• 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

Andy_Ross said:
Almost the exact opposite of claims we have seen in this thread.
Click to expand...
Not really because the Rockwater guys did take a video which is uploaded to youtube (which can be searched) where they are filmed looking into the bridge, so Meister's account of what was observed probably predates that survey.
 
Vixen said:
That is conjecture. What we are looking at is facts. Fact is, the guy in a brown jacket.
Click to expand...
You yourself previously reported that the unknown person was wearing red. You seem to be insisting on brown now because you have lately been shown evidence that some people's work uniforms are red, as are the exposure suits. Rather than accept the clearly parsimonious explanation that there is nothing suspicious about this person being on the bridge, you've changed your story in order to preserve your predetermined conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Context is important. Always look at the context. 'Strange' as used in one post can relate to something completely different in another post. It doesn't mean 'strange' ALWAYS means the same regardless of context,
Click to expand...
The question is, which is to be master - that's all.
 
Vixen said:
Ainsalu and Tammes, who was found dead in the water in a life jacket, are known to have left the bridge. I suggest using search if you want to know about the bridge movements and protocols. AI overview tells you:

During the M/S Estonia disaster, the Master, Captain Arvo Andresson, the Chief Officer Juhan Herma, and the Fourth Officer Kaimar Kikas are believed to have remained on the bridge until the ship sank, as their bodies were found there during the diving investigation. The Second Officer Peeter Kannussaar and Third Officer Andres Tammes were seen leaving the bridge to assist with launching lifeboats and distributing life jackets in the final stages of the accident.
Officers believed to have remained on the bridge:

  • Captain Arvo Andresson:Believed to have stayed on the bridge.
  • Juhan Herma:Chief Officer and believed to have remained on the bridge.
  • Kaimar Kikas:Fourth Officer, who asked for assistance with pumping freshwater overboard, suggesting his presence on the bridge.
Officers seen leaving the bridge:

These two officers were seen assisting in the process of releasing lifeboats and distributing life jackets to passengers and crew in the latter part of the catastrophe.

The final report of the investigation indicated that the crew on the bridge did not realize the severity of the incident as quickly as they could have, partly due to the inability to see the detached bow visor from the conning position. This delay in understanding the unfolding events significantly reduced the chances of survival for those on board.
Click to expand...
The crew of a sip is composed of more than a handful of officers. there are lookouts and helmsmen as well.

Also in a storm extra lookouts are usually present. Compound that with an emergency and the presence of other hands is more than likely for a number of reasons.
 
Vixen said:
Initially the Swedish navy sent teams down to ascertain likelihood of recovery. A team went down to retrieve Capt Piht's attaché case. The Swedes carried out dives in secrecy not inviting Estonia or Finland (being the Swedish Navy). The wreck was nearest Finnish waters, so their Navy likely did some of its own inspections (cf; Lehtola, to investigate possible radioactivity). You should be able to search the discussions on this. Rockwater is an official dive and report.
Click to expand...
What is your source for adive team sent to recover an attaché case?

If the dives were secret how do you know about them?

What radioactivity?
 
Vixen said:
Not really because the Rockwater guys did take a video which is uploaded to youtube (which can be searched) where they are filmed looking into the bridge, so Meister's account of what was observed probably predates that survey.
Click to expand...
That is conjecture. What we are looking at is facts. Fact is, they never entered the bridge.
 
Andy_Ross said:
What is your source for adive team sent to recover an attaché case?

If the dives were secret how do you know about them?

What radioactivity?
Click to expand...
The whole attache case thing is just bad Hollywood. There is nothing likely to have been in that briefcase that would not be cheaper, easier, and safer to simply replace or write off.
 
Last edited:
Reformed Offlian said:
The whole attache case thing is just bad Hollywood. There is nothing likely to have been in that briefcase that would not be cheaper, easier, and safer to simply replace or write off.
Click to expand...


The stupid thing is that although divers did search cabins they could get into, and they did find a briefcase, somehow Vixen has become convinced that finding a particular briefcase was the intended purpose of their dive, and that it was Piht's they were sent to get, not Voronin's. So far as I can tell, that mission exists solely in Vixen's imagination.
 
Vixen said:
Not really because the Rockwater guys did take a video which is uploaded to youtube (which can be searched) where they are filmed looking into the bridge, so Meister's account of what was observed probably predates that survey.
Click to expand...
Continualy telling people to search these forums or to search YouTube for a citation for evidence which you want to use is a lazy and sloppy debate tactic. Are you that unwilling or incapable of digging out the evidence that you wish to use in the debate?

edit: Vixen, surely you know that when asked for citation of your evidence, that previous posts on this forum that you refuse to cite, or YouTube videos that you tell others to search for, just won't cut it. These forums or YouTube are not a primary source for evidence of what happened on the Estonia.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
That is conjecture. What we are looking at is facts. Fact is, the guy in a brown jacket.
Click to expand...
Can we rewind a little? This part of the discussion started because @Vixen asserted that only authorised persons are allowed on the bridge, and those authorised persons were identified by their uniforms (a picture of a uniform was presented), and therefore someone dressed in red was suspicious (or is it strange!). Several respondents including @Andy_Ross and myself pointed out that there were numerous reasons for a non-uniformed person being on the bridge.

And your response to all that is to say the above?

Whether they were dressed in red, brown, or sky blue pink, can you help us out here and explain why this is significant?
 
Vixen said:
The German Third Reich had these 'happy kraft' ships for families, so yeah, these would occasionally get torpedoed by sneaky Soviets giving them a bit of their own medicine.
Click to expand...
As I noted in my brief reply to LR, you don't know what you're talking about. The Kraft durch Freude (KdF) program was suspended during the war, and the ships were taken over by the German Navy for use as transports or hospital ships, after which they spent practically all their time sitting in port. Most besides the Wilhelm Gustloff survived the war (although with varying degrees of bomb damage), except for one hospital ship that was destroyed, with great loss of life, in an air raid, because the Germans had stupidly concealed her Hague Convention markings with camouflage.

Two other Operation HannibalWP evacuation ships were torpedoed and sunk with the loss of several thousand lives. One was the captured Norwegian freighter Goya, and the other was the former Norddeutscher Lloyd liner Steuben. Although the latter may have been chartered for KdF cruises occasionally, she was not a regular KdF ship.
 
JesseCuster said:
Continualy telling people to search these forums or to search YouTube for a citation for evidence which you want to use is a lazy and sloppy debate tactic. Are you that unwilling or incapable of digging out the evidence that you wish to use in the debate?
Click to expand...
If you search for a citation of Vixen's claim that divers were sent down to find and retrieve Piht's briefcase, what you find is people asking Vixen to provide a citation for her claim.
 
This is what happens when someone is emotionally invested in a conspiracy and refuses to acknowledge they've been completely wrong. Instead of looking inward for the reasons they embraced Tom Foolery, they double-down. This coming AFTER a second investigation they've been screaming for has cut them off at the knees. It is sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom