The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Andy_Ross]

The standard response of course - "You can search".

ETA told ya!

I have already referenced the tape elsewhere in the thread.

You told us to search

 

[Andy_Ross]

To recap how it sank:

What has that got to do with your post about it's length and the depth?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Hands up, everybody who wants to discuss this all over again. <fx: quick head count> Zero. No-one. Nada. Compu'er says no.

As I am aware of the mathematical competence @Vixen has demonstrated throughout this thread and its antecedents, it did not surprise me that, when counting heads, she miscounted.

Hands up, everybody who wants Vixen to cite her primary source for the claim that a body with a bullet wound was found on the bridge.

I'll go first: me!

You're willing to go to the trouble of citing the publisher, year, author, book title, page number, etc. for irrelevant guff in books about World War II, but you're incapable or unwilling to provide any citations for claims about strange dead bodies in red with bullet wounds, that are directly linked to the Estonia sinking. Why?

Because it has already been discussed to death.

That discussion has established two facts: (1) @Vixen has never cited any verifiable and credible source for a red-jacketed victim on the bridge. (2) Even if she had, the presence of a red-jacketed victim on the bridge would be of no significance whatsoever.

The presence of a red-jacketed victim on the bridge with a verifiable bullet wound might be of some interest. Inasmuch as @Vixen has never cited any verifiable and credible source for a red-jacketed victim on the bridge, with or without a bullet wound, we need not waste any more time on this unevidenced hypothetical.

But you were asked about the alleged dead body in red with the bullet wound, not about a massive hole in the side of the Estonia. It would only take you a few seconds to post a citation for the evidence, why are you willing to accurately cite irrelevant books about World War II but completely unwilling to cite the evidence for the strange body in red with the bullet wound on the bridge?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

they make a beeline for that one,

No. They did not.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Er, the guy on the video tape can be heard spelling out Voronin's name, albeit incorrectly.

This does not address your "made a beeline" claim in any way.

He tried spelling out the name because the diver couldn't read Russian and the name was clearly unfamiliar to him and to the controller he was speaking to.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

To recap how it sank:

Your response to the question "what maths?" is to say "watch this YouTube video and maybe it'll contain a hint about whatever I was talking about".

You know you could just answer the question.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The Estonia sank stern down first, bow in the air. The depth was 80m, the length of the vessel was 155m. Do the maths, So now the 22m gaping hole in the hull has been confirmed, although not mentioned at all in the original JAIC Report (how could they miss it?). So the trigger 'initial findings' is that this was caused by rocks where it landed and rolled against. This is classic Change Management, preparing the public for a conclusion it was the rocks that caused the hole. Let's see if it all adds up.

This "22m gaping hole" - are you talking about the gash rather obviously caused by the wreck landing on rocks? The one missed by divers because it couldn't be seen until the wreck shifted? The one which would be above the water line if the ship were afloat? That gash?

Well, what about it?

 

[Mojo]

So now the 22m gaping hole in the hull has been confirmed, although not mentioned at all in the original JAIC Report (how could they miss it?).

You know, I have a feeling that this has been covered before.

 

[Mojo]

Your response to the question "what maths?" is to say "watch this YouTube video and maybe it'll contain a hint about whatever I was talking about".

You know you could just answer the question.

No she can't.*


*Based on the available evidence.

 

[JesseCuster]

The Estonia sank stern down first, bow in the air. The depth was 80m, the length of the vessel was 155m.
Do the maths, So now the 22m gaping hole in the hull has been confirmed, although not mentioned at all in the original JAIC Report (how could they miss it?). So the trigger 'initial findings' is that this was caused by rocks where it landed and rolled against. This is classic Change Management, preparing the public for a conclusion it was the rocks that caused the hole. Let's see if it all adds up.

You were asked to show the maths and this was your response:

To recap how it sank:

I'll ask again, what maths? Pretend we're all stupid and show us the maths and what it proves.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You know, I have a feeling that this has been covered before.

It was that flying submarine from Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea.

 

[Steve]

You know, I have a feeling that this has been covered before.

Our antagonist has no recollection.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I'm probably giving more credit to the OP than is due, but in the interests of intellectual honesty...

The idea of a 'submarine with wheels / tracks' is not as ridiculous as it sounds, if we consider the existence of tracked ROVs. We use these in the oil&gas industry (and no doubt there are other uses) in, for example, performing pipeline inspections where the pipeline is not buried, or excavating/backfilling around subsea structures to rectify scour (where currents have washed away seabed soils, leaving parts of a structure exposed).

Now, these might leave tracks on the seabed, but how long those tracks would remain is highly dependent on soil conditions and currents.

Due to the high cost of these operations, every use of such a vehicle will be accompanied by a suite of video footage and detailed survey reports and technical reports, produced by the ROV contractor and issued to the client. Although these would not be in the public domain (and the 100+ crew involved are complicit in the cover-up!), the movements of the support vessel, from which the ROV is deployed, can be traced on the various marine traffic apps and port records. So anyone wanting to gather evidence could present at least something pertaining to such an event around the Estonia wreck site.

These complex ROV operations are typically reserved for deepwater applications. It is otherwise commercially preferable to deploy divers who typically can complete any given task (bar simple inspections or surveys) in much less time (and therefore cost).

In the case of this thread, we still haven't seen any evidence of 'submarine tracks' in the vicinity of the Estonia wreck (unless I've missed it in the many preceding pages of this thread and its predecessors), nor a coherent hypothesis of what that would mean and how it might cast doubt over the accepted verdict of how the ship sank.

Unless fourth-hand chitter chatter from a friend of the milkman of someone who once dived on some other shipwreck counts as evidence.

If you look at the context at the time (IIRC) the 'theory' be presented was that the submarine was shadowing the ship and accidentally collided with it causing the sinking (leaving a hole above the waterline). An ROV exploring the site after the event would have been irrelivance.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If you look at the context at the time (IIRC) the 'theory' be presented was that the submarine was shadowing the ship and accidentally collided with it causing the sinking (leaving a hole above the waterline). An ROV exploring the site after the event would have been irrelivance.

Unless it was there to remove the secret, incriminating evidence of explosives and nuclear secrets.

 

[JesseCuster]

If you look at the context at the time (IIRC) the 'theory' be presented was that the submarine was shadowing the ship and accidentally collided with it causing the sinking (leaving a hole above the waterline). An ROV exploring the site after the event would have been irrelivance.

There's been a couple of hypotheses involving submarines, including the hypothesis that the Estonia sank because a British submarine escorting it accidentally collided with it, and also that a Russian wheeled minisub squirreled away the senior crew and/or smuggled Russian military gear.

I'm no expert, so using wheeled submarines crawling on the bottom of the sea to retrieve stolen military gear or to secretly kidnap the senior crew from a sunken ferry in the immediate aftermath of its sinking makes sense, but it seems kinda silly to me. But what would I know?

I can't remember who brought up these ideas. It definitely wasn't Vixen, she has repeatedly told us she doesn't deal in hypotheticals or conjectures, only cold, hard, verifiable facts.

 

[JayUtah]

I'm no expert, so using wheeled submarines crawling on the bottom of the sea to retrieve stolen military gear or to secretly kidnap the senior crew from a sunken ferry in the immediate aftermath of its sinking makes sense, but it seems kinda silly to me. But what would I know?

Indeed all but perhaps one submarine in the world don’t have wheels and could do the job with much better stealth.

 

[Vixen]

It may be legal; that doesn't make it ethical.

Yes, it's unethical to use any designation if the intention is to deceive. Luckily, I was entitled to use the term as a member of the professional body (although I don't think I ever did). Ethical, as always.

 

[Vixen]

There's been a couple of hypotheses involving submarines, including the hypothesis that the Estonia sank because a British submarine escorting it accidentally collided with it, and also that a Russian wheeled minisub squirreled away the senior crew and/or smuggled Russian military gear.

I'm no expert, so using wheeled submarines crawling on the bottom of the sea to retrieve stolen military gear or to secretly kidnap the senior crew from a sunken ferry in the immediate aftermath of its sinking makes sense, but it seems kinda silly to me. But what would I know?

I can't remember who brought up these ideas. It definitely wasn't Vixen, she has repeatedly told us she doesn't deal in hypotheticals or conjectures, only cold, hard, verifiable facts.

I was reporting current affairs. As for the red/brown jacket guy, a couple of posters asked for the original reference. So suddenly it becomes my 'conspiracy theory' when I went some way to assist them.

 

[JesseCuster]

I was reporting current affairs. As for the red/brown jacket guy, a couple of posters asked for the original reference. So suddenly it becomes my 'conspiracy theory' when I went some way to assist them.

Just reporting current affairs huh? That's your equivalent of "just asking questions".

Anyway, you're a conspiracy theorist because you subscribe to conspiracy theories like the theory that the JAIC report was a cover-up by the Swedes and their allies, including the US, that they were covering up the sinking of the Estonia by the Russian, that the Russians sank the Estonia as revenge for it being used for smuggling Russian military gear, and that the purpose of the cover-up was to prevent a Russian invasion of Estonia...

My theory is that the West (Bildt, Clinton, et al) feared that a face-off with Russia would see Russian troops using it as an excuse to reinvade Estonia. Sensitive political situation. Sweden for the CIA smuiggling Russian state secrets, the Russians warning the intelligence agencies to stop doing it and then exacting ruthless revenge when ignored. Why else would Sweden immediately cover it up, and th e UK sign a Baltic treaty, when it is nowhere near the Baltic.

edit: Is this a fact or is this a hypothesis? You have repeatedly said that you don't deal in hypotheticals or conjectures, only facts, so this theory that you have espoused must be a fact in your eyes.

 

[EHocking]

Initially the Swedish navy sent teams down to ascertain likelihood of recovery.

No. That was Rockwater in 1994. Not military.

A team went down to retrieve Capt Piht's attaché case.

Again, Rockwater, 1994. Not military

The Swedes carried out dives in secrecy not inviting Estonia or Finland (being the Swedish Navy).

Cite?

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.

Yes, dives were conducted by investigation authorities - NOT the military as you claim.