And that's what separates you from actual investigators and makes you nothing more than a conspiracy theorist. Conspiracy theorists only care about what the message says—not where it came from, or why, or whether it's true. Real investigators want to know how that information came to light, whether it can be trusted, and how it can be tested with evidence.
Interestingly, through my dealings with Subsea7 in the late 2000s and early 2010s, I think I know this John Coe. He had been promoted to Sat Dive Supervisor by the time I knew him, and he has a very interesting military history; but I'm not going to say any more for fear of dragging his good name through the mud, and/or his background being seized upon as evidence of sooper seekret shenanigans.
That "a couple of years later" is a British slang term meaning an unknown number of years later (up to and including 8 years). You said Voronin died a couple of years after the Estonia sinking and when told it was actually 8 years later you've just made up the idea that "a couple of years later" actually has some colloquial meaning that means you weren't caught spreading more disinformation from your shoddy sources...
Has it ever occurred to you that it is possible to be interested in a topic and maintain objectivity? There is no conspiracy theory. I have been interested in this accident since it happened, it being local to me, with many around here being involved in the rescue effort, plus there was Park Victory in 1948 and a massive ship sunk during the war. As you know, I was intrigued as to why survivor accounts of a loud bang and/or jolts at the stroke of Swedish midnight was ignored by the JAIC and why when they did mention first experiences, they describe them as 'thuds from the waves'. The bow visor didn't fall off until about 01:20 so it didn't make sense to me that that was what they were hearing, and in any case, why does the JAIC take it for granted it was a 'strong wave' that lodged it loose. We know the bangs/ jolts happened at Swedish midnight because a couple of survivors reported automatically moving to wind their alarm clocks back one hour, and that is how they noted the exact time. One survivor said his watch stopped at exactly that time because it fell on the floor with some force that stopped it. The JAIC describes the journey, the vessel, the workings and the crew in great detail but I was struck by its taking for granted a wave caused the bow visor to come off. As you recall, I was challenged as to whether eye witness accounts are credible or reliable.
Yes, that's because I thought he had died a couple of years later. I had no idea it was in 2002.
This particular gaslighting hasn't worked for years, Vixen. You've so thoroughly steeped yourself in all that conspiracy garbage that I really don't think you're capable of seeing it for what it is. You have zero interest in being educated on the actual sciences, history, and practices you profess to be interested in. You literally don't care about any part of the incident or investigation that isn't a conspiracy theory.
But then they dropped the case and moved on, they didn't recover it.
So the bow was blown off by explosives now?
Didn't you t hink it reasonable to check before you made the claim?
The galaxy-sized triple-niner intellect simply can't do it. Despite all the professed "interest" in what happened to MS Estonia, we never get anything more insightful than a recitative, repetitious screed of all the various conspiracy theories no matter whether they make sense together or not. There was a hole in the side from a surface collision, but also the bow visor was blown off with explosives, etc. ad nauseam. No original thought. No ability to critically analyze and whittle down conflicting hypotheses according to evidence. Copious citations to all the well-known conspiracy hacks on this topic, peppered with half-assed attempts either to disavow or to rehabilitate them.
This is Braidwood's sketch of the breach at 'Car Deck Port Side Forward'. (source: Estonia, Sven Anér, 2004).
braidwood sketch by Username Vixen, on Flickr
It's 'obvious'...
You didn't answer any of the questions I asked you.This is Braidwood's sketch of the breach at 'Car Deck Port Side Forward'. (source: Estonia, Sven Anér, 2004).
You can scoff, and it could be this breach has an innocent explanation, but it is not mentioned in the JAIC Report.
Wasn't relevant, given he had a serious health condition and did die relatively young not long after. I simply recalled that those were the facts. As I didn't know the exact date of death I guessed a couple of years later because that is what I believed from something I read somewhere, which isn't worth looking up as it is not important to the topic, except it was the same health condition he had as of the time of the sinking.
You were obviously being sarcastic.
Categorically not what I asked for. What. Do. You. Think. Happened?
And you keep ignoring why it wasn't. That's not rocket science. We're going to have to take away one of your nines.
That looks nothing like the observed and photographed hole.This is Braidwood's sketch of the breach at 'Car Deck Port Side Forward'. (source: Estonia, Sven Anér, 2004).
You can scoff, and it could be this breach has an innocent explanation, but it is not mentioned in the JAIC Report.
I'm asking you non-sarcastically to answer the questions he put to you. You're being asked to reconcile the conflicts in the accounts you're presenting as "of interest" to you, so as to arrive at a coherent narrative. Are you able to do that, or is mindless regurgitation and distraction all we can expect?
