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

[Andy_Ross]

There is one microphone. Here follows a report on how the Rockwater divers operated:

EFD

As is apparent, what the public hear on the video, is controlled by the video editors, without having to mute it, by simply not including the more confidential one.

The two divers in the water will be communicating but only one set of orders from one tender will be given. There is no facility to have two different circuits to the diver. He will either have a 4 wire 'telephone' circuit that allows two Way continual communication, or a two wire circuit that allows one end to talk or listen like a radio.
There is only facility for a single communication connection on the helmets which I can guarantee were Kirby Morgan helmets of one model or another.

 

[JayUtah]

Real accident investigations don't work like that.

Not even a little bit. Nothing that Vixen has done in this thread bears even the slightest resemblance to actual investigative techniques or thought patterns. As much as she wants to style herself as some kind of after-the-fact investigator, critic, or commentator, this is not how it's done.

Most legitimate investigations are down behind closed doors mostly to avoid confusing the public as new evidence that is developed can change the working narrative of the disaster.

We want to be able to hypothesize without worrying about public reaction. Even if the hypothesis goes nowhere -- and most initially do -- we want it to be on the table and considered. And no, they don't all make it into the final report. Only hypotheses for which some evidence was productively developed are generally mentioned. If there is no evidence favoring sabotage, sabotage is not mentioned any more than howler monkeys. This is a practical consideration: there are innumerable hypotheses for which no evidence will be found. We do not enumerate and dispel them by name, because the report would be uselessly verbose. We cannot imagine what specific hypotheses certain people will latch onto -- some to sabotage and others to some absurdity like nuclear waste -- hence we cannot preempt every effort to misconstrue the findings.

While it is emphatically not the purpose of an engineering investigation to consider or apportion liability (civil or criminal), there will always be those who seek either to place or to avoid blame in the wake of a tragedy. And the findings of the investigation, while usually not directly admissible, will lead to any number of legal theories of liability or alternate narratives. Even the mention of something to dispel it can be spun into propositions of the type, "Well the board considered this hypothesis, so it at least must have had some credibility."

We purposely do not write the reports to be a comprehensive record of the investigation. The record exists, to be sure, but the report summarizes the productive parts of it. And even despite our best efforts, people like Vixen still come along and assume that if some niggling detail is not reported or handled according to the layperson's expectation, or if some pet hypothesis was not apparently considered, then the investigation is somewhat defective. It's exactly the wrong way to read the findings of an investigation.

 

[carlitos]

Who wouldn't want to be a salvage diver with a dual-voice Ken Nordine-style word jazz going on in your headphones as you trawl through frigid waters. Sounds like a trip.

 

[JesseCuster]

I assumed the diving platform was underwater. If it was literally brought out of the water, it doesn't change the IMPORTANT fact, it was thrown back onto the seabed (or so claims Stenström) . It was never made available for examination. It was enough that he just looked at it and claims he measured it but I suspect it was measured 'by eye' as I doubt he had a tape measure hanging around his neck.

Why would you suspect that?

Your own source is quite clear that the bolt was taken out of the water and on to the dive support vessel where it was examined.

Why would you think that anyone would need a "tape measure hanging around his neck" when they would have all sorts of equipment on the support vessel for this kind of thing?

How can you with a straight face castigate everyone else for supposedly using assumptions, hypotheses, etc. when you're just making stuff like this up off the top of your head with absolutely no justification, other than if fits your preconception that the inquiry into the Estonia was a whitewash.

I'd love to see your justification for why you think whoever measured the bolt on the support vessel did it "by eye".

 

[JayUtah]

Why would you think that anyone would need a "tape measure hanging around his neck" when they would have all sorts of equipment on the support vessel for this kind of thing?

Or indeed on any vessel. What machinist's mate goes to sea on any vessel without the means to measure the size of mechanical parts?

 

[abaddon]

Or indeed on any vessel. What machinist's mate goes to sea on any vessel without the means to measure the size of mechanical parts?

Indeed. Vixen would somehow have us believe that a vessel dedicated to the purpose of an expedition to survey a wreck would somehow forget to bring a measuring tape. Dunno, I have seen plenty of cases where stuff was raised from the seabed and the first thing done is measuring whatever artefact. That's SOP. In any sort of investigation. Just take a peek at any of Ballard's expeditions, for example. Once one gets an artefact to the surface, the first step is to measure it in every dimension. Vixen would have us believe that the ship had no tape measure at all, they simply forgot to bring one.

Any ship on the sea will at least have a tape measure as part of a comprehensive toolkit anyway even if they are a trawler and not even vaguely involved in any rescue/salvage/diving operation.

Now, I will not claim to be any kind of sailor. I's a lubber. But I have piloted a sailing vessel and been stranded at sea. It is not a happy place.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Tapes, rulers, calipers, Vernier calipers, micrometers and maybe even a dial test gauge.

 

[Steve]

That is the standard protocol.

How do you know that?

Vixen does not know that. This is commonly referred to as throwing **** against the wall.

 

[LondonJohn]

Or indeed on any vessel. What machinist's mate goes to sea on any vessel without the means to measure the size of mechanical parts?

LOL at "tape measure" from Vixen! I guess she's never heard of things like calipers and micrometers.......

 

[Reformed Offlian]

But I haven't used Bjorkman as an expert in his field except for factual narrative.

You've used him as the source for the Aftonbladet article about Svensson. AFAICT, Bjorkman is the sole source for the claim that Svensson rescued "eight (or nine)" people.

 

[carlitos]

LOL at "tape measure" from Vixen! I guess she's never heard of things like calipers and micrometers.......

Maybe she was thinking of one of these guys walking around with a tape measure around their necks.

“Heiwa - you look like a 42 regular”

 

[Andy_Ross]

 

[LondonJohn]

Or perhaps more pertinently:




Suit you, Sir Ma'am!

 

[Myriad]

Quirks of American English: "Tape measure" if it's metal and intended to be used in an inflexible configuration even though it's partially flexible for the purpose of rolling up for storage; "measuring tape" if it's fabric or paper and intended to be used flexibly at least some of the time e.g. for girth measurements. This usage is not definitional and not strictly observed but is fairly consistent.

The former kind would not be worn hanging around the neck, although in theory a small version furled within its case could (like any other small compact object) be carried as a pendant.

 

[Vixen]

Why would you suspect that?

Your own source is quite clear that the bolt was taken out of the water and on to the dive support vessel where it was examined.

Why would you think that anyone would need a "tape measure hanging around his neck" when they would have all sorts of equipment on the support vessel for this kind of thing?

How can you with a straight face castigate everyone else for supposedly using assumptions, hypotheses, etc. when you're just making stuff like this up off the top of your head with absolutely no justification, other than if fits your preconception that the inquiry into the Estonia was a whitewash.

I'd love to see your justification for why you think whoever measured the bolt on the support vessel did it "by eye".

The reference to a tape measure was a quip.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Quirks of American English: "Tape measure" if it's metal and intended to be used in an inflexible configuration even though it's partially flexible for the purpose of rolling up for storage; "measuring tape" if it's fabric or paper and intended to be used flexibly at least some of the time e.g. for girth measurements. This usage is not definitional and not strictly observed but is fairly consistent.

The former kind would not be worn hanging around the neck, although in theory a small version furled within its case could (like any other small compact object) be carried as a pendant.

I haven't ever seen the distinction anywhere to be honest.

 

[Vixen]

The Teflon CTs are built like this:

"The JAIC never investigated the very real possibility of an attack by Howler Monkeys."

Just because nobody reported the presence of Howler Monkeys on the Estonia doesn't mean they weren't onboard.

The Captain was a graduate of the Russian Naval School of Awesomeness, and thus makes him above suspicion for any wrong-doing. Couple this with the FACT the JAIC never investigated the potential attack by Howler Monkeys, and it is clear that Howler Monkeys were the cause of the sinking.

At some point Bjorkman will put out a video where he reviews the dive footage, and points out "clear evidence" of Howler Monkey attack by pointing out fuzzy images of what he claims is residue of flung-poo on the bridge.

I'm sorry if this is off-topic, but you can do this with every CT in history by replacing every claim with "Howler Monkeys Did It" and the CT will hold up even is it drifts further from reality.

Real accident investigations don't work like that. Investigators are broken into teams to cover the different aspects of the event. The Estonia began with the survivors because that's all they had until they found the wreck, and then they investigated the wreck, a d recovered the bow-visor. Most legitimate investigations are down behind closed doors mostly to avoid confusing the public as new evidence that is developed can change the working narrative of the disaster. We saw this with TWA-800, where the FBI tried to be transparent with the investigation, and ended up adding fuel to a half-dozen CTs.

The evidence points to the bow-visor being knocked off in heavy seas, causing the ship to capsize, and sink. That's it. that's all she wrote.

Anyone claiming Spetsnaz, mini-subs, explosives, and or radioactive materials MUST also include a rogue troop of Howler Monkeys as well to maintain consistency.

Your summing up of CT's and howler monkeys is terribly amusing, as are your funny graphics. However, this thread has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. Perhaps you had in mind anti-vaxxers who believe the covid vaccine contains a Bill Gates special silicon chip that enables the nearest telephone mast to track your GPS movements whilst mutating your genes into that of a green howler monkey?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The reference to a tape measure was a quip.

So may we presume that you do accept that the dive support vessel would be equipped with at least the basic tools required to inspect and measure the items they recovered, and that their description of the bolt's condition was more likely based on inspection and measurement rather than immediately throwing it back into the sea and making a measurement up, like you said?

 

[Vixen]

The two divers in the water will be communicating but only one set of orders from one tender will be given. There is no facility to have two different circuits to the diver. He will either have a 4 wire 'telephone' circuit that allows two Way continual communication, or a two wire circuit that allows one end to talk or listen like a radio.
There is only facility for a single communication connection on the helmets which I can guarantee were Kirby Morgan helmets of one model or another.

Brian Braidwood was a specialist Royal Navy diver - he famously defused the Greenpeace bomb - and if he says that is how they did it - assuming he is referring to a separate communication in the other ear - in a highly specialised unit of the Navy then I believe him. Maybe even the microphone was dual.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Welcome back Vixen. Please answer my question.