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

[Jack by the hedge]

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,

I searched.

This thread and its forebears have run on so very, very long that you may have forgotten you already did weave in African swallows two years ago, speculating they may have turned the EPIRBs off:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13652324#post13652324

 

[Vixen]

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?

As I have told you several times now, I could not find that particular article. I spent hours going through my research material that I brought with me from England and instead of saying, thanks for looking, I get a lot of grief with your claiming the article never existed. The only reason I spent hours looking for the thing is because I thought you were genuinely interested. It turns out that the only thing you are interested in is taking the mickey because you think it is a great laugh.

As for the Downing Street bombings issue, that came up over the issue of whether one can recognise an explosion or not. All you are interested in is the joy of mocking another to make yourself feel good. I am sorry if you have been going through a hard time but the way to relieve it isn't to take it out on someone else just because I have a different opinion from you on a particular topic. The correct way to deal with a difference of opinion on a topic is to follow the conventional rules of debate.

Two words: grow up.

 

[lobosrul5]

As I have told you several times now, I could not find that particular article. I spent hours going through my research material that I brought with me from England and instead of saying, thanks for looking, I get a lot of grief with your claiming the article never existed. The only reason I spent hours looking for the thing is because I thought you were genuinely interested. It turns out that the only thing you are interested in is taking the mickey because you think it is a great laugh.

As for the Downing Street bombings issue, that came up over the issue of whether one can recognise an explosion or not. All you are interested in is the joy of mocking another to make yourself feel good. I am sorry if you have been going through a hard time but the way to relieve it isn't to take it out on someone else just because I have a different opinion from you on a particular topic. The correct way to deal with a difference of opinion on a topic is to follow the conventional rules of debate.

Two words: grow up.

You couldn't find it because you were either mistaken, or willfully lying.

ETA: I've stayed completely out of the Downing Street stuff because I know next to nothing about it. The historiography of WW2 is something I know about. The press made mistakes, had information withheld from them, and were sometimes even flat out lied to including on the allied side. Using Times reports from Stalingrad (WTF?) as an analog that current reporting of an accident has some sort of great value is just flat wrong.

 

[JayUtah]

Two words: grow up.

Two words: stop lying.

 

[GlennB]

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.

<further lies and delusions snipped>

Your office was on the south side of Old Queen St. The buildings on the north side are of a very similar height, so even if you'd been in the very highest room (they all have some kind of attic conversion) your view would have been blocked.

The there's the small matter of the Foreign and Commonwealth offices (the rather large, tall, pale building in the image below)

11 Downing St is the brown building, with gardens behind.

eta: You were 300 yards away, max.

eeta: Seems the red building is #12, as if it matters.

 

[Vixen]

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'.

I am not sure what method you used but by using coordinates, we get:



60° 11' 31.4124'' N 24° 56' 44.9916'' E Helsinki

59°22,9´ N, 21°41,0´ E Estonia Wreck
--------------------------------

126.605m 110.017 nm, 203.75 km
=========================

59° 20' 4.5276'' N 18° 3' 47.6640'' E Stockholm

127.229m 110.559nm 204.755km

============================

59° 26' 13'', 24° 45' 13'' E Tallinn coordinates

107.829m 93.701nm 173.534km

=============================

So, Tallinn 20 miles out.

"Two out of three ain't bad" ~ Meatloaf

As a guide as to how far apart the three cities are from each other:

Stockholm and Helsinki is 396 kilometers (246 miles
Stockholm and Tallinn is 379 kilometers (235 miles)
Tallinn and Helsinki is 50.91 mi (81.93 km)

I think it is fair to call the MV Estonia wreck equidistant from the three cities, given the foibles of wind and waves.

 

[Vixen]

Two words: stop lying.

Luckily, I never needed to 'stop lying' as I have never started.

 

[Vixen]

You couldn't find it because you were either mistaken, or willfully lying.

ETA: I've stayed completely out of the Downing Street stuff because I know next to nothing about it. The historiography of WW2 is something I know about. The press made mistakes, had information withheld from them, and were sometimes even flat out lied to including on the allied side. Using Times reports from Stalingrad (WTF?) as an analog that current reporting of an accident has some sort of great value is just flat wrong.

If you know nothing about the Downing Street bombings or whether or not the TIMES had an article featuring German troops opinions about the British troops I am not sure how you can truthfully and honestly claim to know that I was "mistaken, or willfully lying".

That shows you to be either unfair or unkind, or both, does it not?

 

[JayUtah]

Luckily, I never needed to 'stop lying' as I have never started.

Also stop gaslighting, please.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Luckily, I never needed to 'stop lying' as I have never started.

Yes you have, and you have been quoted as having done so. Did you or did you not claim that the letters from stalingrad column meant that there were reporters on the German front lines?

 

[lobosrul5]

If you know nothing about the Downing Street bombings or whether or not the TIMES had an article featuring German troops opinions about the British troops I am not sure how you can truthfully and honestly claim to know that I was "mistaken, or willfully lying".

That shows you to be either unfair or unkind, or both, does it not?

Vixen your contention that day 0 reporting by the press of the MS Estonia sinking is very valuable because of the great reporting done by Times reporters at the Battle of Stalingrad is faulty.

Its faulty on three levels:

First, reporting by the press during WW2 is riddled with errors.
Second, The Times did not have on the ground reporters at the Battle of Stalingrad. They relied on allied military press officers who relied on factual information from USSR liaisons.
Third, even IF I am wrong about the two points above, this in no way means that the press on the day of, and immediately after, the sinking of MS Estonia didn't make factual errors.

You keep trying to rely on these analogies that are, at best, a vast stretch as to their relevance to the MS Estonia sinking.

ETA: and yet again, I have made no claims whatsoever about the Downing Street bombings.

 

[zooterkin]

If you know nothing about the Downing Street bombings or whether or not the TIMES had an article featuring German troops opinions about the British troops I am not sure how you can truthfully and honestly claim to know that I was "mistaken, or willfully lying".

That shows you to be either unfair or unkind, or both, does it not?

What do you think a 'birds-eye view' is?

 

[Steve]

If you know nothing about the Downing Street bombings or whether or not the TIMES had an article featuring German troops opinions about the British troops I am not sure how you can truthfully and honestly claim to know that I was "mistaken, or willfully lying".
That shows you to be either unfair or unkind, or both, does it not?

There is a long, long history here that makes these the default positions. Credibility is valuable when evaluating claims.

 

[Axxman300]

I searched.

This thread and its forebears have run on so very, very long that you may have forgotten you already did weave in African swallows two years ago, speculating they may have turned the EPIRBs off:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13652324#post13652324

I can't keep track any more. The second investigation into the sinking is completed, the preliminary results support the original findings, just with more detail. And now we have a computer recreation of the ship impacting the sea floor, which is the only thing MS Estonia hit on that night.

No bombs, no submarine collision, no commandos.

And yet someone chooses to ignore the facts in order to spice up their lives if espionage and international intrigue.

 

[Axxman300]

Siberian?

The Siberians weren't ready for operations in 1994. They wouldn't be certified for open ocean missions until 1996.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I am not sure what method you used
[...]
I think it is fair to call the MV Estonia wreck equidistant from the three cities, given the foibles of wind and waves.

Firstly I eyeballed it on Google maps and saw that with Tallinn being further west than Helsinki, the equidistant point must be somewhat north of a line from Helsinki to Stockholm.

Next I used Google maps' measure distance function to measure from Uto to one of the cities. You can drag the end point to another city to measure that distance, and so on. It was closest to Tallinn by a few km so I dragged the start point a little north and measured again. Repeat until all were within 1km.

If you just want to note that the wreck is a roughly similar distance from all 3 cities then that's fine but I think it's unfair to call the wreck site equidistant if you wish to imply there is something symbolic, significant or noteworthy about it as it's about 60km away from the real equidistant point. If you don't want to do that then I have no problem with it. If you wish to put it on a list of sinister coincidences suggestive of foul play then I have a major problem with that.

 

[whoanellie]

Luckily, I never needed to 'stop lying' as I have never started.

For a start, you’ve lied about no flotsam being found and lied about the sinking occurring at the midpoint of the journey.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mojo]

As I have told you several times now, I could not find that particular article. I spent hours going through my research material that I brought with me from England and instead of saying, thanks for looking, I get a lot of grief with your claiming the article never existed. The only reason I spent hours looking for the thing is because I thought you were genuinely interested. It turns out that the only thing you are interested in is taking the mickey because you think it is a great laugh.

Here's your gracious response to a request for sufficient information for the article to be identified:

I will not be going through my archives to satisfy your frivolous request.

My area of research area of interest in WWII was the Continuation War, not Stalingrad or the reports from the German frontline re 'Tommy'. Those news items were a fascinating distraction, which I just happened to notice.

And you have still not provided a shred of evidence that these embedded reporters existed, let alone posted stories from the German front lines. The column that you claimed supported this turned out, when tracked down, to be a round-up of the German media, not anything from the Times's own reporters.

 

[JayUtah]

The second investigation into the sinking is completed, the preliminary results support the original findings, just with more detail. And now we have a computer recreation of the ship impacting the sea floor, which is the only thing MS Estonia hit on that night.

As if it weren't obvious, none of Vixen's perennial pearl-clutching nor any of the theories she's borrowing from poses any meaningful criticism to the original report. Aside from the obvious lying and gaslighting, much of her conspiratorial apoplexy just misses the point of what a final report from a forensic engineering investigative body is supposed to contain. This is essentially true of the conspiracy cloud itself surrounding MS Estonia. It's armchair detectives at their worst.

Certainly Evertsson's film raised one new question, but since his agenda has been exposed it really doesn't amount to much. A new investigation hasn't breathed any more life into the various decades of conspiracy-mongering than was there in the beginning. There was never any question in the engineering world what sank the ship. That lay busybodies aren't happy with it shouldn't ordinarily mean anything.

 

[Axxman300]

As if it weren't obvious, none of Vixen's perennial pearl-clutching nor any of the theories she's borrowing from poses any meaningful criticism to the original report. Aside from the obvious lying and gaslighting, much of her conspiratorial apoplexy just misses the point of what a final report from a forensic engineering investigative body is supposed to contain. This is essentially true of the conspiracy cloud itself surrounding MS Estonia. It's armchair detectives at their worst.

Certainly Evertsson's film raised one new question, but since his agenda has been exposed it really doesn't amount to much. A new investigation hasn't breathed any more life into the various decades of conspiracy-mongering than was there in the beginning. There was never any question in the engineering world what sank the ship. That lay busybodies aren't happy with it shouldn't ordinarily mean anything.

Keep in mind that the author of the OP is upset that this thread was moved to the Conspiracy Theory board, and does not believe the claims she's sold her soul to are fanciful in any way.

This entire CT is insulting to me. First, as a layman the cause of the sinking seems straight forward. The ship was sailing in an environment it was never designed to operate, under conditions which would be challenging for most oceangoing vessels of her size. Not one of the conspiratorial claims hold water (pun intended). There are dozens of hours of dive footage from the initial investigation that anyone bored enough(like me) can view, and the bow shows no evidence of explosives, the bow visor shows no evidence of explosives, but the hull forward of the bow's superstructure is rippled as a result of the banging it took from the visor before it detached.

As a reformed CTist myself, I find the claims advanced in this thread, for lack of a better word, asinine. So many real-world basic elements must be ignored just to entertain them. There is no thought put into any of the claims, the result is each one dissolves like wet toilet paper. A quality CT works within the facts to use them as a framework for whatever BS the proponent wants to advance. IMO, the only CT that might work for a while would be a desperate captain taking out a large life insurance policy to help his family overcome hardship, so he drives the ship hard knowing full well it will likely sink.This silly theory works within the facts of the case without submarines, Spetsnaz, or radioactive materials. But it falls apart with a simple record's check on the insurance policy.

I understand why some of the families need this to be a conspiracy. The idea of simple negligence killing over 800 people is hard to stomach. And ferry transit is a staple for European travel, so the idea that the ship you and your family just sailed on might have been a death-trap could be too much for some. Of course there are people who feed upon misery and disaster to spread misinformation to advance their world-view. In this thread we've all been subjected to extremely weak claims of black-ops, spies, and high-level cover-ups with no consistent line of thinking. Most of us know, and accept that multiple things can be true at the same time, yet have nothing to do with each other, or the central incident.

A cold-case detective spoke about why he loves to interview killers. He gets the full story about the off-the-wall pieces of evidence from the crime scenes. He learns why and how shoes ended up where they were found, why doors/windows were locked, or left open. Much of the time those answers had nothing to do with the crime; people leave doors and windows open at night, the victim wasn't wearing shoes at the time of the murder. This leaves the detective with nothing but off-the-wall features of the crime scene that had to be recorded, and investigated for a time. The result is more focused attention paid in the next investigation where the detective doesn't waste time on the periferal things.

The sinking of MS Estonia is just one of those things. An accident that could have been avoided had the shipping company had integrity.