• 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:
What does Andresson's contract have to do with Moik?
Click to expand...
Nothing.

They're both examples of claims you've made that you'd provided zero evidence for.

The first claim is about what you said was in Andersson's contract. You have provided no evidence of what is in Andersson's contract or how you know what it's in his contract, but you've made specific claims about what is in his contract.
Vixen said:
it was in Andresson's contract with the shipping line that he had to be on time.
Click to expand...



The second claim is that Erich Moik was fired from his position at Estline for an interview he give in which he said he saw Piht on TV (he didn't actually say that, as you know now, he said that crew members said they saw Piht on TV, but that's by the by) but you've provided no evidence that Moik was fired by Estline because of the interview or specifically because of what he said about Piht being seen on TV.
Vixen said:
The guy who recognised him on TV in Rostock was Captain Moik. He was sacked for saying so in an interview.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence for your claim about what's in Andersson's contract or for Moik being fired because of what he said about Piht being seen on TV?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It cannot be cross referenced as no names have been supplied by the JAIC.
Click to expand...


No, no Vixen.

Your claim is that the JAIC replaced the words "bangs" with "metallic thuds" in witness statements.

In order to make that claim, you must necessarily have evidence. And that evidence must necessarily take the form of either a) a primary-source quote from someone connected officially to the JAIC, which states that the JAIC changed witness statements in this way; or b) reliable primary-source documentation showing that a certain witness statement said "bangs" in its original transcription or audio/video, but that was changed to "metallic thuds" by the time it was included in the JAIC Report.


This is really not difficult, Vixen. It was you who made the claim here. Either you have the evidence to support this claim, or you do not. Which is it?
 
Here_to_learn said:
"Higher than any government"? So Bildt is not behind it all then? Where are we talking about then - NWO?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
It would be Bildt who made the decision to announce it was a design fault on the bow visor.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer the question.

Who or what does a power "higher than any government" refer to?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What 'power' would that be?
Click to expand...

In the case of the UK, did you know that only one third of the establishment is democratically elected?


In Sweden this is illustrated by Johan Hirschfeldt, Appeal Court Judge being co-opted by the democratically elected Swedish Riksdag to investigate the issue of Former Soviet Union smuggling by Sweden on the Estonia ferry on two specific dates only (as reported by a Customs Manager), and this he did and announced his findings to the Riksdag accordingly, and is minuted.

Problem is, Hirschfeldt had no power to investigate the KSI, who would have been the secret services intelligence agency who likely arranged the consignments and who had the power to order the government-governed Customs to ignore the democratically laid down law on customs clearance, as it has nothing to do with the democratic establishment.

Thus the organisation behind the smuggling can not be held accountable to the Riksdag and thus does not have to answer to the citizens of the kingdom.
 
Vixen said:
It would be Bildt who made the decision to announce it was a design fault on the bow visor.
Click to expand...


Bildt "announced" nothing like this in the way you clearly wish to imply.

Rather, he stated - as he was entirely entitled to do, having been briefed on the first survivor testimony and having watched news reports - that it appeared that the bow visor could have become detached. And there was a very pragmatic and fair reason for making such a statement: it meant that all RORO ferries in the relevant jurisdictions were now required to carry out their own inspections of their bow openings.

What Bildt did and said, and why he did and said it, is markedly different from what you and your CT evidence-free fellow travellers have made up.
 
The other big problem with the JAIC report is that you have to refer to lots of different places if you want to look something up. For example, the issue of the EPIRB's. You have to do a word search as it is covered in several different places. The report lacks continuity and cohesion.
Click to expand...

Because different sections and chapters of the report cover the background, history, sinking, investigation and recommendations.

Haven't you even looked at it?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Where is your evidence for this?

Where is your evidence that anything contrary to the report was excluded?
Click to expand...

It is well documented.

"I don't trust the Commission any longer", said Bengt Schager, psychological expert of the 'Estonia' Commission, who resigned from the investigation under protest. Now the 'Estonia' Report, which will be submitted to the printing house shortly, risks loosing much of its credibility.
Bengt Schager is of the opinion that the commission did not properly investigate the safety culture onboard of 'Estonia'. The question was much too sensitive. "There has been a preparedness to talk matters and circumstances unfavourable for the crew to their advantage."
Click to expand...
EFD
 
Vixen said:
In the case of the UK, did you know that only one third of the establishment is democratically elected?


In Sweden this is illustrated by Johan Hirschfeldt, Appeal Court Judge being co-opted by the democratically elected Swedish Riksdag to investigate the issue of Former Soviet Union smuggling by Sweden on the Estonia ferry on two specific dates only (as reported by a Customs Manager), and this he did and announced his findings to the Riksdag accordingly, and is minuted.

Problem is, Hirschfeldt had no power to investigate the KSI, who would have been the secret services intelligence agency who likely arranged the consignments and who had the power to order the government-governed Customs to ignore the democratically laid down law on customs clearance, as it has nothing to do with the democratic establishment.

Thus the organisation behind the smuggling can not be held accountable to the Riksdag and thus does not have to answer to the citizens of the kingdom.
Click to expand...


You seriously believe that any "western" country's intelligence agencies a) are above scrutability and accountability*, and b) can effectively "go rogue" whenever it chooses, without repercussions**?

It may be that your opinions are malignly influenced by having read too many ridiculous & unrealistic spy thrillers. It may be that your opinions are simply ignorant and incorrect on their face. Either way, you're flat wrong.

May I suggest doing some proper primary research. And not going on your own "hunches" or "I reckon that...."s or the things that your favourite conspiracy-theory conduits are whispering in your ear.


* They are not. They're accountable to their government and their legislature. Always.

** They cannot. Categorically.
 
LondonJohn said:
Who's being a "hero" in that scenario, Vixen? And in what way?

(I'm assuming that you don't count a) surviving, b) taking a photograph, or c) salvaging a travel clock as the action of a hero? But I have a funny feeling that my assumption might be incorrect...)
Click to expand...

Thing is, he was not actually taking photos. He had the brilliant idea of using the flash on his camera to try to help the approaching ships and helicopters locate them in the dark. The pictures he took as a result were completely accidental.

It is by piecing together survivors' stories after a tragedy that we get some idea of what happened.
 
Vixen said:
Thing is, he was not actually taking photos. He had the brilliant idea of using the flash on his camera to try to help the approaching ships and helicopters locate them in the dark. The pictures he took as a result were completely accidental.

It is by piecing together survivors' stories after a tragedy that we get some idea of what happened.
Click to expand...


That's still not "heroic", by any definition of the term.


And by the way, the piecing together of survivors' stories does no more or less than give us some idea of what the people on the ship went through and the things they saw, heard, felt, said and did.
 
GlennB said:
I did my best to find a definition in that document of vessels that qualify for the 'high speed' classification. Among many other things they must:

Not undergo voyages > 4 hrs at 90% of their maximum speed.
Not be further than 4 hrs, at 90% of maximum speed, from their nearest 'place of refuge'.

Estonia doesn't qualify. Vixen was (yet again) b/sing Neither is a surprise. The idea that such a ship might be classed as 'high speed' is laughable on its face.

eta: High-speed craftWP.
"The first high-speed craft were often hydrofoils or hovercraft, but in the 1990s catamaran and monohull designs become more popular ..."

Estonia was not such a vessel.
Click to expand...

The topic of the conversation was Captain_Swoop posting a video of a ferry having its window smashed in Hamburg by a giant wave. I pointed out that it was unlikely to happen with the new Uberboats operating on the Thames because of the newness and having been on it. It was like being in a soundproofed shell with screaming kids and a horrible experience all round. Not at all like the previous ones where you could sit out on the deck. In addition, because they are very low down in the water, I can guarantee the windows are reinforced and would not be so easily smashable.
 
Vixen said:
The more the boat is weighted down at the stern, the more the bow points up.
Click to expand...

How does that work?
How would the boat be 'more weighed down at the stern' before the bow was lost and it started to take on water?

Ships tend to go down by the stern as the machinery spaces are the biggest single space in the hull, they tend to be at the stern, When they flood a large part of the reserve buoyancy is lost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom