• 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.
Vixen said:
https://yle.fi/news/3-12190625
Click to expand...

So what the news report actually said is:
"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.

And you spun that as "It said it was going to listen to survivors this time", clearly implying the investigation did not listen to survivors last time. Are you able to see why I find you to be an unreliable reporter?
 
Last edited:
Here_to_learn said:
I have now read the original that you claim is the source of your quote.

Apart from the name, it bears no relationship whatsoever. She was not in a karaoke bar, she was in her cabin. She did not hear something that sounded like an explosion, she hear "dunkar" (my translation: clonks) and later a "kraftig smäll" (my translation - a loud bang"). She did not say anything about the time it took to collapse, nor capsize.

So the quote you provided is incorrect. Did you translate it, or did you pick it up somewhere?
Click to expand...

Whoops, I got Ulla conflated with a quote that came just before hers:

Quote:
- I was at a karaoke bar with a friend when I heard an unusual sound. I thought it sounded like an explosion. I left immediately. It was a matter of seconds or minutes to get out. That ship collapsed so quickly and no one came to help.
Altti Hakanpää and his friend tried to shout at people. The sight still troubles him.
Quote:
. Ulla Marianne Tenman - cabin 1098 - 30 years old

- was in her cabin before the casualty;
- some time before the casualty heard several hard bangs and something beating against something which she considered to be strange and dangerous, therefore she decided to go up to deck 7 and wait to see what would happen;
- after she had been sometime on deck 7 she heard a heavy bang and subsequently the vessel heeled to starboard.
Click to expand...

The top quote is actually someone called Altti Hakanpää


And he definitely says, speaking to ILTA-SANOMAT:

SIITÄ MATKASTA tuli Hakanpäälle viittä vaille viimeinen.

– Olin karaokebaarissa kaverini kanssa, kun kuulin epätavallista ääntä. Minusta se kuulosti räjähdykseltä. Lähdin heti. Se oli sekuntien tai minuuttien kysymys, että pääsi ulos. Sehän kaatui niin nopeasti se laiva eikä siellä kukaan auttamaan tullut.

Altti Hakanpää yritti kaverinsa kanssa huutaa ihmisiä mukaansa. Näky vaivaa häntä yhä.
Click to expand...
https://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000006246119.html

In English:

THAT TRIP was Hakanpää's last of five.

- I was in a karaoke bar with my friend when I heard an unusual sound. It sounded like an explosion to me. I left immediately. It was a matter of seconds or minutes to get out. That ship went down so quickly and no one came to help.

Altti Hakanpää tried with his friend to call people to join him. The sight still bothers him.
Click to expand...


In Finnish, the word: Räjähdys definitely means 'explosion' in English and not anything else.





Minusta se kuulosti räjähdykseltä.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
And you spun that as "It said it was going to listen to survivors this time", clearly implying the investigation did not listen to survivors last time. Are you able to see why I find you to be an unreliable reporter?
Click to expand...

To be specific, she tried to make a gotcha! moment out of it when I said JAIC followed best practices in its management of the witness testimony. Mr Arikas seems to have a different opinion, but he's the administrative leader of the government agency, not an investigator himself. Vixen was mostly hoping to show JayUtah was either wrong about something or didn't know about it, not provide correct insight into witness testimony.

Re-interviewing the witnesses at this late stage is very unlikely to produce any more useful information than what was obtained originally, and quite likely to produce narrative-smoothing reconstructions or dim recollections. The JAIC notes that it interrogated certain witnesses several times over the course of the committee's hearing, and noted their protocol for dealing with the likely effects of memory over time. This is correct practice.

Arikas notes that not all witnesses were interviewed. First, this is misleading. The initial witness statements as obtained by police were available. This is different than the committee wishing to interview witnesses to follow up. Only in very fortunate circumstances is the forensic engineering investigator allowed to be the first to interview witnesses. Second, this is still best practice. The board does not and should not interview every witness. The board interviews witnesses whose initial statements indicate that the witness may have knowledge that a further interview could develop into evidence. In many cases the initial statement alone is enough and no follow-up interview is needed.

Mr Arakis' political and administrative position notwithstanding, I'll continue to keep my professional counsel on what constitutes best practice for witness testimony in a forensic engineering investigation.

And you're correct to note that Vixen has twisted Arikas' remarks to mean something else, which is why I also asked her for the source.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
So what the news report actually said is:
"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.

And you spun that as "It said it was going to listen to survivors this time", clearly implying the investigation did not listen to survivors last time. Are you able to see why I find you to be an unreliable reporter?
Click to expand...

You are the one being unreliable otherwise you would know I already referred to the JAIC section on survivors accounts, albeit greatly abridged to include just a few.
 
Vixen said:
You are the one being unreliable otherwise you would know I already referred to the JAIC section on survivors accounts, albeit greatly abridged to include just a few.
Click to expand...

You referred to the section, yes.

The JAIC appropriately summarized the witness testimony, noting anomalies were indicated. This is best practice in the report. Your inexpert judgment that this was in some way deficient, inappropriate, or derelict is irrelevant.
 
JayUtah said:
You referred to the section, yes.

The JAIC appropriately summarized the witness testimony, noting anomalies were indicated. This is best practice in the report. Your inexpert judgment that this was in some way deficient, inappropriate, or derelict is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It's also predicated on the idea that Vixen is competent to analyse the JAIC report.
 
Vixen said:
You are the one being unreliable otherwise you would know I already referred to the JAIC section on survivors accounts, albeit greatly abridged to include just a few.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you were consistent. I just pointed out what you said and how that was a twisting of others words.

If it were otherwise and you were consistent, perhaps you wouldn't sometimes claim a newspaper report had been deliberately suppressed and vanished while at other times venturing to persuade us of your version of what it had said.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
It's also predicated on the idea that Vixen is competent to analyse the JAIC report.
Click to expand...

It should be emphasized that anyone can read the report, and should be encouraged to do so. Contrary to claims made earlier in the thread, it is not written to a 12-year-old's level of understanding. Nor on the other hand is it intended only to be read and understood by subject-matter experts. Notwithstanding, most of the material in Chapter 12 will require subject-matter expertise in order to understand. The job of the investigating board is not to educate the reader of the final report in all the sciences and methods that pertain to the investigation. And in most cases, even subject-matter experts will need to consult the referenced supplements in order to understand thoroughly the methods and results. But a person of average intelligence should be able to understand the portions of the report directed at such an audience.

Determining whether the final summary report of any investigative board is acceptable according to prevailing or statutory standards and best practices is not something a lay person can justifiably do. Further, purporting to determine from a final summary report that the investigation it summarizes was not conducted according to appropriate scientific and legal standards is pure fantasy. Vixen is not qualified to determine that the JAIC report is acceptable. Nor is she qualified to determined from the JAIC report whether the investigation itself was acceptable. Her argument here (gesturing to the 400+ pages of her nonsense) combines bluster and ignorant doubt-mongering (some of it borrowed from others).
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Considering that the people she cribs from are conspiracy theorists, utter lunatics or both, that makes her ignorant posturing even more ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Agreed; the sources you mention are unreliable and clearly conspiracy-mongering. But we also have to consider the response by Meyer Werft. They would not be considered conspiracy theorists, but must be considered biased. As I've mentioned many times, it is customary for an engineering company implicated in a serious incident to respond in its defense. These responses must be taken as partisan. They identify potential weaknesses in the findings, but they should never be taken as objective or final.
 
Indeed, arse covering is a time honoured tradition in any industry. That the company that allowed the ship to be operated in the condition it was in want to deflect blame from themselves is not in and of itself confirmation they're lying, their comments shouldn't be taken as gospel either.
 
I have yet to participate in any forensic engineering investigation that did not engender criticism from multiple parties. These are extremely charged circumstances, and the best we can do is to be as scientific and as impartial as the evidence and logic allow. There will always be criticism, and not all of it will be poorly-founded.

This, ironically, is why it's so ludicrous to imagine that the JAIC was as corrupt has has been suggested. When even the least partial work will inevitably be attacked, any intentional malfeasance will be readily apparent even through mainstream scrutiny.
 
Vixen said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...

I direct your attention to the fact that the Cold War had been over for around 4 years when Estonia sank. And there are plenty of Cold War incidents which remain in the shadows. This fact is not in dispute. But we are talking about single military aircraft, small commando teams, individual spies. We are not talking about a large Ro-Ro ferry with over 800 passengers onboard. I'm not going to explain the difference between a small spy plane on a classified mission and a massive public transport ship.

I also direct your attention to your own posts where you've sited Wikileaks for revealing that the Swedes and the CIA were working together more closely than publicly stated. Estonia secrets would have been with those documents.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're not helping your position with this one.

All of the things you listed we knew about long ago, and we knew because people came forward with documentation to reveal these things to the press. We know Russia does a lot of dirty things because they're bad it, or just don't care, or both. I've lost track of how many Russian generals have fallen out of highrise buildings. Do I need to prove these were not accidental deaths? No. Does this make me a conspiracy theorist? Only if I take these deaths to shape an unrelated story to suit my political agenda.

MS Estoniais not hard to figure out. The ship was never designed to sail on the open ocean, and it certainly was never designed to sail in the weather conditions of that night. The crew did not do their due diligence in checking for damage, and the command crew didn't press the matter. The fact that few of the crew survived indicates most were unaware and unalert until it was too late. Doesn't matter what vehicles or "stolen military hardware" could have been on the car deck. All that matters was the ship failed at it's weakest point, which was also it's most catastrophic point. The sea floor is littered with ships that share the same story. And not one of them was a conspiracy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom