. The cunning and timely use of chocks? How do you achieve the final push into the sea?

******* mad idea.

Perhaps the storm is part of Vixen's convenient conspiracy. Sometimes it is stormy, sometimes it is not, and sometimes it is "just a wave" depending on the requirements of the tale being proffered at that moment.

 

[Vixen]

Show me the scope written down as you claim it is. Use primary sources.

I've shown you the joint signed statement from JAIC were they say they could look att all factors.

Your guess means nothing, nor what you would like it to be. We are talking about what it actually was.

From your very own OP click back for citation:

Quote:
PREFACE

The Joint Accident Investigation Commission has concluded its investigation of the foundering of the MV ESTONIA, a disaster that has taken the greatest toll of human life in the Baltic Sea in times of peace.

The Commission has thoroughly considered all available information directly related to the accident and the rescue operation. The information includes documents and statements regarding the ship and its operation, witness statements, analysis of the prevailing weather and sea conditions, results from diving investigations and analysis of the recovered bow visor. In addition, to reach a full understanding of the sequence of events, the Commission has initiated theoretical and experimental studies to analyse in more detail the vessel's wave-induced motion and loads, structural strength, manoeuvring characteristics and stability when flooded. The Commission has furthermore found it necessary to investigate the design procedures and operating history of the vessel as well as to collect information on other bow visor failure incidents and to consider legal and administrative issues.

This final report covers all factors and circumstances considered to have contributed to the development and outcome of the accident. In the report the Commission presents the facts found, the analysis and evaluation, conclusions drawn on the basis of the work and the recommendations made to help prevent the occurrence of similar accidents in the future. The fundamental purpose of investigating the accident was to determine its circumstances and causes, with the aim of improving the safety of life at sea and avoiding further accidents. It is not the Commission's task to apportion liability nor, except so far as is necessary to achieve the fundamental purpose, to apportion blame.

The follow up sentence, "The information includes documents and statements regarding the ship and its operation, witness statements, analysis of the prevailing weather and sea conditions, results from diving investigations and analysis of the recovered bow visor" is not 'scope', it is purely a descriptive narrative. It excludes much of what the survivors said, summarised to make it seem the loud bangs they heard were just the bow visor falling off.

The entire scope was the bow visor. Everything else was shoe-horned to their halo-effect 'conclusion'.

 

[Here_to_learn]

The follow up sentence, "The information includes documents and statements regarding the ship and its operation, witness statements, analysis of the prevailing weather and sea conditions, results from diving investigations and analysis of the recovered bow visor" is not 'scope', it is purely a descriptive narrative. It excludes much of what the survivors said, summarised to make it seem the loud bangs they heard were just the bow visor falling off.

The entire scope was the bow visor. Everything else was shoe-horned to their halo-effect 'conclusion'.

Nope - that is not the scope. That is your personal interpretation of what you like and dislike with the report. Again, you claim that their scope was limited. Show the actual written instruction, or show the wistleblowers or dissenting JAIC members that were stopped from investigating other things than the bow-visor.

Let me refer you to a "business expert" on how scope should be defined.

In a project, experiment, report or endeavour the scope should be set out and fully explained. Simply saying 'We've covered all factors' will get you a big fat 'fail'.

You made a claim - you back up your statement.

 

[LondonJohn]

From your very own OP click back for citation:



The follow up sentence, "The information includes documents and statements regarding the ship and its operation, witness statements, analysis of the prevailing weather and sea conditions, results from diving investigations and analysis of the recovered bow visor" is not 'scope', it is purely a descriptive narrative. It excludes much of what the survivors said, summarised to make it seem the loud bangs they heard were just the bow visor falling off.

The entire scope was the bow visor. Everything else was shoe-horned to their halo-effect 'conclusion'.

You know that strap on your blinkers that passes round the back of your head? If you unclasp that strap, it'll enable you to remove the blinkers. And then you'll be able to see right/left/up/down rather than the very narrow tunnel (of your own preconceptions and biasses) that you're currently seeing.

(Just a suggestion)

 

[Here_to_learn]

As the JAIC never investigated the possibility of sabotage, then it is a moot point.

Oh, by the way - how does this statement relate to section 8.12 in the JAIC report?

 

[Andy_Ross]

they didn't mention the possibility of radio active waste, torpedoes, assassins or submarines.

They also didn't mention Godzilla or Zygons.

 

[Vixen]

How nd why would they do that in the middle of a raging storm?

I thought it was blown off by explosives?

40K kg heroin street price weighted average in 1994 was $118 per gram or €99 equivalent. That would be worth US$4,720k on the street or €3,960k.

As for osmium, it is currently $400 per oz., cobalt $36/lb.

Where there is brass there is muck and there is little doubt smuggling took place.

Given Sweden admitted it participated in smuggling Soviet military and space secrets circa Septemebr 1994, there was likely some very serious organised crime around these ferries.

So, if there was some kind of tip-off the goods would be intercepted at Stockholm, then you can see that a ruthless criminal isn't going to have much compunction trying to get rid of it to prevent customs getting it. I have no idea if this is what happened but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, by the way - how does this statement relate to section 8.12 in the JAIC report?

"Observations".

If they incompetently think that 14 ships hearing the Mayday meant there was no communications problem on the might (when all they had to do was take note of what the Captain of Mariella said, or Stockholm MRCC) and that 'the EPIRB sent no signals' was all right 'because it did not affect speed of rescue' is in anyway showing analytic skills then it is no wonder people don't trust their findings.