• 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.
JesseCuster said:
To Everett:

If you haven't read the entire thread (my advice is: don't), there's all sorts of wonderful stories about a British escort submarine accidentally crashing into the Estonia, Russian submarines deliberately ramming the Estonia, minisubmarines rescuing people from the Estonia, truckloads of heroin being pushed out the bow doors during a storm, nuclear material dissolving the bow door locks (despite presumably being in a container suitable for radioactive materials on board a truck), wheeled submarines driving on the bottom of the Baltic sea, a rescue man being given a medal for bravery under false pretenses because he was actually involved in whisking away the senior crew of the ship and the medal was a bribe to keep him quiet, crew being whisked away to CIA black sites on board planes disguised as cargo flights, the captain being assassinated on the bridge, Spetsnaz being involved in the whole thing, explosive charges blowing a hole in the hull, the Estonia being hit by 'blank torpedoes'. etc.

It's a set of fantastical tall tales that changes from post to post with no concern for facts or consistency or basic common sense but with a lot of delusional imagination.

And for ***** and giggles, a sequence of truly bizarre rambling posts where Vixen showed an astonishing lack of understanding of list angles, and tried explaining them with something that was next to impossible to even parse in order to explain what was wrong about it.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, personally if I wanted to use the Estonia sinking in gaming I'd blend in the Aquatic Reptilians, a crashed spaceship and (of course) Harold Holt.
 
Vixen said:
These were quotes from experts, who know better than you. You really are gullible if you think a cruise ferry with 70 Stockholm civil service police on board sinking in 35' is normal. For you, the sudden death of almost 1,000 people is quite natural and there is not a flicker of curiosity about it.
Click to expand...
Bollocks.
 
Vixen said:
... For you, the sudden death of almost 1,000 people is quite natural and there is not a flicker of curiosity about it.
Click to expand...

Does it bother you that you have to grossly mischaracterise the views of people who don't buy your wild conspiracy theorizing in this way, by pretending the only other possible reaction to the sinking is total unconcern? For me, it really only highlights how weak your arguments are.
 
Vixen said:
These were quotes from experts, who know better than you.
Click to expand...

1. Experts can be wrong.

2. These Estonia threads are full of quotes by people you consider to be experts, but are often not.

3. Experts on a subject can disagree on key points while agreeing on the larger picture. Some experts, being individuals, will never agree with the larger consensus for a number of reasons based on their world-view, ego, and level of education (the actual work they did in college to pass their classes).

4. When 94 experts agree on a set of data, you don't place equal weight on the conclusions or opinions of the other 6. At least not without a good reason.


You really are gullible if you think a cruise ferry with 70 Stockholm civil service police on board sinking in 35' is normal.
Click to expand...

Nobody on this board, ever, has said that the sinking of the MS Estonia was normal. You need to get over yourself. And why can't you type the words, "35 minutes" like a normal person? And the sinking process for the Estonia was just over an hour when you count from the initial report from the car deck.

For you, the sudden death of almost 1,000 people is quite natural and there is not a flicker of curiosity about it.
Click to expand...

Nope. The difference between those posting on this thread, and you, is that we don't fetishize disasters with high body-counts to advance some twisted social-political agenda. The facts, as terrible and sad sad as they are, come down to a ship not designed for open-ocean travel sailing into rough seas at flank speed. The captain put the lives of the crew and passengers at risk, and put the Estonia on the bottom.

That's it, that's all she wrote.
 
catsmate said:
Approximately 85 metres or about eight times as deep as Vixen claims.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I was taking the piss out of Vixen's apparent reluctance to type the word 'minutes'. I don't think she really meant 35 feet (but I'm no mind reader - I could be wrong).

Then again, if the intended meaning of a statement is ambiguous the blame doesn't lie rarely lies with the receiver.

ETA: FIFMyself
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
Nope. The difference between those posting on this thread, and you, is that we don't fetishize disasters with high body-counts to advance some twisted social-political agenda. The facts, as terrible and sad sad as they are, come down to a ship not designed for open-ocean travel sailing into rough seas at flank speed.
Click to expand...


And the important thing is to identify the actual cause, and try to make sure it doesn't happen again by changing ship design and working practices. Wild hypothesising and conspiracy theories only obstruct this.
 
Vixen said:
Er, I don't think the Meyer Werft shipbuilders are delusional cranks.
Click to expand...


Personally, I find it inconceivable that the shipyard responsible for designing and constructing the ship, including the poorly-designed and poorly-constructed bottom lock of the bow visor which was the root cause of the sinking of the ship....

....should have any motivation whatsoever for pushing wild theories that the ship's loss was due to something other than a poorly-designed and poorly-constructed bottom lock of the bow visor.

[/sarcasm]
 
Vixen said:
You know perfectly well I was referring to time.
Click to expand...


Well, that was far from clear when you were writing about 35" (especially since, as has been pointed out on more than one occasion, the ship took a fair bit longer than 35 minutes to sink, once the start point is correctly placed at the failure of the bow visor's bottom lock).

Of course, all this silly confusion could easily have been avoided by simply using the standard convention of writing 35 min(s) or 35 minutes to convey the idea of "35 minutes". One can only wonder why that's not what happened.....
 
For those new to the thread, here's my summary of the actual incident, from a dozen pages back:


Myriad said:
"Here's a ferry. Its design is considered by international experts to only be safe in coastal waters."

"Actually, we're going to sail it across the Baltic Sea."

"Okay, but only when the weather conditions are calm, right?"

"Actually, we're going to make the crossing in stormy weather."

"Okay, but you'll at least make sure the ship is in the best possible condition and in the ideal configuration to react to unforeseen problems during the crossing, right?"

"Actually, we're going to set off with leaky seals and an unbalanced trim condition that makes further trim adjustments impossible."

"Hmm, you might get away with that if you're lucky, but you'll at least slow down or change your route to minimize the risk from wave impacts, right?"

"Actually, we have a schedule to keep so we're going to steam in a direct line at full speed."

"That's really asking for trouble. I think I'll stay on shore and wait for another ferry. But just for my peace of mind, at least tell me your officers and crew are going to be extra vigilant for any sign of equipment failure or danger to the passengers."

"Actually, we're all going to slack off and disregard every warning sign until it's too late."
Click to expand...
 
Axxman300 said:
1. Experts can be wrong.

2. These Estonia threads are full of quotes by people you consider to be experts, but are often not.

3. Experts on a subject can disagree on key points while agreeing on the larger picture. Some experts, being individuals, will never agree with the larger consensus for a number of reasons based on their world-view, ego, and level of education (the actual work they did in college to pass their classes).

4. When 94 experts agree on a set of data, you don't place equal weight on the conclusions or opinions of the other 6. At least not without a good reason.




Nobody on this board, ever, has said that the sinking of the MS Estonia was normal. You need to get over yourself. And why can't you type the words, "35 minutes" like a normal person? And the sinking process for the Estonia was just over an hour when you count from the initial report from the car deck.



Nope. The difference between those posting on this thread, and you, is that we don't fetishize disasters with high body-counts to advance some twisted social-political agenda. The facts, as terrible and sad sad as they are, come down to a ship not designed for open-ocean travel sailing into rough seas at flank speed. The captain put the lives of the crew and passengers at risk, and put the Estonia on the bottom.

That's it, that's all she wrote.
Click to expand...


Experts give their expert opinion. To claim that Meyer Werft (shipbuilders), Margus Kurm (state prosecutor Estonia) or whomever are conspiracy theorists or cranks it just childish. The fact there was much argument amongst the JAIC shows that it is quite normal for experts to disagree with one another.

Base 60 sexagesimal is how we notated time at school, habit has stuck.

John Wallis, in his Mathesis universalis, generalized this notation to include higher multiples of 60; giving as an example the number 49‵‵‵‵36‵‵‵25‵‵15‵1°15′2″36‴49⁗; where the numbers to the left are multiplied by higher powers of 60, the numbers to the right are divided by powers of 60, and the number marked with the superscripted zero is multiplied by 1.
Click to expand...
wiki


You believe the captain of the ship 'put the lives of the crew and passengers at risk, and put the Estonia on the bottom'. The question is why and how? There was a change of watch at 01:00 so one was just coming off duty and another going on. Plus there was a team of three or four sub-captains [mates] of descending rank so it is not as if any one captain can just do his own thing.
 
Last edited:
junkshop said:
To be fair, I was taking the piss out of Vixen's apparent reluctance to type the word 'minutes'. I don't think she really meant 35 feet (but I'm no mind reader - I could be wrong).

Then again, if the intended meaning of a statement is ambiguous the blame doesn't lie rarely lies with the receiver.

ETA: FIFMyself
Click to expand...

Too late to edit, but I meant to write:

"....I don't really think she meant..."

A small, but important difference.
 
Vixen said:
To claim that Meyer Werft (shipbuilders), Margus Kurm (state prosecutor Estonia) or whomever are conspiracy theorists or cranks it just childish.
Click to expand...

And the idea that the shipbuilder and the guy defending the owner of the ship might not have ulterior motives to embrace conspiracy theories is somehow enlightened?

The fact there was much argument amongst the JAIC shows that it is quite normal for experts to disagree with one another.
Click to expand...

Which (if you'd actually read my last post) is what I said. Jay Utah has talked about this here, and in multiple topics surrounding accident investigations on this board. He's actually done accident investigations. All that matters is the JAIC's bottom line: The MS Estonia sank after the bow visor was knocked loose, and fell off in rough seas.


You believe the captain of the ship 'put the lives of the crew and passengers at risk, and put the Estonia on the bottom'. The question is why and how? There was a change of watch at 01:00 so one was just coming off duty and another going on. Plus there was a team of three or four sub-captains [mates] of descending rank so it is not as if any one captain can just do his own thing.
Click to expand...

He took the ship to sea. He set speed. He was on the bridge at the time of the initial impact. He received the report of water coming in at the bow, and did nothing about it. On a ship the buck stops at the captain, every time.
 
Axxman300 said:
And the idea that the shipbuilder and the guy defending the owner of the ship might not have ulterior motives to embrace conspiracy theories is somehow enlightened?



Which (if you'd actually read my last post) is what I said. Jay Utah has talked about this here, and in multiple topics surrounding accident investigations on this board. He's actually done accident investigations. All that matters is the JAIC's bottom line: The MS Estonia sank after the bow visor was knocked loose, and fell off in rough seas.




He took the ship to sea. He set speed. He was on the bridge at the time of the initial impact. He received the report of water coming in at the bow, and did nothing about it. On a ship the buck stops at the captain, every time.
Click to expand...


They built the ship; they have all the specifications. I'm not sure how that counts them out. The JAIC report is a compromise of three solid years of bitter disagreements and resignations of the panel, who largely met now and then and rarely kept proper minutes. You cannot claim it is orthodox. If that were the case it wouldn't be being revisited by Estonia, Finland and Sweden today. As for the captain, a diver claimed to have seen his body with a bullet wound to the head so it is quite reasonable to speculate whether the bridge was hijacked as a group of men were seen in fierce argument with him. Guy in a red jacket on the bridge, never identified, plus guy with tattooed hand under a cabinet.

Captain Makela said he was surprised to see no remnants of the ship at all when he arrived because normally, a ship floats for quite a bit before vanishing all together.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom