• 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.
JayUtah said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt the bow visor fell off. But what happened immediately before it fell off?
 
Vixen said:
He said he thought there had been a collision.
Click to expand...

He inferred there had been a collision. He didn't actually witness 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.
Click to expand...

Then you can't be considered an eye witness.

Be sensible.
Click to expand...

No, I think I'll be correct instead. Witness observations are evidence. Witness inferences are not.
 
Vixen said:
There are four other main senses apart from the eyes.
Click to expand...

So uhh what does a collision smell or taste like?

He felt a deceleration, you cannot feel a collision from within your cabin.

The way this could have occurred from the bow visor has been explained by JayUtah. He heard loud crashes/banging noises... a collision. Well yes with a large, heavy, metallic, part of the ship.

And all of this is a pointless exercise. We know the ship collided with the visor. There WAS a collision.
 
lobosrul5 said:
We know the ship collided with the visor. There WAS a collision.
Click to expand...

Correct. But the conspiracy theory wants to equivocate this to mean collision with another vessel. Specifically the conspiracy theorists point to the hole on the starboard side and say this occurred on the surface as the result of a collision with another vessel, and these various witnesses reported it but were ignored.

The witness testimony in this matter has been properly incorporated into the final findings.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...


You're the one who claimed that there were eye witness reports of a collision, and that the JAIC had "never dealt with" them.

Are you now withdrawing that claim?
 
phiwum said:
All what people? You've said that one person said it "sounded like an explosion." I never caught the source for that quote.

Others heard bangs. A banging sound is consistent with a loose visor.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
You should be able to find the quote a few pages back.
Click to expand...

How many and which witnesses reported a sound like an explosion? Is it more than one?
 
Vixen said:
There are numerous witness accounts. It shouldn't take long to skim through them.


See references earlier in the thread.
Click to expand...

That's not really how arguments work. You make the claim, you should at least cite some of the relevant eyewitness reports.
 
lobosrul5 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your previous citation was evidently not relevant. Rather than just saying what a couple of guys allegedly said (and also what Barney allegedly said), JUST PROVIDE A RELEVANT CITATION AND BE DONE WITH IT.

Why are you being so difficult with citations?
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

According to the link you posted but failed to read, the rendition idea dated back to 1983, and the Reagan Administration. The link lists a total of six men, all terrorists. That doesn't support your argument at all, especially with the second name starting in 1995.

And none of this has anything with Estonia's bow visor getting knocked off.
 
Vixen said:
Yes, I made a mess of that by writing:



" 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 over 6.55 hours = an average speed of 20.91 knots per hour. "



When it should obviously read:



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



No, the last bit doesn't make sense but is clearly an error.
Click to expand...

Once again I wonder what you'd make of an accountant who came up with such jumbled figures and then such revised figures if it were a financial calculation.

193 km is 120 miles or 104 nautical miles, to the nearest unit.

18 knots is 20.7 mph (or 33.3 km/h).

I would still like to know where you got your starting figure of 193 km from.
 
Vixen said:
The issue was, if you recall, ascertaining the midpoint of the journey.





The ship was travelling from Tallinn to Stockholm.



It went westwards first along the Estonia coast and then at the waypoint changed course slightly to head WNW. This isn't 'as the crow flies'.
Click to expand...
Not really. The issue is your claim the ship was sunk at the exact midpoint of its journey and that this was symbolic and sent a message.

If you can't clearly and easily show that the midpoint claim is true then obviously the intended recipient of the message is not going to notice that coincidence so they won't get the 'message' and the whole claim is moot.
 
Ok, so I decided to use the free openseamap service and lay out some routes. Note - I did not bother to get it down to the smaller details when it comes to navigating either the Stockholm Archipelago or the exact route out of the Tallin harbor. The positions are not exact either, since I positioned the waypoint just using drag and drop.

I just couldn't be bothered to go down to the boat and plotting it for real in the commercial chart plotter solution (Transas NaviSailor) that we use onboard.

So first of all, here is a rough picture showing the full route as it's described in JAIC. That includes entering the Stockholm area using the northern (Söderarm) entrance, since that one is not as hard to navigate in bad weather.

[imgw=800]https://i.postimg.cc/h45f8KDM/Estonia-1.jpg[/imgw]

The total distance of the trip is about 222 NM.

Then we have the part of the route up to the wreck site.

[imgw=800]https://i.postimg.cc/vBpDsvSk/image.png[/imgw]

The distance traveled to reach this point is around 96NM.

96/222 is around 41%.


But let's check the "as crows fly" distance also. I don't know why, but...

A straight line between the two cities:

[imgw=800]https://i.postimg.cc/15d7ZV96/image.png[/imgw]

So that's about 204NM.

And a straight line to the wreck site:
[imgw=800]https://i.postimg.cc/C5Gk5KXF/image.png[/imgw]

That's about 93NM.

93/204 is around 45%.

I can't see that this can be called any form of exact "midpoint".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom