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

[Jack by the hedge]

Vixen's paper model does not take account of the two hinges fixing the top corners of the paper or the two hydraulic actuators fixed to its sides which control the lifting and lowering of the paper. Unsurprisingly she further imagines gravity is the only force acting on it which needs to be considered.

Pitiful.

 

[Vixen]

Then someone went to the Air force base and removed all record of the helicopter flight from the station logs, helicopter logs, crew logs, maintenance logs, fuel logs etc and swore the entire base to silence?

Then went to all the other organisations involved such as coastguard, air traffic control, rescue services, hospital staff, personnel at the landing grounds, other nations coastguards and rescue services, the the helicopters involved at the time etc and got them all to remove any record of the flight and they all swore to secrecy too?

The logs ae still there. Jutta Rabe claims to have seen the pilots log books.

The Defence Forces, Police and hospitals are by their nature confidential in nature. It is easy enough to remove a file from central databases.

I worked in insolvency practice for many years and we had quite a few famous and well-known people as clients, you would be amazed how many were on the verge of bankruptcy. Never once have I discussed their identities with friends or family. Never felt the need to, never will. What happens at work stays at work.

When I did Proceeds of Crime Act work, our offices were carefully inspected to ensure no-one who was not authorised had any access to the confidential locked-up files, that nobody could break in and security vetting done of all staff, no criminal convictions allowed. People in jobs of a confidential nature just don't talk.

Someone I know well worked at the Home Office, had access to all the police computers and Central Criminal Records, never breathed a word about anything. That is my experience of people in such positions.

Even if an ex-nurse at Huddinge Hospital were to ring up a newspaper and say, 'I treated one of the disappeared in 1994', who is even going to believe her? Where is her proof? What paper would publish it?

 

[Vixen]

So still planning on ignoring my questions then Vixen? How very...honest of you.

What questions?

 

[Vixen]

No, the context is your claim there was a secret mission to kidnap them.

Which arose out your what-if Svensson was tasked with a James Bond type mission to ruthlessly and secretly search out the senior officers of the ship.

 

[Vixen]

Can you show where this was found?

Wikipedia tells you.

 

[Vixen]

Where did Bildt say this on 'day one'?

You claim he was told within minutes and made a statement.

When this was looked at here in the thread we found no support for your claim.

If you do not believe early day quality newspapers, that is your prerogative.

 

[Vixen]

But you said they were arrested so they could be interrogated by the police, as apparently the Stockholm chief of police was aching to interrogate them, because this stuff needs to go through the police before prosecutions can be processed, even though the Stockholm police chief has no apparent involvement with the investigation and the officers weren't prosecuted...

What's the narrative here again?

Well? You don't think it remarkable the police and prosecutors have been strangely apathetic about the whole thing?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why would you even need wikipedia. A child could tell you how it works.

Take a piece of A4 paper and three drawing pins.

Place one drawing in the top corner on one side of the paper and another on the opposite top corner and press them down into a wall or board. Place the third in the middle of the paper at the bottom and ditto.

Now remove the bottom drawing pin. Does the paper still remain in place, perfectly secure?

Replace the bottom pin (which represents the Atlantic lock and the paper the bow visor) and now remove one of the pins on either of the corners. What happens?

This demonstrates where the weight of the paper is being bourne.


The bottom pin is merely an accessory, which takes some of the strain off the top two pins (i.e. the side locks) but not by any significant amount.

Now you can see why even if as the JAIC claim the Atlantic lock broke off because of a strong wave, it doesn't ipso facto lead to the two side locks also breaking off.

In any case, Dr.-Ing. Hans-Werner Hoffmeister showed that the starboard side lock was weakest and would have broken first had the scenario happened as the JAIC claim it did.

All very nice apart from the top pivots supported the weight of the visor,not the side or bottom lock.

 

[Mojo]

Can you show where this was found?

Wikipedia tells you.

Why not just say that you can’t?

 

[Vixen]

No.

I checked all stories that were published in Helsingin Sanomat of 29.9.1994 that contained the word 'Estonia' in it.

There is no mention of a 'strong wave' knocking off the bow visor.

There is an article with caption "Vettä pääsi autokannelle todennäköisesti keulasta Tutkijat kahlaavat huhujen ja tiedonsirujen tulvassa" (https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000003370249.html , subscription needed to read it) that speaks about possible causes of the sinking. There are no mentions of waves knocking the bow visor off.

The article says that the probable cause for sinking was that water got in from front. Then it says "On täysi arvoitus, miksi vesi pääsi portin läpi". This translates to: "It is a complete mystery why water got through the gate".

Then it gives two speculations, identifying that they are speculations. One is that water got through poor quality sealing and the other is that a badly-fastened truck got loose and broke through the gate.

It also speculates on whether the visor and the gate were left open but concludes that it would be very unlikely.

See Helsingin Sanomat 30.9.1994

Varsinainen vedenpitävä keulaportti oli Estoniassa ylös nostettavan visiirin takana. Jos visiirin kiinnitys pettää, keulaan iskeytyvät aallot voivat heittää visiiriä ylös.
Visiiri estää tyrskyjen iskeytymisen keulaporttiin, joka ei niiden voimaa kestä. Asiantuntijoiden mukaan jo viisi-kymmenen aaltoa riittää paiskaamaan avonaiselle autokannelle niin paljon vettä, että alus kaatuu.

Translated:

The actual waterproof bow gate was behind the visor to be lifted up in estonia. If the visor attachment fails, the waves that strike the bow can throw the visor up.

The visor prevents the smashings from hitting the bow port, which cannot withstand their force. According to experts, five to ten waves are enough to slam so much water on an open car deck that the ship capsizes.

This is from the statement by Kari Lehtola on Thursday, 29.9.1994, the day after the accident on Wednesday, 28/9/1994, when he was appointed in the afternoon, evening or on Thursday morning, even.

Epäilyt matkustajalautta Estonian keulaportin pettämisestä vahvistuivat torstaina. "Jotakin siinä on tapahtunut", tutkimuskomission jäsen Kari Lehtola sanoo. "Ihmisten havainnot siitä ovat epämääräisiä, mutta niitä kuitenkin on." Lehtolan mukaan on mahdollista, että sekä ylös nostettava visiiri että sen takana oleva vedenpitävä keulaportti ovat pettäneet. Hän sanoo, etteivät ne missään nimessä kuitenkaan ole auenneet levälleen.

Suspicions of a passenger ship for betraying estonia's bow gate were confirmed on Thursday. "Something has happened in it," says Kari Lehtola, Member of the Research Commission. "People's observations of it are vague, but they are there." According to Lehtola, it is possible that both the liftable visor and the waterproof bow gate behind it have failed.

HS

 

[Marras]

If you do not believe early day quality newspapers, that is your prerogative.

And if you continue to lie about what Helsingin Sanomat wrote on 1994-09-29, then that's your prerogative.

But note that no one else is obligated to believe your lies.

 

[Vixen]

And after secret agent elite frogman Y64 did his duties, he chatted to reporters about it and was given a medal to shutup about his secret agent elite frogman duties, after he'd had a chat with some reporters...

Well, after being hailed a national hero, it would have been embarrassing for him to be relegated to the official saviour of just one, in retrospect.

 

[JayUtah]

A child could tell you how it works.

Oh, really? Are you claiming to be an expert in structural analysis? Because what you show is that you have a child's understanding of the problem. Remember, you're the one who didn't even know the difference between elastic and plastic deformation -- something taught literally on Day One. Think carefully about whether you want to be trying to lecture people on this subject.

This demonstrates where the weight of the paper is being bourne.

Weight is not the only load the structure must bear. As I said: a child's understanding.

In any case, Dr.-Ing. Hans-Werner Hoffmeister showed that the starboard side lock was weakest and would have broken first had the scenario happened as the JAIC claim it did.

But you aren't competent to understand to what extent we can put faith in such an estimate based on the methods used. As usual, you're deploying science as if it were some magical incantation. You yell the magic word "Abraca-Hoffmeister!" and suddenly somehow it becomes an incontrovertible fact that the JAIC got the failure sequence wrong. Of course you don't know how the magic works. You only know how to cast the spell.

 

[Vixen]

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote about.

You have said that Y-64 was launched within 15 minutes of alert.

In the message that I answered to, you said that the helicopter crew was given photos and details of the senior crew so that they could recognize them.

Do you think that it is possible to do that in just 15 minutes?

No, I said transcripts show that a helicopter was launched within fifteen minutes of being logged by Stockholm MRCC whose operational records are logged at 0202 and as confirmed by Turku MRCC to Silja Europa at 0227, that the Swedish helicopter would be there 'in ten minutes'.


A poster claimed that this cannot have happened because how could anyone know who were the senior officers because it was their assumption - not mine! - that the early flight was an exercise to kidnap the senior officers.

 

[Steve]

Contrary to your ludicrous hyperbole about being "100% sure", this is of course an entirely worthless (and entirely baseless*) claim. As per usual.


* Call it a wild hunch, but I'm guessing you don't have any actual evidence to support your ridiculous expression of certitude on this matter?

I have absolutely no doubt that Vixen, in her own mind is 100% sure. that is exactly what makes the entire discussion in these threads so ludicrous. Reality is irrelevant to Vixen's views.

 

[Vixen]

No, Sweden did not disappear anyone, they sent two Egyptians back to Egypt.

They were disappeared as per the definition set out in Rome 1998 (Criminal Law Treaty). This was upheld by a court of law and the European Court of Human Rights.


Your calling it an innocent deportation or some other such disgusting euphemism does not cancel out the legal situation.

 

[zooterkin]

Which arose out your what-if Svensson was tasked with a James Bond type mission to ruthlessly and secretly search out the senior officers of the ship.

Er, no, it's your fantasy.

There are elite 'trident' teams of frogmen who are trained to do exactly all of that stuff, you know.

The Mariella docked into Stockholm, whereupon it was boarded in Swedish waters by police who flew in by helicopter.


"... The police ordered all 25 (sic) survivors to be locked up in a separate area of the ship. They were forbidden to communicate with other passengers, even if many survivors wanted to have contact with them. The police and guards from the ship maintained strict control of the rooms with the survivors. If they wanted to go to the toilet ... they were escorted by the guards.
The survivors were partly questioned by the police already aboard the 'Mariella'. Some were not permitted to telephone their relatives, when they so wished, they had to ask permission. Some were only granted one telephone call. Before the called they were forced to reveal the name and civic ID number of the person they wanted to call. ...
When later the survivors arrived at the port of Värtan ... they had to wait until the 'Mariella' was emptied of normal travellers. The police wanted to prevent mutual contact using all means. ... Thure Palmgren ... was not permitted to leave the group. Swedish police forced him violently into the bus against his will. He (Palmgren) said to me that he had never been so angry and upset. Some of the survivors considered that the police committed a crime, i.e. illegal arrest.
When all survivors had been transported to the Söder hospital they were all locked up in wards. Police guarded the doors. When one of the survivors wanted to leave the ward, he was forced back in a very unfriendly manner ..."
-
Jörle-Hellberg

Why would it require a 'vast conspiracy'? Fact is, these people were listed as survivors and no explanation has ever been given for their removal from the lists. Given this was put in the public domain, there should be some kind of retraction or correction.

They were brought in by Y64 and Mariella.

Why would Mariella go to Sweden when the rescue was under Finnish jursidiction? Well we know Piht seems to have ended up in Turku and then Helsinki.

Taking off from Berga by circa 0210, arriving circa 0300, rescuing eight or nine and taking them to Huddinge, whereupon he made a return trip, taking with him a nurse and a doctor.


The eight or nine almost certainly included the Chief Engineer, the Chief Navigator, the Medical Chief and the Fourth Officer.

I am not sure if Piht was in the same lifeboat as these as he was possibly picked up on the Mariella. He was last sighted on the ship throwing life vests and jumping overboard to a life raft.

 

[Vixen]

I'm now wondering if it is completely impossible for you to write a post about historical stuff without having errors in it.

I'm also wondering how did you come to the conclusion that I didn't know about the existence of an old road called Härkätie from my posts.

I wrote that I couldn't find the specific article that you posted about, not that I wasn't aware that there once was a road that was colloquially called by that name (no official historical sources use that name). The thing is that late 19th century sources already speak of "Härkätie" as the old and obsolete name of the road that has been preserved in a childrens' rhyme. That's why I was surprised to see it being used as a name in 1918.

But the error this time is that you claim that Route 10 is the Härkätie. It isn't, Härkätie went some distance South of the modern road (except that at the Hämeenlinna end it went to North of it). Like the text that you quoted and then removed tells. As a tangent of a tangent of a tangent Härkätie is not necessarily the oldest road in Finland. We don't know exactly when it was built (but it was definitely before the Häme Castle was founded) and it is just possible that the Pilgrim Road of Saint Henry was older than it. But no one knows for certain.

You are wrong but you cannot admit it.

 

[Vixen]

Second and third hand reports in newspapers have no weight.
You are claiming that they were alive and taken away by the CIA.
You haven't even shown an actual report from anyone that saw them or spoke to them. That's why you had to invent your secret helicopter flight crewed by secret agents

That was your fantasy, remember?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

This much has been clear with regard to literally every single thing that Vixen has brought up.

Vixen, do you still consider yourself to be a scientist?

Do you still think Anders Bjorkman is a reliable source?

Do you think you are capable to assess the work of Hoffmeister?

Well there's these questions Vixen, but there was also:

How do you know any of this? Are you claiming expertise, or will you be linking to an expert?

Now you did respond to this by saying it was in Hoffmeister's report, but as Jay pointed out that is not an acceptable answer and responded thus:

Then you can reproduce the portions of the report that specifically spell out each and every claim made in this post. You don't get to cite vaguely to a report we know you aren't competent to understand and pretend it supports conclusions you've drawn.

Which you, of course, ignored.