• 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.
Axxman300 said:
For someone to be able to definitively judge - just by feel - if the ship they're on has collided with something that person would have to have been present on many other ships that have both had collisions, and have had their massive bow visors get knocked loose in storms, bang the hull, and fall off.

That person would have to experience these events from multiple locations onboard the ships, as sound, and internal structure will dictate what is heard, and felt depending on where a person is standing at the moment of impact.

Now if your PhD witness has in fact been present in multiple ship collisions then he is a good source. Otherwise, he just heard something in rough seas, and made an assumption. They have surveyed the ship twice now, and guess what? It sank because the bow visor came off, ripping the car ramp open.

End of story.
Click to expand...

Yet engineer Henrik Sillaste could look into a lo-quality CCTV screen and see water coming in at the sides of the car ramp. Conclusion: 'The bow ramp fell off due to the actions of a few strong waves...?


But I thought witness testimony was unreliable.
 
Vixen said:
Conclusion

If the disaster of MV Estonia was a preplanned military operation, then it happened within a precise window. At 01:00am (Swedish Midnight) and within a very tight window of between 15 nm to 40 nm -15 nm to 21 nm if we disregard the Frihammen lap - bearing in mind a sea is not like a hard physical road, but is subject to the travails of wind and waves.
Click to expand...

Why must a military operation happen within a precise window? Because you say so?

You don't know the trouble began at 01:00. No evidence exists pinpointing it to the minute. You're speculating and expecting us to assume it happened at a significant time to imply it was intentional. That's circular reasoning. Rejected.

Likewise your invitation for us to assume an intended location for the sinking. Why should we do that? Why should we accept your claim they must have been aiming for (but missed by miles) a particular spot? Because you reckon it's significant somehow? Circular reasoning again. Or is it the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy? Either way, rejected.
 
Apparently one of the guests in the Admiral Pub on deck 5 joked they had hit an iceberg, I guess that's our going to be our next topic...
 
Vixen said:
What we know about the location of the MV Estonia Wreck

Aim

Here I plan to show how the disaster of MV Estonia could have been a well-planned militarily precise operation, by looking at the location where the catastrophe unfolded by use of precise coordinates.

MV Estonia’s journey

MV Estonia started off from Tallinn, following along the coast at 262°, W, at 19 kn full speed.

(NB: 270°= W. 360° = N )

So, it is travelling pretty much due westwards until the waypoint at 59°20’ to the Söderarm route, where it turns a gentle angle of 25° to bear 287° (WNW) for its remaining major course. If you look at the coordinates, barely heads north at all, just 2’ = 2nm before it is wrecked.

59° 45' 00" N, 19° 24' 00" E Söderarm coordinates
59°22,9´ N, 21°41,0´ E Estonia Wreck coordinates
73 nm

Waypoint 59°20’ = 2.9' = 3nm


59° 26' 13'', 24° 45' 13'' E Tallinn coordinates
59°22,9´ N, 21°41,0´ E Estonia Wreck coordinates
94 nm
=======================’
59° 45' 00" N, 19° 24' 00" E Söderarm AB coordinates
59° 26' 13'', 24° 45' 13'' E Tallinn coordinates
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
163nm



Frihamnen coordinates (the final port after the Swedish archipelago).

59°20'34"N 18°7'21"E

Frihamnen 109 nm from wreck Tallinn 94 nm

Diff Midpoint
Frihamnen 109 nm from wreck; Tallinn 94 nm: Full distance 202; half way point 101nm diff 15 nm
Söderarm 73nm from wreck; Tallinn 94 nm: Full distance 163nm; halfway point 83nm diff 21nm
Tallinn to Frihammen 202 nm
Tallinn to Söderarm 163 nm
Official length of route 173 86.5
With Frihammnen +54 227 113.5

As can be seen, in the Frihamnen route the wreck is 8 nm and 7nm either side of the midway point

In the Söderarm route it is 10 nm and 11 nm either side of midpoint.

In the official length of route, 173 nm, the midpoint is 86.5nm. MV Estonia is 94nm from Tallinn so just 7.5nm away.

If we include the further 54nm for it to reach Frihamnen* on the official route (173nm + 54nm), the midpoint is 113.5 nm. The MV Estonia wreck at 94nm is just 19.5 nm away from midpoint.

International Waters

As can be seen from this map here, the International Waters between Estonia-Finland-Sweden commence at the 59°. The MV Estonia wreck lies at 59°22,9´ N, 21°41,0´ E, just 23 nm over the boundary. Another chance fact, or precise advance planning?

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53222493538_4bca65f219_c.jpg[/qimg]International waters boundary by Username Vixen, on Flickr


Source: http://iilss.net/maritime-boundaries-between-finland-and-estonia/

Conclusion

If the disaster of MV Estonia was a preplanned military operation, then it happened within a precise window. At 01:00am (Swedish Midnight) and within a very tight window of between 15 nm to 40 nm -15 nm to 21 nm if we disregard the Frihammen lap - bearing in mind a sea is not like a hard physical road, but is subject to the travails of wind and waves.


Notes: 1 ° = 60 nautical miles. 1’ = 1 nm.

Distance calculator used: https://stevemorse.org/nearest/distance.php

Rounded up to nearest 2-digit minutes, seconds disregarded.

*Would a would-be saboteur have factored in the Frihamnen route, given it would have reached Sweden already at Söderarm?
Click to expand...

Thanks for all that. Now I know, no precise planning was needed to sink the Estonia in Intl waters. They could've been off by hours. Theres a large section of her route which is in intl' waters.

This whole line of inquiry of yours is pointless. Do you not get that? The ship sank around midway, at around midnight (in Sweden), in international waters. We all know this. We all accept this. We do not accept that is any sort of evidence for a military operation whether intentional or as you sometimes posit accidental.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Yet engineer Henrik Sillaste could look into a lo-quality CCTV screen and see water coming in at the sides of the car ramp. Conclusion: 'The bow ramp fell off due to the actions of a few strong waves...?


But I thought witness testimony was unreliable.
Click to expand...

You're still either not getting it or stubbornly pretending not to get it. Sillaste's evidence is what he saw. Whatever Sillaste then inferred from what he saw is not the evidence.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Why must a military operation happen within a precise window? Because you say so?

You don't know the trouble began at 01:00. No evidence exists pinpointing it to the minute. You're speculating and expecting us to assume it happened at a significant time to imply it was intentional. That's circular reasoning. Rejected.

Likewise your invitation for us to assume an intended location for the sinking. Why should we do that? Why should we accept your claim they must have been aiming for (but missed by miles) a particular spot? Because you reckon it's significant somehow? Circular reasoning again. Or is it the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy? Either way, rejected.
Click to expand...

The location of the Estonia wreck is known to a very precise point. It is at: 59°22,9´ N, 21°41,0´ E.

We know the trouble began then, because Watchman Silver Linde said he was following Capt Andresson up the steps of the bridge and that is how he remembers the time of 00:58. He and numerous witnesses say things began to happen at 01:00. This is because this was the point many of the Swedish passengers began to set their clocks and watches back to 12:00 Swedish time. That is how they can be sure.
 
Vixen said:
The location of the Estonia wreck is known to a very precise point. It is at: 59°22,9´ N, 21°41,0´ E.
Click to expand...
Remind us how far back along its own course the Estonia is believed to have drifted after losing power and before it eventually sank. How does knowing the wreck's location to any arbitrary precision support your conspiracy theory?

We know the trouble began then, because Watchman Silver Linde said he was following Capt Andresson up the steps of the bridge and that is how he remembers the time of 00:58. He and numerous witnesses say things began to happen at 01:00. This is because this was the point many of the Swedish passengers began to set their clocks and watches back to 12:00 Swedish time. That is how they can be sure.
Click to expand...

Lots of people describe various noises and events which they noticed around 1 o'clock. You're assuming a precise time because you want to claim a deliberate act of sabotage and then support your claim it was sabotage with the non-fact it happened at a precise time. This is perfectly circular reasoning.
 
Last edited:
malbui said:
The lettuce is how the radioactive caterpillars were smuggled aboard. Another piece falls into place.
Click to expand...

Lettuces are actually notorious for hiding slugs. Make of that what you will. (An entire new tack for Vixen to explore in minute but incorrect detail).
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Remind us how far back along its own course the Estonia is believed to have drifted after losing power and before it eventually sank. How does knowing the wreck's location to any arbitrary precision support your conspiracy theory?



Lots of people describe various noises and events which they noticed around 1 o'clock. You're assuming a precise time because you want to claim a deliberate act of sabotage and then support your claim it was sabotage with the non-fact it happened at a precise time. This is perfectly circular reasoning.
Click to expand...

Its not even circular reasoning its arbitrary reasoning. It happened at midnight therefore it was a precision attack... what? Because they just watched Colonel Blimp and had "WAR STARTS AT MIDNIGHT!" stuck in their head :boggled:

If the military ops planners wanted the ship to sink at a precise point the fact that it happened at precisely midnight is counter evidence. Not supporting evidence. Vixen has gone on and on and on for pages that the ship sank exactly RIGHT HERE at THIS SPOT for some reason.
 
Vixen said:
I didn't say it did mean that.
Click to expand...

Then what is the argument?

Someone says they felt something they may or may not have described as like a collision.

We all agree they had an experience.

We state that because the physical evidence does not support the idea the ship collided with anything other than part of itself falling off, anyone who states they felt something and presumed it to have been a collision was incorrect in this presumption.
 
Vixen said:
So far, so good. But you appear to have planned it as a passenger might. Google distance is fine as a heuristic measure if you want to know expected time of arrival.

Consider this. If the disaster had been the result of a military operation, then it woudn't be a case of looking at Google distances or passenger timetables.

For example, say you have planned a paintballing experience at, let's say, the V&A and it is a military exercise. You wouldn't send your guys a map of the London Underground, together with bus routes, for them to work out how long it might take to get to the station or from a bus stop or car park. You would give precise time and precise coordinates. For example: Paintball Event at 13:00 at 51.4966° N, 0.1722° W.

Likewise, with the MV Estonia, any saboteur is not going to worry about the minor details, but would be ready with a precise time and position.
Click to expand...

Wait, so are you saying that military precision means you can ignore some details, like whether it really is the middle of the voyage?

You've always had an issue with triple-listing the coincidences, to be sure. You pretend that there are three distinct coincidences that suggest precision:
  1. The ship went down at midnight
  2. The ship went down in the temporal midpoint of its journey.
  3. The ship went down halfway along its journey (in terms of distance traveled).
But, of course, no one could possibly have planned for these three distinct requirements. If I decide midnight is important, then it's pure luck whether that's the midpoint of the journey (time or distance). If I decide the temporal midpoint matters, then it's pure luck whether that's midnight (though it MIGHT give a decent probability of being the distance midpoint). And similarly with distance.

As soon as your saboteurs decide that one of these criteria is desirable, then the time and place is fixed[1]. If, as it happens, midnight is also the temporal and distance midpoint of the journey, then by choosing one criterion, they satisfy all three.

So why do you count these as three relevant factoids?

NOTE: I'm not at all saying that any of the above claims are true. I'm merely pointing out that were all three true, two of them would be coincidental, not the result of extra planning or intention.

[1] It's fixed insofar as they haven't someone on board available to alter the schedule or path. Of course, the storm put some uncertainty into everything but when midnight occurs.
 
phiwum said:
But, of course, no one could possibly have planned for these three distinct requirements.
* * *
NOTE: I'm not at all saying that any of the above claims are true. I'm merely pointing out that were all three true, two of them would be coincidental, not the result of extra planning or intention.
Click to expand...

As soon as a ship starts to maneuver in heavy weather, this whole plan would be stuffed.
 
Vixen said:
Yet engineer Henrik Sillaste could look into a lo-quality CCTV screen and see water coming in at the sides of the car ramp.
Click to expand...

Yes, his observation is considered evidence.

Conclusion: 'The bow ramp fell off due to the actions of a few strong waves...?
Click to expand...

No one concluded that, least of all Sillaste.

But I thought witness testimony was unreliable.
Click to expand...

You seem to be able to paint only in large strokes and primary colors.

You want us to accept a witness inference as evidence. That's not how it's done. As to whether a witness observation is reliable, that's been the subject of lengthy discussion that you've demonstrated you're not qualified or competent to have. Witness observation is evidence, and all evidence is subject to a separate assessment of reliability.
 
phiwum said:
So why do you count these as three relevant factoids?
Click to expand...

I've noticed a lot of conspiracy rhetoric relies on identifying these kinds of alleged coincidences, citing them as evidence of conspiratorial intent. But mostly it seems to be just another color of the connect-the-dots reasoning that conspiracy theories use, as opposed to parsimony and consilience in actual investigation. The more cleverly they can show you they've connected the dots, the more insightful they can pretend to be.

A good example of this is the alleged parallels between the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations. Quite a lot of that list is just pure non-factual bunk. Some of the rest is based on strained interpretations. And the legitimate coincidences that remain are meaningless. But the existence of the list of "coincidences" represents the fervor by which conspiracy theorists hunt for them and consider them somehow revealing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom