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

[Axxman300]

Wow, just wow. One step away from saying, why shouldn't the CIA have taken over, because after all the USA is bigger and better. Let the policemen of the world take over here, chaps. "It was our operation and cargo after all."

The CIA doesn't handle investigations. Our NTSB would be the superior choice, and they could have asked the US Navy to loan them their cool DSRVs of that era. Our NTSB coordinates well with local governments all the time, and to my knowledge, most countries who have reached for NTSB help have been satisfied.

Strange, your obsession with the CIA, and spies in general.

 

[JayUtah]

It is not 'unbroken land'. They are islands in the background. It is in the archipelago. Literally thousands of such islands.

No, it's in a port channel, not open sea. You don't have (and can't have) lateral channel markers in an archipelago. Show us a picture of the "not unusual" practice of sailing in open sea with the bow visor up.

I dare you. Put up or shut up.

 

[Axxman300]

I can only think of two occasions in recent years when I was knocked sideways by what appeared to be 'an amazing coincidence'.


However, when a group of people arrange to meet at midday at the V&A, it really is not a coincidence if they all converge at that spot at that time.

If something is preplanned, it may look like a coincidence to those not aware of the preplanning.

Integral Risk

So, in the case of the MV Estonia, the disaster happened:

• Swedish midnight
• Midpoint of its journey, within a 21 nm margin
• Just 22' past the 59° international waters boundary.
• Equally equidistant between Helsinki, Tallinn and Stockholm.
• At the halfway point of its journey to within a quarter of an hour, temporally.
• There was a communications blackout between 01:00 and 01:58.
• The Mayday should have come from the bridge and the captain.
• In the case of electrics being down, a battery-powered system should have kicked in.
• The Mayday received by MV Mariella at maximum level on their side was not until 01:21.
• Capn. Thoresson had the impression it was not Ainsalu's (fourth mate) first attempt to Mayday.
• When Silja Europa took over, Second Capn Seppanen, had the impression Estonia could not hear him.
• When Ainsalu realised that Mayday convention was to give location, he said 'blackout'.
• Third mate Tammes then took over in a second Mayday, now taken over by Europa, with the coordinates.
• But Tammes' coordinates were 8" out meaning it was out by several kilometres, or the Mayday reception was so poor Seppanen could not pick it up.
• Tammes was cut off at 01:24.
• Capn Thoresson could not get through to Turku MRCC.
• Thoresson had to look up Turku MRCC landline number instead of by radio or their NMT.
• Neither of the two HRU-triggered activated automatic buoys gave off a signal when submerged.
• Turku MRCC could not make contact with Mariehamn, Ålands, until 01:44.
• Helsinki Radio and Finland Radio could not get through to MRCC Stockholm until 01:58. It could not get the exact location until 01:44.
• Complete communications blackout for an hour, from when the bow visor fell off, 01:02 to 01:48, when MV Estonia went off the radar, to when MRCC finally got the Mayday.
• MV Estonia hit the seabed at 01:54 and there was no detritus or flotsam for Silja Europa Capn Mäkelä to see when he got there.
• Stockholm MRCC first heard of something happening via a message from a truck driver.

Preplanned operation or 'just an accident with a lot of coincidences'?

You left out the eels working hand-in-paw with trained Mongolian Gerbils ( disguised by their CIA handles as hamsters.

 

[JayUtah]

No. 1...

blah blah whinging whinging blah blah.

 

[Axxman300]

Nor would it matter if they were. The trope that Americans don't get British humor is as stereotypical as ships always turning turtle and floating for hours. British humor has been consistently popular and normalized in the U.S. for at least 50 years.

Yes, in fact I suggest folks read this thread while listening to the theme from Benny Hill (Yackity Sax), for it to have the proper impact. And at some point I plan to weave African Swallows into the narrative,

 

[Axxman300]

No, he was saying that of course Sweden should take over as Estonia was only a little country, even though the ship was under its flag and crew.


This goes back to the arrogance of Bill Clinton and his chums.

The majority of the dead were Swedes. Estonia (the country) didn't have a quality investigative body that was up to par with Sweden. So Sweden was the smart choice for the investigation, Some Estonians were butt-hurt about this.

And what the hell does Bill Clinton have to do with the Estonia sailing into the open ocean during a storm it was never designed to endure?

 

[Axxman300]

Smuggling of ex-Soviet nuclear waste was no joke.

I was bitten by a radioactive Russian lawyer who was smuggling Soviet radioactive waste.

Now I have the power of attorney.

I had a joke about radioactive isotopes, but it decayed.

 

[Dabop]

Did it never occur to you that 15 kg wasn’t remotely plausible as the weight of the visor?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The paint alone on the visor likely weighs more than 15kg!!!

(I fairly recently repainted a semi trailer pantech, and started with a 20L drum of paint- it wasn't quite enough and had to buy another 6L container of paint... assuming a 20l drum is about the same density as water, thats over 20kg to paint a semi that can drive in THROUGH the opening uncovered by the bow visor and ramp...)

Ahha!!- found the problem- the bow visor didn't fall off- they made it out of paint alone and it fell apart in the rough seas!!!

 

[Jack by the hedge]

He didn't say it was 'detuned' he said they were 'untuned'. This was a surprise as they had been inspected by the ships electricians the week before as being in working order.

'Untuned' is not a thing they can be.

Untuned clearly implies some component requires adjustment. There is zero provision for adjustment. If anything did need to be changed in any way they would not be 'untuned' they would be 'faulty'.

We know they were not faulty the week before the disaster and they were not faulty when found after.

Squaring the circle of what your source reportedly thought they were saying is not our problem.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I was bitten by a radioactive Russian lawyer who was smuggling Soviet radioactive waste.

Now I have the power of attorney.

I had a joke about radioactive isotopes, but it decayed.

A Møøse once bit my sister.
No realli! She was Karving her initials on the møøse with the sharpened end of an interspace tøøthbrush given her by Svenge - her brother-in-law.

 

[Mojo]

No. 1: I couldn't care less whether you 'believe' me or not. That is your prerogative. What I object to is your spreading mean stories about me. For example the articles on Stalingrad were quite separate from the article about the views of Germans about Brits on the frontline. I have now told you that several times, but still you persist in spreading derogatory stories about me. The article didn't specify which frontline, so it is quite objectionable that you have taken to regularly claim that I lied about that article when you cannot possibly know for a fact The article exists, OK? Stop spreading lies about my having lied about it.

Here's what you posted again:

So I visited the British Newspaper library. The daily on-the-spot TIMES newspaper report on the Battle of Stalingrad, together with maps and charts brought it to life for me. They even had reporters on the German front line, who must have been British secret agents to have infiltrated it in the first place.

These are news clippings which accurately report - with supporting evidence - the fact that the British had secret agents who'd infiltrated the German 6th Army during its assault on Stalingrad?

And that these British secret agents, and their handlers/superiors in Britain, allowed their reports on the battle to be published in a national newspaper (rather than..... I dunno.... the British intelligence community keeping those reports to itself for intelligence purposes)?

I don't want to go off topic, but I certainly do have one piece where the TIMES reporter reports back on what the ordinary German soldiers are saying about the British, as per eavesdropping.

When challenged on your claim that the Times had reporters on the German front line at Stalingrad, you didn't say, "the articles on Stalingrad were quite separate from the article about the views of Germans about Brits on the frontline", you doubled down and claimed to have a clipping of one of the reports. You continued defending the claim, even at one point providing an actual reference, which turned out to be to a column reporting what a newspaper owned by Hermann Goering had printed.

Even if the Stalingrad and eavesdropping stories were "quite separate", you still haven't backed up the claim that the Times published reports submitted from the German front lines anywhere, by the way.

No. 2. Likewise I was a witness to the Downing Street bombings and again I didn't ask you whether you believed me or not. You forced me to provide you with the details of where I was working and even then you sneered and claimed it was all a lie, even though when others said they, too, had witnessed it, you didn't similarly go after them and spread disgusting stories about their being fraudulent. You were not there. Your claim that it was 'impossible' for me to have witnessed it is a malicious lie on your part and I would like you to stop spreading character assassinations of me based on just a whim on your part because you enjoy causing distress to others for trivial sport. You are welcome not to believe me. Just stop spreading false stories about me. OK?

Again, here's what you actually posted:

Oh course people know, to be able to describe it. I lived in London when the IRA had their bombing campaigns. I was actually working at an office in Victoria when I had a bird's eye view of the cannon going off in the erstwhile PM John Major's back yard at No. 10 Downing street. I looked out of the window at the commotion to see a startled workman hanging on to scaffold for dear life having almost fallen off in fright.

You cannot possibly have had a bird's eye view of it from where you claimed to be, so people naturally challenged you on it.

You forced me to provide you with the details of where I was working...

Here's the post in which you, quite unprompted, made the claim about having a bird's eye view of 10 Downing Street's garden from "an office in Victoria". Here's the post in which you provided the exact address. How many times did I post between the two?

 

[Mojo]

You left out the eels working hand-in-paw with trained Mongolian Gerbils ( disguised by their CIA handles as hamsters.

Siberian?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Siberian?

Codename "Basil"

 

[Jack by the hedge]

• Equally equidistant between Helsinki, Tallinn and Stockholm.

Just for fun and larks I looked for the real 'equally equidistant' point between these 3 cities.

I find it's about 23km due north of Utö island. The Estonia sank about 41km south southeast of Utö. One might venture to say the clear message this sends is "busted" but of course there would have to be a sense that anyone took it seriously in the first place, and that is lacking.

I wonder if Vixen has checked whether she can contrive a 'significant' alignment with the great pyramid, matching some constellation. Or if it sank on a conjuction of ley lines. Maybe those were the 'submarine tracks'.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Here's what you posted again:




When challenged on your claim that the Times had reporters on the German front line at Stalingrad, you didn't say, "the articles on Stalingrad were quite separate from the article about the views of Germans about Brits on the frontline", you doubled down and claimed to have a clipping of one of the reports. You continued defending the claim, even at one point providing an actual reference, which turned out to be to a column reporting what a newspaper owned by Hermann Goering had printed.

Even if the Stalingrad and eavesdropping stories were "quite separate", you still haven't backed up the claim that the Times published reports submitted from the German front lines anywhere, by the way.




Again, here's what you actually posted:


You cannot possibly have had a bird's eye view of it from where you claimed to be, so people naturally challenged you on it.




Here's the post in which you, quite unprompted, made the claim about having a bird's eye view of 10 Downing Street's garden from "an office in Victoria". Here's the post in which you provided the exact address. How many times did I post between the two?

Oh look Vixen, you've been caught lying yet again. That's two times by me and once by Mojo where we presented the chain of posts of you making a very specific claim that you later lied about making.

Are you going to admit the error or continue attempting to gaslight everyone?

 

[GlennB]

Oh look Vixen, you've been caught lying yet again. That's two times by me and once by Mojo where we presented the chain of posts of you making a very specific claim that you later lied about making.

Are you going to admit the error or continue attempting to gaslight everyone?

Looking back at that exchange I realise that I made a big mistake in claiming that those buildings were typically 3 or 4 storeys tall. Vixen's is actually 6 storeys plus a couple of layers of attic conversions.

However, the same is true of the buildings she'd have needed to 'see through', so the effect is the same. #26 Old Queen St is favourite, given the line-of-sight over towards 10 Downing St. #26 is 5 storeys plus a similar arrangement of attic rooms, though 26 has a couple of storeys that seem to be higher than those in her #35.

The impossibility of seeing events in #10's gardens remains.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Everyone within miles heard the IRA mortar attack on 10 Downing St. I heard it from West London. I had colleagues who were in Downing Street (no injuries thankfully).

The point of contention here is Vixen said she had a "bird's eye view" of the attack when what she actually viewed was a shocked workman on scaffolding across the street.

All the rest of the back and forth has been wordplay about whether hearing it (and seeing others who heard it) means having a "bird's eye view" of the event. Like so much of this thread it's about whether you can twist the language into a pretzel of not-quite-wrongness.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Yes, in fact I suggest folks read this thread while listening to the theme from Benny Hill (Yackity Sax), for it to have the proper impact. And at some point I plan to weave African Swallows into the narrative,

We went through a whole "Naughty Hungarian Phrasebook" riff just a few pages ago. It looks like Vixen missed it.

 

[lobosrul5]

Just for fun and larks I looked for the real 'equally equidistant' point between these 3 cities.

I find it's about 23km due north of Utö island. The Estonia sank about 41km south southeast of Utö. One might venture to say the clear message this sends is "busted" but of course there would have to be a sense that anyone took it seriously in the first place, and that is lacking.

I wonder if Vixen has checked whether she can contrive a 'significant' alignment with the great pyramid, matching some constellation. Or if it sank on a conjuction of ley lines. Maybe those were the 'submarine tracks'.

It was sorta kinda close. If it was too exact then the message Russia wanted to signal by making it clear it was a precise military operation would be TOO precise and then everyone would think it was a coincidence. Of course this is Schrodinger's CT so maybe all of that is bunk and it was really a Swedish escort submarine who accidentally rammed her. Or maybe it was Cesium melting the locks. But simultaneously I'm right about everything too! /s

 

[Vixen]

Everyone within miles heard the IRA mortar attack on 10 Downing St. I heard it from West London. I had colleagues who were in Downing Street (no injuries thankfully).

The point of contention here is Vixen said she had a "bird's eye view" of the attack when what she actually viewed was a shocked workman on scaffolding across the street.

All the rest of the back and forth has been wordplay about whether hearing it (and seeing others who heard it) means having a "bird's eye view" of the event. Like so much of this thread it's about whether you can twist the language into a pretzel of not-quite-wrongness.

I was not ‘within miles’ of the Downing Street bombings. I was half a mile away. There wasn’t just one mortar attack there were three.

One mortar fell on Mountbatten Green, as well as Downing Street Garden, and there is a definitely clear view over Birdcage Walk. I did indeed witness the attack and I did see a thick black plume of smoke.

The guy who claims it is ‘impossible’ claims I would have to have been looking over the wall of Downing Street. The same guy who claims I never met a cockney who used the term ‘kimo sabe' because he is in charge of Cockney Slang. The same guy who questioned whether I worked at Brompton Hospital and whether it was called that and questioned whether it had anything to do with Frimley.

The same guy who claims I am lying when I said something was a typo or an error and the same guy who claims I sneakily edit my posts to sneakily evade being caught out by him as a sneaky liar. The same guy who thinks he is in charge of me and is the arbiter of what I have or have not experienced and he claims to know my motives better than anyone.

I could not care less what this guy believes. What pisses me off are all the other guys queuing up to join in with his mischievous fun. Proof? I notice he didn’t call another two posters liars when they said they too had witnessed the bombings and demand they produce proof of where they worked and then started a years’ long campaign of accusing them of being pathological liars because he knows it was ‘impossible’ because he has ‘researched it’ and he knows for a fact it is ‘impossible’, even though he himself is on the other side of the country.

But thanks for giving me your opinion, which I never asked for.