The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Jack by the hedge]

Posters have been asking you to provide references ever since you brought these various crackpot ideas to the thread. There's nothing sudden about these conspiracy theories being yours. Nobody else brought them to the discussion.

If, on reflection, you simply have no idea how you got the impression some divers were tasked with a mission of seeking out a briefcase which belonged to Piht, you have always had the option of simply telling us that, instead of constantly deflecting.

 

[EHocking]

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:

<AI search bollox snipped>

Nope. That is merely a reiteration of your assertion.
Your assertion was that

The unidentified - and officially unauthorised* - man in the red jacket lying under a toppled cabinet. Source: Rockwell Report plus video youtube (search function should call all this up).

*(key personnel only allowed on the bridge]

Please indicate the section/paragraph in the RockWellWater report that supports your asserion.
You know what a request for a cite is, you've been asked often enough in this thread alone.

So, please cite a link to the first person (or report) account of the description of the three men on the bridge.

 

[EHocking]

The perception of colour would be in the eye of the beholder, cones at the back of the eye, the quality of lighting, film or photo developing, etcetera. Red can be perceived as brown (russet), orange or even black. Sorry, yes, the Rockwater Report (I never was good at names). Not a 'wild conspiracy theory' it is based on an actual eye-witness account, who of course might be mistaken, but nonetheless, is not a made up one.

Please cite this first person eye-witness account of this the bodies on the bridge that describes the colour of their suits, jackets and/or uniforms.
It is certainly not in the RockWellWater report. Or if it is, as you claim, you can correct my misreading of the report.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

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

Have you heard the tape?

 

[EHocking]

Well this thread accellerated out of hand, so I'll just list my responses to posts Vixen has directed at me;

Sea of Death ~ the Baltic 1945, Claes Göran Wetterholm, The History Pres, 2021. See p. 115 re the Wilhelm Gustloff and Captain Heinz Schön*. An excellent book worth reading.

*Re screaming for a gun to shoot his wife and kids.

So, no captains evacuating the ship just one nazi SS officer who (probably) didn't want to face the Russian retaliation for (probable) war crimes he committed .
The four captains aboard the William Gustoff survived the sinking. Not a single suicide.

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

No. That was the JAIC inspection and not the Swedish navy

If Meister was not an impartial source, one could say the same for Sweden, desperate to cover up its ex-Soviet materiel smuggling from Paldiski ex-USSR military base via an ordinary passenger ferry.

Meister is not an impartial source. He quit the JAIC enquiry team in a fit of nationalism because the report indicated negligence by the Estonian owners, operators and command of the MS Estonia. Main trigger was his accusation that Sweden witheld dive/survey observations that exonerated Estonian incompetence.
Bias, bitter and source of much CT nonsense

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).

Cite - there was never a secret dive on the wreck by the Swedish government nor military.

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.

And has none of this nonsense in it.
Please cite a link to the "Swedish navy secret dive" on the Estonia, oh, and while your at it the supposed Swedish navy report of same.

Andi Meister, as reported by

• JOHAN RIDDERSTOLPE
• Engineer
• 
  
• 1999.02.03

Article 1 Finanstidningen

So it would seem the bag that was strapped to someone's wrist was an unidentified passenger.

Not a single reference in that link on that CT site that mentions anything about a case strapped or chained to a persons wrist.
Here's a link to Pierre Thiger's testimony/interview. Had to get it from WebArchive, 'cos the link to the transcript in the CT site you are getting your nonsense no longer exists.

statement pierre thiger

 

[dorricc0]

No, it started with EHocking asking about the guy in red. I tried to help out but it seems no good deed goes unpunished.

But:

The unidentified - and officially unauthorised* - man in the red jacket lying under a toppled cabinet. Source: Rockwell Report plus video youtube (search function should call all this up).

*(key personnel only allowed on the bridge]

Anyway, if he's unidentified then how can he be said to be unauthorised? Is it because he's wearing red (or is it brown now)?

(It feels like I'm just trolling now).

 

[JesseCuster]

Also, who “officially” said that the alleged man in red/brown was unauthorised?

 

[Vixen]

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

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

I provided detailed calculations based on all of Estonia's relevant specifications and its environs as to the expected impact on the sea bed. The detail included all of the parameters and assumptions. As you might recall, this was censored on the specious grounds I couldn't remember which on-line calculator I used, given any calculator will give the same result using the same paradigm.

 

[Vixen]

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...


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.

Yes, I said it was a theory, based on the political situation at the time. When I started the sentence with the statement, 'this is my theory' what led you to believe I was stating 'facts'?

 

[Vixen]

Nope. That is merely a reiteration of your assertion.
Your assertion was that


Please indicate the section/paragraph in the RockWellWater report that supports your asserion.
You know what a request for a cite is, you've been asked often enough in this thread alone.

So, please cite a link to the first person (or report) account of the description of the three men on the bridge.

You have said you have no respect for my citation skills, so you are welcome to research who was on the bridge for yourself, without my help.

 

[Vixen]

Please cite this first person eye-witness account of this the bodies on the bridge that describes the colour of their suits, jackets and/or uniforms.
It is certainly not in the RockWellWater report. Or if it is, as you claim, you can correct my misreading of the report.

I did attempt to assist you in this but it seems it was a thankless endeavour.

 

[Vixen]

But:

Anyway, if he's unidentified then how can he be said to be unauthorised? Is it because he's wearing red (or is it brown now)?

(It feels like I'm just trolling now).

Because the shipping company knows what teams of personnel were on duty on the bridge. It identified who had left and who had remained. Obviously subiect to verification (by them). In addition, the crew watchman doing the ship's rounds says he was immediately behind Andresson as he made his way to duty on the bridge.

 

[Vixen]

Also, who “officially” said that the alleged man in red/brown was unauthorised?

Because he wasn't identifiable personnel. Imagine an aeroplane cockpit. Plane crashes; an extra person's body found in the cockpit. How do you manage to ascertain he is 'unauthorised'? Think hard.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Because the shipping company knows what teams of personnel were on duty on the bridge. It identified who had left and who had remained. Obviously subiect to verification (by them). In addition, the crew watchman doing the ship's rounds says he was immediately behind Andresson as he made his way to duty on the bridge.

How does the shipping company know who was on duty or allowed on the bridge at any given time?
It's the captain and First Mate that set watch rotas and schedules and decide which crew are on the bridge on official duty at any given time.
In circumstances like a storm extra watch keepers are usually there as lookouts.
When there's a problem other people may be on the bridge reporting or doing extra duties.
When the ship is sinking any number of people could be there for any number of reasons.

Even in 'normal' cruising extra people can visit the bridge with permission. It's not locked like an aircraft cockpit.

You know nothing of bridge duties, crew duties or how a ship is run and organised.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Because he wasn't identifiable personnel. Imagine an aeroplane cockpit. Plane crashes; an extra person's body found in the cockpit. How do you manage to ascertain he is 'unauthorised'? Think hard.

How would he have been identified if the people looking never went in to the bridge and tried to identify him?


A ship's bridge is not the same as an aeroplane cockpit.

A ship's bridge in an emergency when it is sinking is certainly not the same.

 

[JesseCuster]

Because he wasn't identifiable personnel. Imagine an aeroplane cockpit. Plane crashes; an extra person's body found in the cockpit. How do you manage to ascertain he is 'unauthorised'? Think hard.

I’ll ask again. You said that the alleged dead body was “officially unauthorised”. Who officially said that this alleged dead body was unauthorised? Are you incapable or unwilling to answer that question?

I’m not asking about airplane, I’m asking about the Estonia, and I’m not asking how *you* determined that the alleged dead body was unauthorised, I’m for a citation that the alleged dead body was *officially* declared to be unauthorised. You will not provide a citation because you made it up yourself and you are not an official source for this made-up fact.

 

[JesseCuster]

Because the shipping company knows what teams of personnel were on duty on the bridge. It identified who had left and who had remained. Obviously subiect to verification (by them).

And did the shipping company officially make a statement about the alleged dead body on the bridge and say that it was an unauthorised person? No, they didn’t, so you’ve still to explain the meaning of your claim that the dead body was *officially unauthorised*.

What exactly is *official* about your conjecture about the identify of the alleged dead body and who should or shouldn’t be and was or wasn’t on the bridge when the Estonia sank.

 

[Andy_Ross]

In addition to extra crew there for the weather, the ship was sinking and had lost power.
Any messages to or from the bridge would have to be delivered by a crew member.
I would say that extra people on the bridge would be expected.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

In addition to extra crew there for the weather, the ship was sinking and had lost power.
Any messages to or from the bridge would have to be delivered by a crew member.

What! No voicepipes?!

 

[JayUtah]

I provided detailed calculations based on all of Estonia's relevant specifications and its environs as to the expected impact on the sea bed. The detail included all of the parameters and assumptions. As you might recall, this was censored on the specious grounds I couldn't remember which on-line calculator I used, given any calculator will give the same result using the same paradigm.

You posted a bunch of AI-generated gobbledygook that conflated static water pressure at depth with the “pressure” of an object colliding with the seabed. You might just as well have posted a recipe for chocolate pudding, for all the validity in physics it displayed. In fact it was that stunt that cemented the proof of just how ignorant you are at physics.