• 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:
The thing is, once MV Estonia reached Utö, she was 'inshore' as it were. The Ålands are geographically and politically part of Finland because 'open sea' doesn't start again until between the Ålands and Sweden (about 200km).

It certainly was not in 'open-ocean transit' as Axxman claims.
Click to expand...

Do you suppose the Estonia was certified to operate "inshore as it were"?
 
Andy_Ross said:
Why do you think drawing a direct line on a map is not a good way to determine the course a ship would actually sail?

Bearing in mind I am a qualified offshore navigator and can check your answer.

As there was a storm raging which would have slowed progress and the attackers wouldn't have known how far the ship would travel by midnight, how did they get time and location to coincide?
Bearing in mind neither time or location were not precisely midnight or halfway.
Click to expand...

There were two basic routes from Tallinn to Stockholm, changing westwards or carrying on northwestwards. The JAIC assumed it was the westward one but it was more normal to follow the same route as the Helsinki-Stockholm ferries. The archipelago is particularly fraught with dangers (rocks, skerries, shallows) so a captain is allowed to use his best judgment along them.

If MV Estonia had been travelling since 19:15 then by 1:48 (six hours and 33 minutes, or 6.55 hrs) when it went off the radar, it had travelled roughly 193 km which meant it was travelling an average of 18 knots, ergo, it will have travelled 119 miles*/.868976 [miles to knots conversion] = 137 knots over 6.55 hours = an average speed of 20.91 knots per hour. Its capability was only circa 20 knots at full speed, so must have been carried along by the waves - southwesterly, similar to the wind.

*119 miles = 191.512km

Utö to Stockholm is 193 km. Tallinn to Stockholm is 426km. But MV Estonia was still 40km away from Utö. Pretty much bang on midway.

Plus another salient point is that at this location MV Estonia was now in International Waters.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Which 'old-style' nazi tradition is that?
Is there a tradition of 'old-style' nazis shooting themselves when drowning was a possibility?
Click to expand...

MS Wilhelm Gustloff - a lot of shooting was heard, as nazi officers began to shooting their wives and kids and then, themselves, when it became clear it had been torpedoed, rather than face fear and drowning.
 
Vixen said:
The source is a simple distance calculator on google. (No, I no longer have the link to this auto-function.)

The precise time and the location points to forward planning. For example, you arrange to meet someone, you would say, 'Two o'clock under the clock at Victoria Station', you wouldn't say, 'Let's meet at 14:18 three-quarters of the way to the V&A', especially if there is a whole team of you.
Click to expand...

So you do not think the time and place were selected to 'send a message' and any suggestion you were claiming this is wrong. Rather, you think that disaster striking around midnight and about halfway as the crow flies implies planning because it feels like that has to be significant somehow.

How many different forces do you imagine had instructions to congregate at this symbolically special time and place? How many groups of saboteurs travelled on the ship and how many travelled independently? How do you imagine they the latter were expected to achieve this rendezvous?
 
Andy_Ross said:
Please, not that **** again.
We went in to detail previously.

There have been a number of decorations with the same name over time, awarded for a number of different things including, but not limited to combat.
What he did certainly justified it.
Click to expand...

It's not a question of 'justified'. War medals are restricted to combat situations. If you look at the list of war medals awarded, these guys were in Afghanistan, for heaven's sake. Nobody is claiming that heroics at sea saving the lives of civilians is not the height of heroicism.

However, he was working in a team. All of the teams were heroically saving lives at risk to their own.

Svensson got the Swedish 'Victoria Cross' so to speak because he carried out an OPERATION and brought nine Estonian survivors to Huddinge Hospital in Stockholm 'just after two'.
 
Vixen said:
It's not a question of 'justified'. War medals are restricted to combat situations. If you look at the list of war medals awarded, these guys were in Afghanistan, for heaven's sake. Nobody is claiming that heroics at sea saving the lives of civilians is not the height of heroicism.

However, he was working in a team. All of the teams were heroically saving lives at risk to their own.

Svensson got the Swedish 'Victoria Cross' so to speak because he carried out an OPERATION and brought nine Estonian survivors to Huddinge Hospital in Stockholm 'just after two'.
Click to expand...

Again, this is a lie. The medal is not the equivalent of the VC and is not for combat only. You know this, we showed it to you and you even admitted it so at this point we have to assume you know this is wrong and therefore are deliberately lying about the medal.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Why are you repeating this lie?
Click to expand...

From wiki:

The Armed Forces Merit Medal is a Swedish military award and medal instituted by the Armed Forces in 1995. The award is a combat award but is not included in the war decorations . It was awarded on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief .
Click to expand...


He got the award because (a) it was a military situation and (b) he earned it, albeit it remains classified as to why, exactly.
 
Vixen said:
From wiki:




He got the award because (a) it was a military situation and (b) he earned it, albeit it remains classified as to why, exactly.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that your translation is accurate. Particularly because as we have already pointed out to you it is for combat or combat like scenarios which is something you admitted.

So you're lying. Again.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Again, this is a lie. The medal is not the equivalent of the VC and is not for combat only. You know this, we showed it to you and you even admitted it so at this point we have to assume you know this is wrong and therefore are deliberately lying about the medal.
Click to expand...

You had better correct the wikipedia entry then.
 
Vixen said:
Like all the ferries that traverse between Finland and Sweden, she had the relevant certificate. The problem here was the Estonia to Finnish waters part.

It's a red herring. Doesn't impinge on the cause of the disaster IMV.
Click to expand...

But your view is intensely ignorant at best.

You've had all this explained to you multiple times. That you're still doing fringe resets makes it obvious that you are either knowingly lying, or you have been providing our side of the "discussion" in your own head and rewriting history for yourself so that you can avoid ever admitting being wrong about anything.

This is sad. Really sad.
 
Vixen said:
So you concur the MS Estonia disaster qualifies as a combat like scenario.

Thank you.

Q.E.D.

::
Click to expand...
Yes. It's an intense rescue operation in the middle of the night during a storm.

Why Q.E.D? What on earth are you even on about?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
But your view is intensely ignorant at best.

You've had all this explained to you multiple times. That you're still doing fringe resets makes it obvious that you are either knowingly lying, or you have been providing our side of the "discussion" in your own head and rewriting history for yourself so that you can avoid ever admitting being wrong about anything.

This is sad. Really sad.
Click to expand...

All you have in the debating toolbox seems to end up in Logical Fallacy #101 the ad hominem because you are not actually familiar with the facts of the topic being debated.
 
Vixen said:
All you have in the debating toolbox seems to end up in Logical Fallacy #101 the ad hominem because you are not actually familiar with the facts of the topic being debated.
Click to expand...

Hahahaha.

That's not an ad hominem! You don't even know what the logical fallacies are! This is hilarious. You fail so badly.

The irony, it burns.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Yes. It's an intense rescue operation in the middle of the night during a storm.

Why Q.E.D? What on earth are you even on about?
Click to expand...

LOL Combating the storm.

That made me laugh out loud.


Eternal Father strong to save
Whose arms have bound the restless waves
Who biddst the mighty oceans deep
its own appointed limits keep.

Down, pesky waves! Keep within your own limits! LOL.
 
Vixen said:
LOL Combating the storm.

That made me laugh out loud.


Eternal Father strong to save
Whose arms have bound the restless waves
Who biddst the mighty oceans deep
its own appointed limited keep.

Down, pesky waves! Keep within your own limits! LOL.
Click to expand...

So now you're laughing at the idea of people rescuing others in the middle of a storm? That you seem to think it wouldn't be an intensely difficult situation speaks volumes about you. None of it good.

ETA: Wasn't it you who accused your interlocutors of mocking the dead once without evidence?

Absolutely disgusting behaviour on your part.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
So now you're laughing at the idea of people rescuing others in the middle of a storm? That you seem to think it wouldn't be an intensely difficult situation speaks volumes about you. None of it good.
Click to expand...

I am laughing at your claim that a storm at sea qualifies as a 'combat scenario'. The storm was over by then.

I get that you enjoy the cut and thrust of trading insults but I am not the slightest bit interested in that sort of thing, so I will not be indulging in it. It is an extremely boring form of debate.

But each to their own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom