• 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 IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
As I said, Rabe claimed to have found wheeled tracks on the seabed and there are pictures of it, which she and Greg Bemiss identify as submarine tracks. AIUI mini-subs can indeed roll along the seabed.
Click to expand...


You "understand" it utterly erroneously.

One of the things a submarine vessel of any variety is going to want not to do is "roll along the seabed". There are often nasty surprises on the seabed. Surprises that might significantly compromise the integrity and/or safety of any such vessel.

Surprises like - just for instance - the rock outcrop which was responsible for the deformation to the Estonia's starboard hull.

How are you so unable to (or maybe: how are you so unwilling to...) understand that the word "submarine" here does not refer to a vessel, but that instead it simply means "under the sea". If I hyphenate the word (which is not necessary in normal usage) to "sub-marine", would that help with your comprehension?
 
Vixen said:
They 'don't have any credibility' but the JAIC unproven claim 'a wave knocked off the bow visor' does?
Click to expand...


See: it's now verging on the dishonest for you to keep parroting the line "a wave knocked off the bow visor". That's a gross misrepresentation of the JAIC's findings (and a gross misrepresentation of the truth as well), and I simply cannot believe that you don't know that it's a gross misrepresentation.
 
Vixen said:
As I said, Rabe claimed to have found wheeled tracks on the seabed and there are pictures of it, which she and Greg Bemiss identify as submarine tracks. AIUI mini-subs can indeed roll along the seabed.
Click to expand...

Which mini subs can 'roll along the seabed'?
 
Reformed Offlian said:
She already told you: AIUI mini-subs. Haven't you heard of those?
Click to expand...

American Intelligence Undersea Infiltration mini-subs? Everyone's heard of those. They're the ones that operate under the direct command of Bill Clinton, as any fule no.

Not too reliable though. You have to replace all the air inside them with water, to stop them floating upside-down on the surface, but doing this makes it a bit difficult for the crew to breathe.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Vixen said:
That is what the professor said.
Click to expand...

No he didn’t.
I’ve shown you the clip where he made his statement.
Now. The professor was making nonsense when he made this statement, but you can’t even manage to factually convey what he said.

Yet again, there’s that eternal ‘blind spot’ of yours concerning what numbers, or for that matter dates, mean. Which is quite an accomplishment for an accountant.
 
Vixen said:
I am sure you've never made a mistake.



I didn't get my ex's age wrong, I got the date of the Moon Landing wrong and I corrected it. Perhaps explain why you think this is a major crime.
Click to expand...

Lol. You told us both were the same year and you got the year wrong. I can't see how you twist that into only misremembering one of them.

No major crime is involved, it was merely funny and it keeps getting funnier as you try to insist you weren't really entirely wrong.
 
Vixen said:
Citation please.
Click to expand...
You're the citation.

You said they (whoever they are) had made the offer less than two days after the disaster. You previously asked us why it took two weeks to locate the wreck. It didn't, but your new claim still places the offer of rescue equipment before the location of the wreck.
 
Vixen said:
...or someone unofficial removed them to access the vessel.
Click to expand...
As we have previously been told the wreck has rolled further over (thus exposing more of the damage on the starboard side that's lying on the seabed) I'm going to consider the parsimonious explanation is that these steel plates you describe simply slid off, rather than grasp for a new conspiracy.
 
Vixen said:
The Russian Baltic Fleet has dominated the Baltic for exactly 300 years, since Charles XII snatched defeat from the jaws of victory at Poltava in 1721. Hitherto, the Baltic region had been controlled variously by the Danes and then the Swedes, ever since the days of the eleventh century Teutonic Knights and Livonian Brothers of the Sword, a bunch of Baltic Germans who expanded in the Baltic lands. Sweden lost Livonia (modern day Estonia, Latvia and a part of Lithuania) to Peter the Great, at Poltava, and its only other participation in war in recent memory was with those pesky Norwegians in 1788.

Thus, from King Christian I, Ivan the Terrible (Ivan IV) to Adolphus Vasa to Peter the Great, encompassing the Thirty Years War and the Northern War and all kinds of skirmishes in between, culminating in WWI and WWII, the control of the Baltic Sea has been a matter of great importance and firece competition. Hence, you might have an understanding of how incredibly powerful the Russian Baltic Fleet is and has become.
Click to expand...


Does this “domination” of the Baltic extend to an ability to alter the pressure on the sea bed, or the physiology of people trapped there?
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
Lol. You told us both were the same year and you got the year wrong. I can't see how you twist that into only misremembering one of them.

No major crime is involved, it was merely funny and it keeps getting funnier as you try to insist you weren't really entirely wrong.
Click to expand...

What I said was that my ex was born the same year as the moon landing and mistakenly thought this to be 1976. He was actually born in 1969, so it was a simple error which I immediately corrected. It is telling that people swoop down to beat me up over it, as if no-one has the right to make a mistake and correct it.


Perhaps reflect on whether this is fair.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
You're the citation.

You said they (whoever they are) had made the offer less than two days after the disaster. You previously asked us why it took two weeks to locate the wreck. It didn't, but your new claim still places the offer of rescue equipment before the location of the wreck.
Click to expand...

That was a typo and I obviously was referring to the bow visor. This was also corrected when someone pointed it out, bearing in mind I had by then several times quoted the HS and other sources that the wreck was located 30 Sept 1994, do carry on being gleeful despite the correction. I am guessing I will never hear the end of it.

It is a statement of fact that this Russian institute offered specialised equipment to locate trapped passengers in air pockets and this was turned down. It is also a statement of fact that Dr Nuorteva a leading marine geologist, bathymetrist, did report interference on four sonar images which he interpreted as air bubbles coming off the ship. He did not attribute this to survivors but was told not to mention it. Nuorteva is another leading expert - who located the bow visor - and I dare say he will also be duly vilified by people who think he must be a conspiracy theorist.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
As we have previously been told the wreck has rolled further over (thus exposing more of the damage on the starboard side that's lying on the seabed) I'm going to consider the parsimonious explanation is that these steel plates you describe simply slid off, rather than grasp for a new conspiracy.
Click to expand...

It has moved from IIRC 214° to 224°; that is only an angle of ten degrees, give or take five.

Assuming the Swedish Navy specialists are halfway competent I doubt they left the 500kg steel plates in a position they could slide off, when they had all the undersea welding equipment.
 
Mojo said:
Does this “domination” of the Baltic extend to an ability to alter the pressure on the sea bed, or the physiology of people trapped there?
Click to expand...

I was pointing out that whilst the Soviet/Russians were relatively 'backward' compared to the west in many ways, when it came to naval stuff, they were probably world leaders, despite using notoriously old equipment (which led to the Kursk disaster for one).
 
What I'm reflecting on is that this whole exchange started out with your trying to defend as not a conspiracy theory your championing of theory after theory about plots by which various villainous groups might have conspired to sabotage the Estonia in elaborate ways, and listed a number of other famous events about which people concoct conspiracy theories.

I think your argument was that since this event of 27 years ago is being reinvestigated now, it must ipso facto be current affairs and cannot be a conspiracy theory. Not sure I follow this but presumably you can explain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom