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

[Vixen]

'The special' was the program. There was no non-special version of it.

See my edit above.

 

[Andy_Ross]

What does an Oprah special about royal scroungers have to do with the Estonia?

Was the royal family part of the plot?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Oh dear.

Oh dear what?

Name someone who disagrees they were automatic release. Quote them doing so. I'll wait.

Yes you are.

Of course you are. Stop pretending that you're being silenced.

Well Vixen? If you're that worried about it, write the post(s) in a PM or PMs to me and I'll reproduce them here. That way if MY post gets deleted we know you're telling the truth about being silenced. I'll even screenshot my post so that we have a record of it before it disappears.

 

[Vixen]

What does an Oprah special about royal scroungers have to do with the Estonia?

Was the royal family part of the plot?

We were talking about the early newspaper editions spelling out Ken being a hero and saving nine survivors at 2:00am, together with delivering them to a hospital in Stockholm. This is despite JAIC claiming he didn't arrive until about four and the OSC commanding that all survivors be taken to Uto, the nearest land mass and not far from the prestigious TYKS university hospital in Turku and the Hanko hospital 90km away that specialised in fractures and complex injuries.


A poster wanted to know how come he can't find the newspaper report on the internet. The Oprah was my example of how easy it is to stop a story from appearing anywhere, and of course there is the UK government's D-notice (as was used in the recent 'Chinese-Spy' story, with no-one knowing anything about the arrest in March at all, apart from those who had to know.).

 

[Vixen]

Oh dear what?

Name someone who disagrees they were automatic release. Quote them doing so. I'll wait.



Well Vixen? If you're that worried about it, write the post(s) in a PM or PMs to me and I'll reproduce them here. That way if MY post gets deleted we know you're telling the truth about being silenced. I'll even screenshot my post so that we have a record of it before it disappears.

Look. Spell out your query.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You already know what it is but fine, one last time.

I provided two posts with a full quote trail showing that your recollection of events was incorrect.

No, that's not what happened.

In this post you write


In response to me (not LondonJohn) saying this:



But even before that In response to me stating




You responded with a laughing dog emoji.

So yes, you DID claim that the muzzle velocity of the cannonball (900mph) was the velocity of the cannonball in flight by virtue of mocking anyone who tried to correct you or told you that you were wrong.

You aren't even a little ashamed about this?




It's not a case of believing you, it was literally impossible.



No answer to the welding point then?

That's the quote trail. Every one of those posts is quoted in the post above it.

You're a liar Vixen. You claimed there was evidence that witnesses heard explosions, you were asked for a link, and when the link you provided was checked it didn't say what you said it did, then you tried to weasel out of it by attempting to claim that the previous conversation didn't happen like it did.

Those are the two posts I made with quote trails that showed that you were, again to be charitable, incorrect in your recollection of events. In one, you stated some of the passengers claimed to hear explosions, but the link you used to support that didn't. They heard loud bangs.

In the second, you claimed that you would not have claimed to know about muzzle velocity and that people claimed 900mph was impossible. I quoted you doing just that by mocking me when I stated muzzle velocity is not projectile velocity. So yes, you did claim to know about muzzle velocity.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen has very kindly allowed me to reproduce her PM to me in the thread. I will do so now.

As you know I am not allowed to cite my prestigious source for the 900mph double-headed hammer. As the graphics at the Greenwich Maritime Museum were intended for schoolchildren, it almost certainly was referring to either muzzle velocity or hammer speed in its educational plaque for visitors. Why would it go into longwinded explanation, when none is necessary?

"The action was decided by thousands of cannon firing round-shot (32lbs of cast iron travelling at up to 900 miles an hour and designed to smash ship’s timbers), bar-shot or double-headed hammer shot (spinning through the air to cut through sails and rigging), and tiered grapeshot (designed to cut down enemy crew)"

As the topic was about being fired on either via a torpedo or a cannon, I am not sure why I am yellow carded and banned from citing my source.

I have deleted a portion related to Vixen discussing the yellow card and have only reproduced the portion related to the actual question.


Vixen, that doesn't answer me at all. No one disagreed with the claim that it had a 900~mph muzzle velocity. The disagreement was that you asserted this was the velocity of the projectile and mocked those who stated that muzzle velocity was not the same as projectile velocity.

All you've done is restate numbers no one objected to. The point that people objected to was your assertion that the muzzle velocity remained constant to the projectile.

Further you've completely ignored my other post regarding eyewitness (or earwitness rather) testimony that you claimed said one thing but said something else.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

We were talking about the early newspaper editions spelling out Ken being a hero and saving nine survivors at 2:00am, together with delivering them to a hospital in Stockholm. This is despite JAIC claiming he didn't arrive until about four and the OSC commanding that all survivors be taken to Uto, the nearest land mass and not far from the prestigious TYKS university hospital in Turku and the Hanko hospital 90km away that specialised in fractures and complex injuries.


A poster wanted to know how come he can't find the newspaper report on the internet. The Oprah was my example of how easy it is to stop a story from appearing anywhere, and of course there is the UK government's D-notice (as was used in the recent 'Chinese-Spy' story, with no-one knowing anything about the arrest in March at all, apart from those who had to know.).

You could help by directing them to your source for the text of these early and later editions of the article.

 

[JayUtah]

Do look up what a hydrostatic release unit does...

I'm an engineer. Don't patronize me.

In addition, free-floating automatic EPIRB's were two and six from Woolworths...

No.

It is not as though any modifications were needed to the engine or restructure of the beams were needed to comply with SOLAS.

Irrelevant.

The Estonia had fitted HRU-activated free-float automatic buoys...

Float-free, yes. Automatically released, yes. Not immersion-activated.

the JAIC failed to provide any explanation for their having been switched off despite being inspected by the ship's electricians the week before.

The JAIC is not responsible for correcting your ignorance. They correctly identified the units and explained why they did not operate on the night of the sinking. Their explanation conforms to the known facts. That it doesn't conform to your ignorant armchair imagination is your problem.

It also failed to explain the communications blockage...

Blah blah conspiracy blah blah.

 

[Myriad]

What? I was pointing out that a highly unfit man (who had suffered strokes and heart attacks and was medically very obese) escaped with his two sons. He was in or near the same cabin as Piht who had just come off duty (thus was dressed). There was also a 76-year-old sea captain along the same vicinity. Most or all of the senior crew were in their late 30's and early 40's. The point being made is that if Voronin and the old boy had no problem surviving the sinking then it is highly probable that these senior 'missing Estonians' also survived and as initially listed as survivors.

As for your bleeding heart over Voronin you do know that when Rockwater and other naval divers searched the bridge, there was also a prolonged search of Voronin's cabin and for a particular briefcase? Voronin was an expat Russian who ran an electronics business and came to the particular attention of the secret services intelligence. Voronin may or may not have been dodgy but the point being made was the probability of someone at that vantage point on Deck 6 near the lifeboats, life vests and life rafts, had an excellent chance of surviving, as a majority of survivors were from the upper decks. His two sons were young adults or teenagers, not children, BTW.

Yes, as I thought: you're calling it suspicious that the children survived when others didn't. Are you saying being teenagers or young adults meant they were old enough to be in on it? Still vile.

I think I've made it clear who my bleeding heart bleeds for: the hundreds and hundreds of innocent unsuspecting passengers and junior crew, who died horribly because the Estonia knowingly sailed in a decrepit state of disrepair and in poor trim, into sea conditions it was never designed to be able to navigate, without so much as slowing down or changing course to lessen the brunt of the storm, while amid those terrifyingly dangerous conditions the senior crew failed to be vigilant or responsive to signs of an emergency.

 

[Vixen]

Yes, as I thought: you're calling it suspicious that the children survived when others didn't. Are you saying being teenagers or young adults meant they were old enough to be in on it? Still vile.

I think I've made it clear who my bleeding heart bleeds for: the hundreds and hundreds of innocent unsuspecting passengers and junior crew, who died horribly because the Estonia knowingly sailed in a decrepit state of disrepair and in poor trim, into sea conditions it was never designed to be able to navigate, without so much as slowing down or changing course to lessen the brunt of the storm, while amid those terrifyingly dangerous conditions the senior crew failed to be vigilant or responsive to signs of an emergency.

No, you misunderstand. The claim that there is resentment the survivors survived and the dead did not is coming from somewhere within your own sentiments.

The point being made was as follows:

IF

• a 76-year-old man
• a medically grossly obese man with stroke and heart attack hstory (he died aged 42 a couple of years after the Estonia accident)
• Teenagers/young adults

...survived as VULNERABLE people,

Then:

It is PROBABLE:

• that the early-40's something senior crew who were fully fit as per regular medicals
• highly qualified in the physics of buoyancy and trim
• highly knowledgeable about life-saving equipment, etc.
• initially listed as survivors,

as a reasonable working conclusion,

ALSO did survive.

Nobody at all is claiming that anyone should have died. The correct protocol is to bring any suspect to justice via the normal means.

Also, it is important to protect your objectivity from threats, such as sentimentality or other emotions that cloud your ability to see things and gather chronology and relevant information in a clear frame of mind.


You say the accident was a result of navigating a decrepit old ship. In which case, why has nobody at all been charged with gross negligence or corporate manslaughter? Ideally, you should provide reasoning for your assertions.

 

[JayUtah]

It is PROBABLE

Why? Because you say so? Are you claiming expertise in survival factors in shipwreck accidents? If so, I wish to test that expertise. If not, then your uninformed opinion is disregarded as usual.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I do sometimes wonder with some people if they think that if they don't have specific expertise that means no one else does.

Like, they think they're not only the smartest person in the room but also that because of that anyone claiming to know something they don't must be lying.

 

[JayUtah]

I do sometimes wonder with some people if they think that if they don't have specific expertise that means no one else does.

Yes, this is a very common fallacy among conspiracy theorists. Many don't believe in actual expertise; they simply believe that people who profess to be experts are just better at debating and bluffing than other people. This subset generally wants to put forward things like intuition and some form of natural intelligence as reasonable substitutes for being properly informed.

But it's more common for fringe claimants simply to beg the question: in this case to state something as if it were a fact when really it requires considerably more thought, evidence, or argument. As I mentioned having learned from lawyers, the best rebuttal in that case is just to ask, "How do you know that?" Here Vixen has given a semblance of reasoning by alluding to such things as age and fitness of passengers, which are indeed some of the relevant survival factors. But a claim that some people should have survived but somehow didn't requires a broader analysis.

It's also common to state nonsense as if it were fact merely to kick the can down the road another five pages.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

But that's insane.

Not to toot my own horn, but I am aware I'm much smarter than the average bear, but that doesn't mean I know everything. I'm well aware of the shortcomings of my intelligence AND my knowledge. I may be smart, but that just means I find learning expertise easier than someone who isn't as smart, it doesn't mean I already have it.

I don't, can't understand how someone could possibly think that just because they're smart that means they have an intuitive understanding of anything, let alone incredibly detailed topics.

I don't know a great deal about marine engineering. In fact I know almost nothing. I'm sure I could learn it if I put the effort in, but I don't already know it. I have a basic knowledge of the law and a better than average knowledge of how the law operates and is enforced but I'm not an expert or a lawyer and I wouldn't presume to argue with someone who is.

I don't get it. Is it fragile ego? Just plain delusion? It makes no sense to me.

 

[JayUtah]

But that's insane.

To a certain degree, yes.

I don't get it. Is it fragile ego? Just plain delusion? It makes no sense to me.

It obviously varies from person to person. Some people use conspiracy theories as a crutch for ego-reinforcement. They create worlds in which they are the hero, and therefore in that little world whatever little knowledge they possess is enough. Other people attempt to gain expertise in the customary way and fail. They then use conspiracy theories to lash out against those who succeeded where they failed. Other people just like to stir up mischief and get attention. These people, like Hamlet, "put an antic disposition on."

 

[MarkCorrigan]

But how do they think the world operates even beyond the conspiracy theories?

Surely they must know that some people know more about things because we have direct proof of it in technological advancements? If expertise wasn't real we wouldn't have technology beyond basic things that anyone could work out,

 

[JayUtah]

But how do they think the world operates even beyond the conspiracy theories?

Surely they must know that some people know more about things because we have direct proof of it in technological advancements? If expertise wasn't real we wouldn't have technology beyond basic things that anyone could work out,

The ones I've talked to believe that people with little more knowledge than they just tinkered stuff together, and that's all the better they are at it. Pretty much anyone would be just as good at doing that if they were interested in it and put their mind to it. It's not that the expertise-deniers don't realize that other people have skills they lack. They just don't believe it takes any great effort to get it. And yes, there's a fair amount of denial evident among them over how things really work: i.e., everything looks impressive but is really just simple.

 

[Here_to_learn]

You say the accident was a result of navigating a decrepit old ship. In which case, why has nobody at all been charged with gross negligence or corporate manslaughter? Ideally, you should provide reasoning for your assertions.

Why ask for reasoning when facts are available?

The Estonia Collection from the Swedish National Archive have a chapter about this also.

https://sok.riksarkivet.se/estonia?infosida=utredningar-studier

Rättsutredningar

Omedelbart efter katastrofen tog överåklagare Uno Hagelberg initiativ till en förundersökning om brottsmisstanke, som inleddes av chefsåklagare Tomas Lindstrand. Lindstrand lade ner förundersökningen den 18 februari 1999. Hans motiv till detta var att han inte kunnat finna något som talade för att ett uppsåtligt brott varit orsak till olyckan. Inte heller ansåg han sig kunna utreda vårdslöshet i sjötrafik eftersom ansvariga befäl omkom i samband med att fartyget sjönk.

Legal investigations

Immediately after the disaster, the prosecutor general Uno Hagelberg initiated a criminal investigation, which was handled by chief prosecutor Tomas Lindstrand. Lindstrand closed the investigation on February 18, 1999. His motive for this was that he could not find anything that indicated that an intentional crime was the cause of the accident. Nor did he consider himself able to investigate negligence in maritime traffic since the officers responsible died in connection with the sinking of the ship.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

The ones I've talked to believe that people with little more knowledge than they just tinkered stuff together, and that's all the better they are at it. Pretty much anyone would be just as good at doing that if they were interested in it and put their mind to it. It's not that the expertise-deniers don't realize that other people have skills they lack. They just don't believe it takes any great effort to get it. And yes, there's a fair amount of denial evident among them over how things really work: i.e., everything looks impressive but is really just simple.

Absolutely nuts. Just absolutely nuts.