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

[Jack by the hedge]

Throw away the dogma and think for yourself.

I think... I think early newspaper reports of rapidly developing and confusing events can often contain errors.

But you trust them over all evidence, when it suits you. I think that's weird.

 

[Vixen]

What is your evidence that they were first off?

Wasn't it you who asked, 'What should they do, stand there and salute as the ship goes down?'

 

[Andy_Ross]

It wasn't their watch on the bridge.

So the ship is listing, the alarms are sounding and they do what?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Wasn't it you who asked, 'What should they do, stand there and salute as the ship goes down?'

But what is your evidence that they were first off?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You only need to note how Sillaste was brutally handcuffed as he was brought in to Turku to be interrogated by an intimidating array of special police together with three PM's.

All credit to Sillaste he stuck to his story of the car ramp being up and pointing out it was normal to leak.

Lots of colourful adjectives in there. Who supplied those?

Are 3 prime ministers usual at a particularly brutal interrogation, or were they special guests of the intimidating police heavies?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The claim the waves knocked off the Atlantic lock causing the bow visor to swing upwards was proven by Dr. Eng. Hans Hoffmeister to be wrong, as he showed it would have been the starboard side lock that would have given way first and the bottom one last. That blows the JAIC early 'Day One' theory out of the water.

You are massively exaggerating the significance of this difference between the two analyses and you're taking it for granted that Hoffmeister's is correct.

You have absolutely no ability whatsoever to assess what difference, if any, the sequence of lock failures could have made. You just see a difference and want to drive a wedge in between them making as much hullabaloo as possible about it.

For my part, I doubt it makes a scrap of difference if the three locks failed 1, 2, 3 or failed 2, 3, 1 or any other way around. I'm open to being told I'm mistaken about that, but frankly not by you, as you obviously haven't the first clue about the subject.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Wrong again. He was giving an official presentation to the JAIC bods, January 1995, with members of the press invited.

And the stuff you quoted was as interpreted by the press and contains errors.

 

[JayUtah]

You are massively exaggerating the significance of this difference between the two analyses and you're taking it for granted that Hoffmeister's is correct.

Indeed, I offered to discuss Hoffmeister's findings to whatever fine degree of detail Vixen desired. She ignored the request. She's not competent to discuss it, and she wants desperately to maintain the illusion that no one else is either.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The manual has bee referenced a few times but you keep claiming, 'Ah but that's the updated one'.

Sounds as if you were not aware of the date of the document that everyone, including you, found by Googling. Lack of attention to detail?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

It wasn't their watch on the bridge.

None of them had any duties in an emergency, then?

 

[junkshop]

Vixen,

You keep returning to issues, claims and accusations that have already been thoroughly debunked, disproven and (where appropriate) ridiculed. Why? What do you hope to gain by this? Do you have anything new or interesting to contribute here?

 

[JayUtah]

Vixen,

You keep returning to issues, claims and accusations that have already been thoroughly debunked, disproven and (where appropriate) ridiculed. Why? What do you hope to gain by this? Do you have anything new or interesting to contribute here?

Exactly. I want to know what Vixen's planned end game is here, not the pie-in-the-sky fever dreams of the conspiracy crowd she's glommed onto. At this point it's clear she's absolutely disinterested in what anyone else has to say. She's uninterested in facts she hasn't already heard from Anders Björkman and others. What possible advantage is gained from restating arguments that have been addressed countless times? My answer is that Vixen is just trying as hard as she can to pretend she's relevant to something.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

It is answering a straightforward question as to why Svensson's rescued survivors was lessened to one.

...which didn't happen.

And don't embarrass yourself by repeating that the reports say Y 64 only brought back one rescuee; we know that. That one rescuee is *not* the totality of people Svensson is explicitly credited (referred to there as "the Y 64 rescue man") with having rescued in the JAIC report.

 

[Mojo]

I think... I think early newspaper reports of rapidly developing and confusing events can often contain errors.

But you trust them over all evidence, when it suits you. I think that's weird.

Of course, if all the early reports agreed perfectly with the final report, Vixen would be citing that as evidence of a cover-up.

 

[Vixen]

Indeed, I offered to discuss Hoffmeister's findings to whatever fine degree of detail Vixen desired. She ignored the request. She's not competent to discuss it, and she wants desperately to maintain the illusion that no one else is either.

IIRC you were demanding to know why Dr. Eng. Hoffmeister wasn't testing for bombs.

 

[Vixen]

...which didn't happen.

And don't embarrass yourself by repeating that the reports say Y 64 only brought back one rescuee; we know that. That one rescuee is *not* the totality of people Svensson is explicitly credited (referred to there as "the Y 64 rescue man") with having rescued in the JAIC report.

See for yourself. It is official on Wikipedia: Kenneth Svensson was the ONE helicopter rescue man who received The Swedish Armed Forces Medal of Merit (1995–2009) Gold Medal for the (supposedly) one person he rescued.

Recipient of the Armed Forces Medal of Merit in gold with sword
Alvar Älmeberg (pilot) on the shot down DC3 13 June 1952, awarded posthumously 13 June 2004. [ 1 ]
Gösta Blad (navigator and signalman) on the shot down DC3 13 June 1952, awarded posthumously 13 June 2004. [ 2 ]
Herbert Mattson (flight mechanic) on the shot down DC3 June 13, 1952, awarded posthumously June 13, 2004. [ 3 ]
Carl-Einar Jonsson (FRA, group leader) on the shot down DC3 13 June 1952, awarded posthumously 13 June 2004. [ 4 ]
Ivar Svensson (FRA, telegraphist) on the shot down DC3 13 June 1952, awarded posthumously 13 June 2004. [ 5 ]
Erik Carlsson (FRA, telegraph operator and Russian interpreter) on the shot down DC3 13 June 1952, awarded posthumously 13 June 2004.
Bengt Book (FRA, telegraphist) on the shot down DC3 13 June 1952, awarded posthumously 13 June 2004. [ 6 ]
Börje Nilsson (FRA, telegraph operator from Malmö ) on the shot down DC3 13 June 1952, awarded posthumously 13 June 2004. [ 7 ]
Ensign Kenneth Svensson, surface rescuer at the sinking of M / S Estonia 27 September 1994, awarded 15 January 1996. [ 8 ]

Wiki

This is the FULL list for the ENTIRE Swedish Armed Forces over a total of 14 years, 1995 to 2009.

Clearly he did a lot more than the JAIC let on.

Think about it.

 

[Vixen]

And the stuff you quoted was as interpreted by the press and contains errors.

Perhaps you can explain to us all why Koivisto's official report on the Estonia EPIRB's is missing, together with the EPIRB's themselves, according to reputable YLE journalists who wanted to research them?

Today, not only the emergency buoys have disappeared without a trace. Asser Koivisto's report has also gone up in smoke. Spotlight has searched in Tallinn, Kotka, Helsinki, Turku and Stockholm.
Now, 25 years later, Koivisto is referring to a confidentiality agreement and refuses an interview through his wife. No other experts from the Estonia Inquiry have referred to any duty of confidentiality.

<snip>

Lead investigator Kai Valonen and information manager Tiina Bieber searched for Asser Koivisto's Estonia report, but to no avail. Photo: Yle / Taisto Lapila

There is no trace of any report written by Asser Koivisto in the archives where Estonia material is found. The emergency buoys themselves are said to have been tested first by Finnish experts in Helsinki and then on the Estonian icebreaker Tarmo in January 1995. There, they are said to have worked flawlessly for four hours and made contact with a Russian satellite.
But then the buoys disappeared.

The Central Criminal Police in Helsinki has 50 boxes of unsorted Estonia material; examination of witnesses and minutes with varying degrees of secrecy. After 40 years, they go to the National Archives. Only then will the material be available to researchers and journalists.

Svenska YLE

 

[Andy_Ross]

IIRC you were demanding to know why Dr. Eng. Hoffmeister wasn't testing for bombs.

No, we wanted to know why you thought he would ignore any evidence he found.

 

[Andy_Ross]

See for yourself. It is official on Wikipedia: Kenneth Svensson was the ONE helicopter rescue man who received The Swedish Armed Forces Medal of Merit (1995–2009) Gold Medal for the (supposedly) one person he rescued.

Wiki

This is the FULL list for the ENTIRE Swedish Armed Forces over a total of 14 years, 1995 to 2009.

Clearly he did a lot more than the JAIC let on.

Think about it.

Why do you lie?

He rescued 7 people, was left stranded in the water for a while and then took over the job of another injured rescue man before being injured himself.

Seems to me that deserves a medal.

As for other recipients, what point are you making?

The helicopter winched down its rescue man to the person in the water. Although the winch wire failed, the rescue man managed to raise him. The next to be lifted up was the man in the raft. He was not wearing a lifejacket. He fell into the water just before gaining the helicopter. The rescue man jumped after him and succeeded in grasping him. The winch now failed totally and another helicopter, Y 74, was called upon to rescue them. However, before Y 74 arrived, the person died.

The Y 64 rescue man was holding onto a body, which was winched up to Y 74 with the assistance of Y 74's own rescue man. When the body had been recovered, the Y 74's rescue man fell about one metre, receiving a heavy blow from the harness to the lower part of his body. Nonetheless, he requested that he be lowered to bring up one more body. This body, however, had become badly tangled with the ropes on the raft and could not be winched up.
At this stage the pilot decided to interrupt the recovery of the body, since there might still be survivors in the sea and on rafts. Finally a spare harness was lowered to the Y 64's rescue man and used to winch him up to the helicopter. The injury to the Y 74 rescue man proved so serious that he was unable to do more. The work was continued by Y 64's rescue man.
At 0715 hrs Y 74 found a raft with three survivors, who were winched up into the helicopter. At one point the rescue man had to be brought up because his flippers had been torn off by the waves.
At 0740 hrs Y 69 reported that it, too, had had to leave its rescue man in the water because of a malfunction of the winch. In addition, this rescue man was suffering from concussion, since he had hit his head on a lifeboat that was upside-down in the water.
Y 74 went to Y 69's assistance. A hook and harness were dropped to the rescue man, and he was able to use them to get up to the helicopter.
Three survivors were hanging on to the keel of an upside-down lifeboat. Y 64's rescue man was lowered, and all three survivors were winched up. In connection with the rescue of the last of the three, a strong wave threw the rescue man against the lifeboat, injuring him. Since Y 74 now had three injured rescue men, it had to interrupt its rescue operations. In addition, fuel was running low. The six survivors, the injured rescue men and the body were taken to Huddinge Hospital,

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,

You keep returning to issues, claims and accusations that have already been thoroughly debunked, disproven and (where appropriate) ridiculed. Why? What do you hope to gain by this? Do you have anything new or interesting to contribute here?

Would you be happy with an unsalvaged unrecovered shipwreck containing literally many hundreds of bodies, including little children not far from your own shores, in a beauty spot area and nature reserve for wild birds? Every time you went to the beach you would be intrigued and wanting answers to the question, why? Especially when the official report into the cause of the wreck, the JAIC report, has massive holes in it.

Britain wanted answers over the Herald of Free Enterprise and it got it, even if the judges and courts were too weak-spirited to find anyone to blame.