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

[JayUtah]

Why ask for reasoning when facts are available?

In addition, Estline negotiated settlements with the victims and survivors, thereby avoiding court proceedings that might have resulted in legally cognizable liability. Although I don't know the terms of the settlements, they typically require the recipient to waive all claims of liability against the line, and the line admits no fault.

 

[Vixen]

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,

I am not at all a conspiracy theorist and never have been. I started this thread in Current Affairs but people who knew very little about the incident decided it was some kind of conspiracy theory like 9/11, the Apollo Moon Landing or Covid Vaccines. They could not see that this was not a group of enthusiastic pontificators, the investigation into the Estonia accident has been brought about by the governments of Estonia, Sweden and Finland. It involves the shipbuilders. It involves investigative journalists and quality newspapers.

Then there are those like yourself who think it is like some argument about religion or philosophy and think all you need do is scornfully ridicule everything as though everything is hinged on whether a person 'believes' or 'disbelieves'.

I am a hardheaded realist. I see the world as it is. I come from a 'no-********' culture. When Kimi Raikkonen, Finnish racing driver, was slightly delayed turning up for a BBC sports interview he said, 'I was having a ****'. (=a no.2)' even OSC Esa Makela of Silja told a newspaper reporter straight he didn't think Estonia was an accident. Now that doesn't mean he is right or wrong, it is just that unlike in England people don't say what they think they should say, because well 68m people in one small space you need 'manners' and polite platitudes for the smooth running of social intercourse.

I am not going to say I am satisfied with the JAIC Report just out of fear that some guy on the internet might call me names because I don't conform to what he thinks is authority, because to my mind they haven't answered the questions people are asking and I am not going to pretend that they have.

Unlike yourself, heckling from the sidelines (and BTW even a little child knows about torques and acceleration even if they can't put it into words or know the academic theory of same, so your attempts to shame me with pathetic youtube videos, re 'muzzle velocity' doesn't work here, I'm afraid). In addition, I am professionally trained to not allow myself to be intimidated, browbeaten or induced by flattery, insults or other means, into forgoing my objectivity. It might work for someone who wants to be one of the lads but it doesn't work on me. There is strong peer pressure on this forum to conform and most people are too timid to do anything other than assume the Estonia investigation is based on conspiracy theory because 'conspiracy theory' is what it says on the tin, having been moved to the 'loony' thread by popular demand, as though we are discussing Grape Seed Extract or something equally trivial.


You might be smart but it is clear you have never actually put your mind into actually looking into the issues. You have just assumed the eye-witnesses are all mistaken just because you saw somewhere someone saying the 9/11 eyewitness were all wrong. It is a very shallow superficial way of looking at a serious issue, if you don't mind my saying so..

 

[Vixen]

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.

Gotcha! You think one theory fits all. So because the UFO conspiracy theorists are loonies then they all are and you can apply your sweeping generalizations in one fell swoop without ever having to do much thinking at all.

 

[Vixen]

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

Exactly. It was outside of his remit, as the defence forces affairs would be.

 

[Vixen]

Absolutely nuts. Just absolutely nuts.

Nuts! Whole hazel nuts! Cadbury's bake'em and they cover them in chocolate.

Weeee-eeell, if I now have to have this earworm, so shall you.

 

[Steve]

I am not at all a conspiracy theorist and never have been.

... crap snipped...

Everything you have written on this topic fair screams conspiracy theorist. There is no other option to be considered. Mssrs Dunning and Kruger had you pegged years ago.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Gotcha! You think one theory fits all. So because the UFO conspiracy theorists are loonies then they all are and you can apply your sweeping generalizations in one fell swoop without ever having to do much thinking at all.

Amazing. You really are willing to try to cram words into everyone's mouths.

 

[Vixen]

In addition, Estline negotiated settlements with the victims and survivors, thereby avoiding court proceedings that might have resulted in legally cognizable liability. Although I don't know the terms of the settlements, they typically require the recipient to waive all claims of liability against the line, and the line admits no fault.

One of the Finnish-speaking Swedes who survived an horrifically traumatic event said he only received €18,000. Couldn't work for two years.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I note that you're ignoring my request again by the way.

 

[JayUtah]

Absolutely nuts. Just absolutely nuts.

Throw in some Dunning-Kruger too. The psychology literature has really only started looking at conspiracy theorists per se in the last 10 years or so. Before then, conspiracism was generally regarded merely as a symptom of other syndromes or disorders. Turns out there are a lot of moving parts. In the ego-reinforcement model, conspiracy theories are a shortcut to erudition. In that model, the subject acknowledges the need for expertise, but believes the conspiracy theory gives him the required expertise by filling in details that a lay audience may not know. The denial of expertise is mostly found in a more directed inferiority-complex model of conspiracism: others' apparent success is recast as imposture. The difference there is subtle: you can create a world in which you're the hero without necessarily resenting or envying others.

Then there's model where you bring up sabotaging a ferry just to yank people's chains. That's another whole topic of psychology.

 

[JayUtah]

One of the Finnish-speaking Swedes who survived an horrifically traumatic event said he only received €18,000. Couldn't work for two years.

Then he probably shouldn't have agreed to the settlement. You asked why there were no legal proceedings. The answer in the case of criminal liability is that the putative defendants did not survive. The answer in the case of civil liability is that there were negotiated settlements.

Your question is answered.

 

[JayUtah]

Gotcha! You think one theory fits all.

I made no such claim.

So because the UFO conspiracy theorists are loonies then they all are and you can apply your sweeping generalizations in one fell swoop without ever having to do much thinking at all.

As a matter of fact I've read quite extensively in the psychology literature on conspiracy theories and have thought about it quite a bit. You claim to have expertise in psychology, yet you seem unable to do more than foist straw men when presented with an argument in that field.

Suspicious.

 

[zooterkin]

Please stop with the rationalizing and the pop-psychology. You are talking down to a psychology postgraduate here.

What postgrad qualification did you get?

 

[Axxman300]

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.

Piht had a job to do that night. His ship, HIS SHIP, was in trouble. How can you not understand basic seamanship? Doesn't matter what the PASSENGERS were doing at that moment, only that Piht didn't act as a coward in those final minutes. And while we know where his cabin was, we don't know where he was in that last half hour, but the fact he drowned, and he did drown, is not suspicious. In fact, had he survived he's still be in prison, and there would be nothing for conspiracy loons to chew on.

 

[Vixen]

Then he probably shouldn't have agreed to the settlement. You asked why there were no legal proceedings. The answer in the case of criminal liability is that the putative defendants did not survive. The answer in the case of civil liability is that there were negotiated settlements.

Your question is answered.

You are aware that Gross Negligence is a criminal offence as well as a civil one? It doesn't need a survivor's or victim's consent to charge an offender.

 

[JayUtah]

I am not at all a conspiracy theorist and never have been.

If I thought for a moment that you actually believe anything you claim, I would say you are a textbook conspiracy theorist.

I am a hardheaded realist. I see the world as it is.

No.

I am not going to say I am satisfied with the JAIC Report...

You begin with the assumption that the JAIC report is wrong because you think it was a coverup. You state this despite having no useful knowledge of the sciences and disciplines that pertain to it.

BTW even a little child knows about torques and acceleration even if they can't put it into words or know the academic theory of same...

Your knowledge of physics has been tested at both the theoretical and practical levels. You have no cognizable competence in physics.

You might be smart but it is clear you have never actually put your mind into actually looking into the issues.

As I said: conspiracy theorists don't recognize any expertise but their own, and often accuse their critics of being smart only in the sense of being more clever or better at debate.

 

[JayUtah]

You are aware that Gross Negligence is a criminal offence as well as a civil one? It doesn't need a survivor's or victim's consent to charge an offender.

Who do you claim was criminally negligent?

 

[Vixen]

I made no such claim.



As a matter of fact I've read quite extensively in the psychology literature on conspiracy theories and have thought about it quite a bit. You claim to have expertise in psychology, yet you seem unable to do more than foist straw men when presented with an argument in that field.

Suspicious.

I didn't say I was an expert. But I do recognize pop-psychology when I see it - it is everywhere. The latest trendy pop-psychology is 'Narcissism''. By pop-psychology s meant that people think that they only have to slap a label on someone and that dismisses them. MarkCorrigan seems to believe he only needs to dismiss eye-witnesses as having false memories and that makes it so and therefore doesn't have to bother with what they have to say any further.

Likewise, Loftus. Psychotherapy really is the modern day astrology. A whole industry built around bunkum, so that anyone can be written off as having 'false memory' from childhood because said child once saw Mummy bashing Daddy over the head with a broomstick and that explains why this person has a false memory of Ghislaine Maxwell supplying them to a pervert as an adult.

Pop-psychology means you never have to think about an issue again, all you need do is find a label and that tells you everything you need to know.

 

[Vixen]

What postgrad qualification did you get?

I won't be giving put personal information in a public place (you've seen the abuse).

 

[Here_to_learn]

Exactly. It was outside of his remit, as the defence forces affairs would be.

Wrong. There is absolutely nothing in the facts and public statements that I quoted and linked to that does support your statement above.

In fact, for those that care about facts, it's possible to read the full reasoning behind the decision by the chief prosecutor at https://sok.riksarkivet.se/estonia?...F1C4-9845-446A-A37B-275576069EEA&tab=post#tab

It's an image scan of a 7 page document in Swedish so I will not transcribe it, nor translate it. My summary is:

------------
They used four different sources of information:
* The JAIC report
* The report from the German Experts
* A report from Anders Björkman
* A book called "Katastrofkurs - Estonias väg mot undergång"

On top of that, interviews with survirors, visits to the Mayer, cooperation with Finland and Estonian agencies and so on.

They summarize the conclusions from the JAIC report, and conclude that since it cannot be shows that Estonia was built in a way that was against regulations at the time, and also that official inspections did not notify the owners that the ship was not fulfilling requirements, that could not be used for criminal prosecution.

They summarize the German Experts report, and conclude that the claims that the ship correctly built but badly maintained does not align with JAIC, nor with other sources.

They dismiss Björkmans report in a short chapter.

The summary of the book say that it describes a combination of the two reports, and put blame on the crew.

When it comes to the crew, they conclude that since they cannot investigate how their actions potentially contributed, they cannot proceed.

In summary they say that without being able to identify the full cause of the accident without any doubt, they cannot proceed. They also say that they cannot see that additional dives on the ship would provide the answers needed.
------------