• 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 VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
I know most people find it more comfortable to not care.
Click to expand...

It's not that they don't care, it's just that they're not loonies.

Fact is, the Estonian government were still 'searching' for these guys twelve years later.
Click to expand...

You mean like they've made WANTED posters, and put their pictures on milk cartons? After all these years nobody has come forward with stories about some guys with Slavic accents mysteriously moving into their small town? And considering the only way someone from the ship escaped detection during the rescue was to swim to shore, which would be a neat trick.

How likely is it that the entire senior crew drowned,
Click to expand...

Not a gambling man, but I put the odds at 100% they're all still on the wreck.

when a 76-year-old retired sea captain and his wife, together with a health-conflicted very overweight businessman named Voronin and his family, who were both in adjacent cabins to Captain Arvo Piht on the sixth deck - where almost all of the survivors were located - managed to get off the boat and into a raft or lifeboat quite easily.
Click to expand...

None of them worked on the ship. The captain, I believe, had a job to do.

And a guy lives to be a 76-year old retired sea captain by not being stupid when he notices a dangerous list on the ship he happens to be on at the time. And he probably banged on a few doors on the way to the boat deck.

So a couple of engineers in deck 0 managed to escape whilst the entire senior crew at an advantageous position copped it (and Piht wasn't on duty so that is not an explanation).
Click to expand...

The senior crew was/is still on the bridge and nearby, which speaks to their dedication to saving the ship, and just how fast the rollover took place. The engineers weren't dumb, and got lucky getting out.

In addition, they were physically listed as survivors.
Click to expand...

Initially. What did the final survivor list indicate?

Official navy divers saw the captain lying dead. Given it was a disaster scene or even a crime scene, why didn't they bring his body up for a forensic examination.
Click to expand...

Was that their job? Were they instructed to bring bodies up from the ship? I don't think so. And the captain drowned.

It is very obvious that something fishy has gone on here.
Click to expand...

Maybe it was eels.:D
 
Vixen said:
There is a reason Sapo, KSI and MUST are called 'secret services'. Would you expect to see the minutes of MI5 and MI6 in Hansards?

As I said, Goran Persson put a fence around KSI and told Hirschfeld, Appeal Court Judge not to investigate beyond his remit.

Think hard, where do you imagine smuggled military equipment goes? It wasn't ordered by the government for the people. The customs guy who blew the whistle, said the order to let the equipment through unexamined at customs came from higher up than the government (i.e., MUST/KSI).
Click to expand...

Are we getting into secret shadow government territory now? MI5/6 really run the UK stuff?
 
Vixen said:
That is not quite true. I did not put 'ordinary deportation' in quotation marks as if it was a direct quote. I referred quite clearly to Mark Corrigan claiming the disappeared Egyptians as being ordinary deportations as in common or garden deportations.

Please don't try to change the meaning of what I said by inserting quotation marks which I did not use.

For example, I said he claimed that. That doesn't translate into desperately searching his posts for the word 'that' but the general idea. But then you knew that.


Clear now? A deportation has nothing to do with a rendition, legal or illegal. It is a completely different thing.
Click to expand...


I was referring to what you claimed Mark said, not something you said. But I think you know this full well. Sadly, I think you actually believe the false statements you make at the time you make them. And that’s not a good place to be.
 
Axxman300 said:
It's not that they don't care, it's just that they're not loonies.



You mean like they've made WANTED posters, and put their pictures on milk cartons? After all these years nobody has come forward with stories about some guys with Slavic accents mysteriously moving into their small town? And considering the only way someone from the ship escaped detection during the rescue was to swim to shore, which would be a neat trick.
Click to expand...

The issue of the Estonian so-called missing survivors was a serious political one in Estonia, hardly 'loonies'. Estonian is not a slavic language, it is a finno-ugric one, albeit with a lot of low german borrowings. It is not slavic.

The missing survivors didn't 'escape detection' they were listed as survivors. It ties in with Ken Svensson and his heroic nine rescues taken directly to Stockholm within hours of the ship's sinking. These listed personnel included the Chief Engineer and the Chief Medical Officer and they were not on duty. Given that others on deck 6 had no problem getting a life raft or life boat, and by the chronology of events, one rather suspects the engineers below deck had no problems in getting the hell out of there, possibly even in advance of the moment of capsize.



Not a gambling man, but I put the odds at 100% they're all still on the wreck.



None of them worked on the ship. The captain, I believe, had a job to do.

And a guy lives to be a 76-year old retired sea captain by not being stupid when he notices a dangerous list on the ship he happens to be on at the time. And he probably banged on a few doors on the way to the boat deck.



The senior crew was/is still on the bridge and nearby, which speaks to their dedication to saving the ship, and just how fast the rollover took place. The engineers weren't dumb, and got lucky getting out.
Click to expand...


No, the form was, the captain together with first mate, second mate and third mate worked a watch (IIRC about five hours on) after which, they switched to the other team, headed by second captain Arvo Piht. The watch with the second captain and his mates had just come to an end at circa 01:00am, so the next captain would have been bright eyed and bushy tailed, yet the Mayday was left to the third and fourth mate at circa 01:20am.

Initially. What did the final survivor list indicate?
Click to expand...

Their names were removed.


Was that their job? Were they instructed to bring bodies up from the ship? I don't think so. And the captain drowned.
Click to expand...


One would have thought it would be easy enough to recover the Captain's body, being in the bridge and as witnessed by divers. One diver reported back he had a bullet hole in his head. At least ascertain how he came to be incapacitated as this would surely be a possible contributing factor to the disaster.
 
Last edited:
ferd burfle said:
I was referring to what you claimed Mark said, not something you said. But I think you know this full well. Sadly, I think you actually believe the false statements you make at the time you make them. And that’s not a good place to be.
Click to expand...

Mark Corrigan did claim it was an ordinary deportation. You and he can play semantics all you like but like the claim today by Michelle Donelan (to illustrate the faux debating technique) it doesn't change the thrust of what I said.

Your searching for the exact words rather than the obvious meaning is a classic example of evading the point being made.
 
Vixen said:
OR the correspendent actually had a contact.
Click to expand...


But, assuming they actually existed, neither the correspondents nor their contacts were Times reporters, or British secret agents, eavesdropping on German soldiers. They were German journalists talking to German soldiers.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
One would have thought it would be easy enough to recover the Captain's body...
Click to expand...

No, this is just an evasive way of saying you think it would be easy. And when people don't behave the way you think they should have, it's somehow suspicious in a way you want to have meaning in the real world. You have no idea what's easy, hard, or safe for a diver working in those conditions, so keep your uninformed opinions out of it.

One diver reported back he had a bullet hole in his head.
Click to expand...

How did he know it was a bullet hole?

At least ascertain how he came to be incapacitated as this would surely be a possible contributing factor to the disaster.
Click to expand...

No, "surely" is just another way for you to beg the question. What you think should be considered a factor in a forensic investigation is irrelevant because you have no pertinent knowledge, training, or experience. And once again, when things don't go the way you expect them, the right answer is not invariably that there is something wrong with those things.
 
Andy_Ross said:
No, newspaper reporterers in the UK didn't have contacts on the front line at Stalingrad
Click to expand...

The Battle of Stalingrad was 1942 - 1943. I was rather researching the development of WWII from the earliest stages. Although I have to say the TIMES coverage of Stalingrad was excellent with detailed maps and graphics. It was really the only truly decent newspaper at the time and it had the reputation of only being read by the ruling classes, which may be why more information was given. (As compared to the DAILY SKETCH or the DAILY MAIL who tended to concentrate on the bomb attacks in England.)

Likewise it is worthwhile looking at the early reports of the Estonia sinking because it was reported seven or nine guys were rescued at 02:00am or thereabouts and Ken was the hero. Likewise, we see on the first day, the verdict it was the fault of the bow visor and a 'few strong waves'.
 
Vixen said:
Mark Corrigan did claim it was an ordinary deportation.
Click to expand...


No, he didn't. In every example you posted where he used the term deportation he qualified it as "against Sweden's own rules", "illegal", "reprehensible and illegal", and "a totally different crime". Do you really consider this sort of thing to be "ordinary"?
 
JayUtah said:
No, this is just an evasive way of saying you think it would be easy. And when people don't behave the way you think they should have, it's somehow suspicious in a way you want to have meaning in the real world. You have no idea what's easy, hard, or safe for a diver working in those conditions, so keep your uninformed opinions out of it.



How did he know it was a bullet hole?



No, "surely" is just another way for you to beg the question. What you think should be considered a factor in a forensic investigation is irrelevant because you have no pertinent knowledge, training, or experience. And once again, when things don't go the way you expect them, the right answer is not invariably that there is something wrong with those things.
Click to expand...

There is actually a live-streamed video of the submerged subcontracted naval divers - and you can even hear their British accents - reporting to whoever was handling them higher up on deck. They can be seen pushing open the bridge door and you can even see what looks like the legs and feet of a body as he enters.
 
Vixen said:
Likewise it is worthwhile looking at the early reports of the Estonia sinking because it was reported seven or nine guys were rescued at 02:00am or thereabouts and Ken was the hero. Likewise, we see on the first day, the verdict it was the fault of the bow visor and a 'few strong waves'.
Click to expand...

No. Early speculation—however you want to incorrectly spin it to be "official" or "the verdict"—is never as correct, valuable, or informed as later reports. You rely heavily on early sources because in some cases they simply tell you what you want to hear regardless of reliability assessment, and in other cases it supports your theory that there was a conspiracy early on to cover up the real cause and create a cover story.
 
Mojo said:
No, he didn't. In every example you posted where he used the term deportation he qualified it as "against Sweden's own rules", "illegal", "reprehensible and illegal", and "a totally different crime". Do you really consider this sort of thing to be "ordinary"?
Click to expand...

But it wasn't 'illegal'. It was rubber-stamped by a government official, and as noted by the UN tribunal.

The illegal part was Sweden allowing its border officers to be subordinated to the officers of a foreign power (CIA), who enabled the two men to be subjected to torture by sending them to the centre they were sent to.

The fact it was their home country, Egypt, was just circumstantial, they could have just as easily been sent to Guatanamo Bay. It was nothing to do with 'Being deported back to your own country', which is what is usually meant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom