• 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.
Jack by the hedge said:
If Vixen was right that the Swedish helicopter crews were less well trained or skilled than the Finnish ones and arrived later because Finland didn't pass on the Mayday report, how come they and not the Finns managed to find the ship's officers in the dark and the bad weather and pluck them from the sea to disappear them without anyone else noticing? And why then did they add the abducted men's names to a survivors list that Vixen tells us existed but cannot produce? And why then did some sailors watching the report on German TV think they saw captain Piht among the rescued walking into a hospital in Finland?
Click to expand...


And why, having hushed up the alleged military operation, did they give someone an award that is only given for combat situations?
 
P.J. Denyer said:
IIRC someone, probably you, linked to the manufacturer's specifications & it was shown that the regulations were changed as a direct result of this accident so that ships of these type would have to carry beacons that didn't need to be manually activated. Am I remembering correctly? I certainly remember this was comprehensively put to bed a very long time ago.
Click to expand...

They were the auto types. Please, please, please <fx deep American voice> 'don't go there'.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
This is what I mean when I say Vixens musings are like badly written pulp spy novels.
Click to expand...

Who doesn't like James Bond stories? We're just not deluded enough to think they're actually true.

They aren't grounded in reality at all, just an ignorant layman's idea of—
Click to expand...

—literally everything she brings up.

For those of us who sometimes have the grim duty of investigating incidents involving engineered systems in which there has been injury or fatality, what she's doing is in consummate bad taste. This is why it's difficult to contain my disgust when Vixen cloaks herself in virtue and tells us that unless we take her arrogant, ignorant babble seriously we're somehow being unfaithful to the truth or disinterested in discovery.

This is only compounded by the rank dishonesty exhibited in the layout of her argument and her response to criticism or rebuttal. It's just frankly childish. Since it's hard to believe someone can be so innocently deluded, this raises the spectre that she's just here for the lolz, which would be even more morally reprehensible.

Why pay any attention to her? Because what conspiracy theorists like Vixen lack in knowledge, honesty, and sincerity they make up for in sheer amplitude. They're provably wrong, but noisily wrong because conspiracism is inherently attention-seeking behavior. Look at the toehold Anders Björkmann was able to get before most of the world figured out just what a crackpot he is. Even still you find people besides Vixen trying to posture him as a legitimate expert in naval architecture. Forums like this exist to provide the necessary counterpoint to keep ignorant blowhards from confusing well-meaning people for their own enjoyment and ego. If people want to find out whether there is any truth to any of MS Estonia conspiracy theories, hopefully they will stumble into some body of information such as what we provide here. The world is not necessarily doomed to the imaginary world that Vixen has created for herself and desires to foist on others.
 
Vixen said:
They were the auto types.
Click to expand...

No.

Please, please, please <fx deep American voice> 'don't go there'.
Click to expand...

You want desperately to go there. You've come back to this thread to repeat all the same ignorant, egotistical nonsense that the previous hundreds of pages have debunked. The EPIRB discussion was previously more effective than others at getting the grown-ups to pay attention to you, and you brought it up sua sponte just a couple pages back. Don't pretend a rehash of your ongoing ignorance on that subject isn't something you're trying to reboot.
 
JayUtah said:
Who doesn't like James Bond stories? We're just not deluded enough to think they're actually true.
Click to expand...

If they turned Vixen's CT about the MS Estonia into a Bond film, it wouldn't quite be the least plausible Bond plot. But only because Moonraker exists. Although if they include the wheeled submarine, and radioactive cargo can burn through steel but not kill everyone onboard sublots, well that might push it over the edge.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Just because it wasn't previously awarded for that specific purpose doesn't mean it can't be or that it is a medal reserved for combat. You're just wrong Vixen. Why can't you admit it?

Or bravery in a "war like situation".

Again, you can disagree that the Estonia rescue meets that definition to your hearts content. I don't care. All I care about is that you made a specific claim, that the medal was only awarded for combat, and that clam was wrong.


ETA: From the Swedish wiki link you provided:



Which translates to 1998-03-04 Conscript Daniel Apelgren, for saving the life of a comrade who fell overboard from the ship Styrbjörn.

What military action was the Styrbjorn undertaking at that time Vixen? It's a combat medal, right? You can't just get it for rescuing someone. What war was Sweden involved in that the patrol boat Styrbjorn was taking part in? What battle did Apelgren rescue his comrade during? I mean it's a combat medal, right? Right?
Click to expand...

He was a military guy saving another military guy on a military ship.

1998-03-04 Conscript Daniel Apelgren, for saving the life of a comrade who fell overboard from the ship Styrbjörn . [ 4 ] [ 5 ]
Click to expand...

You note that those five guys who received the Silver Medal of Merit with Sword were all miltitary guys saving the lives of other military guys?

Quite frankly, if you fall overboard a ship you are pretty much done for so for this guy to have saved someone who fell overboard was little short of miraculous. No-one would deny he deserved it.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Fantasy.

If the Estonia had been a sooper seekrit military operation then Svensson's medal would have been secret too, like a number of the recipients of the later version of the medal whose names and actions are withheld. His award was publicly acknowledged and the reasons for the award are public too, and they are not your fantasy version but rather based on events which actually happened.
Click to expand...

Not so, they explained it as something he did later on in the night closer to four am. Once again, he was part of a team.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Again, I've even found in Vixens own source an example of it being given for bravery in rescuing someone from the sea that was not a combat event.

It was the Silver rather than Gold award, but it was only the rescue of one person.
Click to expand...

A military-on-military situation.

Are we to suppose Estonia was a military situation?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Absolute nutter butters.

Which military operation? Which military command? Who was in charge of it? Where is the evidence for it?

You know when the military does commandeer a civilian vessel there's a paper trail, right? They can't just show up and take control in secret? That it has to be documented because of liability, among other things?
Click to expand...

The military operation conveying that military truck that was seen being loaded onto the Estonia.
 
Vixen said:
He was a military guy saving another military guy on a military ship.



You note that those five guys who received the Silver Medal of Merit with Sword were all miltitary guys saving the lives of other military guys?

Quite frankly, if you fall overboard a ship you are pretty much done for so for this guy to have saved someone who fell overboard was little short of miraculous. No-one would deny he deserved it.
Click to expand...

But it's not a combat situation.

You claimed it was an award equal to the VC. The VC can only be awarded to those in combat. You claimed the same for the Swedish medal.

You. Were. Wrong.

It. Is. Not. A. Combat. Only. Medal.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
The problem I think is that Vixen doesn't understand that while eyewitness testimony is a good beginning for an investigation, it is not the end of one.

If someone involved in an event says "I heard an explosion" that's a great place to start investigating if there was an explosion. If the physical evidence shows there was no explosion, that person was obviously mistaken.

Vixen is attempting to override the physical evidence of there not being an explosion with the claim someone heard one. It's literally backwards.
Click to expand...

Please stop with the rationalizing and the pop-psychology. You are talking down to a psychology postgraduate here. This is the problem with debating along the lines of rationalisation and 'what-iffing'. Fine for the academics and the philosophers. Imagine here is a crime scene with eye witnesses and all PC Plod can do is say, 'Hmm, what if this eye witness didn't really see what happened? We can't really summons any eye witness, so we had better let the suspect go.'

No, it doesn't work like that. In a criminal court of law, eye-witness testimony is regarded as direct evidence. As hard evidence as Exhibit A and B. (Of course, it is up to the jury as to whether they accept it.) Stop time wasting with alternative theories of what the eye-witnesses saw and heard.
 
Vixen said:
A military-on-military situation.

Are we to suppose Estonia was a military situation?
Click to expand...

No, but the medal isn't a combat specific award like you claimed.

Do you still claim it is only awarded in combat, yes or no?

Vixen said:
The military operation conveying that military truck that was seen being loaded onto the Estonia.
Click to expand...

That doesn't even begin to answer my question and I'm genuinely not sure if you understand why that's such a failure to answer. I don't think you know the first thing about how the military operates at all, let alone how it integrates with civilians.

You're pontificating on things you have zero understanding of. You're not just out of your depth, you're in a totally different pool.


Also I've noticed that you're vacillating wildly between claiming it was a military operation and it wasn't depending on whether it suits what you're trying to claim at any particular moment. Again, I genuinely cannot tell if you know you're doing this or not, but it matters.
 
Vixen said:
Please stop with the rationalizing and the pop-psychology. You are talking down to a psychology postgraduate here. This is the problem with debating along the lines of rationalisation and 'what-iffing'. Fine for the academics and the philosophers. Imagine here is a crime scene with eye witnesses and all PC Plod can do is say, 'Hmm, what if this eye witness didn't really see what happened? We can't really summons any eye witness, so we had better let the suspect go.'

No, it doesn't work like that. In a criminal court of law, eye-witness testimony is regarded as direct evidence. As hard evidence as Exhibit A and B. (Of course, it is up to the jury as to whether they accept it.) Stop time wasting with alternative theories of what the eye-witnesses saw and heard.
Click to expand...

You really don't get it, do you?

If someone claims they heard an explosion do you think that proves there was an explosion, yes or no?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
If Vixen was right that the Swedish helicopter crews were less well trained or skilled than the Finnish ones and arrived later because Finland didn't pass on the Mayday report, how come they and not the Finns managed to find the ship's officers in the dark and the bad weather and pluck them from the sea to disappear them without anyone else noticing? And why then did they add the abducted men's names to a survivors list that Vixen tells us existed but cannot produce? And why then did some sailors watching the report on German TV think they saw captain Piht among the rescued walking into a hospital in Finland?

The Swedes clearly have capabilities we can only dream of. This must be stolen and smuggled top secret Soviet tech, I reckon.
Click to expand...

The Mayday by Ainsalu received by Isabella (iirc) circa 01:21 was very likely not his first attempt to make contact. Likewise, Ainsalu couldn't hear a word the other Captain was saying but he knew someone had picked up and was begging for help urgently. In fact, the whole communications network seems to have been down from 01:00 to 01:54. Turku coastguard couldn't even get through the Ålands coastguard until circa 01:34. These are seafaring peoples with a very sophisticated network of marine communications.

The fact the disaster happened:

  • Swedish Midnight
  • Carl Bildt's last day as oficial PM
  • Exactly at midpoint of the journey
  • midpoint at time and distance
  • whilst communications were down.


Is an indication that a message was being conveyed, no?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
This is another thing I've noted with conspiracy theorists and, interestingly, hardliner authoritarians. They require their enemies to be both pathetically weak and incompetent (so the theorist can be sure in their superiority) and also all powerful (so they can claim that everything is being controlled by them).

Think about the people who think that the illuminati is real. They need them to be a dominant global organisation that controls everything, but at the same time be so stupid as to insert clues about their existence into everything.

The Nazis needed the Jews to both control all finance and be able to ruin Germany with their actions and be inferior people.

It's weird.
Click to expand...

What a lot of nonsense. Sweden and Finland have always been an inextricable part of each other. There is banter but it is all tongue-in-cheek.

The enemy has always been to the east, not the west.
 
No! That's just a list of coincidences that you're trying to make look suspicious!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom