• 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.
Reformed Offlian said:
It's amazing how unprofessional Vixen thinks officers in the armed services are. Not only do they need to be bribed to keep their nation's secrets, they also apparently shove things in their superior officers' faces and scream at them whenever they don't get their way.
Click to expand...

Posters keep asking, 'What about the ones who didn't get a medal, wouldn't they have kicked up a fuss?'

So what sort of scenario did they imagine?
 
Vixen said:
The secret services arm of the Swedish Defence Forces is MUST and it could well be that Ensign Kenneth Svensson was a member of this highly secretive arm. Maybe it was his mission to identify the senior crew and to bring them in.

You will note that the On Scene Commander was Esa Mäkelä, Captain of Silja Europa. The plan was that because only one or two helicopters were able to land on deck in the treacherous conditions, the Super Pumas, the rescue helicopters were to take the survivors to Utö, the nearest populated land base, and from there they would be transferred to an appropriate hospital in Turku, Hango or Mariehamn.

JAIC 7.5.4

Questions for you:

1. So why did Svensson take the 'six (or seven or eight) survivors plus body' to Huddinge, Stockholm, when after all, it was only a small SAR helicopter?
Click to expand...

Svensson wasn't the pilot. Also, you agree that the rescuees were taken to Huddinge, so it isn't clear what you're challenging.

2. If Y64 and Y74 both only arrived circa six and seven in the morning and only returned to Berga circa 0930/15:30 earliest, how did Sven Eriksson get to file a newspaper story in same day Aftonbladet dated 28.9.1994 bearing in mind it takes two or three hours to do a print run?
Click to expand...

Aftonbladet is, as the name implies, a pm paper

Also, the Aftonblad article reports on events you agree happened towards the end of Svensson's timeline (such as his falling in the water and being retrieved by Y74), so reporting on events after Svensson was brought back on Y 74 obviously wasn't an issue.

3. Why did Y74 - which we are told by JAIC contains Svensson - fly to Huddinge instead of taking the survivors to the designated on-scene spot at Utö? OSC Silja Europa was in charge and that was the command.
Click to expand...

They presumably had some reason. Why is this a problem?

4. Or was it more likely the Huddinge destination was before OSC had a chance to designate Utö as the point of collection for survivors (and in Finnish jurisdiction)?
Click to expand...

No.


JAIC 7.5.5

JAIC 7.5.5

We are told Y74 arrived at Huddinge at 0930 which still presents timeline problems for Eriksson's article.
Click to expand...

Aftonbladet is a pm paper. It's not at all implausible that they might get stuff to press as late as 1000 or so. And they would have to have, because Ericksson knows about Svensson falling in the water and being retrieved by Y 74. Even you agree that that must have happened at the end of his rescue activity, yet it's all in the article.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Posters keep asking, 'What about the ones who didn't get a medal, wouldn't they have kicked up a fuss?'

So what sort of scenario did they imagine?
Click to expand...

They imagine a scenario in which it didn't happen. Presenting a plausible scenario in which it did is your problem.
 
Vixen said:
That is a question you need to ask yourself...
Click to expand...

You've used this phrase several times to beg the question. I don't ask myself. I ask the verifiable facts. When pressed, you largely don't have any. Cajoling your critics to endorse your speculation is a poor method of proof.
 
Vixen said:
Posters keep asking, 'What about the ones who didn't get a medal, wouldn't they have kicked up a fuss?'

So what sort of scenario did they imagine?
Click to expand...

Reversing the burden of proof. You speculate why one rescuer gets a medal when others identically situated did not. And your speculation feeds into a conspiracy theory. But you can't reconcile your reasoning with the facts. Trying to make others do that for you is not how proof works. When people point out holes in your reasoning, it's your job to fill them with evidence, not childish recrimination and more irresponsible speculation.
 
Vixen said:
Each helicopter had a designated crew, which included one or two winchmen, of which Svensson was one.

Teams don't tend to swap around in the middle of a mission. The OSC Captain Makela ordered helicopters with broken winches to discontinue and return to base.
Click to expand...

Why are you claiming to understand how helicopter rescue missions work, particularly given that the reports of said missions directly contradict you? Why do you think you know better than the experts in this field yet again?
 
Vixen said:
Correct me if I am wrong but your sole aim is to 'score a point' and is nothing at all to do with any interest at all in the subject matter.
Click to expand...

No, this latest frantic tactic of presuming your critics are insincere, and therefore somehow that the merits of their criticism are beneath you, is not fooling anyone. The aim of your critics here is to apply skeptical reasoning to your claims and note where they fall short. You've been at this forum long enough to know the drill and to buy into it at least enough to continue to participate in your particular idiom. If you don't like how people are treating your claims, find a more gullible audience. But making up new excuses for why you don't have to answer questions is a threadbare tactic in conspiracism.
 
Axxman300 said:
Calm down.

1. You have posted nothing proving there was any smuggled material on MS Estonia on the night it sank.

2. Smuggling had nothing to do with the bow-visor being knocked off in rough seas.

You continue to be bad at this.
Click to expand...

You are bad at logic.

Consider Person B, who last week broke into Person A's home and on four days stole a few items each time. On the fifth day, Person A, having been informed by Person C that this was happening, lies in wait for Person B and catches him sneaking in through a window.

Question: Does it follow that because there was no evidence Person B had stolen anything on Day Five that therefore, they are innocent of their previous four days' misdemeanours and Person A had no right to take revenge?


Likewise, how does the fact, as ratified by the Swedish Riksdag, 2005, that Sweden smuggled Soviet/Russian state secrets on the passenger ferry Estonia, on two known occasions two weeks prior to the disaster on 28.9.1994 equates to, "It can't have been the Russians taking revenge"?
 
Vixen said:
Er. They can look at the crew photographs as kept by their employers or provided by next-of-kin.
Click to expand...


Yes, because bloated and contorted dead bodies that have been immersed in seawater for some time..... resemble the way people looked in photos before their deaths.

Not.

Jeeeeeeeez. No idea. No idea whatsoever.
 
Vixen said:
ISTM if you have access to the TIMES all along, then you are simply wasting my time in trying to search through my archives to find them for you, when all you need do is browse through the paper yourself and you will be sure to find it.

Correct me if I am wrong but your sole aim is to 'score a point' and is nothing at all to do with any interest at all in the subject matter.
Click to expand...

No. We all (except possibly you) know that this is once again a case where you remember things wrong. Just like you claimed that Wilhelm Gusloff was still a hospital ship in 1945 and that Battle of Poltava was in 1721. You have never seen such an article, your memory has confused papers reporting what German newspapers write as being reports sent by eavesdropping spies.

If it happens to be so that we are wrong and you are right, you can prove it easily by providing enough reference details to the story that allows others to find it.

These included one or two 'In German Eyes' columns as they were so well-written and researched and there was an old TURUN SANOMAT that reported from 1918 on the Civil War re some of the senseless sectarian killings going on (random persons found dead on the old Härkätie, for example).
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity I tried to search for that article from digi.kansalliskirjasto.fi but I couldn't find it. The search interface there isn't particularly reliable so it is very possible that there is an article about corpses found on Härkätie, but I couldn't find any combination of search terms that would have led to it. I did find some reports on atrocities committed by Reds, some accurate and some heavily-exaggerated propaganda.
 
Marras said:
Just out of curiosity I tried to search for that article from digi.kansalliskirjasto.fi but I couldn't find it. The search interface there isn't particularly reliable so it is very possible that there is an article about corpses found on Härkätie, but I couldn't find any combination of search terms that would have led to it. I did find some reports on atrocities committed by Reds, some accurate and some heavily-exaggerated propaganda.
Click to expand...


Oh, I highly suspect it was either a hugely embellished "misremembering", or it was entirely made up. That's what prior form would suggest, after all.....
 
Vixen said:
The secret services arm of the Swedish Defence Forces is MUST and it could well be that Ensign Kenneth Svensson was a member of this highly secretive arm. Maybe it was his mission to identify the senior crew and to bring them in.



Questions for you:

1. So why did Svensson take the 'six (or seven or eight) survivors plus body' to Huddinge, Stockholm, when after all, it was only a small SAR helicopter?
Click to expand...

Y 64 And 74 were not small helicopters. They were the largest involved

They were twin rotor Boeing- Vertol CH 46 'Sea Knights'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Vertol_CH-46_Sea_Knight
 
Vixen said:
The secret services arm of the Swedish Defence Forces is MUST and it could well be that Ensign Kenneth Svensson was a member of this highly secretive arm. Maybe it was his mission to identify the senior crew and to bring them in.
Click to expand...

Any evidence whatsoever for your wild speculation?
 
Vixen said:
Each helicopter had a designated crew, which included one or two winchmen, of which Svensson was one.

Teams don't tend to swap around in the middle of a mission. The OSC Captain Makela ordered helicopters with broken winches to discontinue and return to base.
Click to expand...

Anti submarine helicopters do not usually carry rescue or winch men
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom