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

[Vixen]

I will, though I might have been there.

I recall Vixen had a tendency to note corrections to her b/s, go back to the original and delete it, with corr in the edit reason.

Please can you stop spreading untrue stories about me. This is about the seventh or eighth time.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

193km is not 137 nautical miles, 119 miles is not 137 nautical miles and 18 knots is not 20.91 miles per hour. Not to mention that there was no need to even use a distance to convert from knots to mph, let alone convert from km to miles to knots nautical miles to do it.

 

[Mojo]

That should very obviously have read

", it had travelled roughly 193 km which mean it was travelling an average of 18 knots then it will have travelled 119 miles/.868976 = 137 knots miles over 6.55 hours = an average speed of 20.91 knots miles per hour. "

Clearly a typo leading to an error. In future, instead of grandstanding and beating your chest with glee, perhaps politely point it out.

Nope, you very obviously had no real idea what you were talking about, and then, when someone corrected you, you had the nerve to mansplain their own corrections back at 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.

A few points raised by your calculations:
Where did you get the initial figure of 193km from?
You then converted that to 119 miles. (I get 120 but let's not quibble.)
You then converted that wrongly to 137 nautical miles. It's 104 nm. You applied the multiplier backwards.
Also 'knots' is nautical miles per hour, not nautical miles. You meant nm.
So now you have two different answers for the same calculation: 18 knots or 20.91 knots. (Not 'knots per hour'.) So your results are contradictory. That should have been a clue you had blundered. I wonder that you didn't spot this.
A southwesterly wind is one which blows from the southwest, not toward the southwest.
If you ever read the JAIC report you would discover section 5.4 describing the wind and wave conditions in considerable detail. https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt05.html#4
And you would see that section 5.5 has considerable detail on the Estonia's speed too. https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt05.html#5

Have you been letting AI do your calculations again? You appreciate they produce plausible-looking nonsense, right?

It is a very simple calculation and doesn't need any aide to do it. MV Estonia was 6.55hrs into its journey. If its average speed was (according to JAIC iirc) 18knots, then 18knots x 6.55 hours = 117 nautical miles = 135.67 miles or, 218 km.

One knot equals one nautical mile per hour, or roughly 1.15 statute mph.

The wind was indeed southwesterly - coming from the south west and wave action will affect how far it actually travelled, that is why we can only estimate how fast it was going.

Clear now?

 

[Vixen]

I asked you to name one person renditioned by the CIA between 1994 and 2001. Just one name, from anywhere in the world. I'll even take a Serbian.

As you know it was George H W Bush who instigated it first and Clinton signed off on it in 1993.

What was rendition under Clinton?
FACT: Extraordinary rendition began under the Clinton regime. Covert extraordinary rendition began as a systematic tactic on September 22, 1995, with the capture of terrorist Abu Talal al-Qasimi in Croatia; he was later transferred to Egypt for execution.

https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/...egan under,transferred to Egypt for execution.

 

[lobosrul5]

As you know it was George H W Bush who instigated it first and Clinton signed off on it in 1993.

https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/...egan under,transferred to Egypt for execution.

?? You just contradicted your own source.

 

[Mojo]

You can find them under Chapter 6 of the JAIC Report.

https://www.multi.fi/estonia/estorap.html#_Toc405839423

Can you quote, with sources, the eye witness reports of a collision?

 

[Vixen]

The words "collision" or "collide" are found in your link zero times. So how is it that witnesses described a collision without actually using the word?

It's well documented. For example, Paul Barney sleeping on the promenade deck. Couple of guys said it was the same sensation as an ice breaker.

 

[Vixen]

Why not just come out and give us a few direct quotes from these witness statements who said they experienced or saw a collision? You've certainly committed 100's of hours to this subject, what's a few more minutes? Why play coy... why indeed

I have posted witness citations many times. All you need do is look them up. There are not many.

 

[lobosrul5]

Can you quote, with sources, the eye witness reports of a collision?

Hey hey hey, I found it!

https://www.multi.fi/estonia/estorap.html#_Toc405839423

The ramp then followed the visor in a forward, tumbling motion. The starboard side actuator was extended to its full length and was torn out of the hull during the final stage of the sequence. The visor subsequently tilted over the stem, left the ramp fully open allowing large amounts of water to enter the car deck, and as it fell collided with the bulbous bow of the vessel. This sequence of events is supported by witnesses from several areas on board who heard a repeated metallic noise from the bow area during a period of about ten minutes, starting shortly after one o'clock. The detailed timing is, however, uncertain. The witnesses have given several good descriptions of these sounds and it is beyond doubt that the sounds were caused by the visor moving and pounding on the forepeak deck. Some of the metallic blows were associated with hull vibrations. The sounds from the bow area ended in a few loud, metallic crashes, caused by the final separation of the visor and its colliding with the bulbous bow of the vessel. This occurred at about 0115 hrs. The collision is documented by clear impact marks on the visor. The observations by the witnesses are described in detail in Chapter 6.

A witness testifying that he saw the bow visor colliding with the ship. So there you have it, the investigators did investigate.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Nope, very obviously had no real idea what you were talking about, and then, when someone corrected you, you had the nerve to mansplain their own corrections back at them:

Well yes, there's the fact that the maths was wrong, the units were wrong, you don't need a distance measurement (let alone one converted from km to miles to nautical miles) to convert a speed from knots to mph and that even if the result had been right, it was a completely pointless exercise. Who wanted the ship's average sped in mph rather than knots anyway?

But other than that, it was a great contribution.

 

[JayUtah]

You can read a summary of witness statements here and compare and contrast them with what it says in the report:

What the JAIC final report says is not the question. Which of the witness statements do you believe provides eye witness testimony of a collision?

 

[JayUtah]

From Arikas press conference 16.11.2021:

I discussed this statement and the general best practice for handling witness testimony when you referenced Arikas before. Please summarize for the group what my answer was, so that we can be sure you read it.

 

[Vixen]

?? You just contradicted your own source.

Try wiki:

The CIA was granted permission to use rendition of indicted terrorists to American soil in a 1995 presidential directive signed by President Bill Clinton, following a procedure[34] established by George H. W. Bush in January 1993.[35]

The United States has since increasingly used rendition as a tool in the "war on terror", ignoring the normal extradition processes outlined in international law.[36] Suspects taken into United States custody are delivered to third-party states, often without ever having been on United States soil, and without involving the rendering countries.

Just in time to try out on the captured (?) Estonian crew...?

 

[lobosrul5]

Well yes, there's the fact that the maths was wrong, the units were wrong, you don't need a distance measurement (let alone one converted from km to miles to nautical miles) to convert a speed from knots to mph and that even if the result had been right, it was a completely pointless exercise. Who wanted the ship's average sped in mph rather than knots anyway?

But other than that, it was a great contribution.

I mean she did calculate that the ship was travelling at its absolute maximum speed... so too fast for conditions. Thanks for the supporting evidence that it was the bow visor Vixen!

 

[JayUtah]

You should be able to find the quote a few pages back.

Please identify which of the witness statements you believe gives eye witness evidence of a collision. Don't simply wave your hand in the general direction of the JAIC final report.

 

[JayUtah]

There are numerous witness accounts. It shouldn't take long to skim through them.

Then it shouldn't take you long to isolate the ones you believe provide eye witness testimony to a collision. Only you can tell us which of the witness statements you believe offers that support.

 

[JayUtah]

It's well documented.

Then it should be very easy for you to identify which of the witness statements provides eye witness authority to a collision.

For example, Paul Barney sleeping on the promenade deck.

Did he witness the ship collide with something?

Couple of guys said it was the same sensation as an ice breaker.

Did they witness the ship collide with something? Or did they just infer a possible cause from the "sensation" alone?

 

[JayUtah]

A witness testifying that he saw the bow visor colliding with the ship. So there you have it, the investigators did investigate.

And the findings are consistent with the scenario I laid out a few hours ago, which I seem to have correctly recalled. Keep in mind that the collision with the bulbous bow is a downward impact; the bulbous bow sticks out and the visor falls onto it. However, if that prevents the bow from sinking immediately, then the sudden increase in hydrodynamic drag that occurs as the ship pushes the visor ahead of it will produce the sudden sense of deceleration that is reported by the witnesses.

 

[Vixen]

Then it should be very easy for you to identify which of the witness statements provides eye witness authority to a collision.



Did he witness the ship collide with something?



Did they witness the ship collide with something? Or did they just infer a possible cause from the "sensation" alone?

He said he thought there had been a collision. You are not going to be able to see anything (a) in the dark and (b) lower than the side of the ship.


Be sensible.

 

[lobosrul5]

He said he thought there had been a collision. You are not going to be able to see anything (a) in the dark and (b) lower than the side of the ship.


Be sensible.

So he did not witness a collision then, correct?