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

[Reformed Offlian]

The problem is, the tape or whatever it was was put into the 'archives' and never heard from again.

The problem -or rather, one of many problems- is: we just have some guy's word for it that the tape even existed and, if so, showed anything like what he suggests.

No evidence, plus a bunch of excuses, complaints, and speculations, still just equals no evidence.

 

[LondonJohn]

The problem -or rather, one of many problems- is: we just have some guy's word for it that the tape even existed and, if so, showed anything like what he suggests.

No evidence, plus a bunch of excuses, complaints, and speculations, still just equals no evidence.

Ah you're missing the connotation of "...and was never heard from (sic) again" in Vixen's post. The implication is obviously that ***dark forces*** deliberately "disappeared" the tape - as part of the grand conspiracy.

This indeed is one of the common threads in many of the more ludicrous CTs: it's a variation on the classic "Of course we can find no evidence of the conspiracy - this only serves to indicate that all the evidence of a conspiracy was itself destroyed by the conspirators, which in turn proves that there was a conspiracy"

 

[jimbob]

I split a lot of posts about unconventional usage of notation to this thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=363774

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob

 

[Vixen]

If the Estonia had sunk without a trace there wouldn't have been anything for the rescue ships and helicopters to do.

In 'sank without trace' is meant that when Capt Esa Mäkelä arrived there was nothing to be seen, when normally, part of the hull, bow or stern is visible or other detritus.

• The Estonia sank exceptionally fast
• There was no trace to be seen when the rescue arrived, other than lifeboats and people in the water.

 

[Mojo]

In 'sank without trace' is meant that when Capt Esa Mäkelä arrived there was nothing to be seen, when normally, part of the hull, bow or stern is visible or other detritus.

• The Estonia sank exceptionally fast
• There was no trace to be seen when the rescue arrived, other than lifeboats and people in the water.

Are you suggesting that all possible flotsam had either been secured within the vessel or removed before the sinking, or that, unseen by the people in the lifeboats and in the water, there had been some sort of clean-up carried out before Mäkelä arrived?

 

[JayUtah]

...other than lifeboats and people in the water.

Empty life rafts and life belts were also observed. Those are traces.

 

[zooterkin]

Not the mention the 'trace' of the wreck itself sitting at the bottom of the sea.

 

[lobosrul5]

Not the mention the 'trace' of the wreck itself sitting at the bottom of the sea.

"Sank without a trace" means something different to Vixen than the normal and accepted meaning of the phrase... like so much else, when it suits her purpose.

 

[Axxman300]

In 'sank without trace' is meant that when Capt Esa Mäkelä arrived there was nothing to be seen, when normally, part of the hull, bow or stern is visible or other detritus.

Then the proper terminology is to say the MS Estonia had sunk by the time his ship arrived on scene. The traces were in the water. You're trying be melodramatic.

The Estonia sank exceptionally fast

Took about an hour. Had the crew and captain responded properly upon the first report of water coming in from the bow, there's a good chance she wouldn't have sunk at all. Certainly would have had more time to evacuate passengers.

You imply that the sinking was unusual, but almost all non-combat related sinkings go the same way:

Water breaches the hull.
Water fills one compartment, and moves into another.
Eventually enough compartments have filled with water that the vessel's rate of sinking increases.
Ship sinks.

Almost every big ship seemed to "sink fast", Titanic, Edmond Fitzgerald, Adrea Doria, and so on. But when their sinkings are modeled the data shows their sinking speeds were relative to the damage, and the seas conditions.

Estonia sank in a storm in which she was never designed to sail. The storm combined with poor seamanship put her on the bottom. We're talking about a ship design notoriously unstable to the point one rolled over in a harbor. There is no real mystery here.

There was no trace to be seen when the rescue arrived, other than lifeboats and people in the water.

Which means there was a trace. Can't wait for this to become it's own thread.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

In 'sank without trace' is meant that when Capt Esa Mäkelä arrived there was nothing to be seen, when normally, part of the hull, bow or stern is visible or other detritus.

• The Estonia sank exceptionally fast
• There was no trace to be seen when the rescue arrived, other than lifeboats and people in the water.

No trace except for all the traces, like lifeboats and people. So actually quite a lot of traces. As for the no detritus bit, you just made that up.

Sure the rescue ships were surprised the ship had literally sunk, but they didn't know the bow visor had come off, the ramp had torn open and the ship had gulped in substantial portions of Baltic seawater. Compared to the Herald of Free Enterprise it stayed afloat for quite a long time. But this is repeating stuff that's been flogged to death already.

In short, as mentioned above, you used "without a trace" to be melodramatic rather than factual.

 

[Vixen]

Are you suggesting that all possible flotsam had either been secured within the vessel or removed before the sinking, or that, unseen by the people in the lifeboats and in the water, there had been some sort of clean-up carried out before Mäkelä arrived?

When a ship sinks, it rarely sinks completely immediately.

In this case, there was no sign of the ship at all by the time rescuers arrived.

 

[Vixen]

Not the mention the 'trace' of the wreck itself sitting at the bottom of the sea.

You might recall, the authorities had no idea of the location of the sunken vessel for a quite a long time. The accident happened 28 Sept 1994 and its location wasn't reported in the papers until 1 Oct 1994, having been located the day before.

There were several observations of the Estonian sinking site. "The search for the ship was only a few miles away," said Captain Juhani Toika of the Turku and Pori Military Provinces. The sea-going measuring vessel The Suunta started echo measurements at about 3 pm. The ship has precise positioning equipment suitable for offshore use. The direction uses a standard downward-pointing sonar, a multi-beam sonar and a towed diagonal echo sounder. The ship has two naval experts. Due to the impending storm, Orientation only marked the site of the discovery and returned to the protection of the archipelago. Weather permitting The Suunta ['the direction'] and the oil spill response vessel Halli will return to the scene on Saturday and start exploring Estonia with two robots moving at the end of the cable. They have both a camcorder and standard cameras.

HS

 

[Vixen]

"Sank without a trace" means something different to Vixen than the normal and accepted meaning of the phrase... like so much else, when it suits her purpose.

Experts such as Makela and the same guy who helped salvage a similar ferry a few years before noted the complete absence of any sign of the ship.

Silja Europa arrived at the scene of the accident fairly quickly, but Mäkelä slowed down the speed of her ship as she approached the scene of the accident, as he thought Estonia was hanging on the surface.

- By all accounts, that should have been the case. It should have remained floating upside down, which would have been dangerous for us. I had over 2,000 passengers on board myself.

MTV



I think only a landlubber would imagine a ship sinks like a stone, when obviously it is designed to be buoyant.

 

[Vixen]

Then the proper terminology is to say the MS Estonia had sunk by the time his ship arrived on scene. The traces were in the water. You're trying be melodramatic.




Took about an hour. Had the crew and captain responded properly upon the first report of water coming in from the bow, there's a good chance she wouldn't have sunk at all. Certainly would have had more time to evacuate passengers.

You imply that the sinking was unusual, but almost all non-combat related sinkings go the same way:

Water breaches the hull.
Water fills one compartment, and moves into another.
Eventually enough compartments have filled with water that the vessel's rate of sinking increases.
Ship sinks.

Almost every big ship seemed to "sink fast", Titanic, Edmond Fitzgerald, Adrea Doria, and so on. But when their sinkings are modeled the data shows their sinking speeds were relative to the damage, and the seas conditions.

Estonia sank in a storm in which she was never designed to sail. The storm combined with poor seamanship put her on the bottom. We're talking about a ship design notoriously unstable to the point one rolled over in a harbor. There is no real mystery here.



Which means there was a trace. Can't wait for this to become it's own thread.

No, the official sinking time is thirty-five minutes. From the mayday call at 1:21:55 to when it disappeared from radar at 1:48. For some reason, the JAIC seem to be counting from 1:23 to 1:58 but whatever, it is official, it is 35mins.

Andrea Doria

On 25 July 1956, while Andrea Doria was approaching the coast of Nantucket, Massachusetts, United States, bound for New York City, the eastbound Stockholm of the Swedish American Line collided with her. Struck in the side, the top-heavy Andrea Doria immediately started to list severely to starboard, which left half of her lifeboats unusable. The consequent shortage of lifeboats could have resulted in significant loss of life, but the ship stayed afloat for over 11 hours after the collision.

wiki



Edmund Fitzgerald November 10, 1975

Arthur M. Anderson and Edmund Fitzgerald altered course northward seeking shelter along the Ontario shore[40] where they encountered a winter storm at 1:00 a.m. on November 10. Edmund Fitzgerald reported winds of 52 knots (96 km/h; 60 mph) and waves 10 feet (3.0 m) high.

<snip>

Shortly after 3:30 p.m., Captain McSorley radioed Arthur M. Anderson to report that Edmund Fitzgerald was taking on water and had lost two vent covers and a fence railing. The vessel had also developed a list.


<snip>

At approximately 7:10 p.m., when Arthur M. Anderson notified Edmund Fitzgerald of an upbound ship and asked how she was doing, McSorley reported, "We are holding our own." She was never heard from again. No distress signal was received, and ten minutes later, Arthur M. Anderson lost the ability either to reach Edmund Fitzgerald by radio or to detect her on radar.

wiki

Cause: a mystery.

 

[Vixen]

No trace except for all the traces, like lifeboats and people. So actually quite a lot of traces. As for the no detritus bit, you just made that up.

Sure the rescue ships were surprised the ship had literally sunk, but they didn't know the bow visor had come off, the ramp had torn open and the ship had gulped in substantial portions of Baltic seawater. Compared to the Herald of Free Enterprise it stayed afloat for quite a long time. But this is repeating stuff that's been flogged to death already.

In short, as mentioned above, you used "without a trace" to be melodramatic rather than factual.

The Herald of Free Enterprise never completely sank. It fortuitously came to rest on a sand bank on its side.

Lifeboats can drift quite a way from the scene of the location of the sunken ship so is no indicator.

 

[LondonJohn]

No, the official sinking time is thirty-five minutes. From the mayday call at 1:21:55 to when it disappeared from radar at 1:48. For some reason, the JAIC seem to be counting from 1:23 to 1:58 but whatever, it is official, it is 35mins.

Andrea Doria
wiki



Edmund Fitzgerald November 10, 1975

wiki

Cause: a mystery.

Ah see: when someone makes a Mayday call, they make that call because the vessel is already in extremely serious difficulty by that point.

You seem (bizarrely and inexplicably) to think that the events leading to (and culminating in) the Estonia sinking actually started with the Mayday call.

You're not really thinking this through, are you?

 

[LondonJohn]

The Herald of Free Enterprise never completely sank. It fortuitously came to rest on a sand bank on its side.

Lifeboats can drift quite a way from the scene of the location of the sunken ship so is no indicator.

**shakes head slowly and backs away**

 

[Mojo]

When a ship sinks, it rarely sinks completely immediately.

In this case, there was no sign of the ship at all by the time rescuers arrived.

Why do you think a lack of flotsam would be significant? What do you think it would show?

 

[lobosrul5]

Why do you think a lack of flotsam would be significant? What do you think it would show?

I think... THINK... She is suggesting that there was no flotsam from Estonia, and that ships sunk by frogmen or torpedoes do not jettison any flotsam.

The first part being not supported by any evidence, and the second is not true.

ETA: I shouldn't have used the word jettison. That would turn flotsam into jetsam. Which is something different, though it does happen when ships are at risk of sinking I doubt the crew purposely ejected any cargo.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

When a ship sinks, it rarely sinks completely immediately.



In this case, there was no sign of the ship at all by the time rescuers arrived.

What was rare about the Estonia sinking was the size of the hole though which it was flooding. That makes the fact it had sunk before rescue arrived much less surprising.

The rescuers found no ship at all. You twist that into "no *sign* of the ship at all" in a persisting attempt to justify your straw man argument "without a trace". You appreciate we can actually see you doing that, right?