• 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:
I am only reporting current affairs news. That is what Jutta Rabe has publicised, as her researched views. And let's face it, both Rabe and the later film crew, Evertsson and Andersson, also found a hole in the hull, which was not mentioned at all by the JAIC. Yet even Meister mentions it. So yes, it needed an explanation, hence the reinvestigation, which has been news in the UK as well as in these northern realms. How do you know it's 'likely untrue'? That merely indicates a closed mind rather than someone armed with all of the facts, given that a serious journalist is hardly going to repeat such a controversial claim without a solid source for it.
Click to expand...
You're lying again. You have claimed that it was the case.

As for the Rabe nonsense, even if she were a respected journalist and not a conspiracy nutter the only 'evidence' is her say so. That's not evidence, and indeed the claims about him are refuted by his family. If she had such a source why is it no-one can find it? Why is there no other evidence beyond the say so of her and Bollyn?

It's not a closed mind to demand evidence before accepting whatever fanciful story any conspiracy loon comes up with Vixen, it's called thinking.
 
Vixen said:
That is what Jutta Rabe has publicised, as her researched views.
Click to expand...
When does a "view" become a "researched view"? Presumably when there is some research. Is there some research, or is that just conjecture and the "researched" bit was just to add a bit of false authority?
 
Vixen said:
As a journalist, Rabe investigated the Estonia accident. Rabe was a part of the so-called German Group of Experts...
Click to expand...
Not according to estoniaferrydisaster.net:
Chairman
Dr. Peter Holtappels, marine lawyer and senior partner of the law firm Ahlers & Vogel, Hamburg.
Members
Captain Werner Hummel, marine consultant and managing director of Marine Claims Partner (Germany) GmbH, Hamburg. Captain Håkan Karlsson († February 1997), former master of MV VIKING SALLY, SILJA STAR and WASA KING from June 1980 - October 1992.
Prof.-Dr. mult. Eike Lehmann, Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg until 30.06.95 (at which time Prof. Dr. Lehmann was appointed CEO of the Board of Germanischer Lloyd, Hamburg and became thus unable to participate in the ongoing investigation). Dipl.-Ing. Tomas Wilkendorf, naval architect employed by Messrs. Jos. L. Meyer GmbH, Papenburg.
Experts
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Hans Hoffmeister, of the University of the Armed Forces, Hamburg.
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Walter Abicht, Institute for Shipbuilding of the University of Hamburg.
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Hansjörg Petershagen, Institute for Shipbuilding of the University of Hamburg.
Dr.-Ing. Zenon Hirsch, naval architect, Hamburg.
Captain Peter Jansson, Helsinki/Finland.
Veli-Matti Junnila, stability expert, Turku/Finland.
Swedish observer - Captain Erland von Hofsten, chairman of the Swedish
Sailor's Foundation, Gothenburg/Sweden.
Bryan E.W. Roberts - reconnaissance expert, Churchgate/UK.
Brian Braidwood - diving and explosives expert, Weymouth/UK.
Jonathon Bisson - video expert, Axminster/UK.
Click to expand...

Not the best of sources, I'll grant you, but the only list of members I could find. Also, it claims to be their website. They should know.
 
junkshop said:
Not according to estoniaferrydisaster.net:


Not the best of sources, I'll grant you, but the only list of members I could find. Also, it claims to be their website. They should know.
Click to expand...
She accepted it the last time you made her aware of this error...
Vixen

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

junkshop said:
What?


The members of the German Group of Experts (according to one of your favoured sources - estoniaferry.net):





"Perhaps revise what the issues are before jumping in and claiming to be an expert in the matter."


Now, with that diversion addressed, do you have any comment on what I actually posted?

.
Click to expand...


Sorry, my bad. Rabe is an independent journalist.

Your comments seem to include a lot of vulgar phrases which I shall not comment on.

I have a very busy day today. Since Vixen is running around in circles with so much energy, I wonder if she would exercise my dog in the process.
 
Vixen said:
I am only reporting current affairs news.
Click to expand...
But you seem unable to look at anything except through the lens of some half-baked conspiracy theory reported by unreliable sources. If you're actually interested in the Estonia sinking, shipbuilding, sailing, investigation methods, etc. there are plenty of reliable sources you could use instead.

Vixen said:
That is what Jutta Rabe has publicised, as her researched views.
Click to expand...
People show that they have researched views by showing the evidence of their research, not just its alleged fruits. Lacking that evidence, "She just made it up," is a reasonable explanation.

Vixen said:
And let's face it, both Rabe and the later film crew, Evertsson and Andersson, also found a hole in the hull, which was not mentioned at all by the JAIC.
Click to expand...
You keep repeating this as if it's a suspicious omission, even though it has a perfectly reasonable explanation supported by evidence. And you seem entirely uninterested in the omission by Evertsson, which he later admitted to. He didn't talk about the other damage to the hull simply because it didn't fit his desired narrative.

Vixen said:
So yes, it needed an explanation, hence the reinvestigation, which has been news in the UK as well as in these northern realms.
Click to expand...
Yes, it has been, along with the convincing evidentiary support for the prevailing hypothesis that impact with rocks on the sea floor is responsible for the holes and other damage lately observed on the wreck.

Yet somehow every new update about this investigation spurs you to drag everyone one more time through all the old conspiracy theories, all the disqualified sources, and in annoying ignorance of all the explanations and corrections you have been given over the years. Since actual interest in a subject includes learning new things about it, we have to conclude that your tedious recitation of repeatedly debunked claims is more performance art than actual debate. The amount of energy you spend winding up your critics and running them in circles greatly outpaces the energy you spend actually obtaining and providing useful evidence.

Vixen said:
How do you know it's 'likely untrue'? That merely indicates a closed mind rather than someone armed with all of the facts, given that a serious journalist is hardly going to repeat such a controversial claim without a solid source for it.
Click to expand...
No, it's not closed-minded to asses the likely truthfulness of a claim according to evidence. You keep resorting to categorical truisms as if they somehow excuse the flaws in your specific claims. Yes, a conscientious journalist will not publish a controversial claim without having a reliable source. But you're just begging the premise that Rabe is a conscientious journalist. The existence of a controversial claim is not per se evidence that the claim must be well founded. A triple-niner should recognize obvious circular reasoning.
 
Vixen said:
I am only reporting current affairs news. That is what Jutta Rabe has publicised, as her researched views. And let's face it, both Rabe and the later film crew, Evertsson and Andersson, also found a hole in the hull, which was not mentioned at all by the JAIC. Yet even Meister mentions it. So yes, it needed an explanation, hence the reinvestigation, which has been news in the UK as well as in these northern realms. How do you know it's 'likely untrue'? That merely indicates a closed mind rather than someone armed with all of the facts, given that a serious journalist is hardly going to repeat such a controversial claim without a solid source for it.
Click to expand...
If you were actually doing this your personal opinions and fantasies would be (and actually are) completely irrelevant and you would not be posting them.

What you are really doing is posting, and believing every stupid and irrelevant conspiracy fantasy that you can google.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
You're lying again. You have claimed that it was the case.

As for the Rabe nonsense, even if she were a respected journalist and not a conspiracy nutter the only 'evidence' is her say so. That's not evidence, and indeed the claims about him are refuted by his family. If she had such a source why is it no-one can find it? Why is there no other evidence beyond the say so of her and Bollyn?

It's not a closed mind to demand evidence before accepting whatever fanciful story any conspiracy loon comes up with Vixen, it's called thinking.
Click to expand...
But nobody has asked you to 'accept it'. No-one said it was 'evidence'. When Evertsson did his film series, he asked Prof Amdahl, a professor of physics, whether it was possible for the indentation, of which he had made a 3D life-sized model could have been caused by a submarine or a fishing trawler. Amdahl after doing numerous computations said it could be caused by a sub weighing X tonnes travelling at Y knots or it could be a fishing trawler weighing Z tonnes travelling at U knots. It is obviously expert opinion. Okay so you aren't interested but thanks to the clamour of the likes of Rabe and Kurm, the issue has been reinvestigated and it is now being said the breach in the hull was caused post-sinking by hitting a rocky outcrop. I am not sure why anyone would rebel against fact finding. So now Evertsson's producer and Swedish journalist, Lars Borgnäs, has come up in the news recently waving a 'secret document' which the Swedish government says is a forgery. This again is current news and doesn't require a belief or disbelief. It just is.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
But nobody has asked you to 'accept it'. No-one saud it was 'evidence'. When Evertsson did his film series, he asked Prof Amdahl, a professor of physics, whether it was possible for the indentation, of which he had made a 3D life-sized model could have been caused by a submarine or a fishing trawler. Amdahl after doing numerous computations said it could be cause be a sub weighing X tonnes travelling at Y knots or it could be a fishing trawler weighing Z tonnes travelling at U knots. It is obviously expert opinion. Okay so you aren't interested but thanks to the clamour of the likes of Rabe and Kurm, the issue has been reinvestigated and it is now being said the breach in the hull was caused post-sinking by hitting a rocky outcrop. I am not sure why anyone would rebel against fact finding. So now Evertsson's producer and Swedish journalist, Lars Borgnäs, has come up in the news recently waving a 'secret document' which the Swedish government says is a forgery. This again is current news and doesn't require a belief or disbelief. It just is.
Click to expand...

The hole in the hull is also consistent with an extra-terrestrial UFO swooping down and crashing into the side of the ship.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
When does a "view" become a "researched view"? Presumably when there is some research. Is there some research, or is that just conjecture and the "researched" bit was just to add a bit of false authority?
Click to expand...
It isn't some bod in the street. Rabe has claimed to have researched it and persuaded DER SPIEGEL and F. Gregg Bemis, together with ex-British Naval Officer Braidwood, to carry out their own survey of the wreck. Plus she wrote a film script (Baltic Storm). It's possible it's all a hoax and a money-spinning enterprise, and there is a warrant out for her arrest in Sweden for the Treaty breach, in which case, keep an eye on the current affairs news to find out what the fall out might be. However, as there WAS a breach in the hull as stated by her, Evertsson and Kurm, all along, then maybe they were simply driven by a sense of social justice, like John Pilger or Paul Foot.
 
Last edited:
Andy_Ross said:
There you go again, so your claim is based on a report of a report.

You don't know if it's true or what was actually claimed.
Click to expand...
A reputable newspaper source is good enough for me, just as Postimees was good enough for Junkshop. Likewise the Estonian newspaper citing the Rockwater divers heading for Voronin's case. That is how current affairs work.
 
Vixen said:
It isn't some bod in the street. Rabe has claimed to have researched it
Click to expand...

"Claimed" being the operative word.

and persuaded DER SPIEGAL
Click to expand...
ITYM Der SpiegEl

and F. Gregg Bemiss, together with ex-British Naval Officer Braidwood, to carry out their own survey of the wreck. Plus she wrote a film score (Baltic Storm.
Click to expand...
She's a musician now? No, the score was by Mauri Sumén.
It's possible it's all a hoax and a money-spinning enterprise, and there is a warrant out for her arrest in Sweden for the Treaty breach, in which case, keep and eye on the current affairs news to find out what the fall out might be.
Click to expand...
If only there was some way to find the truth... But for some reason you keep ignoring facts. (Also: "current affairs news", WTF?)
However, as there WAS a breach in the hull as stated by her, Evertsson and Kurm, all along, then maybe they were simply driven by a sense of social justice, like John Pilger or Paul Foot.
Click to expand...
Nothing like John Pilger or Paul Foot, who were proper investigative journalists, Rabe should not be mentioned in the same sentence.

We know exactly why there is a breach in the hull, but you keep sticking your fingers in your ears any time it's mentioned.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
But you seem unable to look at anything except through the lens of some half-baked conspiracy theory reported by unreliable sources. If you're actually interested in the Estonia sinking, shipbuilding, sailing, investigation methods, etc. there are plenty of reliable sources you could use instead.


People show that they have researched views by showing the evidence of their research, not just its alleged fruits. Lacking that evidence, "She just made it up," is a reasonable explanation.


You keep repeating this as if it's a suspicious omission, even though it has a perfectly reasonable explanation supported by evidence. And you seem entirely uninterested in the omission by Evertsson, which he later admitted to. He didn't talk about the other damage to the hull simply because it didn't fit his desired narrative.


Yes, it has been, along with the convincing evidentiary support for the prevailing hypothesis that impact with rocks on the sea floor is responsible for the holes and other damage lately observed on the wreck.

Yet somehow every new update about this investigation spurs you to drag everyone one more time through all the old conspiracy theories, all the disqualified sources, and in annoying ignorance of all the explanations and corrections you have been given over the years. Since actual interest in a subject includes learning new things about it, we have to conclude that your tedious recitation of repeatedly debunked claims is more performance art than actual debate. The amount of energy you spend winding up your critics and running them in circles greatly outpaces the energy you spend actually obtaining and providing useful evidence.


No, it's not closed-minded to asses the likely truthfulness of a claim according to evidence. You keep resorting to categorical truisms as if they somehow excuse the flaws in your specific claims. Yes, a conscientious journalist will not publish a controversial claim without having a reliable source. But you're just begging the premise that Rabe is a conscientious journalist. The existence of a controversial claim is not per se evidence that the claim must be well founded. A triple-niner should recognize obvious circular reasoning.
Click to expand...
I would suggest you have a word with EHocking and ReformedOfflian for dragging up the man in a brown jacket and the Voronin attaché case all over again. They asked for info and I was trying to be helpful by assisting them.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
A reputable newspaper source is good enough for me, just as Postimees was good enough for Junkshop. Likewise the Estonian newspaper citing the Rockwater divers heading for Voronin's case. That is how current affairs work.
Click to expand...

The Estonian newspaper did not cite the Rockwater divers.

They cited a German newspaper, citing Rabe, making a claim about the divers which we all saw was false when you linked to the transcript of their dive.
 
zooterkin said:
"Claimed" being the operative word.


ITYM Der SpiegEl


She's a musician now? No, the score was by Mauri Sumén.

If only there was some way to find the truth... But for some reason you keep ignoring facts. (Also: "current affairs news", WTF?)

Nothing like John Pilger or Paul Foot, who were proper investigative journalists, Rabe should not be mentioned in the same sentence.

We know exactly why there is a breach in the hull, but you keep sticking your fingers in your ears any time it's mentioned.
Click to expand...
Obvs typos, which I've now corrected. BTW Paul Foot and Pilger were sometimes wrong. But their heart was in the right place.
 
Vixen said:
When Evertsson did his film series, he asked Prof Amdahl, a professor of physics, whether it was possible for the indentation, of which he had made a 3D life-sized model could have been caused by a submarine or a fishing trawler. Amdahl after doing numerous computations said it could be cause be a sub weighing X tonnes travelling at Y knots or it could be a fishing trawler weighing Z tonnes travelling at U knots. It is obviously expert opinion.
Click to expand...
I covered this purported expert opinion in great detail in the part of the thread where you claimed expertise in physics. You obviously remember none of it, which means we have to go around in circles again and again to compensate for your poor memory. I don't have time today to try to teach you physics again, in vain, and explain what's wrong with the professor's findings. And yes, I'm very qualified to do so, since I'm licensed in the relevant field and he is not. But there's a much simpler rebuttal that doesn't need expertise in physics to understand. When you pay more careful attention to the film, you see that Prof. Amdahl is being asked to model the one hole under the presumption that it was caused by a surface collision with another vessel. Yes, you can do that, but as far as investigative technique goes, that's a leading question. It's circular reasoning to suppose that the existence of a facially plausible conclusion is proof of the assumed premise. There's a huge difference between being asked what kind of ship could have caused the damage and what out of all possible causes could have caused it. Where's that triple-niner brainpower when you need it?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom