• 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:
There was ample time for the 'nurse and doctor' to arrive at the Berga base by taxi or by another helicopter.

It was convenient for Y64 because it is obvious he had just dropped off eight or nine survivors and he happened to be there.
Click to expand...

You have no evidence for this
 
Vixen said:
...unless somebody had removed them because they were after all found 200km away in northwest Estonia.





Koivisto who had an exact replica of the thing said the ship's electricians had failed to install them.
Click to expand...
No, he said no such thing. He said the electrician had failed to activate them when needed. Because they were manually activated. Your fantasy about tuning and safety switches is not compatible with the known facts.
 
Vixen said:
It was the hydrostatic release unit. This is triggered when water [=hydro] of about one to four metres envelopes the casing. It releases an automatically activated buoy up to the surface whereupon it commences to emit a signal to copsas-sasart.
Click to expand...
No.

We spent forty pages trying to educate you on the difference between release of the buoy and activation of it's electronics.

You are ineducable.
 
JayUtah said:
No.

We spent forty pages trying to educate you on the difference between release of the buoy and activation of it's electronics.

You are ineducable.
Click to expand...


Maybe, but at least it distracts attention from all the “port is at 45 degrees” etc. nonsense.
 
Vixen said:
Sure.



HS 9.10.1994
Click to expand...
The difference between an enclosure and the buoy it enclosed was discussed previously in excruciating detail. You're just pretending none of those forty pages ever happened. What was that about you wanting to get to the bottom of things?

Here's a different strategy: try to convince us you're not a die-hard conspiracy theorist.
 
Vixen said:
What is left out is Y64 and Y74's initial flight leaving shortly after 02:00, and as reported in the early day Aftonbladet. Likewise in the 'Mayday' transcript you can hear the ship captain (Mariella, IIRC) state clearly that the Swedish helicopters would be there in 'ten minutes'.
Click to expand...

Aftonbladet only reported one flight for Y64. It misreports the time it set out.

Aftonbladet also says that Svensson pulled "eight human beings" out of the water. Not nine or seventeen or however may extra survivors you imagine to be.

You profess to believe Aftonbladet. Why don't you believe it when it says Svensson retrieved a total of eight people?
 
Vixen said:
What is left out is Y64 and Y74's initial flight leaving shortly after 02:00, and as reported in the early day Aftonbladet. Likewise in the 'Mayday' transcript you can hear the ship captain (Mariella, IIRC) state clearly that the Swedish helicopters would be there in 'ten minutes'.
Click to expand...

Y 64 did not leave shortly after 2 It was not put on alert until after 2. Y 74 was alerted an hour after Y 64.
 
JayUtah said:
The difference between an enclosure and the buoy it enclosed was discussed previously in excruciating detail. You're just pretending none of those forty pages ever happened. What was that about you wanting to get to the bottom of things?

Here's a different strategy: try to convince us you're not a die-hard conspiracy theorist.
Click to expand...

Or a straightforward troll of Olympic class?
 
JayUtah said:
True. But if I've signed up for the never-ending parade of ignorance, I will insist on some originality and creativity.
Click to expand...


By this point, it’s just going to be resets. For example, we’ve just had a claim that Wikileaks said that Bildt was a CIA agent, but it’s been made before. And always without a link to Wikileaks saying this.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Automatic buoys can be turned off and they often are whilst docked on land. This is because it is a frightful waste of time and money if they are set off when there is no emergency.

Some guy in Finland was recently fined for setting off some kind of emergency flare as a prank in the countryside.
Click to expand...

No they are always turned off. there is no extra switch to turn them off any further than the single on off activation switch.
You are making things up.
Show me where this extra switch is.
The only way they can be further deactivated is to remove the battery in a workshop.
 
Vixen said:
Automatic buoys can be turned off and they often are whilst docked on land. This is because it is a frightful waste of time and money if they are set off when there is no emergency.



Some guy in Finland was recently fined for setting off some kind of emergency flare as a prank in the countryside.
Click to expand...
See, this isn't something you know. This is something you think ought to be the case. But you don't know the difference, which is a chronic point of failure among the armchair detective set. The pros deal with the world as it is, messy and illogical though it may sometimes be.

And of course it's wrong to set off emergency fail-safes as a prank. That doesn't mean there necessarily "must" be a feature to prevent tampering, something the owner might forget to turn on again before it's needed.

There's nothing wrong with the sentiment, "They really should..." But don't confuse that with the way things actually are. Often there are factors the lay person hasn't considered.
 
Vixen said:
Automatic buoys can be turned off and they often are whilst docked on land. This is because it is a frightful waste of time and money if they are set off when there is no emergency.
Click to expand...
And you can quote the manual from the EPIRB model that was on the Estonia that says this? Remember, your posts are properly cited, referenced and sourced! (haha!)

Some guy in Finland was recently fined for setting off some kind of emergency flare as a prank in the countryside.
Click to expand...
Well that proves..... nothing.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
So what? How many were on duty when the emergency began? How many sleeping? How many in the bar?

Let's look at your conspiracy theory from their end: Why did Sweden want them? Had they committed some crime the Swedes wanted them punished for? If so, what's the tearing rush to try to find them?

Were they secretly working for Sweden? Doing what? What could have required the sooper seekrit helicopter flight?

The only way I can see it working is if Sweden knew in advance. And that means the ship was sabotaged. And if the mystery 9 all knew to get in the same boat then they were in on it. They were the saboteurs.

So let's unpack that plan from their p.o.v. On Swedish orders they sabotage their own ship, in some way the survivors accounts will suggest was an accident. Then they all get off in the same boat. Then they wait for a helicopter, somehow avoiding all other boats and rafts and rescue ships and non-Swedish helicopters. Then they get found somehow and whisked away and never see their families again.

Can you see any reason they might go along with that madness? You'd have to be a raving lunatic.
Click to expand...

Not to mention, this whole thing is logistically ridiculous. How could they be sure the nine would survive until they got there? How would the helicopters find those nine specific people in the dark and chaos of the wreckage? If they pulled somebody out of the water, and it wasn't one of the nine, what would they do? Throw them back in?

If the plan was simply to send a helicopter to pluck these nine specific individuals off the Estonia, why sink the ship at all, murder all those other people, and needlessly jeopardize the very thing you're trying to accomplish? Why not just send the helicopter?

ETA: Heck, why even do that? Just detain them at customs.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom