• 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:
It is all pedantry, isn't it, as the Wilhelm Gustloff was built as a cruise passenger ship for German workers to relax on. It was never a war ship or a military ship. It had just one escort on its way out to its destination.
Click to expand...
Bloody hell. It was a German Military transport ship.

Do you know nothing?
 
The weird thing about all this is the notion that there is no possibility that anybody can transfer from one helicopter to another. Why is Vixen proposing this?
 
abaddon said:
The weird thing about all this is the notion that there is no possibility that anybody can transfer from one helicopter to another. Why is Vixen proposing this?
Click to expand...

Because the JAIC report says it happened therefore it has to be a lie.
 
abaddon said:
Bloody hell. It was a German Military transport ship.



Do you know nothing?
Click to expand...
It's a memory problem I think. Vixen knows we discussed that ship before and that there was something about it's having been a hospital ship, so she played that card to remind us Russians are ruthless. On discovering that's wrong it suddenly becomes unimportant.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It is all pedantry, isn't it, as the Wilhelm Gustloff was built as a cruise passenger ship for German workers to relax on. It was never a war ship or a military ship. It had just one escort on its way out to its destination.
Click to expand...
Ha.

Earlier in this thread you claimed that the RMS Olympic was "built as a warship" because it was used as a troop transport during WWI, even though it was built as a passenger liner and most definitely wasn't "built as a warship".

Strange how a civilian passenger ship can be "built as a warship" in one instance because it was a civilian ship used as a troop carrier during wartime yet another "was never a war ship" even though it was also a civilian ship used as a troop carrier during wartime.

It's almost like Vixen's making stuff up off the top of her head as she thinks it suits whatever case she thinks she's making at the time and damn the contradictions!
 
JesseCuster said:
Ha.

Earlier in this thread you claimed that the RMS Olympic was "built as a warship" because it was used as a troop transport during WWI, even though it was built as a passenger liner and most definitely wasn't "built as a warship".

Strange how a civilian passenger ship can be "built as a warship" in one instance because it was a civilian ship used as a troop carrier during wartime yet another "was never a war ship" even though it was also a civilian ship used as a troop carrier during wartime.

It's almost like Vixen's making stuff up off the top of her head as she thinks it suits whatever case she thinks she's making at the time and damn the contradictions!
Click to expand...

Like the flat earthers that say NASA lies all the time but then try to use a NASA document to support their claims.
 
I came across this from Vixen while searching the thread:

Vixen said:
I don't believe the Estonia was "struck by another vessel or was blown up in some way".
Click to expand...
So you've had a radical change of heart since then?
 
Will you all please have regard to Kipling's exhortation about keeping your head(s) when all around you are losing theirs, lest you breach rule 0 or rule 12. Remain civil and polite.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
Vixen said:
Asked and answered.
What is it you did not like about the answer?
Click to expand...

I'm reminded here of a post that I believe Jay made in one of the interminable Jabba threads about how fringe claimants frequently glom on to the language of their interlocutors without actually grasping the meaning, essentially using it as a magic spell. They believe that saying the words means that their specific point or argument under discussion is rendered unassailable because they are using the language of proper debate and argument without actually grasping the meaning of the phrasing being used.

That is, a fringe claimant will frequently parrot back things such as the names of logical fallacies they have been told they are committing without grasping why they are committing the fallacy (or indeed what the fallacy is) and therefore not understanding why accusing their opponent of committing the self same fallacies is incorrect, to put it mildly.

Similarly here, Vixen is using one of Jay's favourite turns of phrase when he is being asked the same question he already answered, except that in this case Vixen did not actually answer the question at all, and gave a mealy mouthed non answer in response. That means that Junkshop requesting that Vixen answer his questions is perfectly valid, as they were not answered satisfactorily in the first place. Compare that to Vixen constantly "forgetting" Jay's answers and occasionally making up what he said entirely means that when Jay responds to the same questions she's asked him and he answered several times, he can legitimately tell her "asked and answered" and invite her to review his previous answer.

This is a pantomime of a debate being conducted by someone who is woefully ignorant of the facts, how to assess said facts, and even it seems her own incompetence, and appears to be being kept alive purely because she absolutely refuses to concede any level of ignorance of any topic even when it is so obvious as to be painful.
 
Last edited:
Here_to_learn said:
The Swedish Sceptics Society presented a study today. 2500 Swedes were interviewed on several different subjects.

27% agreed more or less with the statement "The real reason behind the sinking of M/S Estonia has been hidden by the government."(p50)

Among sympathizers with different political parties, about 60% of those voting for Sverigedemokraterna (The Nationalist right-wing populist party) agreed with the statement (p56). Lower level of education did also correlate with agreeing with the statement (p54).
Click to expand...

AKA how to lie with statistics. It is well-known that the far-right has infiltrated various anarchist-type subsections and anti-vaxxers, covid-is-a-hoax, they-are-taking-away-your-freedom malcontents. Smearing someone with a negative label doesn't really change anything.
 
junkshop said:
It failed to address any of the questions you claim it answered.

In fairness, my last question was a bit facetious, so I am happy to let that one go. That leaves us with two questions;

You keep returning to issues, claims and accusations that have already been thoroughly debunked, disproven and (where appropriate) ridiculed. Why?

and

What do you hope to gain by this?
Click to expand...


I haven't seen anything 'debunked'. Perhaps a citation?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
First Swedish helicopter was The Swedish stand-by helicopter Q 97, it was alerted at 02:07 and took off from Visby at 02:50 hrs, arriving at the scene of the accident at 03:50 hrs. It was on one hour standby



Y64 and Y74 were not standby helicopters. They were not SAR helicopters at all. They were Anti Submarine helicopters. They were alerted at 02:30 and 03:30 respectively. They had to assemble a rescue crew as they did not usually fly with a rescue man as they were Anti Submarine Helicopters.
Y 64 took off from Berga at 04:45 hrs, picked up a physician and a nurse from Huddinge Hospital and arrived at the scene of the accident at 05:52
Y 74 took off from Berga at 05:46 hrs. Carrying a physician and a nurse from Huddinge Hospital and arrived at the scene of the accident at 06:42 hrs.



The newspaper reported it wrong.



First Swedish helicopter was The Swedish stand-by helicopter Q 97, it was on one hour standby, it was alerted at 02:07 and took off from Visby at 02:50 hrs, arriving at the scene of the accident at 03:50 hrs.

First to respond and arrive was the Finnish OH-HVG, it was on one hour standby, it was alerted at 01:35, taking off at 02:30 hrs from Turku and arriving at the scene of the accident at 03:05 hrs



He arrived at 05:52, he saved one survivor aboard Y 64. He was left stranded in the water after the winch failed and was rescued by Y 74 where he took over winch duties from their injured rescue man.
Click to expand...

It is no good side-stepping the facts. It doesn't change the fact Svensson got the highest level of Swedish Defence Forces Medal of Merit the Gold with Sword for his activities regarding the Estonia. The JAIC states plainly his helicopter Y64 arrived at circa 0600 and rescued one.

The other fact is that MRCC in Sweden has a protocol that a couple of helicopters are always on standby and must leave 'within 15 minutes' when ordered, as they were. (cf Estonia, Finnbirch). Berga is a naval base so it shouldn't be a surprise their helicopters are assault or anti-submarine. They have to be prepared for any eventuality.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
The JAIC report doesn't say he saved just one; it says that he saved seven and retrieved one body. You are setting up a strawman.

I don't see what the lettered items have to do with the question of which report is accurate. As I pointed out, we know the Aftonblad article contains mistakes; it even contains details that contradict your "two trips" scenario (e.g., eight rescuees and one dead body were in Y 64 when it left Svensson in the water; the helicopter went to Huddinge after it left him)
Click to expand...

The Swedish government archives on the Estonia incident clearly shows Y64 rescued one and Y74 six.

Participating helicopters:
Nationality Helicopter Number saved
Finnish Sea rescue helicopter OH-HVG 37
Swedish Air Force helicopter Q 97 15
Finnish Border Guard helicopter OH-HVD 14
Swedish Air Force helicopter Q 99 9
Finnish Border Guard helicopter OH-HVF 8
Finnish Air Force Helicopter X 92 8
Finnish Air Force Helicopter X 42 6
Swedish Air Force helicopter Q 91 6
Swedish Navy helicopter Y 68 6
Swedish Navy helicopter Y 74 6
Swedish Air Force helicopter Q 95 6
Finnish Border Guard helicopter OH-HVH 4
Finnish Air Force helicopter X 62 1
Swedish Navy helicopter Y 65 1
Swedish Navy helicopter Y 64 1
Finnish Air Force Helicopter X 82 -
Swedish Navy helicopter Y 69 -
Swedish Navy helicopter Y 72 -
Swedish Navy helicopter Y 73 -
Swedish Navy helicopter Y 75 -
Swedish Navy helicopter Y 76 -
Swedish Air Force helicopter O 98 -


Svensson helicopter Y64 or even sharing (aw, how sweet) with Y74, still only makes it seven, after arriving five hours after Estonia sank.

How come none of the other Swedish guys got a Gold with Sword medal?

You just cannot answer that.
 
JesseCuster said:
It's far more plausible that Aftonbladet made a mistake in their reporting of what happened in the immediate aftermath of the disaster, than the fantastical scenario you want to portray with secret helicopter flights, crew members being disappeared, rescue workers being given medals to keep them quiet, etc., all of which you simply invented for the purpose of bolstering up your rather silly conspiracy theory

And yes, saying that helicopters were sent out to pick up certain crew members, those flights were kept off the records, the crew members rescued were disappeared and taken to CIA black sites on flights scheduled as cargo flights, put on trial in secret, and that one of the search and rescue men who rescued them was given a medal to keep him secret, is very obviously a conspiracy theory. The only argument you've got against it not being a conspiracy theory is that you originally posted it in the current affairs section of the forum (as if that's a qualification!) and that the current investigation is currently happening and is therefore current affairs and therefore all the guff about Spetsnaz, the CIA, KGB, MI6, Israeli arms dealing, Bill Clinton, radioactive material, wheeled submarines, minisubs, blank torpedos, WW2 mines, detonation charges, disappeared crew members, etc. somehow doesn't qualify as being conspiracy theory.

It's all very silly.
Click to expand...

It is not silly for those thousand who lost their lives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom