• 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:
Imagine you are driving along and you spot a wrecked vehicle off the road. The bonnet/hood is ripped off to one side. Question: Does this mean the ripping off of the bonnet was the CAUSE of the accident?

Take care not to mistake effect for cause.
Click to expand...

Driving over the A66 near Appleby few years ago, the bonnet of a car coming in the opposite direction flew up and pivoted back in to the drivers view smashing his windscreen.
He lost control but luckily it was a dual carriageway section and he just hit the central barrier.
 
Vixen said:
As for flooding: several passengers housed in Deck One reported water rising from below. These eye witness accounts were disregarded. Some guy called Karppinen decided the passengers didn't see what they said they saw.
Click to expand...
Exactly how were they disregarded?

There are mentions in the JAIC report about water on deck 1. For example 6.3.2 and 13.6 - the latter talks about how the water got down there.
 
Vixen said:
As for flooding: several passengers housed in Deck One reported water rising from below.
Click to expand...
"From below". Weasel words again. Why do you editorialise like this to make it sound as if they saw water coming in through holes in the bottom of the ship? Oh, I guess I answered my own question.

They saw water rising. They had no way to know where it was coming into the ship.
 
Vixen said:
As for flooding: several passengers housed in Deck One reported water rising from below. These eye witness accounts were disregarded. Some guy called Karppinen decided the passengers didn't see what they said they saw.
Click to expand...
It would have been difficult for the water to be rising from above. :rolleyes:
 
Here_to_learn said:
Exactly how were they disregarded?

There are mentions in the JAIC report about water on deck 1. For example 6.3.2 and 13.6 - the latter talks about how the water got down there.
Click to expand...
But that is not the JAIC report that Vixen read so carefully several times. Vixen has a completely different report wherein many things were disregarded, ignored, or whitewashed.
 
JayUtah said:
What a stupid analogy. Cars are not ships.


Indeed, it's best to leave such exercises to those who have the proper education and experience. That is not you.


That's how water works in a downflooding ship. It seeks the lowest level, then as the ship fills it appears to be rising within the vessel. There's no reason to give such testimony any special regard because they're simply reporting what is consistent with the overall failure sequence. Take care not to mistake effect for cause.


That's not evidence that he did some particular thing that's being attributed to him.

Armchair detectives are worse than useless.
Click to expand...
I showed you Ovberg's drawings of water streaming out of goosenecks. Why ignore eyewitness testimony when there were only 137 of them, of which a large percentage were crew (thus inhibited in that they said).
 
Here_to_learn said:
Regarding identifying the bodies found on the bridge, the following is an excerpt from chapter 4.4.1 in the Rockwater survey report, available here: https://sok.riksarkivet.se/bildvisning/ES001310_00015#?cv=14&xywh=-3210,-1,8934,3498 (Registration needed).

My conclusions - identifying the bodies found on the bridge could have been challenging. (And as we know, that was not part of the mission for the dives.)

CONTENT WARNING - DISTURBING MATERIAL. I've put the text in a spoiler since the description is disturbing.
With the exception of the bodies found on the bridge and some of those found in the central stairwell on level 5, the bodies were intact and firm with the sex of the victim easily identifiable. The bodies on the bridge were more badly decomposed though were also intact. Some of the bodies on Deck 5 at the central stairwell were bloated and buoyant, the remainder were effectively neutral. Many of the bodies exhibited evidence of crush injuries.
(Any errors in the text are probably mine...)
Click to expand...
Really? Is that all the JAIC had to say about 'the bodies on the bridge'? No names? What is 'challenging' about identifying them when protocol stated they wore uniform on duty.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Bananas used to be inedible until they were selectively bred.

Oh I'm sorry I thought we were spouting irrelevant facts again.

Deal with what was asked.
Click to expand...

"Irrelevant"? Read THE NEW STATESMAN

The Swedish government, moreover, had hired divers from Rockwater, a British-based division of the American Halliburton group, run between 1995 and 2000 by Dick Cheney, now US vice-president. They produced 13 videotapes showing the wreck, they said, from every angle. But one angle was missing and some Swedish politicians argued that the videos had been edited.
Click to expand...
<snip>
The most likely explanation is that British intelligence was behind the smuggling operation, working with the Swedes, and that a mine was placed by people acting for the Russian government in an attempt to stop them. The Russian mine was designed to prevent the Estonia from completing its journey, to damage it and force it back to port. The aim was to stop the specific shipment or the smuggling operation in general – or possibly just to issue a warning to western intelligence agencies. But the operation went wrong and the mine caused more damage than was intended, possibly because of the poor state of repair of the locks on the bow door.
Click to expand...

Obviously, this is the opinion of one guy. I neither agree nor disagree with him. It just is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom