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

[JesseCuster]

In 1940?

Wikipedia says it switched from a blackletter typeface in 1946, so Vixen is right here.

Not that it matters in the scheme of whether or not someone rammed the Estonia with a submarine or blew the locks on the bow visor with explosives or messed with the EPIRBs or whatever.

 

[LondonJohn]

good condition compared to what?

For example do you know what happens to the eyes of a corpse after a couple of days in salt water?

As so very often, you're right and Vixen is wrong.

Vixen throws out these wholly-invented "facts" because she thinks they lend credence to her claims, which in turn further her conspiracy-theory thesis.

The reality is very different. As it almost always is, so far as anything coming out of Vixen's keyboard is concerned.

Even within a few days, the bodies trapped in the wreckage of the Estonia would have begun to bloat and distend, and the eyeballs would (as you say) have shrivelled in their sockets owing to the effects of osmosis. In addition, adipocere would already have formed on the face and neck, further distorting the visual appearance of the corpse.

In short: even after a few days, it's likely that none of the corpses trapped in/among the wreckage of the Estonia would have been identifiable purely by visual inspection of their faces.

As has become a running theme joke in this thread, Vixen doesn't have the first idea what she's talking about. And worse still (and still par for the course in this thread), she pretends like she does know what she's talking about, and takes issue with anyone who actually knows better. Disgraceful.


ETA: I suspect that by "good condition", they were referring merely to the notion that the bodies were still intact and with low levels of destructive decomposition. Not "recognisable against photographs of the person in life"......

 

[Mojo]

ETA: I suspect that by "good condition", they were referring merely to the notion that the bodies were still intact and with low levels of destructive decomposition. Not "recognisable against photographs of the person in life"......

Or perhaps an expert team of underwater embalmers had come in on wheeled submarines, leaving tracks on the sea floor.

 

[LondonJohn]

An accurate decription of these entire threads.

And yet again we witness minimisation language from Vixen: "My bad." Not "OK, I was wrong, I'm sorry" or anything similar to that. Just a breezy "My bad".

It's fascinating - and highly instructive - to observe.

 

[LondonJohn]

Or perhaps an expert team of underwater embalmers had come in on wheeled submarines, leaving tracks on the sea floor.

Or..... maybe those canny FSB fellas had done some sort of "Face/Off" operation*, where they attached the faces of the sooper-seekritly-abducted people onto corpses lying on the seabed. I mean, it's possible....isn't it?


* And interestingly, the movie "Face/Off" was released in 1997, so I'd say it's a near-certainty that someone in Hollywood got wind of the FSB's Estonia operation and decided to make it into a major motion picture (albeit in a different setting, so as not to draw too much attention to their sources).

 

[Axxman300]

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.

You are bad at this.

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?

Technically and legally - yes.

Let me illustrate how stupid this scenario is within the context on 1994.

All of the goodies on the black market were put there by the Russians looking to make money. By late 1994, all of the interesting stuff was already in western hands, so whatever "smuggling" was taking place in the Baltic was low-end, low priority gear. But it was the Russians doing the selling. Right off the bat, nobody was on Estonia to stop an approved sale. By claiming gear was stolen, the Russians don't have to answer to their citizens.

Second, even if the gear was sensitive, they would not have sunk the ship as this is an act of war. Also, it's AMATEUR, Spetsnaz is not the KGB, and if the mission was to recover gear, the gear would have been back in Russia a few days after MS Estonia reached port.

In 1994, the Russians were in no position to send anyone a message.

And as far as your worthless scenario goes, it's not theft until the suspect is back outside of the building with the stolen property in their possession. You shoot a guy coming though a window - no matter how many times he may have robbed your place - and it's 2nd-Degree murder every time.

Unlike you, the Russians know this.

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"?

Because that's not how Russians take revenge.

They get all the names. They then make a list, and then check that list off one-by-one. It's never a big show, almost always when the target is alone, and even though their deaths might sometimes look like an accident, there is little doubt as to the true cause of death.

Case in point: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...tionalist-blog-falls-death-Moscow-window.html

And this is why you are so very bad at this.

 

[Vixen]

good condition compared to what?

For example do you know what happens to the eyes of a corpse after a couple of days in salt water?

The Baltic has low salinity. The last victim of the Concordia was recovered some 32 days later.

The cause of decomposition comes from within: the gut. In subzero temperature this process is suspended. That is why mortuaries use freezers.

 

[Vixen]

Where he took over rescue duties until he was injured and couldn't carry on.

He was doing what other rescue men were doing.

 

[Mojo]

He was doing what other rescue men were doing.

Why. Didn’t. The. Rest. Of. The. Crew. Of. Y64. Require. Compensation?

 

[autumn1971]

Why. Didn’t. The. Rest. Of. The. Crew. Of. Y64. Require. Compensation?

Because Svensson was the only one who was hydrostatically activated the instant he hit the water!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

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...

LOL. You're going back to speculating that Y64's crew were tasked with a secret mission to abduct the officers when it had only just been learned that the ship sank. Tell us about how they were expected to find them, identify them and spirit them away secretly, in the middle of a desperate multi-national rescue effort to retrieve as many survivors as possible. Tell us who had time to devise this "plan" and how the mission was intended to work.

It's cartoonish fantasy which simply doesn't bother to think about how impossibly hypercompetent the baddies would need to be.

I really thought you'd given this daft notion up after it was pointed out how stupid it was, and switched to a second version where Y64 just stumbled on the officers, all in one boat, by an amazing lucky fluke. But no, like a dog returning to its vomit, here you go again.

 

[Steve]

Because Svensson was the only one who was hydrostatically activated the instant he hit the water!

 

[Stamuel]

Exactly. However, from Day One, no-one saw it as a 'crime against humanity' it was 'the bow visor had a design fault'.

Cui bono?


Why has no-one been brought to justice?

Who did benefit?

If Russia murdered 1,000 innocent people in retaliation for smuggling, how would Sweden, the USA, the UK, Germany, Estonia, Israel, Carl Bildt, Bill Clinton, the CIA, MUST, KSI, MI6, and so many others benefit from covering that up? You claim it would have been some kind of political disaster if the smuggling was revealed, but how?

I am confident that in the West, only the tiniest fringe of pacifists and dissidents would have objected to the smuggling of Soviet tech by intelligence agencies. That is exactly the sort of thing that the public expects their intelligence services to do. On the other hand, the public would have been outraged to learn that Russia had committed the unthinkable atrocity of murdering 1,000 innocent people over the smuggling. I can guarantee that only the fiercest anti-government types would have put any blame on Bildt et al. for Russia's crimes. In fact, if Bildt had revealed the attack and made some kind of "We stand strong in the face of this unprovoked attack!" speech, people would have rallied around him.

On the other hand, if Bildt et al. helped cover up the murder of 1,000 civilians by a hostile foreign power, then that would likely have been the worst thing any of them ever did. If the public ever learned they covered up 1,000 murders, they would have been disgraced for all time with no possibility of redemption. And if the wild stories you are telling are true, there are millions of ways for the truth to have come out, especially with Bildt leaving office shortly after the disaster.

So, by lying to cover up an attack, Bildt stood to gain absolutely nothing and lose absolutely everything. Cui bono? Good question.

 

[Mojo]

Cui bono? Good question.

It’s all beginning to link up!

1. Bono is lead singer with U2.
2. U2 was an American spy plane.
3. “American’s Pie” was a song by Don McLean.
4. Alistair MacLean Wrote Where Eagles Dare.
5. The eagle is a symbol of empire.
6. Kevin Bacon
7. The Estonia was sunk by a bomb, wheeled Russian submarines holing it above the waterline, radioactive waste dissolving its bows, smugglers pushing a truck into the sea, Uncle Tom Cobley, and the CIA/MI6/KGB.

 

[JesseCuster]

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?

Given that you seem to believe the Russians were responsible for the sinking of the Estonia, are you suggesting that they had a "right to take revenge" because some of their stuff had been smuggled on said ship?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

As has been previously stated, you can't just look at an event and ask who benefits without investigating if there is any way for someone to have done it.

If someone dies in a car wreck, just because their spouse had a big life insurance policy on them doesn't mean you can start accusing the spouse of having killed them. This is especially true when any attempt to do so involves making up obviously nonsensical rubbish.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

As has been previously stated, you can't just look at an event and ask who benefits without investigating if there is any way for someone to have done it.

If someone dies in a car wreck, just because their spouse had a big life insurance policy on them doesn't mean you can start accusing the spouse of having killed them. This is especially true when any attempt to do so involves making up obviously nonsensical rubbish.

Yes, considering who benefits addresses motive but does not address means and does not address opportunity.

On the other hand, just saying "Cui Bono" and leaving it at that doesn't even consider motive. It just raises the subject of motive but then leaves the point dangling unanswered. It's very far from clear that the sinking or the finding that it was an accident benefitted anyone. Vixen will doubtless argue that it benefits the perpetrators but that's just begging the question. It's not evidence that there were perpetrators.

 

[Vixen]

LOL. You're going back to speculating that Y64's crew were tasked with a secret mission to abduct the officers when it had only just been learned that the ship sank. Tell us about how they were expected to find them, identify them and spirit them away secretly, in the middle of a desperate multi-national rescue effort to retrieve as many survivors as possible. Tell us who had time to devise this "plan" and how the mission was intended to work.

It's cartoonish fantasy which simply doesn't bother to think about how impossibly hypercompetent the baddies would need to be.

I really thought you'd given this daft notion up after it was pointed out how stupid it was, and switched to a second version where Y64 just stumbled on the officers, all in one boat, by an amazing lucky fluke. But no, like a dog returning to its vomit, here you go again.

Captain_Swoop provided examples of Swedish soldiers in Afghanistan who received silver medals with swords.


What did Svensson do that was beyond even the call of duty for soldiers in Afghanistan, faced with land mines and suicide bomb attacks?


Of course, falling into the sea was stressful but Y74 rescue man came to his aid. Y74 - Moberg or Olsson, is the brave person here, surely?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Captain_Swoop provided examples of Swedish soldiers in Afghanistan who received silver medals with swords.





What did Svensson do that was beyond even the call of duty for soldiers in Afghanistan, faced with land mines and suicide bomb attacks?





Of course, falling into the sea was stressful but Y74 rescue man came to his aid. Y74 - Moberg or Olsson, is the brave person here, surely?

Evasion noted. Do you still think the Swedes gave the Y64 crew a secret mission to find and "disappear" the ship's officers? If so kindly tell us how the hell it was supposed to work.

 

[Vixen]

Who did benefit?

If Russia murdered 1,000 innocent people in retaliation for smuggling, how would Sweden, the USA, the UK, Germany, Estonia, Israel, Carl Bildt, Bill Clinton, the CIA, MUST, KSI, MI6, and so many others benefit from covering that up? You claim it would have been some kind of political disaster if the smuggling was revealed, but how?

I am confident that in the West, only the tiniest fringe of pacifists and dissidents would have objected to the smuggling of Soviet tech by intelligence agencies. That is exactly the sort of thing that the public expects their intelligence services to do. On the other hand, the public would have been outraged to learn that Russia had committed the unthinkable atrocity of murdering 1,000 innocent people over the smuggling. I can guarantee that only the fiercest anti-government types would have put any blame on Bildt et al. for Russia's crimes. In fact, if Bildt had revealed the attack and made some kind of "We stand strong in the face of this unprovoked attack!" speech, people would have rallied around him.

On the other hand, if Bildt et al. helped cover up the murder of 1,000 civilians by a hostile foreign power, then that would likely have been the worst thing any of them ever did. If the public ever learned they covered up 1,000 murders, they would have been disgraced for all time with no possibility of redemption. And if the wild stories you are telling are true, there are millions of ways for the truth to have come out, especially with Bildt leaving office shortly after the disaster.

So, by lying to cover up an attack, Bildt stood to gain absolutely nothing and lose absolutely everything. Cui bono? Good question.

Axxman300 provided the answer. On considering why China covers up Tianenmen Square massacre he said: "It is covered up because it makes them look bad".

Plus no doubt Sweden never realised that one day the smuggling on the passenger ferry would ever come out officially, as it did in 2005.


In addition, it had The Herald of Free Enterprise red herring to fall back on. Win-win. (Or so it must have seemed at the time.)