• 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.

The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Vixen said:
Well chartered accountants are classed as STEM so we are not all a bunch of Lotus-1-2-3 spreadsheet nerds any more. We are highly analytical and able to deal with complex data, is the theory in order to pass the tough exams. Contrary to the view that psychology is 'just a social science' you won't get in without a strong science background, especially in biology. So whilst we might know nothing about welding - NOTHING! - it doesn't mean we can't understand how ships float and sink.
Click to expand...
But when you make claims about welding, you should at least have some background in it. By the way, you still are not a scientist, no matter how much you claim it.
 
Vixen said:
The body of Captain Arvo Andresson was confirmed dead on the bridge as identified by divers (yet for some reason they never brought his body up for post-mortem). Some members of the Estonian crew were recovered, dead and identified. Others are claimed to have been listed as survivors, for example their relatives receiving phone calls or advice that their loved one would soon be arriving at the airport, yet never to be seen again, nor their 'bodies recovered' ...
Click to expand...

Twister.

Divers think they identified Andresson's body. "Confirmed" is stretching it. You imply there was some something suspicious about the fact they did not try to recover the body. Rubbish. Was their plan to try to recover bodies? Not so far as I can tell. Do you know different? I think you do not.

Some other crew were recovered, you claim, as if to bolter your insinuation there was something odd about no attempt to retrieve Andresson. But they weren't recovered by those divers, were they? You're talking about bodies recovered during the rescue attempt or found soon after, aren't you? You're not talking about those divers, after the event, trying to drag decomposing remains out of the ship. Dishonest of you.

The rest is claims you can't substantiate. Names which were only rumoured to be on lists which you can't produce. Rumours of people rescued which tragically turned out to be incorrect. Not a foundation for a conspiracy. Just the level of confusion anyone could expect in the chaos around a huge emergency rescue operation like this one.

You're trying to spin something out of nothing, just as you have done for years.
 
Vixen said:
I can't read Estonian so I have no idea what is in Meister's book but Jutta Rabe made a claim that some helicopter pilot got chatting with a survivor who said he came from a small town in Estonia and that this survivor was Piht, who did come from there. Now you might say this is bolleaux but Meister was a member of the JAIC and thus his view can't be brushed off as a conspiracy theory., given he has had sight of highly confidential stuff and more.
Click to expand...
Why would that make you think that Meister had reported that there was a list of missing Estonian crew in a helicopter log?
 
Vixen said:
The body of Captain Arvo Andresson was confirmed dead on the bridge as identified by divers (yet for some reason they never brought his body up for post-mortem). Some members of the Estonian crew were recovered, dead and identified. Others are claimed to have been listed as survivors, for example their relatives receiving phone calls or advice that their loved one would soon be arriving at the airport, yet never to be seen again, nor their 'bodies recovered' are as follows:

Tina Müür, Lembit Leiger, Viktor Bogdanov, Kaimar Kikas, Merit Kikas, Agur Targama, Hannely (Anne) Veide, Hanka-Hannika Veide, Ago Tominga and Kahlev Vatras are/were among the survivors like Avo Piht .

They all belonged to the crew of M / S Estonia.
Click to expand...

And you've been told several times that this sort of very-early-stage information is often inaccurate owing to the "fog of war" effect and/or the unreliable nature of some initial-stage sources.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Twister.

Divers think they identified Andresson's body. "Confirmed" is stretching it. You imply there was some something suspicious about the fact they did not try to recover the body. Rubbish. Was their plan to try to recover bodies? Not so far as I can tell. Do you know different? I think you do not.

Some other crew were recovered, you claim, as if to bolter your insinuation there was something odd about no attempt to retrieve Andresson. But they weren't recovered by those divers, were they? You're talking about bodies recovered during the rescue attempt or found soon after, aren't you? You're not talking about those divers, after the event, trying to drag decomposing remains out of the ship. Dishonest of you.

The rest is claims you can't substantiate. Names which were only rumoured to be on lists which you can't produce. Rumours of people rescued which tragically turned out to be incorrect. Not a foundation for a conspiracy. Just the level of confusion anyone could expect in the chaos around a huge emergency rescue operation like this one.

You're trying to spin something out of nothing, just as you have done for years.
Click to expand...
Given in shipping tragedies (and now, so-called hybrid sabotage) it is imperative for prosecutors of the waters the vessel is in to bring in the Captain. I don't care if he was dead, it could be ascertained as to whether he suffered cardiac arrest, and hence the second and third mates had to take over, to disastrous effect, or whether - in the wildest conspiracy - some mafia-type gangster shot him; it is odd there was no apparent desire to hoist him up, if only for the sake of the investigation. The Estonian crew/staff supposedly listed as 'survivors' initially, included the IVth Officer navigator, the Chief Engineer, the Chief Doctor plus the bar manager and a couple of cruise entertainers. Almost all of these would be persons of very great interest. Especially as some will have been on duty as of the time leading up to the 'accident'.
 
LondonJohn said:
And you've been told several times that this sort of very-early-stage information is often inaccurate owing to the "fog of war" effect and/or the unreliable nature of some initial-stage sources.
Click to expand...
Helsingin Sanomat reported that Piht was due to be interviewed at Turku Hospital and on the following day reported Bengt Stenmark stating that Piht had now been interviewed (this would have been 28.9.1994, when the three PM's visited). English, Danish and Swedish papers subsequently reported that he had gone missing from a Helsinki Hospital.
 
Vixen said:
it doesn't mean we can't understand how ships float and sink.
Click to expand...
I would never question if a chartered (or any other kind of) accountant knew how boats floated or sank IF they could demonstrate that knowledge. You on the other hand as a specific amply demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about on the subject.
 
Vixen said:
Nobody can hang on to a grudge quite like a Brit! Of all the grudgiest of grudgiesness of grudgy nationalities, Brits hold the crown! A Brit nurtures his grudge lke a precious hothouse flower and hangs on to it like a rock-climber hanging on to a rope over a cliff-edge. He bears his grudge unto his grave and from generation unto generation. In three hundred years' time his descandants will still be sipping tea with a frown on their face about that rando on the internet on an obscure forum posing a dialectical question on a contentious topic under debate. Bloody bastard! 'Calling me a racist!!!'

MarkCorrigan, be reasonable. For the sake of sweet baby Jesus, Mary and the little donkey, 'Let it lie!'



<sfx voice of MC: "Shan't!">
Click to expand...

You DID accuse him of being a racist - no matter that the accusation was oblique and indirect. And you have demonstrated a steadfast refusal to concede even that. But that's par for the course when it comes to your way of addressing the incompetence and ineptitude of so very many of your claims, so we shouldn't be surprised.

ETA. Oh and the interjection of an offstage/off camera voice is not a special effect. One more fail.....
 
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan said:
Again, I wouldn't be calling you to task on this if you were not constantly lying about everyone else.

You seem to think this is personal, when really it's about holding you to task for the things you say. If LondonJohn, or Dabop or anyone else had repeatedly lied about others I would be doing the same to them, and equally if I were lying about you I would hope and assume that one of them, or indeed yourself would do the same to me.

You can't just lie about what people say and attempt to poison the well Vixen. No one is going to let you get away with that.
Click to expand...
It was a question! A frigging question! If you had to put up with half of what I have to put up with, beaten up over using primes for time duration as in time taken for the ship to sink 35", shee-eesh! Welcome to my world.
 
Vixen said:
Given in shipping tragedies (and now, so-called hybrid sabotage) it is imperative for prosecutors of the waters the vessel is in to bring in the Captain. I don't care if he was dead, it could be ascertained as to whether he suffered cardiac arrest, and hence the second and third mates had to take over, to disastrous effect, or whether - in the wildest conspiracy - some mafia-type gangster shot him; it is odd there was no apparent desire to hoist him up, if only for the sake of the investigation.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. The divers were not tasked with recovering bodies. Satisfying your curiosity over the wildest conspiracies you can conceive was, amazingly, not a priorty. Proposing the ship sank because the captain was incapacitated and nobody else know how to sail it is one of your daftest suggestions yet.
 
Vixen said:
Dialectical question for you: how have you determined Rabe is not a particularly trustworthy source? (Not an accusation of anything.)
Click to expand...

That sort of question is not dialectical*. There no middle-ground synthesis to be had here - Rabe is either trustworthy or she is not trustworthy.

* Thought that term seems to be a new "mark the intellect of my post!" attempt on your part.
 
Vixen said:
It was a question! A frigging question! If you had to put up with half of what I have to put up with, beaten up over using primes for time duration as in time taken for the ship to sink 35", shee-eesh! Welcome to my world.
Click to expand...
Nope, you were corrected after using prime notation for time wrongly, and refused to accept this.

The ship did not sink in 35 seconds.
 
Vixen said:
Helsingin Sanomat reported that Piht was due to be interviewed at Turku Hospital and on the following day reported Bengt Stenmark stating that Piht had now been interviewed (this would have been 28.9.1994, when the three PM's visited). English, Danish and Swedish papers subsequently reported that he had gone missing from a Helsinki Hospital.
Click to expand...

Did you not actually read what I wrote?
 
Vixen said:
Helsingin Sanomat reported that Piht was due to be interviewed at Turku Hospital and on the following day reported Bengt Stenmark stating that Piht had now been interviewed (this would have been 28.9.1994, when the three PM's visited). English, Danish and Swedish papers subsequently reported that he had gone missing from a Helsinki Hospital.
Click to expand...

That's another thing: Didn't you "quote" a lot of newspaper reports in this thread which turned out to be secondary quotations from someone reporting what they wanted to claim newspapers had reported?

Can you substantiate the claim these three newspapers reported Piht had gone missing from a Helsinki hospital? i.e. That they confirmed he was at the hospital at some point and now could not be located? I shall be surprised if you can do that.
 
Vixen said:
It was a question! A frigging question! If you had to put up with half of what I have to put up with, beaten up over using primes for time duration as in time taken for the ship to sink 35", shee-eesh! Welcome to my world.
Click to expand...

Hilariously, you demonstrate your ineptitude* once again within this very post in which you tried to imply that the challenges to your knowledge/understanding were misplaced :ROFLMAO:

* 35 minutes in prime notation is 35' not 35" (35" is 35 seconds LOL)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom