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

[Andy_Ross]

Apropos of this, the firm as reported in Itar-Tass, 29 September 1994 (=immediately after the accident) by Lev Rumiyantzev, was a Russian submarine designers, Igor Spassky and Sergei Kovalyov, who reckoned they could send down a pipe to cut the bilge and pull the surviving passengers and crew to the surface.

About Igor Spassky:

Navy History org

ETA: *so named after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Dzerzhinsky

Founder of Russian spy agencies.

An 80 meter long 'pipe to cut the bilge'?
It would just cut in to fuel and water tanks.
How would that rescue anyone?

How would this 'pipe' cut in to the bilge and rescue people?
I don't think any such thing exists.

 

[zooterkin]

Apropos of this, the firm as reported in Itar-Tass, 29 September 1994 (=immediately after the accident) by Lev Rumiyantzev, was a Russian submarine designers, Igor Spassky and Sergei Kovalyov, who reckoned they could send down a pipe to cut the bilge and pull the surviving passengers and crew to the surface.

So, before it was known how deep the Estonia lay, and therefore irrelevant in indicating whether there was anyone still alive to be saved?

 

[Steve]

An 80 meter long 'pipe to cut the bilge'?
It would just cut in to fuel and water tanks.
How would that rescue anyone?

How would this 'pipe' cut in to the bilge and rescue people?
I don't think any such thing exists.

Maybe not today. But back in 1976....... or was it 1969...?

 

[JayUtah]

Evertsson deferred to an expert...

Evertsson still misrepresented the evidence to the public, and may have misrepresented it to his experts. His experts' opinions are only as good as the data Evertsson fed them.

.../in naval explosives and also to Dr Ulfversson of a Norwegian University, who gave his professional and objective opinion that such a hole was caused by an enormous force which could not be explained by a 55 tonne bow visor. He said the force of the indentation caused was the equivalent of a five tonne submarine at 1.99kn (?) or a small one tonne fishing vessel at 5 kn IIRC.

And I discussed that at considerable length, including the physics calculations. You need to come to grips with the fact that there are experts in the world besides who your chosen authors cite. And they are quite capable -- and often duty-bound -- to review claims. It's how we work in this field. We discovered you weren't competent to have that discussion, and you still aren't. This is why we're back to you simply spewing mindless talking points and pretending the debate ends there. That's what conspiracy theorists want you to do. They want you to believe that when you repeat their conclusions, all the thinking has been done.

You rubbished someone who is an expert in his field and who meticulously modelled the damage.

Modeling has to be meticulous by its nature. Physical models must be fully specified in order to work at all. More often than not that require estimates and assumptions to fill in the gaps. Had the expert published his findings in the usual way, instead of for a television presentation, we would have been able to see those assumptions. But what really matters is that Ulfversson's (not Amdahl's, as you originally misrepresented) findings are only as good as the data Evertsson spoon-fed him. And we find out later that Evertsson had ulterior motives.

However, let's not remember that this is the expert you felt you needed to "correct," assuring us he must have mean megajoules when he said tonnes. If you think it's okay for you, a lay person, to correct the good professor on his physics, then it should be okay for a professional engineer with decades of experience to do so when there is good reason.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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.

Did you manage to check your numbers?

I hope you recognise that a ship which lists to starboard and turns 224° has gone past being inverted and continued halfway toward lying on its port side instead. That's not something the Estonia has done.

Also, do you actually mean the Swedish navy? Which divers placed these steel plates over holes they cut?

 

[JayUtah]

The fact there are many challenges to the JAIC report should indicate to you that it did an incomplete job...

No. That depends on whether the challenges have any rational basis. People will disagree with practically anything for a variety of reasons, especially when there is great emotional weight attached to it.

 

[JayUtah]

...anyone who argues from a scientific or expert POV is derided and shot down in flames.

What a load of sanctimonious crap. Your approach to expertise is comically superstitious. One documentarian with ulterior motives props up one guy, and you seem to think that guy's inconsistent waffling is God's incontrovertible truth on the matter. Scientific certainty is not achieved by one guy saying one thing one time. It's achieved by rigorous challenge and review, from dozens of practitioners using dozen of different approaches and building a consensus from the totality of evidence. This is why real science isn't done sensationally on television. It takes time and the effort of many. That may not fit a TV producer's agenda, which is why we take TV experts with a grain of salt.

Funny how your supposed reverence for expertise evaporates when it doesn't agree with you. Someone reviews your proffered expert's findings, from a position of decades of professional experience doing similar work, and you respond with insults that get rightly whisked off to AAH where they belong. And let's not forget your wanton bashing of poor Elizabeth Loftus, whom you wrote off as nothing more than a defense attorney's hack after having likely done little more than skim a Wikipedia article on her.

Don't pretend you're the guardian of scientific integrity and expertise in this forum. You neither have it when it's needed, nor can you recognize and appreciate it in others when it applies to your claims.

 

[JesseCuster]

I wonder if Vixen actually believes herself that her posts are properly cited, referenced and sourced, and that all the nutty hypotheses she's mentioned are actually from "respected experts in their field" (and not made up by her like the blank torpedo firing minisubs with wheels... (have I got that right?)).

 

[Steve]

I wonder if Vixen actually believes herself that her posts are properly cited, referenced and sourced, and that all the nutty hypotheses she's mentioned are actually from "respected experts in their field" (and not made up by her like the blank torpedo firing minisubs with wheels... (have I got that right?)).

I suspect that Vixen actually does think this. As I suggested way back - a classic case of Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Of course the alternative is that Vixen is lying through her teeth. But no one here would suggest that, would they?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

In the post in question I supplied quite a few dates, including the 9/11 and JFK date. In the grand scheme of things getting the year of the Moon Landing wrong, was an error and I corrected it.

People are allowed to make a mistake, except for me, it seems.

But it wasn't just that post, was it? You followed it up by stating that he was born in 1976, then corrected that.


You didn't just make a mistake about when the first moon landing was, you attempted to save face and made it worse for yourself in doing so.

This is something that you've repeatedly done.

Vixen, are you a scientist?

 

[Axxman300]

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).

And as with everything else in this thread series, you did a poor job with history.

Whatever naval dominance, or even competence Russia may have had vanished under Czar Nicholas II.

I give you "The Battle of Tsushima Strait":

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-battle-of-tsushima-strait

And this is the most hilarious take on the whole expedition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jDbJbCuKl4

Of course, the Communist revolution somehow managed to even further degrade Russian naval prowess.

The fact that a navy was dominant and feared for one stretch of history doesn't mean it staid that way. Spain still has a navy, but the days of the Spanish Armada are long behind them. Holland has a navy, but nobody trembles at the thought of a Dutch Man of War these days.

My point is - you are bad at history. Please stick to the events of September 28, 1994. You are not helping yourself.

 

[abaddon]

It was a simple mistake. Let me know what punishment you would like to inflict. Assuming you yourself have never made a mistake ever.

Well for a claimed accountant, it seems you have a difficulty in simple counting. Surely that should give everyone pause, no?

 

[Mojo]

[qimg]https://media.giphy.com/media/Q7ozWVYCR0nyW2rvPW/giphy.gif[/qimg]

And as with everything else in this thread series, you did a poor job with history.

Whatever naval dominance, or even competence Russia may have had vanished under Czar Nicholas II.

I give you "The Battle of Tsushima Strait":

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-battle-of-tsushima-strait

And this is the most hilarious take on the whole expedition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jDbJbCuKl4

Of course, the Communist revolution somehow managed to even further degrade Russian naval prowess.

The fact that a navy was dominant and feared for one stretch of history doesn't mean it staid that way. Spain still has a navy, but the days of the Spanish Armada are long behind them. Holland has a navy, but nobody trembles at the thought of a Dutch Man of War these days.

My point is - you are bad at history. Please stick to the events of September 28, 1994. You are not helping yourself.

In any case, the alleged dominance of the Russian fleet is irrelevant to the question at hand, which was whether it was possible for there to be survivors trapped in the wreck on the seabed.

 

[Axxman300]

In any case, the alleged dominance of the Russian fleet is irrelevant to the question at hand, which was whether it was possible for there to be survivors trapped in the wreck on the seabed.

And that's not even an issue. All that matters is the Estonia was sailing too fast in rough seas, and knocked her bow-visor off, and sank. The side issue in the fracture seen in the hull seems to have been resolved with the survey of the ocean floor, and the granite outcropping(s).

Everything else (submarines, spetsnaz, torpedoes, hijackers, buoys not switched on, bolts, and now air-pockets) is blowing smoke to hide the fact there is nothing new about how the ship sank, just much better pictures. And they continue the survey in April, 2022.

 

[erwinl]

And that's not even an issue. All that matters is the Estonia was sailing too fast in rough seas, and knocked her bow-visor off, and sank. The side issue in the fracture seen in the hull seems to have been resolved with the survey of the ocean floor, and the granite outcropping(s).

Everything else (submarines, spetsnaz, torpedoes, hijackers, buoys not switched on, bolts, and now air-pockets) is blowing smoke to hide the fact there is nothing new about how the ship sank, just much better pictures. And they continue the survey in April, 2022.

Yes, indeed.

But that would mean, the sinking was due to incompetence and thus randomness whether one should suffer from it. And that is too scary to contemplate.

Far better to have bad things occur because of the actions of nefarious people. One is still dead, but at least it gives some people the warmth of knowledge that it must have meant something, evil though it was, and that they can slacktivistically fight against 'those people'.

 

[Mojo]

My point is - you are bad at history. Please stick to the events of September 28, 1994.

She’s not very good at those either.

 

[Vixen]

[qimg]https://media.giphy.com/media/Q7ozWVYCR0nyW2rvPW/giphy.gif[/qimg]

And as with everything else in this thread series, you did a poor job with history.

Whatever naval dominance, or even competence Russia may have had vanished under Czar Nicholas II.

I give you "The Battle of Tsushima Strait":

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-battle-of-tsushima-strait

And this is the most hilarious take on the whole expedition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jDbJbCuKl4

Of course, the Communist revolution somehow managed to even further degrade Russian naval prowess.

The fact that a navy was dominant and feared for one stretch of history doesn't mean it staid that way. Spain still has a navy, but the days of the Spanish Armada are long behind them. Holland has a navy, but nobody trembles at the thought of a Dutch Man of War these days.

My point is - you are bad at history. Please stick to the events of September 28, 1994. You are not helping yourself.

Sure, every nation has its embarrassing battle, but the fact is the world's super power was the Swedish Empire, at its height in 1658, when it spanned the previous Danish Skåne region, and Livonia (Estonia and part-Latvia), together with various duchies and suzerainties. Its naval might was unsurpassed. This was snatched away by |Peter the Great in 1721 and by 1944 the Soviets controlled virtually all of these regions.

Come 1991 at the fall of the Soviet Union, against the background of the Estonia disaster, we see once again the Baltic states restored to their independence and one can see PM Carl Bildt's eagerness to hold back the Russians and get these small states into the EU and the western sphere of influence, backed by the US. I support Bildt in this, for one only has to see how Russian troops are again gathering at the borders of Ukraine and Poland. Estonia and Latvia are putting up barbed wire and UK troops have arrived to back them up. The problem is, Russia still owns Kaliningrad and thus has a small corridor between it and Poland. Next step is for Kaliningrad (former Prussia) to be re-owned by the west.


Why was the Estonia disaster covered up? One day we will find out. IMV it is almost certainly to do with political power struggles.

 

[Vixen]

And that's not even an issue. All that matters is the Estonia was sailing too fast in rough seas, and knocked her bow-visor off, and sank. The side issue in the fracture seen in the hull seems to have been resolved with the survey of the ocean floor, and the granite outcropping(s).

Everything else (submarines, spetsnaz, torpedoes, hijackers, buoys not switched on, bolts, and now air-pockets) is blowing smoke to hide the fact there is nothing new about how the ship sank, just much better pictures. And they continue the survey in April, 2022.

I am not sure the storm was particularly severe or that the vessel was going particularly fast. It is claimed it was an hour behind schedule but in fact only left Tallinn fifteen minutes late.

Something grievous happened to that ship but it so easy to simply blame the crew.

As for the windows supposedly smashing in the waves whilst it floated (really?) on its side, those windows had been tested to withstand winds of 42 m/s. These winds were 15 to 20 m/s (29 to 39 kn; 34 to 45 mph (wiki). As for its route, website Private Bahnhoff believes the JAIC estimated this wrongly and that it was taking the more northerly route to join the Helsinki departure ships and thus the captain was indeed attempting the 'safe route'.

According to modelled satellite data, gusts were in the excess of 85–100 km/h (24–28 m/s) at 01:00 that night over the Baltic Sea, although the ship had not yet reached the areas with the heaviest gusts before its sinking.

ibid

 

[Vixen]

An 80 meter long 'pipe to cut the bilge'?
It would just cut in to fuel and water tanks.
How would that rescue anyone?

How would this 'pipe' cut in to the bilge and rescue people?
I don't think any such thing exists.

I think the Russians knew the Baltic Sea like the backs of their hand? It had plenty of incursions into Sweden and Finland.

These guys, Spassky and Kolyakov were the Russian submarine designers, and no doubt had at various times pondered the logistics of rescue operations.

The Russian inventory 1990:

In 1990, the Soviet Navy had:[22]

63 ballistic missile submarines:
6 Project 941 (Typhoon-class) submarines
40 Project 667B (Delta-class) submarines
12 Project 667A (Yankee-class) submarines
5 Project 658 (Hotel-class) submarines
72 cruise missile submarines:
6 Oscar-class submarines
6 Yankee Notch submarines
14 Charlie-class submarines
30 Echo-class submarines
16 Juliett-class submarines
68 nuclear attack submarines:
5 Akula-class submarines
2 Sierra-class submarines
6 Alfa-class submarines
46 Victor-class submarines
6 November-class submarines
3 Yankee SSN submarine
63 conventional attack submarines:
18 Kilo-class submarines
20 Tango-class submarines
25 Foxtrot-class submarines
9 auxiliary submarines
1 Beluga-class submarine
1 Lima-class submarine
2 India-class submarines
4 Bravo-class submarines
1 Losos-class submarine

wiki

 

[Vixen]

What a load of sanctimonious crap. Your approach to expertise is comically superstitious. One documentarian with ulterior motives props up one guy, and you seem to think that guy's inconsistent waffling is God's incontrovertible truth on the matter. Scientific certainty is not achieved by one guy saying one thing one time. It's achieved by rigorous challenge and review, from dozens of practitioners using dozen of different approaches and building a consensus from the totality of evidence. This is why real science isn't done sensationally on television. It takes time and the effort of many. That may not fit a TV producer's agenda, which is why we take TV experts with a grain of salt.

Funny how your supposed reverence for expertise evaporates when it doesn't agree with you. Someone reviews your proffered expert's findings, from a position of decades of professional experience doing similar work, and you respond with insults that get rightly whisked off to AAH where they belong. And let's not forget your wanton bashing of poor Elizabeth Loftus, whom you wrote off as nothing more than a defense attorney's hack after having likely done little more than skim a Wikipedia article on her.

Don't pretend you're the guardian of scientific integrity and expertise in this forum. You neither have it when it's needed, nor can you recognize and appreciate it in others when it applies to your claims.

I have nothing against Elizabeth Loftus at all. What I objected to was your claim that the Estonia survivors might have had faulty memories about what they experienced and I pointed out that Loftus specialises in being a gun-for-hire to challenge prosecution witnesses and in addition, her work revolves around long term memory when people fill in missing information with what seems logical but is actually a 'false memory'.

I honestly cannot see what Loftus has to do with the Estonia survivors' accounts, which were given from their hospital beds immediately after the accident. Nobody was pressurising them 'to remember' and nor were they grappling to locate some ephemeral memory from a distant past.

The big problem with these survivors' accounts is that they are 'classified' and no-one can access them. In addition, the police taking down the notes were not trained in catastrophe incident questioning, their recording skills were lacking and in addition, often had to translate from one language into another, sometimes with both interviewer and interviewee having a 'pidgeon' grasp of their chosen language.

For example, Carl-Eric Reintamm says he told the police he saw something bright or white moving away in the water of its own velocity and the psychologist who summarised the passenger accounts, re-wrote this as his having seen some broken-off white stair railings floating in the water.