• 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 Reopened Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
In a following clip, the items have mysteriously been removed.

Braidwood worked with explosives. He recognised a typical pack when he saw one. He took samples and had them independently tested by metallurgists.
Click to expand...

If it was a "typical" pack, Braidwood could have provided other examples, as is common in forensic engineering when an identification is being supported with evidence.

The metallurgy data are inconclusive. He just reported one of the possible conclusions as being exclusive of all else.
 
Vixen said:
Whoops. Soz, I meant radar. As you can see, from the excerpt of MRCC's police witness statement, the radar was not picking up Estonia as it should. In addition, Silja Europa also had problems but as it had a sophisticated system, Mäkela was able to magnify it to the maximum. IIRC Europa was apx 10km away.
Click to expand...

It wasn't picking it up as it should because there was a raging storm and the ship was sinking. If it turned on it's side it's radar signature would be reduced as there would be less profile to return a signal and any radar reflectors would be masked by the hull and waves.

A navigation radar on a ship is not usually set to return things any further than about 10.5 nm as anything else is too far away to be of interest and in a storm the 'surface clutter' and masking from rain with power turned up would make identifying contacts difficult on a typical navigation system.

Also the Europa had the Estonia on it's radar and lost it later as the ship sank.
From the report

On receiving the Mayday call, the vessel was 10.5 nautical miles north-west of the ESTONIA. Ten minutes after being informed of the ESTONIA's position the master, according to the DGPS recording, started to turn to heading 134° towards the accident site. At this time ESTONIA's radar image could still be discerned. The recording shows that the distance to the ESTONIA was about 12.5 nautical miles when the turn was completed.
By the time the vessel had turned, the radar image had disappeared. For the rest of the way to the scene, the vessel proceeded cautiously, using searchlights to scour the sea.
Click to expand...

How do you know that the Silja Europa had a 'sophisticated system'?

What system did it have? how does that compare to any other commercial navigation radar of the era?

It was not 10km away it was 10.5 nautical miles away.
that is 19.5km away.

Are you proposing some kind of jamming of the radars?

Do you know how radar works?
Do you know what is involved in 'jamming' a radar signal?

You are getting in to my territory now.
I was a Weapons Engineering Mechanician in the RN. My area of specialisation was Surface Search and Air Warning Radar and AA missile systems.

Tell me how they 'magnified' things.
tell me how the radar was interfered with.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Russia also knows exactly what happened to Estonia and that is their little joke.
Click to expand...
So according to you, Russia was responsible for the sinking of the Estonia?

Earlier in this thread you wouldn't commit to saying they were responsible. Now you seem pretty sure.

You seem to vacillate on all sorts of claims, lots of them mutually exclusive, surrounding what happened to the Estonia. At first the sinking was probably caused by accident with an escorting friendly submarine, now you seem to be squarely blaming it on the Russians.
 
Last edited:
Marras said:
By the way, "Hesari" by which Vixen means "Helsingin Sanomat" the newspaper didn't report that.

Instead, the article "Merestä löytynyt 77 kuollutta Laivat ja helikopterit jatkoivat etsintöjä pimeän tuloon saakka", 30 September 1994 (https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000003370651.html) writes:


My translation:

"On Wednesday it was reported that 138 people survived but on Thursday the figure increased to 140. The confusion was caused by the fact that names of two survivors were not in the passenger lists of the ship. [snip]

A total of 63 rescuees have been in Finnish hospitals, 37 of them in Turku university hospital, eight in Marienhamn hospital, four in Parainen health center, eight in Hanko health center and five in Tammisaari disctrict hospital."

The article doesn't say who reported the 138 survivors on Wednesday but it wasn't Helsingin Sanomat as it is a morning paper and the sinking is not mentioned at all as the paper had been already printed when the news of the sinking broke out



Note also how the in that paragraph of the text the reporter is writing about the survivors who were admitted into wards of Turku University Hospital. So people who had to remain in hospital. The writer uses the expression "osastolle siirtäminen" which means being transferred to a ward. She is not issuing a universal statement that applies to all survivors who were in Finland at any time.
Click to expand...

It is a reported fact that those going to Sweden were made to board a coach and four police helicopters met them.

The JAIC state that Turku Police visited the scene at Utö. (See JAIC Section 7.5.5 re Helicopter OH-HVF Super Puma time 15:35 where it says police investigators joined them).

Are you seriously claiming no effort was taken to identify and verify identity of the survivors, and having been added to a survivors list, they could then just be removed, with no press statement or government statement explaining how come?

From the Swedish Government Archives:

The distribution of rescued between different hospitals:
Country Hospital Number of patients
Finland University of Turku Central Hospital 38
Finland Åland Central Hospital, Mariehamn 8
Finland Hangö HVC 8
Finland Ekenäs district hospital 4
Finland Västra Åboland 4
Finland University of Helsinki Central Hospital 20
Finland Maria Hospital Helsinki 16
Finland Töölö Hospital Helsinki 6
Sweden Huddinge Hospital 14
Sweden Södersjukhuset 31
A number of the rescued who were taken to hospitals in Finland were later transferred to Sweden for further care.
Of the 137 people rescued, 51 belonged to the crew on M / S Estonia .


Yet the same archives say Helicopters in total saved 128.

The JAIC has this figure as 104.

The hospital list adds up to (104 Finnish hospitals + 45 Swedish) = 149.

It explains this by saying some transferred from Finland to Sweden. However, surely that patient would not be listed as a survivor twice?

When I added up the number of survivors according to JAIC accounts, it roughly matched the Riksdag's: 128 saved, give or take one or two who might subsequently have died.

It doesn't reconcile with the JAIC account of 24 fewer saved by all helicopters. It has eleven saved by Mariella and one by Symphony. Why the need to make it unclear?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
It's a wearying aspect of this interminable thread that, whenever Vixen tell us what some newspaper said, one's first reaction has to be doubt that they ever said any such thing.

Not only does Vixen persist on treating early newspaper reports as if they were gospel truth, she doesn't even appear to be quoting the actual newspaper articles she claims to be; she's either paraphrasing badly or quoting some other source's version of the story.
Click to expand...

I've reported that article a few times. It is rather long so only excerpts. It is quoted exactly as it appears as per Google Translate.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
You missed the machinery space off your list. It is an extensive space, it is open over several decks in height and open from above via intakes, exhausts, ventilators and hatches.
How do you know the doors were sealed? Did all the compartments have doors connecting them?
If one compartment flooded, what would stop the weight of the water collapsing the bulkhead to the adjacent dry compartment or buckling the water tight hatch of it's seat?
Crews of warships have a large crew with extensive training in stopping flooding spreading through a ship, they have on every deck timber beams and sheets, hydraulic and mechanical jacks to try and shore up bulkheads and hatches to stop flooding.
Merchant ships have none of this..

Read the section of the HMS Nottingham report that deals with the steps taken to save the ship, it details how the flooding progressed through the ship and what had to be done to save it. There was no chance of anything like that on the Estonia or any other merchant ship even if the crew had acted promptly.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/cy/r...ch/3/BOI Grounding of HMS NOTTINGHAM 2002.pdf
Click to expand...

Estonia doesn't look like it extended several decks in height, as you can see from this diagram of Viking Sally.

Even if it was a commercial passenger ship, it doesn't mean the engineer guys were not fighting hard to stop the ingress of water into Deck 0 sometime before the bow visor detached at 0115, according to JAIC. The fact these guys wasted no time hopping into their survivors suits and onto a raft together, complete with passport, indicates they had an early sign the boat was doomed by sheer dint of their being together in the ECR fighting the inflood but omitting to inform the bridge.
 

Attachments

  • viking sally 3.jpg
    viking sally 3.jpg
    50.3 KB · Views: 9
Vixen said:
Debunked? Where?
Click to expand...


This is your approach to this thread in a nutshell. There is no fact so compelling and well-corroborated that you won't simply dismiss it, ignore it or walk away from it if it suits your needs at that moment.

I thought recently to ask you for a narrative of what you think caused the sinking but saw you hide behind "it's classified" when asked by another poster. It's obvious to all here that you have no narrative and no chain of facts and logic to support one. You just have a scatter-shot collection of shabby, unevidenced "I'm not claiming anything" claims.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
There is no issue to avoid. As others have explained, the problem with your appeal to this example is that it is not on point.

You still haven't found any non-Bollyn sources for the claim that the Egyptians were subjected to enforced disappearance, have you? Bollyn remains your sole source for that claim, and you continue to believe him without corroboration.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
That is nonsense. Bollyn was simply quoting well-known Swedish investigative journalist Sven Anér, who is the person who acquired the receipts from Arlanda Airport, Stockholm, of the US Cargo plane which carried away nine unknown unnamed passengers on 29.9.1994 iirc, or thereabouts, the same plane owners that carted off the two Egyptians at the beck and call of warfaring Dubya Bush.

Sven Anér is best known for his tireless investigative journalism into the assassination of Olof Palme.
Click to expand...

Mojo said:
You’ll be able to provide a link, or reference, for Sven Anér reporting that that Egyptians were disappeared by the Swedish government, then.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
It was Anér who was supplied with the attached cargo receipts. He is the investigative journalist who first strongly suspected that the senior crew having been listed as survivors had been removed by this method.

Sven Anér was the originator of that theory. He had insider knowledge because whistleblowers in high places trusted him and tipped him off.

The attached bills were paid by the US Embassy in Stockholm, it is reported.
Click to expand...


Your claim, though, was that Anér was the ultimate source for your claim that the Egyptians were disappeared by the Swedish government. Please link to Anér reporting that.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
"No doubt"? That's a really weird thing to claim you have no doubt about.

What was it that you found so compelling about lurid tales of dangerous radionuclides being smuggled aboard the Estonia (as allegedly reported in two Russian newspapers but which I presume you have not read) which removed all doubt from your mind that this might just be anti-Western disinformation?
Click to expand...

Because these items were commonly intercepted at Finnish and Swedish Customs during that era.

Well,, well, JAIC star witness AB Silve Linde jailed for nine years just two years later...for drug smuggling. A whopping 15kg of amphetamines, or its base, street value (according to a newspaper I read of a current case of a similar amount) of a quarter of a million.

In the safe cosy world of Middle England such things are pure fiction and fantasy.
 
JesseCuster said:
So according to you, Russia was responsible for the sinking of the Estonia?

Earlier in this thread you wouldn't commit to saying they were responsible. Now you seem pretty sure.

You seem to vacillate on all sorts of claims, lots of them mutually exclusive, surrounding what happened to the Estonia. At first the sinking was probably caused by accident with an escorting friendly submarine, now you seem to be squarely blaming it on the Russians.
Click to expand...


Willium:
Russian frogmen dunnit, mate.

Seagoon:
What was their motive?

Willium:
Oo, I don't go into their private affairs, mate, I just accuses 'em, that's all I do.

Seagoon:
Are you sure the Russians did it?

Willium:
Well I 'aint, mate, but it looks good on the report sheet, dunnit?
Click to expand...

http://www.thegoonshow.net/scripts_show.asp?title=s05e21_the_sinking_of_westminster_pier
 
Vixen said:
Estonia doesn't look like it extended several decks in height, as you can see from this diagram of Viking Sally.

Even if it was a commercial passenger ship, it doesn't mean the engineer guys were not fighting hard to stop the ingress of water into Deck 0 sometime before the bow visor detached at 0115, according to JAIC. The fact these guys wasted no time hopping into their survivors suits and onto a raft together, complete with passport, indicates they had an early sign the boat was doomed by sheer dint of their being together in the ECR fighting the inflood but omitting to inform the bridge.
Click to expand...

You can see the machinery space extends over at least two decks even on that little diagram.

What do you think they were 'fighting hard' with?
Once the pumps are on there is nothing else to do.
I can bet that they were in the control room watching the controls. Once the ship went over far enough to make the generators stop the pumps would be useless, there was nothing else for them to do, they got out as they should.
What makes you think they hadn't told the bridge that there was flooding in the machinery spaces?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
"No doubt"? That's a really weird thing to claim you have no doubt about.

What was it that you found so compelling about lurid tales of dangerous radionuclides being smuggled aboard the Estonia (as allegedly reported in two Russian newspapers but which I presume you have not read) which removed all doubt from your mind that this might just be anti-Western disinformation?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Because these items were commonly intercepted at Finnish and Swedish Customs during that era.
Click to expand...


[citation needed]
 
Captain_Swoop said:
It wasn't picking it up as it should because there was a raging storm and the ship was sinking. If it turned on it's side it's radar signature would be reduced as there would be less profile to return a signal and any radar reflectors would be masked by the hull and waves.

A navigation radar on a ship is not usually set to return things any further than about 10.5 nm as anything else is too far away to be of interest and in a storm the 'surface clutter' and masking from rain with power turned up would make identifying contacts difficult on a typical navigation system.

Also the Europa had the Estonia on it's radar and lost it later as the ship sank.
From the report



How do you know that the Silja Europa had a 'sophisticated system'?

What system did it have? how does that compare to any other commercial navigation radar of the era?

It was not 10km away it was 10.5 nautical miles away.
that is 19.5km away.

Are you proposing some kind of jamming of the radars?

Do you know how radar works?
Do you know what is involved in 'jamming' a radar signal?

You are getting in to my territory now.
I was a Weapons Engineering Mechanician in the RN. My area of specialisation was Surface Search and Air Warning Radar and AA missile systems.

Tell me how they 'magnified' things.
tell me how the radar was interfered with.
Click to expand...

I know, because I read beyond the JAIC report. As I recall, it was Makela himself who explained why he could 'see' Estonia and Mariella could not.

Yes, it does seem from what MRCC and the ships in the vicinity said, expressing a tone of surprise they could 'see' each other but 'Estonia' was ephemeral.

MRCC turned it up from 12 to 24.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom