The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Vixen]

Because it's a desperate little bolt-hole Vixen can retreat to whenever the going gets tough? i.e. just about with every exchange here.

fwiw I fiddled around with Google translate and one translation of the English 'tuned' (like a radio or piano) was 'cocked' (like a gun) in Finnish.

During numerous wars with Novgorod/USSR/Russia - at least 41 in the last seven hundred years or so - no doubt Finns had a hundred different words for aiming a rifle, just as Norwegians supposedly have dozens of different words for snow and Lapps have literally dozens of words for reindeer - but these days, the word ' virittys' means 'tuning', as derived from the word, 'virta' which means 'current', 'flow' or 'power' as in electricity, radio wavelengths or water, as in a river.

 

[Vixen]

That was what the business about Times journalists posting what they had heard German soldiers saying on the front line at Stalingrad was all about, remember?

Ah yes. I've now received the book Andy_Ross recommended 'The Secret War' by Max Hastings and at first glance appears to be quite readable, albeit in a gushing schoolboy style with pointed jokes, despite being about 600 pages and a quite different genre from the last two chick-lit thrillers I read.

I stand by my comments about the TIMES article in question.

 

[Vixen]

And the truth will never prevail. Vixen conceded that Kari Lehtola (a lawyer by training) may not know the right "jargon." She conceded that the Finnish word may mean something other than "tune" in English. But these concessions ever only matter in the moment, and then are quickly forgotten.

With some other conspiracy theorists it's helpful to determine how they got the wrong idea. It's clear by now that Vixen gets the wrong idea because she wants to. She wants to see how far she can push that wrong idea, even if she has to twist and bend it from day to day, and play loosely with truth, to make the discussion go just a few more pages. Consistency is not a virtue she seems obliged to espouse. It's all about longevity.

At the time Lehtola is quoted, the EPIRBs had been recovered and tested. That he and a writer collaborated unintentionally to say something that doesn't translate into English as an accurate description is not something that's ever going to have a definite answer. So yes, it's that perfect haven of apparent fog that conspiracy theorists prefer to live in instead of the real world. Conspiracy theorists don't care about being right or wrong, and so primary sources and facts don't interest them. Conspiracy theorists care about being paid attention to, so murky secondary and tertiary sources are what they crave—along with the questionable inferences that can be drawn from them.

More's the pity the JIAC Report never elaborated on the communications 'black out' issue.

 

[Vixen]

The insistence that confused early accounts are somehow more accurate than later conclusions, and that a discrepancy between the two is evidence of a cover-up, also suggests a conspiracy theory mindset.

It remains true that if it is decided in retrospect that an issue should remain 'sealed' or 'classified' (as in Family Law situations or Military Operations, or even keeping secret the contents of the will of a member of the Royal Family) then any early report or digital/social media content, as has developed more recently, can and is wiped clean. This can be by the issue of a D-notice or a court order, such as a super-injunction.

To claim that it is a conspiracy theory that any of this ever happens is utter nonsense and fanciful thinking.

 

[Vixen]

You have to carefully characterize early reports. They usually include conjecture or misreported facts. Getting early accounts from witnesses is important because the longer you wait, the more narrative smoothing you have to deal with.

Saying that early reports are accurate and that later accounts that differ are evidence of a coverup is pure bunk. We generally get a better picture, more facts, and less conjecture later on.

Speculating early on that something went wrong with the bow visor is not entirely improper. First, if you know anything about that kind of ship, you know that's its weak point. And the witness testimony that emerged right away is consistent with that hypothesis. It's not irresponsible to say so. Second, the speculation is usually demanded by the reporter, not proffered by the expert. People want to know as soon as possible what we think went wrong. Left to themselves, the experts wouldn't be publicly speculating. The sentiment is more, "Well, if you're asking me to give my best guess right now..."

That a subsequent investigation develops evidence and confirms the early hypothesis from among others doesn't mean that it was the only one considered, that the investigation was biased by it, or that someone directed the investigation nefariously to arrive at that conclusion. The way conspiracy theories work, you'd never win anyway.

"We initially thought it might have been X, and we did a thorough examination and determined that it was, in fact X."
→
"See! There was pressure from the beginning to make it look like X even before an investigation!"

"We initially thought it was X, but after a thorough examination we determined it was Y."
→
"See! They knew immediately it was X, but the Powers That Be got to them and made them say Y!"​

The problem is with the few who behave like conspiracy theorists, not everyone else. This is why a second investigation won't silence the conspiracy theorists. They like it too much, and they'll just keep finding new ways to wallow in them no matter what the people say who know what they're talking about.

I think you are wrong. Too many people use the word 'conspiracy theory' int he same way they use the word 'fascist' or 'woke'; it means they do not have to think about it any further.

However, not being interested in why something happened doesn't ipso facto follow that people who are interested in finding out the facts of what happened, are therefore 'conspiracy theorists who should mind their own business'. IMV that is the lazy way out and sadly the knee-jerk response we have come to expect in place of reasoning skills.

 

[Vixen]

That's the thing about conspiracy theories: everything is evidence of the conspiracy. Even if there's no evidence whatsoever of the conspiracy, it's just evidence that the conspiracy has been covered up.

Perhaps start a thread on your incredibly fascinating conspiracy theory.

 

[Vixen]

Someone, I forget who, once said: "The invisible and the non-existent look alot alike."

Carl Sagan, was it not?

 

[Vixen]

Seriously, do you believe his opinion was that the crew had omitted the step of tuning the frequency of the EPIRB transmitters?

If you do believe he meant that, why does his opinion matter, since it is clearly wrong?

Look. The JAIC in its initial stages were problem solvers. There was the problem of automatic free float buoys that appeared not to have automatically emitted a signal to the COSPAS-SARSAT satellites, despite having been inspected and tested the week before as being in ready functional mode. This was a puzzle to the extent they were extensively tested by the sea vessel TARMOS for a full four hours. The batteries were fully charged and the signal was fine. The Coastguard Commnader requisitioned the logs of the Böden centre in Norway to find out for sure whether the signals were received and missed or not recieved at all.

In the eventuality, the JAIC didn't bother to explain its conclusions in the JAIC report. Advisor, Asser Koivisto, pointed out that rescue was not delayed because the signal doesn't go out until the ship has sunk, which suggests he was more interested in appeasing criticism about the delay in rescue than the 'black out' in communications and how a bunch of life-saving equipment, including the buoys were found washed up together in Dirhami in Estonia. But that obviates the whole point of the buoys in the first place, especially given that the coastguards had a problem getting he exact location of MV Estonia, thanks to the 'black out', as reported by Tammes in his last Mayday message. We need to know why the buoys didn't function and if someone tampered with them, then that puts a whole new perspective on the issue, given the other facts known about the incident.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'll take that long reply for the obvious evasion of a yes/no answer that it clearly is.

If he meant the crew didn't tune the frequency of their EPIRBs then he didn't know enough about them for his opinion to matter.

 

[Vixen]

I'll take that long reply for the obvious evasion of a yes/no answer that it clearly is.

If he meant the crew didn't tune the frequency of their EPIRBs then he didn't know enough about them for his opinion to matter.

Looking at the set-up/testing instructions, the buoys have to be set up in a particular way so that when released they emit the correct signal on floating to the surface. In the testing mode, you need a 121 frequency radio (iirc - check this) to receive the signal or an antenna mast , as illustrated, from an instruction sheet dated 1996.

Test set up 1996 by Username Vixen, on Flickr

Remember, the technology in 1994 was probably slightly more basic than now.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Is this your attempt to insinuate that having the users adjust the transmitter frequency might once have been part of the procedure for checking EPIRBs?

It's a waste of time. You're not going to find any document describing such a thing. You might as well look for a car owners manual explaining how to adjust the sensitivity of the airbag sensors. It's not a thing.

 

[zooterkin]

Looking at the set-up/testing instructions, the buoys have to be set up in a particular way so that when released they emit the correct signal on floating to the surface. In the testing mode, you need a 121 frequency radio (iirc - check this) to receive the signal or an antenna mast , as illustrated, from an instruction sheet dated 1996.

[qimg]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53246894461_85a00b3654_z.jpg[/qimg]Test set up 1996 by Username Vixen, on Flickr

Remember, the technology in 1994 was probably slightly more basic than now.

The picture you shared does not support your words in any way. The testing is only to ensure the buoys are emitting the correct signal, no more. There is no set-up required. They either work when they are turned on, or they don't.

 

[zooterkin]

More's the pity the JIAC Report never elaborated on the communications 'black out' issue.

Mainly because there wasn't one.

 

[zooterkin]

As of Jan 1995, there had been no primary materials released. The accident occurred 28 Sept 1994, just three and a half months before. The JAIC were still information gathering at that stage, with regular press conferences to 'handle expectations'.

And the information was then collected by the JAIC, so we know the facts and don't have to rely on inaccurate contemporary reports.

 

[zooterkin]

There was no "millions re-tooling for this new device"; all that was needed was an engineer to stick up a couple of brackets on either side of the bridge.

They already had those brackets; you've already been told this. The retooling was at the EPIRB factory, to produce only immersion activated beacons, instead of manual ones (though I suspect not much retooling would have been needed, just the obsoletion of the manual production line, since I think automatic ones were already being made). They would have had to ramp up production if all the manual EPIRBs installed on ships had to be replaced, though, which was the point.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As of Jan 1995, there had been no primary materials released. The accident occurred 28 Sept 1994, just three and a half months before. The JAIC were still information gathering at that stage, with regular press conferences to 'handle expectations'.

So the newspaper was guessing and speculating.

That's why it's not a good source.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Ah yes. I've now received the book Andy_Ross recommended 'The Secret War' by Max Hastings and at first glance appears to be quite readable, albeit in a gushing schoolboy style with pointed jokes, despite being about 600 pages and a quite different genre from the last two chick-lit thrillers I read.

I stand by my comments about the TIMES article in question.

'Gushing schoolboy style'?

 

[Vixen]

The picture you shared does not support your words in any way. The testing is only to ensure the buoys are emitting the correct signal, no more. There is no set-up required. They either work when they are turned on, or they don't.

Erm, if they are designed to be automatic, they do need to be tested that they will do what it says on the tin. Why else would the IMO stipulate that all GMDSS equipment must be inspected and tested by certified radio electricians to ensure conformance?

 

[Vixen]

Mainly because there wasn't one.

Oh really? So how come MRCC didn't get the may day until 02:00?

 

[Vixen]

And the information was then collected by the JAIC, so we know the facts and don't have to rely on inaccurate contemporary reports.

JAIC do not mention the cargo nor 101 other things. Such as why the vessel slowed to 5/6kn just prior to the WNW turn shortly before it sank?