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

[JayUtah]

The "official" report is always thrown out, but quoted when it suits the CTist's argument, which establishes a double-standard by which the CTist controls what is valid evidence and what is not.

The double standard I see is where the mainstream narrative is rejected by one standard of credibility, but the conspiracy theory is accepted according to a lower standard. As relevant here, Vixen rejects the JAIC report according to a set of criteria. From this it follows that these are the criteria that any credible theory must meet. Her theories don't meet those criteria—many are just "possible" or "conceivable." They don't come close to the same evidentiary criteria by which she rejects the JAIC findings.

It's not always a double standard to quote from a source one has rejected if the goal is to compel someone who accepts it to account for a perceived problem with it. If Vixen believes we support the JAIC findings, then it's proper for her to hold us accountable for problematic claims it might be seen to make.

In practice that runs afoul of a couple of things. First, what the JAIC says and what she says it says are not often the same thing.

The second is the contrapositive error. If she rejects a thing and we oppose the rejection, that's not the same as supporting the thing. When the argument is, "The JAIC is wrong for this reason," and it's a bad reason, pointing out the badness of the reason is not the same as asserting, "The JAIC is right." The JAIC could be wrong for entirely different reasons. Most conspiracy theories start out with an affirmative rejection of the conventional narrative. When that affirmation is challenged, the conspiracist will often shift the burden of proof and suggest that the only valid challenge is an affirmative defense of the conventional narrative.

Now it's one thing to say, "If you believe the JAIC then you need to account for this claim they made," and another thing to say, "I'm asserting this, and I claim JAIC as the authority for it while I reject their authority on other points." Cherry-picking the source you categorically reject elsewhere is just wrong.

And the conspiracy is always set against a larger backdrop based on a distorted world view...

Agreed, but I'm going to stop here on the philosophy of epistemology because I think we've had enough psychology for today.

 

[Vixen]

Chapter 8.12 in the JAIC report specifically say that the Finnish police performed the analysis looking for traces of explosives.

I guess that they are not trusted by Vixen.

That is back to the question of method used. If you recall they used the same method as in TW800, in that some explosive traces dissolve in the water after a few days. It doesn't mean it was never there.

»Result of investigations

Show remains of explosives aimed for civilian use with blasting works or of the most normal military explosives have not been found in the samples 1-4. They have not either found anything that indicates anything of self-made explosives in the tests.

Methods of investigation

Thin layer chromatography
Liquid chromatography
Indications reactions
signed Criminal Chemist Raija Turunen
Marja-Leena Eskelinen Criminal Chemist«

https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/estonia final report/chapter32.htm

 

[Vixen]

"Experts" hired (paid) by a known conspiracy loon, and disgraced journalist are not a valid source.

In which way is Jutta Rabe a 'conspiracy loon'?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

She wrote Die Estonia: Tragödie eines Schiffsuntergangs didn't she? A conspiracy filled book of gibberish.

 

[Vixen]

Turning then from claims of expertise to the application of it, I see a number of ways to continue.

How psychology applies to witness testimony has been thoroughly discussed before, and is merely being echoed in this chapter. The treatment of witness testimony in the MS Estonia investigations is consistent with best practice in forensic engineering. Vixen's insistence that it has been treated improperly is argued not from a posture of scientific rigor, but rather from the lay position incorporating the lay dismissals of the science as it has been misunderstood in other cases ripe for conspiracy theories.

How psychology applies to the phenomenon of conspiracy theories and the motivation of conspiracy theorists is marginally relevant. The treatment of expert judgment varies widely among conspiracy theories and tracks with cognitive theories for conspiracism. Contrary to the straw man Vixen tried to substitute for me, I maintain that how conspiracy theorists proffer expert judgment and respond to criticism from experts has to be taken on an individual basis. While there is some overlap among the models, it is not accurately a broad-strokes picture. Further, from the purely epistemological standpoint, if the goal is reliable knowledge then the expertise inquiry is irrelevant. If something can be shown by evidence true or false, it then doesn't really matter why someone else would claim it to be otherwise.

No, it wasn't best practice. The new investigations board admitted it. It said it was going to listen to survivors this time. It is not an investigators job to deconstruct what a witness says. They have the early day witness statements as written by a police officer, some of whom were inexperienced in writing it down properly, but it is all there and quite independent of each other. If a witness says they saw a flying pink elephant that is what witness says they saw; just write it down dispassionately and let an expert analyse it, if necessary.

 

[Vixen]

She wrote Die Estonia: Tragödie eines Schiffsuntergangs didn't she? A conspiracy filled book of gibberish.

Did you actually read this or is it more of your jaundiced eye prejudice?

 

[Vixen]

I am not qualified in any way to discount the initial report on the sinking of the MS Estonia. Almost 30 years have passed since the disaster. Since then we've had the rise of WikiLeaks, and many other incidents of state secrets being dumped into the public arena. Where are to the documents underlining a cover-up in this case? Where is the statement that explosives were used on the ship, and this fact suppressed?

Why is there no smoking gun proving a conspiracy and cover-up in the sinking of the Estonia?

How many scandals have dominated the European press since 1994? How many scandalous revelations have come to light in the past 30 years that have ruined careers, damaged alliances, and forced changes?

How has the MS Estonia escaped scrutiny?

This new investigation will largely echo the first one. But will even more details to be ignored by conspiracy loons.

Can I direct your attention to the eight downed Swedish aircraft men. THey were downed by the Soviet Union in 1952. Kept secret over forty years. Nor even their own families knew until then. When dealing with Russia all kinds of diplomacy and softly-softly stuff comes into play. Imagine if those airmen were still missing today you would claim it was a laughable conspiracy.

These are the guys who shared the Gold Medal with Sword 2004, eight years after Ensign Ken Svensson in 1996. You can be sure there was 'cold war' stuff going on.

Alvar Älmeberg (pilot) on the downed DC3 13 June 1952, awarded posthumously 13 June 2004. [ 1 ] wiki
Gösta Blad (navigator and signalman) on the downed DC3 13 June 1952, awarded posthumously 13 June 2004. [ 1 ]
Herbert Mattson (flight engineer) on the downed DC3 13 June 1952, awarded posthumously 13 June 2004. [ 1 ]
Carl-Einar Jonsson (FRA, group leader) on the downed DC3 13 June 1952, awarded posthumously 13 June 2004. [ 1 ]
Ivar Svensson (FRA, telegrapher) on the downed DC3 13 June 1952, awarded posthumously 13 June 2004. [ 1 ]
Erik Carlsson (FRA, telegrapher and Russian interpreter) on the downed DC3 13 June 1952, awarded posthumously 13 June 2004.
Bengt Book (FRA, Telegraphist) on the downed DC3 13 June 1952, awarded posthumously 13 June 2004. [ 1 ]
Börje Nilsson (FRA, telegraph operator from Malmö ) on the downed DC3 13 June 1952, awarded posthumously 13 June 2004. [ 1 ]

It is way beyond the league of wikileaks. Braidwood & Fellows wrote a report. It is quite feasible this is classified information which is why it was never acknowledged. Are you seriously saying a patriotic British Naval guy would deliberately lie.

 

[Vixen]

I just wonder if the ship collapsed in it's own footprint? I mean - she only says that it sounded like an explosion, but is clear on the collapse.

Probably the translation should read 'capsized' not collapsed. Unless you are standing right in front of the source of an unknown noise you would have to say 'sounds like'.

 

[JayUtah]

No, it wasn't best practice.

You're not qualified to offer that judgment.

The new investigations board admitted it. It said it was going to listen to survivors this time.

Source, please.

It is not an investigators job to deconstruct what a witness says.

That's exactly the job. Just as you say...

...let an expert analyse it, if necessary.

But then again you may mean something different by "investigator" than I.

They have the early day witness statements as written by a police officer, some of whom were inexperienced in writing it down properly, but it is all there and quite independent of each other.

No, you can't just sweep this deficiency under the carpet and pretend it doesn't matter. Interviewing witnesses for a forensic investigation is an art. Without the application of that art at the time, the evidence you can develop from witness statements is limited.

If a witness says they saw a flying pink elephant that is what witness says they saw; just write it down dispassionately...

No, you ask some followup questions. Otherwise you risk the witness evidence becoming facially unusable.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Ok Vixen, can I engage you in a hypothetical? I know I know, you don't like them, but this one is important, believe me.

Let's say we have a group of people, doesn't matter how many but let's say for the sake of argument 50. They're in a building when it collapses and all 50 get out.

Let's say we then interview them, and a few of them, say 6, state that they heard an explosion just before the building collapsed.

Then let's say we have experts study the building to discover why it collapsed, and they find absolutely no evidence of explosives. No residue, no deformations that match an explosive, not a thing. No physical evidence at all.

Do you think we should assume there were explosives based upon the testimony of the 6 people who claimed to hear explosions?

Not "do you think we should claim they are lying" or anything like that, just should we take their assessment of what caused the noise they heard as true?

 

[JayUtah]

It is quite feasible this is classified information which is why it was never acknowledged.

So a conspiracy theory, then.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Did you actually read this or is it more of your jaundiced eye prejudice?

Prejudice? No.

It asserts explosives on the Estonia and a coverup after the fact. There's no evidence of either, only fanciful wishful thinking and giant leaps of logic.

 

[Vixen]

We see this often in the JFK Assassination, OKC Bombing, TWA 800, and 911 conspiracies. The "official" report is always thrown out, but quoted when it suits the CTist's argument, which establishes a double-standard by which the CTist controls what is valid evidence and what is not. And the conspiracy is always set against a larger backdrop based on a distorted world view, like the Jews/Illuminati/Clintons/Free Masons/CIA/KGB/China/World Bank/[insert your boogey man here] are behind all things nefarious. This means skeptics/reasonable people have to deal with CTists who do not, cannot grip basic reality.

No matter the crime, or the type of incident, any one can find a witness to back their claims, not matter how lunatic they are. A CTist's job is to blow enough smoke to obscure the facts in order to control and guide the story to fit their world view.

You only have to look at countries like Russia or China to see why conspiracy theories originate. Likewise the USA. I am sorry to have to say this but a lot of things have been done in secret and are only coming out years later (for example (MKUltra, the Macarthy era, the infiltration and breakup of the Black Panthers, the many 'lone' assassins of key figures). It is no surprise to some that JFK was shot given his views. How to know what is a cover up and what is the truth in countries where so much is shrouded in secrecy. Look at modern day Russia. We all see them being fed a diet of outrageous lies, yet the strange thing is, the average Russian believes all that ****. However, it wouldn't surprise me if in the chattering classes of Moscow and St Petersberg there are all sorts of conspiracy theories going around. When a state keeps secrets from its citizens, people feel a lack of trust and this starts a paranoia of , 'We are being lied to', which ironically enough, is probably not too far from the truth! Now they are claiming John Lennon was killed by a hidden FBI shot. IMV better to live in an open society and just tell it like it is.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Which nations do you think operate the "open society" that you are supportive of, and what exactly does it entail?

 

[Vixen]

The double standard I see is where the mainstream narrative is rejected by one standard of credibility, but the conspiracy theory is accepted according to a lower standard. As relevant here, Vixen rejects the JAIC report according to a set of criteria. From this it follows that these are the criteria that any credible theory must meet. Her theories don't meet those criteria—many are just "possible" or "conceivable." They don't come close to the same evidentiary criteria by which she rejects the JAIC findings.

It's not always a double standard to quote from a source one has rejected if the goal is to compel someone who accepts it to account for a perceived problem with it. If Vixen believes we support the JAIC findings, then it's proper for her to hold us accountable for problematic claims it might be seen to make.

In practice that runs afoul of a couple of things. First, what the JAIC says and what she says it says are not often the same thing.

The second is the contrapositive error. If she rejects a thing and we oppose the rejection, that's not the same as supporting the thing. When the argument is, "The JAIC is wrong for this reason," and it's a bad reason, pointing out the badness of the reason is not the same as asserting, "The JAIC is right." The JAIC could be wrong for entirely different reasons. Most conspiracy theories start out with an affirmative rejection of the conventional narrative. When that affirmation is challenged, the conspiracist will often shift the burden of proof and suggest that the only valid challenge is an affirmative defense of the conventional narrative.

Now it's one thing to say, "If you believe the JAIC then you need to account for this claim they made," and another thing to say, "I'm asserting this, and I claim JAIC as the authority for it while I reject their authority on other points." Cherry-picking the source you categorically reject elsewhere is just wrong.



Agreed, but I'm going to stop here on the philosophy of epistemology because I think we've had enough psychology for today.

If you looked into the history of the JAIC panel you would know it was rife with controversy and infighting from the get go. Poor old Kari Lehtola, Chairman was a brilliant lawyer - which is why he got the job - but seemed totally at sea with the marine issues. The Estonian guy was a bit like Lavrov, very learned and intellectual, great hangdog face that gives nothing away and then there were the Swedish guys trying to dominate things - all kinds of infighting, resignations, sackimgs, even a suicide, etc. They only met bi-monthly, didn't take minutes. Three years for the report to come out. Once the investigation was over, Lehtola asked a diver who was going down to clear some oil if he could just check the radiation levels whilst he was down there. So even Lehtola had his suspicions.

 

[JayUtah]

If you looked into the history of the JAIC panel...

No, you are not an expert in forensic engineering investigations. Conspiracy-mongering is not a substitute.

 

[Vixen]

Ok Vixen, can I engage you in a hypothetical? I know I know, you don't like them, but this one is important, believe me.

Let's say we have a group of people, doesn't matter how many but let's say for the sake of argument 50. They're in a building when it collapses and all 50 get out.

Let's say we then interview them, and a few of them, say 6, state that they heard an explosion just before the building collapsed.

Then let's say we have experts study the building to discover why it collapsed, and they find absolutely no evidence of explosives. No residue, no deformations that match an explosive, not a thing. No physical evidence at all.

Do you think we should assume there were explosives based upon the testimony of the 6 people who claimed to hear explosions?

Not "do you think we should claim they are lying" or anything like that, just should we take their assessment of what caused the noise they heard as true?

Let's fine slice your imaginary what-if:

• six imaginary people claim to have heard explosions.
• the imaginary investigatorss find no trace of explosives
• are those six reliable witnesses.

Seriously? In your what-if? You certainly can 'what-if' the eye witness claim to witness what you have set up to show didn't happen.

Gimme a break.

 

[Vixen]

Which nations do you think operate the "open society" that you are supportive of, and what exactly does it entail?

Not involving civilians in military stuff.

 

[JayUtah]

* are those six reliable witnesses.

No, that was expressly not what was asked. The hypothetical asks what we should conclude about the collapse of the building in light of a conflict between witness statements and circumstantial evidence.

The fact that you invented a new question that smacks of character judgment illustrates why you are the wrong sort of person to be second-guessing the work of professional investigators. Concluding that a witness may have been mistaken on some point is subtly different than commenting upon a witness' reliability.

 

[Vixen]

You're not qualified to offer that judgment.



Source, please.



That's exactly the job. Just as you say...



But then again you may mean something different by "investigator" than I.



No, you can't just sweep this deficiency under the carpet and pretend it doesn't matter. Interviewing witnesses for a forensic investigation is an art. Without the application of that art at the time, the evidence you can develop from witness statements is limited.



No, you ask some followup questions. Otherwise you risk the witness evidence becoming facially unusable.

From Nov 2021:

Arikas noted that the team is also planning to re-interview survivors of the accident, as the interviews conducted in the years after the tragedy were not of very high quality.

"Not all of the survivors were even interviewed. Others were addressed very superficially," he said.

https://yle.fi/news/3-12190625

Nota bene: you see? Even the head of the new investigation Arikas said of the survivor eyewitnesses, the interviews conducted in the years after the tragedy were not of very high quality.

"Not all of the survivors were even interviewed. Others were addressed very superficially," he said.

So your assumption that all was done correctly is wrong. It is now 2023 and all this time, you didn't even know you were wrong.