• 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:
AIUI the early naval divers recruited to survey the scene, were doing it for a military report, so I can see no reason why they would not have described exactly what they saw. This is a survey, not a party political broadcast designed to 'reassure the public' or cover up systemic mishaps or practices.
Click to expand...
Again with the AIUI. Your understanding of events surrounding this sinking are proven unreliable beyond any shadow of doubt. Your "understandings" are invariably un informed and wrong.
 
Andy_Ross said:
I have been in plenty of 'normal' winter storms in the Atlantic.
Lots of ships have sunk in 'normal' storms and they had captains 'at the scene'.
I know to alter course and speed if needed.
I know it's different for every ship as every ship has different characteristics.

You know nothing of ship handling, storm procedures or weather routing of ships.
Click to expand...
Vixen was once in a rowboat when it was windy. (No, I am not going to search back through her thousands of useless posts to quote where she wrote that.)
 
Vixen said:
Oh no, not again. Oceanos was floating tilting on its hull, not its infrastructure. It sank like a stone because its engine room was being slowly flooded.
Click to expand...

Where on a ship is the infrastructure? Are you claiming Estonia (unlike Oceanos) was floating on its electrical wiring, plumbing, pumps, engine, navigational gear, gangplank, galley, and radio?
 
Vixen said:
However, another readily available source is the book - well worth reading if you have an interest in this topic - The Hole by Drew Wilson. He states that the guy under the toppled cabinet had a tattoo on his hand which would not have been Capt Andresson's.
Click to expand...
I read The Hole. It's garbage. Wilson cites to Anders Björkmann as his only source for the claim that the ship sank in a suspicious manner, then spins a bad spy novel to try to explain it. Pure conspiratorial twaddle.

Vixen said:
Wilson's source is the late former head of the JAIC, Andi Meister, quoting Lopetamatta logiraamat ['The Unfinished Logbook', Baltic News Services, 1997]. According to Jutta Rabe from p. 140, the two eyewitness sources were two Finnish armed forces guys who said that clearly visible in these videos was Capt. Andresson with a 'shot through the head'. Now, my view is that (a) Finns tend to tell it as it is (authenticity) so I do believe them if that is what they say they saw.
Click to expand...
You told us that you didn't think the captain had been shot.
Vixen

Post in thread 'The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII'

JayUtah said:
Please answer my question. Are you renewing your claim that the captain of MS Estonia was murdered?



You keep repeating the same insinuations and suggesting we should address them. That's a claim.



Do you still believe and/or argue that there is credible evidence he was murdered? I'm asking a very simple question.
Click to expand...

I have never claimed the Captain was murdered as I have no idea what happened to him.

Yes, I think it is quite pertinent to ask, what happened to the Captain?

My opinion isn't relevant but if you insist: IMV it seems highly unlikely the captain was murdered...
Now you're telling us we have to believe the Finns because they're Finns, and the captain really must have been shot. Your critics lose patience having to deal with your constant changes of mind and heart.
 
Vixen said:
Oh no, not again. Oceanos was floating tilting on its hull, not its infrastructure. It sank like a stone because its engine room was being slowly flooded.
Click to expand...
I presume you mean "superstructure." Infra- and super- mean exactly the opposite of each other. But it is so very entertaining watching you pretend you know what you're talking about.
 
Myriad said:
Where on a ship is the infrastructure? Are you claiming Estonia (unlike Oceanos) was floating on its electrical wiring, plumbing, pumps, engine, navigational gear, gangplank, galley, and radio?
Click to expand...
Hush you! You are talking to a STEM expert psychologist accountant who chooses all their words very "carefully". So of course that is exactly the claim.
 
Vixen said:
You can mock F. Gregg Bemis but he is considered 'the father of modern day sailing racing rules'.
<snip irrelelvant BS>
Click to expand...
Here we go again. Show me where I posted *anything* mocking Gregg Bemis. You really are very bad at reading comprehension if you think that my merely mentioning his name is mocking him. Please identify the post where I mocked him or admit your error and take it back/.

Also, how does being an expert on the rules of sailing racing have anything to do with being able to identify "submarine tracks" as being caused by a submarine with wheels?

Vixen said:
I love how people mistaking sceptism for kne-jerk mocking, write off experts like Bemis or Braidwood as 'conspiracy theorist' cranks.
Click to expand...
I never mocked Bemis or Braidwood. Quote the post where I mocked Bemis. Do that or please retract your false accusation that I mocked him, your intellectual dishonesty when you falsely accuse others like me of this kind of thing is shameful.
 
Vixen said:
Oh no, not again. Oceanos was floating tilting on its hull, not its infrastructure. It sank like a stone because its engine room was being slowly flooded.
Click to expand...

On its infrastructure? Its infrastructure?!

Another of those famous typos eh, Vixen? :ROFLMAO:

(Oh and I slipped that YouTube vid in just to remind you that ships sink in many different ways, in all sorts of orientations, depending on a myriad of internal and external conditions. For you to claim blithely that ships such as the Estonia must necessarily roll completely over prior to sinking is fatuous and incorrect.)

ETA: bah, ninja'd several times!!
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Captain Esa Mäkelä of Silja Europa, one of the two key ships nearby Estonia said the 'storm' was no different from any end of September storm on the route.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but other ships travelling across the Baltic Sea that night wisely chose to slow down and keep much closer to the shore. Estonia simply ploughed on "full steam ahead" straight into the wind and the pounding waves. And finally the bow visor lock had had so much cumulative pounding - not just on this voyage, but over its working life to that point - that it finally lost structural integrity. The rest is history.
 
This is your reponse to why "the father of modern sailing rules" would know anything about identifying submarine wheel tracks...
Vixen said:
From AI overview:

The RMS Lusitania

  • Ownership:In 1982, Bemis acquired the wreck of the RMS Lusitania for a nominal fee, taking full ownership of the sunken British liner.
  • Protected Status:The Lusitania is considered a protected wreck by the Irish government, and diving on it requires permission from both the authorities and Bemis as the owner.
  • Controversy:Bemis's ownership and the wreck's protected status have contributed to the controversy surrounding the Lusitania, which was torpedoed and sunk by a German U-boat in 1915 during World War I.
Bemis was an expert diver as well as sailor and all things marine-related.
Click to expand...
What kind of non-answer is that? How does owning a 100 year old shipwreck make him an expert at identifying tracks supposedly left by a submarine with wheels?
 
Vixen said:
You can do a search about this as it has been discussed in the past. However, another readily available source is the book - well worth reading if you have an interest in this topic - The Hole by Drew Wilson. He states that the guy under the toppled cabinet had a tattoo on his hand which would not have been Capt Andresson's. Wilson's source is the late former head of the JAIC, Andi Meister, quoting Lopetamatta logiraamat ['The Unfinished Logbook', Baltic News Services, 1997]. According to Jutta Rabe from p. 140, the two eyewitness sources were two Finnish armed forces guys who said that clearly visible in these videos was Capt. Andresson with a 'shot through the head'. Now, my view is that (a) Finns tend to tell it as it is (authenticity) so I do believe them if that is what they say they saw. (b) this doesn't necessarily signify murder. IMV it could well be suicide in the face of near certain death, as being the captain, he couldn't leave the ship, as Andresson was very old school and trained at a Russian naval academy. In WWII, torpedoed German ships would have a flurry of SS officers shooting dead their wives and children before killing themself, rather than face drowning and fear.

Note: words in italics indicates the title of a book.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming that SS officers were stationed on German warships whose job it was to murder any officer that abandoned a sinking ship? Or that they'd go shoot their family back in Germany if they did... or that wives and kids were on board? And that because of this completely made up anecdote or whatever, it implies a car ferry captain in the 1990's shot himself in the head because he had Russian naval training?! Have you any idea how little logical sense that makes
 
Vixen said:
I have no control over your thoughts or emotions.
Click to expand...
Yes you do. When you say the following:
Vixen said:
I am not a psychologist as I am no longer a member of the British Psychological Society.
Click to expand...
Then people are going to reasonably think that you used to be a psychologist but are no longer.

Yes or no, were you once a bona fide psychologist?
 
Vixen said:
Once the listing passes a certain point, say 50° (off the top of my head) then overturning becomes inevitable. To explain the Estonia, the JAIC had to hypothesize the windows on Deck 4 [iirc] must have smashed, causing ingress onto superstructure, high above the water level.
Click to expand...
If memory serves I've already posted the below. But here it is again. Roughly 80 or 90 degree list and she doesn't capsize.



But who knows, maybe its a Mandela Effect and we all just think thats what happened, but Spetsnaz covertly altered all known video of The Andrea Doria capsizing to cover their tracks sinking the MS Estonia (its a thing they do right?).
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
Hush you! You are talking to a STEM expert psychologist accountant who chooses all their words very "carefully". So of course that is exactly the claim.
Click to expand...
Well this was information beaten out of me by the 'playground bullies' and, true to form, they now hold it against me! You will never win when Flashman steps in your path.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Says who?



You are inviting us to infer the JAIC invented an hypothesis which is in some way unlikely. I think that smells like BS. They concluded the windows, intended to withstand winds and spray, could have failed when immersed in the pounding waves. (Not when "high above the water level" which would of course not been a way of rapidly shipping many tons of water.)
Click to expand...
It was a hypothesis, never tested. It was the only way they could explain it to keep sabotage out of it.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
You've been caught in a lie.

You claimed you were a psychologist then later you stated you never claimed to be one. Even without the post wherein you imply you were one you have been directly claiming to be a psychologist.
Click to expand...
You don't get to define me. I gave you the clarification even though I don't have to justify myself to you. I very clearly said, I was a psychologist in the CONTEXT of being a member of the BPS. Why don't you read the entire sentence and try and let the meaning of it sink in. Actually, I have done voluntary counselling work (after training) for a couple of charities so don't do wordplay with me, matey.
 
Vixen said:
You don't get to define me.
Click to expand...
We get to question the basis by which you define yourself if that definition becomes a premise to an argument you are making.

Vixen said:
I gave you the clarification even though I don't have to justify myself to you.
Click to expand...
When you present yourself as having certain qualifications that you then expect others to respect when evaluating your judgments and assertions, the validity of those qualifications is in fact the only thing that's relevant.

If you claim to be a scientist, and on that basis claim competent authority to assert scientific claims pertaining to your arguments, the precise nature of your science education and practice will be tested. It should be tested, because you made it a premise to the argument. "I know what I'm talking about," is a premise to every single statement you make. Your constant attempts to squelch that examination—"End of discussion," "Discussion over"—indicates that you really do understand how very uninformed you are on these subjects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom