The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[JayUtah]

He's not on my radar. I can spot a phony at ten paces.

He's clearly your source for at least two claims you made. You deny this, but you were asked for the "real" sources and you failed to give any. And if you can spot him ten paces away, why do you vacillate between rehabilitating him and excoriating him?

 

[JayUtah]

As I mentioned, you said that three years ago, yet you were trying to rehabilitate him two weeks later, and now you seem to have conveniently "forgotten" that you agreed that he's a rabid antisemite. So why should we believe you now?

Defending Bollyn against accusations of anti-Semitism seems to have little value other than trying to paint @MarkCorrigan's characterization as mean-spirited. I agree that whether Bollyn is a racist or not has nothing to do with whether he has accurately reported on Estonia claims. But if someone—for whatever reason—wants to label Bollyn an anti-Semite it seems there's a solid factual basis for doing so.

 

[JayUtah]

Are you claiming 'Bollyn' is behind this page: https://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/

That was not your source. Rendition is not "enforced disappearance." Nothing is gained by claiming that Sweden merely renditioned two Egyptians whose whereabouts were quickly reacquired as a pattern for allegedly completely disappearing the Estonia crew members. Bollyn was clearly your source, as you copied his distortions and factual errors.

 

[Axxman300]

It's not mentioned in the JAIC report, which is why it has been re-investigated. Because someone cared enough to push for one,

It wasn't mentioned in the first report because they COULDN'T SEE IT. The second investigation was based on footage filmed by a con-artist who cropped the rocky outcrop from his footage to fool morons into believing some kind of explosion had occurred (which was always stupid). Just because Sweden caved into the demands of crazy people doesn't change the outcome. Estonia sank after her bow visor was knocked off, and the car deck flooded. All as a result of sailing a ship never designed for open ocean transit far too fast into a storm. Throw in maintenance issues and there is no conspiracy involving spies, commandos, submarines, or any other silly theories.

 

[JesseCuster]

Well no, it may have been classified on a 'need to know' basis.

"May have been". That's conjecture on your part.

You have stated clearly that you don't do conjecture and have chastised others for using what you see as conjecture, stating that you only deal in facts.

Do you actually believe that you only deal in verifiable facts and not conjecture, or are you a willing hypocrite?

 

[GlennB]

"May have been". That's conjecture on your part.

You have stated clearly that you don't do conjecture and have chastised others for using what you see as conjecture, stating that you only deal in facts.

Do you actually believe that you only deal in verifiable facts and not conjecture, or are you a willing hypocrite?

The last bit

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Haha. You don't know what to say about Bollyn do you? You've bounced between casually dismissing his anti-Semitism and conspiracy whackiness as someone who just happens to be pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel and who is merely questioning the 9/11 narrative, and dismissing him outright as a Russian disinfo agent operating under a false identity.

Which is it?

Since we're already laughing, let's take a moment to remember what I consider to be the funniest part about all of this:

The only reason *any* of us ever heard of Christopher Bollyn is because Vixen linked to him. It's a bit strange to cite a source you later try to pretend isn't real.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Are you claiming 'Bollyn' is behind this page: https://www.therenditionproject.org.uk/

No, but your claim wasn't that they were renditioned was it? It was very specifically that they had been disappeared, and the only source that could be found for this incorrect claim was Bollyn.

Oh and are we back to trying to pretend you think he's using a pseudonym again? That really is the most pathetic of your farces and that's saying something. Either you pretend to believe it because you believe it makes you look smart, you pretend to believe it because you're a troll or you do believe it and you're an idiot.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Defending Bollyn against accusations of anti-Semitism seems to have little value other than trying to paint @MarkCorrigan's characterization as mean-spirited. I agree that whether Bollyn is a racist or not has nothing to do with whether he has accurately reported on Estonia claims. But if someone—for whatever reason—wants to label Bollyn an anti-Semite it seems there's a solid factual basis for doing so.

Oh absolutely. Racists can and do sometimes say correct things or are knowledgeable in other areas (ETA: Bobby Fischer for example was another rabid antisemite and Holocaust denier). My point was that he was a far right anti semitic loony and is therefore an unreliable source.

Although I do think there is another reason for Vixen to be defending him. He's one of the sources she used and thinks she can rehabilitate him if she proves that I'm wrong about him being a virulent antisemite.

It's akin to how she attempted to rehabilitate Bjorkman by pretending that we were dismissing him because of personal animus, when in fact it was because he was provably incompetent at physics and engineering, the things that she was trying to use him as an expert in.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

@ReformedOfflian Here is a copy of the enhanced audio tape of the divers finding Voronin's attaché case. Go straight to about 06:00.

Estonia - cabin 6230 (enhanced audio)​

See, too, the top comment below it:

As a native English speaker I can tell from the tone of voice of the dive supervisor that they have found exactly what they want, the case. The diver wants to go on but the supervisor knows they have what they need but cannot say that. Around 8:40 he says" that looks like a good search", the code is he means we have what we need let's wrap it up, not risk more time in here, but cannot say that. He does not mean you are doing a good job searching . The diver does not know they have what they need because he wants to carry on and search the loo (toilet). This is all so British not saying what you mean but meaning something else. It totally throws foreign people. He checks 6229 to see how the handle responds in a locked situation compared to open that is all, hence it spins because someone died locked in there. When the supervisor states "I will see if that rings a bell up here" that is an English term of saying I will ask if that is what we are looking for, i.e. does it cause a elicit a response ". There is no physical bell ringing. The dive supervisor is talking him to the location. Less workload not navigating as well as diving. Neither of them would have a need to know the status of the owner. We have not seen the full footage we do not know the status of the case.They sound like Ex Forces from their tone and discussion.

@crankingsounds5856​

1 year ago

Okay, thank you for the link to an actual audio clip. As the uploader points out, the video actually makes it quite clear that the diver was not searching for the case.

You could have skipped the "top comment" because, as a native English speaker myself, I can tell it's nonsense. "I will see if that rings a bell up here" means: "I will ask anyone if that name sounds familiar." Note that, if the diver had been tasked with finding and retrieving a specific item, he would have been briefed (pun intended) on that mission and had the name before ever going into the water, so your "top commenter's" narrative about the supervisor's behavior also makes no sense. That the diver and supervisor both struggle with the name indicates that it is not one they expected.

The supervisor never instructs the diver to secure the briefcase after it is found, and there is no indication that the diver does so; he lets it drop (his hands are free immediately afterwards) just like all the other objects he handles. He continues the search of the cabin until he's finished. The supervisor then asks if he wishes to continue, or to return to the diving bell; the diver opts to return. It sounds to me, as a native English speaker, like the point of the exercise was to identify the expected cabin occupants (in case they encountered a body), not to retrieve property.

 

[EHocking]

@Vixen Well you did a great job of distracting everyone with OT ramblings.
How about actually providing first-hand evidence for each of these assertions of yours, e.g., the JAIC reports, not the crank/CT sites you have been quoting so far.

So. To repeat myself - cite(s)?

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.

What then of your assertion that a man with a bullet wound was observed in the wreck?

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.
Click to expand...

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

Where?You have provided no evidence for your assertions.

Please, please, please prove me wrong.

You asked for the source about the guy in a brown/red jacket and I gave you it (Andi Meister).
I asked for evidence, not hearsay. Where is the actual first-hand source for your (and Andi Meister's) assertion?

 

[Dabop]

Okay, thank you for the link to an actual audio clip. As the uploader points out, the video actually makes it quite clear that the diver was not searching for the case.

You could have skipped the "top comment" because, as a native English speaker myself, I can tell it's nonsense. "I will see if that rings a bell up here" means: "I will ask anyone if that name sounds familiar." Note that, if the diver had been tasked with finding and retrieving a specific item, he would have been briefed (pun intended) on that mission and had the name before ever going into the water, so your "top commenter's" narrative about the supervisor's behavior also makes no sense. That the diver and supervisor both struggle with the name indicates that it is not one they expected.

The supervisor never instructs the diver to secure the briefcase after it is found, and there is no indication that the diver does so; he lets it drop (his hands are free immediately afterwards) just like all the other objects he handles. He continues the search of the cabin until he's finished. The supervisor then asks if he wishes to continue, or to return to the diving bell; the diver opts to return. It sounds to me, as a native English speaker, like the point of the exercise was to identify the expected cabin occupants (in case they encountered a body), not to retrieve property.

Agree as a 'native English speaker' myself, the phrase "I will see if that rings a bell up here" clearly indicates to me (and I suspect all other native English language speakers) that it was a name (that they struggled with even pronouncing) that they were not 'expecting' (let alone looking for lol) and that the operator up on the ship was going to ask if anyone else had any more info on this person- hardly the behaviour of someone if they had been specifically looking for them in the first place is it?????

It is a slight rearrangement of the common phrase "does that ring a bell?" meaning 'is that familiar to you?'- the fact that the operator wasn't familiar with the name, and was going to ask others if they knew it ie they were going to see if it rang a bell with the others there

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/that+rings+a+bell

As is so common with 'Vixenisms' it can be readily shown to be incorrect...

 

[Axxman300]

Since this topic surfaced (pun intended) my Youtube feed now has several maritime experts that have given me well over 100 hours of quality profiles of most all of the high-profile shipwrecks, and disasters of history. I have learned a lot. This hasn't been a complete waste of time for me, at least in that department. But we're right back where we started with one person not happy with the latest report on Estonia, and has waded neck-deep back into a swirling sea of conspiracy.

As with all Conspiracy theorists, this person claims they are not a theorist, and only present the hard facts even though most of the sources are questionable at best, and cherry-picked most of the time. This alternate universe is based on world-view. Contradictory evidence is immediately ignored or waved away. Bad information is doubled down upon relentlessly.

Maybe this thread should be locked until the final report is delivered to the public. I enjoy crazy as much as the next person but there comes a point where nothing is gained. Just my .02.

 

[EHocking]

A 'walkie talkie' won't work in the engine room, it's a big steel box.

I thought I might add some actual information to this thread, albeit quite trivial.
UHF radio is used for onboard comms as it can penetrate steel plate, concrete etc, so exactly what might be used to communicate from an engine room if you are working in a place where internal intercom isn’t handy to you. Also as a backup in case you lose other internal comms.

So the “walkie-talkies” being discussed are nearly assuredly UHF radio.
We certainly used such handholds on offshore oil rigs, and in some cases land rigs, camps or logistics centres.

For recreational boating I hold an LROP (long range operators proficiency) licence to operate VHF as well as MF/HF radios. In Australia no license is required to operate UHF, so of course used by Grey Nomads and other short range CB radio users.

 

[Dabop]

I thought I might add some actual information to this thread, albeit quite trivial.
UHF radio is used for onboard comms as it can penetrate steel plate, concrete etc, so exactly what might be used to communicate from an engine room if you are working in a place where internal intercom isn’t handy to you. Also as a backup in case you lose other internal comms.

So the “walkie-talkies” being discussed are nearly assuredly UHF radio.
We certainly used such handholds on offshore oil rigs, and in some cases land rigs, camps or logistics centres.

For recreational boating I hold an LROP (long range operators proficiency) licence to operate VHF as well as MF/HF radios. In Australia no license is required to operate UHF, so of course used by Grey Nomads and other short range CB radio users.

Actually, as long as the equipment you use is type approved (many elcheapo UHF 'walky talkies are NOT and can land you with a big fine!!!) then you can use CBs without a licence on both the UHF and 27 meg bands...

UHF if used with repeaters can easily go out several hundred kilometres (its limited usually to only 10-20km usually without a repeater from a mobile more if you have a beam on the house), and SSB on 27 megs can reach worldwide if the skip is running...

 

[dorricc0]

Well no, it may have been classified on a 'need to know' basis. The expert diver going into the cabin may not even be aware there was anything special about that cabin or that attaché case. The way the supervisor keeps asking him to reread the name and spell it out that in the end the diver cries out there is too much sediment to see it properly. It is clear he was trying very hard to read it as commanded. The supervisor doesn't say whether it is good or bad that he found it but the dive finishes right there, fait accompli, as far as the supervisor is concerned,whilst the diver wants to carry on searching.

But that is simply not true, as evidenced by the video that you posted.

 

[dorricc0]

How long have you got?

I have as long as it takes for a couple of paragraphs of executive summary (which is what I am suggesting).

 

[Mojo]

Not a single reference in that link on that CT site that mentions anything about a case strapped or chained to a persons wrist.

Vixen isn't talking about a case, she's claiming that an unidentified female passenger was strapped to someone's wrist:

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

 

[dorricc0]

@ReformedOfflian Here is a copy of the enhanced audio tape of the divers finding Voronin's attaché case. Go straight to about 06:00.

Estonia - cabin 6230 (enhanced audio)​

See, too, the top comment below it:

As a native English speaker I can tell from the tone of voice of the dive supervisor that they have found exactly what they want, the case. The diver wants to go on but the supervisor knows they have what they need but cannot say that. Around 8:40 he says" that looks like a good search", the code is he means we have what we need let's wrap it up, not risk more time in here, but cannot say that. He does not mean you are doing a good job searching . The diver does not know they have what they need because he wants to carry on and search the loo (toilet). This is all so British not saying what you mean but meaning something else. It totally throws foreign people. He checks 6229 to see how the handle responds in a locked situation compared to open that is all, hence it spins because someone died locked in there. When the supervisor states "I will see if that rings a bell up here" that is an English term of saying I will ask if that is what we are looking for, i.e. does it cause a elicit a response ". There is no physical bell ringing. The dive supervisor is talking him to the location. Less workload not navigating as well as diving. Neither of them would have a need to know the status of the owner. We have not seen the full footage we do not know the status of the case.They sound like Ex Forces from their tone and discussion.

@crankingsounds5856​

1 year ago

I just watched this video again, but this time I didn't 'go straight to about 06:00' as suggested. In fact, the first segment of the video is text describing its purpose to refute the claim that the diver was looking for a certain case that was found in cabin 6230.

So, your own claim is specifically debunked by your own evidence. Remarkable.

 

[Dabop]

I just watched this video again, but this time I didn't 'go straight to about 06:00' as suggested. In fact, the first segment of the video is text describing its purpose to refute the claim that the diver was looking for a certain case that was found in cabin 6230.

So, your own claim is specifically debunked by your own evidence. Remarkable.

Not at all remarkable- this is a regular occurrence on this thread with a certain specific poster.....