Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

[junkshop]

OK WWI, but let's face it, WWII was just a continuation of WWI.

How many members of the Imperial German Navy (in 1915) were Nazi party members?

How many members of the Imperial German Navy (in 1915) were part of the 3^rd Reich ?

Also, as a reminder, you have claimed that:

At least my posts are sourced, cited and properly referenced, even if people don't like them. (cf. James Meek.)

^source

I never make anything up. All of my comments are sourced, unless I state 'IMV'.

^source

I'm seeing no citations. I'm seeing no 'IMV'.

I reiterate my questions from post #2004.

 

[Axxman300]

The Third Reich nazis deliberately and wickedly targetted the Lusitania. Even had she been half an hour late, the U-Boat would still have been skulking in waiting.

So...are you implying that the CIA, with Swedish operators, had stolen a Soviet time-machine, and placed it on a truck that ended up on the Estonia. But unbeknownst to them, it was actually a captured WWII Nazi time-machine, and that Estonia was sunk by an S.S. temporal-commando unit, who hustled the time-machine about a waiting U-Boat so they could go back to WWI, and sink Lusitania?

I'm copyrighting "Nazi-Multiverse" as we speak.

 

[Axxman300]

This thread seems to be floating on its superstructure at this point.

 

[Vixen]

This thread seems to be floating on its superstructure at this point.

Heh. It was a careless mistake as I didn't check the date the Lusitania sank. Nobody is mocking Jay Utah though, for his ridiculous example of what horrors can befall a ship sailing on schedule.


Or posters who unfailingly believe the hoax of a 'strong wave' because 'that's what the report says'.

 

[Vixen]

Part 12 of the Fokus Group presentation. One key finding of Margus Kurm expedition Sept 2021: the bow visor locks did not break off.



English subtitles.

Did you really believe that all three locks could fall off simultaneously?

 

[Steve]

Heh. It was a careless mistake as I didn't check the date the Lusitania sank. Nobody is mocking Jay Utah though, for his ridiculous example of what horrors can befall a ship sailing on schedule.


Or posters who unfailingly believe the hoax of a 'strong wave' because 'that's what the report says'.

I know this is futile but anyway - show us where the report says "strong wave".

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The Third Reich nazis deliberately and wickedly targetted the Lusitania. Even had she been half an hour late, the U-Boat would still have been skulking in waiting.

The Estonia was hardly in that type of danger. In fact, one could say that her demise at Swedish midnight and at the halfway point of her journey was all carefully planned.

The stuff about anachronistic Nazis is distracting from the main point of this post which makes no sense at all.

You're saying the U-boat was lurking and waiting for the opportune moment to sink the Lusitania, and the Estonia was hardly in that type of danger. But then you say the Estonia disaster was carefully planned. In what way is a carefully planned sinking at the opportune moment not the same type of danger?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

With their time-traveling U-boats, no doubt.

Could a time traveling U-Boat be used to hole a ship above the waterline at low tide by ramming it from high tide? The pieces are starting to fit together. Obviously Hitler wanted the obsolete Russian military tech before it was invented. Wake up Sheeple before you find yourselves having been speaking German your whole lives! (Not including native German speakers obviously!)

 

[Vixen]

I know this is futile but anyway - show us where the report says "strong wave".

13.2.5

Shortly after one o'clock a few wave impacts on the visor caused the visor attachments to fail completely The visor started cutting openings in the weather deck plating and associated structures. Soon the back wall of the visor housing came into contact with the ramp, hitting its upper edge and thus breaking its locks. The ramp fell forwards and remained resting inside the visor. In a few minutes the visor started falling forwards.

The ramp then followed the visor in a forward, tumbling motion. The starboard side actuator was extended to its full length and was torn out of the hull during the final stage of the sequence. The visor subsequently tilted over the stem, left the ramp fully open allowing large amounts of water to enter the car deck, and as it fell collided with the bulbous bow of the vessel.

JAIC Report


There is no damage seen to the bulbous bow.

 

[Vixen]

The stuff about anachronistic Nazis is distracting from the main point of this post which makes no sense at all.

You're saying the U-boat was lurking and waiting for the opportune moment to sink the Lusitania, and the Estonia was hardly in that type of danger. But then you say the Estonia disaster was carefully planned. In what way is a carefully planned sinking at the opportune moment not the same type of danger?

The topic of the conversation was 'punctuality'. A poster is claiming that were a captain of a passenger ship to endeavour to be punctual, why, there might be some dastardly U-boat lurking about knowing that it could set its watch as it were as to what time the on-time ship would appear and torpedo it accordingly.

Does that all fall into place now?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Part 12 of the Fokus Group presentation. One key finding of Margus Kurm expedition Sept 2021: the bow visor locks did not break off.



English subtitles.

Did you really believe that all three locks could fall off simultaneously?

Where does it say that? It says all the locks were closed except perhaps for one that didn't go fully home but I honestly couldn't follow what he was describing after that.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The topic of the conversation was 'punctuality'. A poster is claiming that were a captain of a passenger ship to endeavour to be punctual, why, there might be some dastardly U-board lurking about knowing that it could set its watch as it were as to what time the on-time ship would appear and torpedo it accordingly.

Does that all fall into place now?

The analogy is a good one since the Estonia sank because its captain was endeavouring to be punctual in heavy seas when it would have been safer to slow down.

Does that fall into place yet?

 

[JayUtah]

Nobody is mocking Jay Utah though, for his ridiculous example of what horrors can befall a ship sailing on schedule.

Try to think about why.

Or posters who unfailingly believe the hoax of a 'strong wave' because 'that's what the report says'.

The report mentions a sequence of waves. You keep rewriting that to be a single "strong wave." You've been corrected too many times now to count.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

There is no damage seen to the bulbous bow.

Not what it says.

The video says there is no damage indicating a collision on the bulb.

 

[JayUtah]

The topic of the conversation was 'punctuality'.

The topic of the conversation was your claim that the captain of the MS Estonia was contractually obligated to be on time, even though you have no evidence for such a claim, and it is not a practical necessity.

A poster is claiming that were a captain of a passenger ship to endeavour to be punctual, why, there might be some dastardly U-boat lurking about...

I was drawing a contrast between a contractually-imposed timetable and a naturally-imposed timetable. They pose vastly different circumstances for the captain's estimate of risk and therefore his choice of speed.

 

[JayUtah]

Did you really believe that all three locks could fall off simultaneously?

No. And that's not the contemplated failure sequence.

 

[JayUtah]

There is no damage seen to the bulbous bow.

False.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Heh. It was a careless mistake as I didn't check the date the Lusitania sank. Nobody is mocking Jay Utah though, for his ridiculous example of what horrors can befall a ship sailing on schedule.


Or posters who unfailingly believe the hoax of a 'strong wave' because 'that's what the report says'.

The point of the Estonia reference was to do with my point that a ship can't always enter a harbour on a fixed schedule. weather and tide have to be taken in to consideration.

Where has anyone said that a 'strong wave' was the cause?

What is your evidence for a hoax? This thread has been running for months and you haven't given us anything yet.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen please explain what about Jay's comment is so ridiculous?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The topic of the conversation was 'punctuality'. A poster is claiming that were a captain of a passenger ship to endeavour to be punctual, why, there might be some dastardly U-boat lurking about knowing that it could set its watch as it were as to what time the on-time ship would appear and torpedo it accordingly.

Does that all fall into place now?

Isn't that exactly what you were claiming with your talk of submarines firing torpedoes at the ship?

the point was about weather and tide effecting the arrival time of a ship,

Some harbours can't be approached in bad weather with wave and wind from certain directions.
It's the same for tide conditions, I know a number of harbours that are only approachable at certain conditions of the tide, the Bar limits entry even when the anchorage has enough depth. Some of them are even a challenge to cross at high tide.