Cont: The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI

[Jack by the hedge]

What does 'de facto military Ship' even mean?

It means Vixen gets to pretend something secret and underhand was going on that night instead of a simple stupid accident with a ship sailed beyond its capabilities.

 

[lobosrul5]

Your pretend timeline requires the Swedes to launch this impossible abduction operation when they only just learned the ferry was in trouble and they had absolutely no reason to suspect any of the ship's officers had sabotaged their own ship. It doesn't make a scrap of sense.

And it relies on a huge number of Swedes .... jesus we're talking of Swedes here... keeping some illegal nefarious autocratic operation under wraps for nearly 3 decades.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Please start a new thread if you want to discuss the academics of memory.

No, I think I'll keep the discussion here given that it's you who is claiming that the memories of the Estonia eyewitnesses are to be believed as accurate in both their recount and explanation of events.

Why won't you answer my yes or no questions Vixen?

 

[Mojo]

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.

But, according to what you have posted, there weren't any witnesses who said they saw an explosion; just witnesses who said they heard loud bangs that sounded like explosions. That is direct evidence of loud bangs, not of explosions.

 

[lobosrul5]

But, according to what you have posted, there weren't any witnesses who said they saw an explosion; just witnesses who said they heard loud bangs that sounded like explosions. That is direct evidence of loud bangs, not of explosions.

Yeah, I've let myself be bamboozled by her walls of text yet again.

There's no witness testimony that anyone heard explosions, that's Vixen's overreaching to find something, anything, she can grab hold of to support her CT.

Loud bangs could be explosions, OR they could be caused by something else. That something else is supported by actual physical evidence, the visor banging against the hull.

And since Vixen loves personal anecdotes as evidence, my right ear is currently ringing. Why? Because I dropped some slate* on a concrete floor last weekend, I have personally heard gunshots that were not as loud as that when I was the shooter.

*or ceramic tile of some kind, it was in my garage from the previous owner who decided to be too lazy to tile behind the fridge, which caused a whole issue I wont get into to

 

[junkshop]

Another one for the playlist:

 

[CompusMentus]

If you want to watch the Oprah interview with Harry and Meghan, you'll discover it is completely unavailable anywhere. Wiped clean off the internet and all sources

Not quite. It's widely available on the internet eg by various peer-to-peer file sharing methods.

Compus

 

[Vixen]

No.

The work done by the researchers mentioned has been applied practically in real-world investigations such as the one whose propriety you are questioning. If you are unwilling to confront evidence that disputes your belief, just say so. It's now time for you to demonstrate the expertise in psychology that you have claimed.

Psychologist Loftus was roped in to support Ghislaine Maxwell's trial to claim that all of Maxwell's accusers had 'false memory'. Give her $50 and she'll say whatever you want her to say.

 

[Vixen]

Why do you lie so obviously?

They weren't the auto types.
At the time there were very few and not compulsory.

After the sinking of the Estonia the regulations were changed to make auto release and activation mandatory at international treaty level. Solas regulations regarding EPIRB and other safety requirements including ship construction and use were updated.

The regulations changing doesn't obviate the auto status of the Estonia EPIRBS, as testified.

As for your claim that you proved they were manual, recollections may vary.

 

[Vixen]

No, that's not how facts work. You're proposing that someone solved a problem or achieved a goal in a fairly stupid fashion for no apparent reason. When there are easier and safer solutions presented to your imaginary conspirators, parsimony requires that you show evidence why those better solutions were not undertaken.

Instead you're just blatantly reasoning in circles, in typical conspiracy-theory fashion. You don't have an answer for why your proposed actors have behaved stupidly or irrationally in your mise-en-scène. But you take it as a given that they did what you imagine they did, so you just assume they "must" have had some reason. This is why armchair detectives are worse than useless. You either don't know how to think or you don't care to do it defensibly.

Not my claim.

https://sok.riksarkivet.se/estonia?infosida=transport-av-forsvarsmateriel

Likewise, two independent witnesses saw a military truck loaded onto the Estonia in Tallinn.

 

[Vixen]

Your pretend timeline requires the Swedes to launch this impossible abduction operation when they only just learned the ferry was in trouble and they had absolutely no reason to suspect any of the ship's officers had sabotaged their own ship. It doesn't make a scrap of sense.

Be sensible. You are the Chief of Police of Stockholm. Word comes in that 500 of your fellow countrymen, women and children have suddenly died. It doesn't cross your mind that somebody is responsible for gross negligence, gross manslaughter or even mass murder?

"Oh, it's OK, it's only the bow visor dropping off. Bit of a wind."

 

[Vixen]

No, I think I'll keep the discussion here given that it's you who is claiming that the memories of the Estonia eyewitnesses are to be believed as accurate in both their recount and explanation of events.

Why won't you answer my yes or no questions Vixen?

Because I find this type of debate extremely boring. The kind that runs, 'A man saw a dog'. 'No, he might just be imagining it; it might have been a cat he saw', etc. etc. <YAWN>

 

[Vixen]

But, according to what you have posted, there weren't any witnesses who said they saw an explosion; just witnesses who said they heard loud bangs that sounded like explosions. That is direct evidence of loud bangs, not of explosions.

One guy did call it an explosion. Others said there was a shudder that went with the bang, causing them to fly off their bed or their things to fall onto the floor. Noise first, then shudder, then violent list.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Because I find this type of debate extremely boring. The kind that runs, 'A man saw a dog'. 'No, he might just be imagining it; it might have been a cat he saw', etc. etc. <YAWN>

That's not my argument. ETA: I'll add this to clarify. I'm not arguing that they're wrong based on nothing. Do you get it yet? I'm not saying they were wrong simply out of contrarianism. I'm saying they were mistaken about the origin of the sound because the physical evidence shows there was not an explosion.

You're so intellectually dishonest it's honestly hilarious, but I'll try one more time.

You know 9/11 right? Well some of the eyewitnesses, those in the towers even, state that they heard explosions like bombs going off.

Do you think that means that bombs brought down the towers, yes or no?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

One guy did call it an explosion. Others said there was a shudder that went with the bang, causing them to fly off their bed or their things to fall onto the floor. Noise first, then shudder, then violent list.

Right! So we've got reports of someone hearing an explosion. Do you think this means there WAS an explosion?

 

[Vixen]

Yeah, I've let myself be bamboozled by her walls of text yet again.

There's no witness testimony that anyone heard explosions, that's Vixen's overreaching to find something, anything, she can grab hold of to support her CT.

Loud bangs could be explosions, OR they could be caused by something else. That something else is supported by actual physical evidence, the visor banging against the hull.

And since Vixen loves personal anecdotes as evidence, my right ear is currently ringing. Why? Because I dropped some slate* on a concrete floor last weekend, I have personally heard gunshots that were not as loud as that when I was the shooter.

*or ceramic tile of some kind, it was in my garage from the previous owner who decided to be too lazy to tile behind the fridge, which caused a whole issue I wont get into to

You are incorrect; there is ample witness testimony to this effect.

You say you dropped a slate on a concrete floor that was louder than some gunshots you have heard. Suppose I told you that what you heard 'could be caused by something else'?

 

[Vixen]

Not quite. It's widely available on the internet eg by various peer-to-peer file sharing methods.

Compus

Psst! Don't tell anyone...

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You are incorrect; there is ample witness testimony to this effect.

You say you dropped a slate on a concrete floor that was louder than some gunshots you have heard. Suppose I told you that what you heard 'could be caused by something else'?

But lobosrul dropped the slate himself. Unless you're arguing that these people saw the explosion as well as heard it, that's not even remotely comparible.

 

[Vixen]

That's not my argument. ETA: I'll add this to clarify. I'm not arguing that they're wrong based on nothing. Do you get it yet? I'm not saying they were wrong simply out of contrarianism. I'm saying they were mistaken about the origin of the sound because the physical evidence shows there was not an explosion.

You're so intellectually dishonest it's honestly hilarious, but I'll try one more time.

You know 9/11 right? Well some of the eyewitnesses, those in the towers even, state that they heard explosions like bombs going off.

Do you think that means that bombs brought down the towers, yes or no?

If that was their experience, that was their experience. There probably were electrical and gas explosions going off.

The 9/11 thread is three doors along if you want to discuss 9/11.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

If that was their experience, that was their experience. There probably were electrical and gas explosions going off.

The 9/11 thread is three doors along if you want to discuss 9/11.

No Vixen, stop trying to deflect.

If they claim they heard explosions does that mean there were explosions, yes or no?

What if they said it, but analysis of the debris and collapse showed that there were no explosions.