The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[JayUtah]

To answer point 3: people seem to constantly think I have picked up an opinion from 'down the pub' as if I haven't carefully considered it.

You don't carefully consider your claims. You quote the likes of Anders Björkmann as if they were authorities. A careful consideration would have revealed his shortcomings and falsehoods. You routinely switch between contradictory claims, expecting your critics to keep up with you. A careful consideration would determine which of these competing claims was the most defensible according to the evidence and therefore more likely to be true, and therefore the only one to pursue further. The only criteria you seem to apply is whether your source is a conspiracy theory or not.

And now you ask to be excused from "typos" and other such errors as if you are unaware that others in this thread are the ones actually doing the careful consideration.

The argument runs aong the lines, who do you think you are showing any interest in the sinking of the Estonia?

No, that's not the argument. That's the same straw man you trot out every time people rightly point out your arrogance.

Your interest in the MS Estonia seems limited to pointing out how you think the people who investigated the sinking did so incorrectly, dishonestly, and corruptly. You have said several times that you believe the victims and survivors of the accident were poorly served, and have claimed a role in vindicating them against the enemies you imagine arrayed against them. In making those accusations, you occasionally rely upon others. But more often than not you simply state your own personal knowledge and beliefs as if they were self-evident fact. Those are often wrong, or at best simplistic. But you rarely if ever concede that, even when presented with incontrovertible evidence. You carry on as if your uninformed opinion remains an appropriate yardstick by which you can righteously judge the competent and careful actions of others. Not surprisingly, there are people who find that sort of behavior distasteful to the point of objection.

Your interest is hardly innocent, and the means with which you pursue it are hardly honest.

 

[JayUtah]

Well, for a start the people claiming you have to be a licensed engineer to comment on the accident.

I do happen to be a licensed engineer with experience in investigating transportation accidents. That positions me well to evaluate both the strength of the official investigations and your criticism of it. If your comment includes claims that bring into question the quality or character of that work, you have left the safe harbor of "interest" or "curiosity" and entered into advocacy. Specifically, you have entered into advocacy that requires specialized knowledge, skill, and experience to do honestly.

In the broader sense, to make any comment with the expectation that it be taken seriously requires simply that one knows what one is talking about. And you simply can't demonstrate that here in this case. That's the bottom line. If you don't wish to have that defect exposed, don't make the claims in a forum devoted to detecting such defects. You're being treated here exactly as someone should be treated who doesn't know what they are talking about but won't stop talking. Say what you want, but take your lumps if it turns out to be ignorant.

Now the fact that several people in this thread who are not licensed engineers have managed to grasp the particulars and fundamentals of the problem should dispel the straw man that only those who occupy a lofty position get to comment and be taken seriously. Engineering is not the only relevant field of expertise represented here. The argument is not that only those who clear a high bar deserve the microphone. Quite the opposite; it's that there is a minimum bar of competence that must be cleared before one's comments are taken seriously. Several people easily clear that bar. You do not.

You can fix that by keeping silent and avoid criticism. You can fix that by asking appropriate questions and expanding your knowledge to accommodate the problem. But you can't fix it by insisting that others accept your ongoing willful ignorance as a suitable basis for advocacy, and then bemoaning your station when they do not.

But AFIAC it is a news item and one doesn't have to have special knowledge to follow it.

Yawn.

 

[zooterkin]

It wasn't made up it was a straight forward error. Or are you going to claim you never err ever.

In what way was it sourced? That was your claim, wasn't it.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Well, for a start the people claiming you have to be a licensed engineer to comment on the accident. But AFIAC it is a news item and one doesn't have to have special knowledge to follow it.

Who has claimed that?
I comment on it as do others, we aren't licensed engineers.
We comment on our own areas of knowledge and experience.

 

[Andy_Ross]

You keep falsely accusing me of wrongdoing. AFAIAC any errors are simply errors in good faith of the type everybody makes now and then. It's like claiming a typo is a sign of terrible wrongdoing. I haven't committed any wrongdoing whatsoever.

But you make them all the time and never correct them or admit there was an error in the first place.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Once again, @Vixen is struggling with the English language. Perhaps I can help.

Here we see the logical fallacy of the non-sequitur, possibly the most common one of all.

Okay, this is Latin, not English, but the phrase has become common in English. @Vixen wrote that in response to a post that did not contain a non-sequitur, and did not contain any other kind a logical fallacy.

a person with zero scruples and feint respect for the law or for honesty.

Here @Vixen is showing faint respect for the word "feint", which has entered English from the French feinte.

No, I have never claimed to possess a world-class intelligence. I was challenging your claim I was a moron. You further claimed I was a 'coward'. But my favourite line from a hymn during schooldays was 'but for strength that we may ever, live our lives courageously' (L Whitcomb 1859) a value I have always strived to emulate. So when you call me stupid and a 'coward' I feel comforted that I am the opposite and in addition, it really has zero to do with debating the topic at hand, so yes, I would say it was ad hom, because I have never attacked yourself on a personal level. I don't need to ask anyone's permission to hold a view.

Whether @JayUtah's statement was an ad hom has absolutely nothing to do with whether @Vixen herself has ever attacked @JayUtah on a personal level. So the part I highlighted is a nice example of a non-sequitur. The following sentence may be a non-sequitur as well, depending upon whether @Vixen intended that sentence to have anything at all to do with the sentence I highlighted.

You claimed to be a triple niner, that you're 6 steps ahead, and that people disagreeing with you was due to a simonton gap, which means you think one party is so far ahead of the other in intelligence communication is difficult. I'm assuming you weren't claiming communication was difficult because you were that much stupider than us, so yes. Yes you did claim that. You claimed very explicitly that you are way smarter than everyone else here.

So stop lying about it.

ETA: Also that's still not ad hominem. You still don't understand what that term means.

I am a triple niner.

Here @Vixen admits the first fact @MarkCorrigan stated, as though being a triple niner somehow refutes the fact that @Vixen has claimed to be a triple niner, yada yada. That is not a fallacy, but it is an example of a non-responsive response to the point at issue.

1. How is that not attempting to claim a world class intelligence?

2. I do not believe you.

3. Even if you are, why do you assume no one else could be?

4. You do realise IQ isn't really an accurate measure of anything?

5. But even so, go on. What is your IQ, and where did you find it/who verified it?

ETA: Oh and 6. Why did you not deal with the post properly? Are you incapable of having even a basic back and forth conversation? Deal with the points people raise, stop running away and trying to deflect.

To answer point 3: people seem to constantly think I have picked up an opinion from 'down the pub' as if I haven't carefully considered it. The argument runs aong the lines, who do you think you are showing any interest in the sinking of the Estonia? A poster even announced they are just here 'to take the piss' out of one. I am at a loss to understand why anyone would express this view, hence there would appear to be a Simonton gap. You are welcome to start a thread on the other points.

@Vixen's entire answer here is another example of a non-responsive response. @MarkCorrigan asked four questions, with a fifth question (why should I believe you?) implied by his point 2. @Vixen is at a loss to understand why anyone would express a view concerning @Vixen's sincerity, and believes there may be a Simonton gap; both of those things tell us something about what is going on in @Vixen's mind, but they have absolutely nothing to do with why @Vixen assumes no one else could be a triple niner (which is what @MarkCorrigan's third question is asking).

So @Vixen's entire response is something very like a non-sequitur.

You keep falsely accusing me of wrongdoing. AFAIAC any errors are simply errors in good faith of the type everybody makes now and then. It's like claiming a typo is a sign of terrible wrongdoing. I haven't committed any wrongdoing whatsoever.

No one is saying it's a crime to write feint when you meant faint, or to fail to understand what Latin phrases such as ad hominem and non-sequitur actually mean. Those are indeed errors of a type everybody makes now and then.

What's comical is the evident determination to continue to rely upon such errors even after those errors have been pointed out by many, many people over a period of many, many years. While claiming to be a triple niner.

But comedy is not a crime. Please carry on (note meanings 2, 6, and 10).

 

[Vixen]

So why do you keep lying about what other people have said?

For example you claimed that

Which is a lie. No one has said that.

Why are you lying about what other people have said? Wouldn't you consider that "wrongdoing"?

Also attempting to claim your errors are simply good faith errors falls flat on it's face when you double down on the errors, then attempt (poorly) to gaslight everyone into thinking no error was committed.


You are a habitual liar.

You have routinely attempted to dishonestly portray arguments people have made. For example, when we discovered that the source for some of your inane twaddle was noted crank, fellow habitual liar and con artist Anders Bjorkman, you first attempted to claim he was an expert. When we correctly pointed out his claims of expertise were self aggrandizing lies he tells to gull people into thinking he's an expert, you tried, repeatedly, to claim that our disagreement with your using him as a source was some kind of personality conflict. This was as obvious an attempt at gaslighting as I've ever seen, and yet you continued to claim that it was "a personality thing" when we pointed out that his lack of physics knowledge, the thing you were relying on him for, led him to claim that nuclear weapons were impossible.

No Vixen, it isn't a "personality thing" to point out that the person you're relying on for your argument is so delusional about the thing you're claiming he is an expert in that he denies basic reality.

Two issues here: (1) It explains the difference in thinking. You: personalities. Me: ideas. Listening to someone's ideas doesn't make me their follower. For example, my liking 'Sailing' doesn't make me a Rod Stewart fan or even amenable to his view on life. Anders Bjorkman could be a one-legged ginger or a strapping German with gingivitis, I wouldn't care a darn. Likewise, who cares if Isaac Newton liked solitude or if Hemingway was as pissed as a newt? What's interesting to me would be their ideas. (2) If you have a problem with Anders Bjorkman take it up with him. Nowt to do with me. I certainly haven't borrowed his ideas. He thinks the accident was the fault of the Estonian crew so I am quite capable of hearing the views of others without adopting them. It's called being objective and applying reason. OK, so one might be wrong but IMV that is far better than following the crowd and being swayed by someone else's views on personalities and prejudices. So 'let's all hate Anders Bjorkman' sounds pathetic to me.

 

[Vixen]

You don't carefully consider your claims. You quote the likes of Anders Björkmann as if they were authorities. A careful consideration would have revealed his shortcomings and falsehoods. You routinely switch between contradictory claims, expecting your critics to keep up with you. A careful consideration would determine which of these competing claims was the most defensible according to the evidence and therefore more likely to be true, and therefore the only one to pursue further. The only criteria you seem to apply is whether your source is a conspiracy theory or not.

And now you ask to be excused from "typos" and other such errors as if you are unaware that others in this thread are the ones actually doing the careful consideration.


No, that's not the argument. That's the same straw man you trot out every time people rightly point out your arrogance.

Your interest in the MS Estonia seems limited to pointing out how you think the people who investigated the sinking did so incorrectly, dishonestly, and corruptly. You have said several times that you believe the victims and survivors of the accident were poorly served, and have claimed a role in vindicating them against the enemies you imagine arrayed against them. In making those accusations, you occasionally rely upon others. But more often than not you simply state your own personal knowledge and beliefs as if they were self-evident fact. Those are often wrong, or at best simplistic. But you rarely if ever concede that, even when presented with incontrovertible evidence. You carry on as if your uninformed opinion remains an appropriate yardstick by which you can righteously judge the competent and careful actions of others. Not surprisingly, there are people who find that sort of behavior distasteful to the point of objection.

Your interest is hardly innocent, and the means with which you pursue it are hardly honest.

Look, you have said before you have a marked hatred of conspiracy theorists, so your labelling me as one is simply your get-out clause for heaping opprobrium on me. If it makes you feel better, I don't mind being a proxy for your offloading, as long as we understand what is really going on here.

 

[Vixen]

In what way was it sourced? That was your claim, wasn't it.

Please can you provide an exact citation of the post you are referring to, together with the relevant context (e.g., the post to which I was responding). Otherwise we are simply taking your word for it that I committed a heinous misdemeanour.

 

[Dabop]

Once again, @Vixen is struggling with the English language. Perhaps I can help.


Okay, this is Latin, not English, but the phrase has become common in English. @Vixen wrote that in response to a post that did not contain a non-sequitur, and did not contain any other kind a logical fallacy.


Here @Vixen is showing faint respect for the word "feint", which has entered English from the French feinte.


Whether @JayUtah's statement was an ad hom has absolutely nothing to do with whether @Vixen herself has ever attacked @JayUtah on a personal level. So the part I highlighted is a nice example of a non-sequitur. The following sentence may be a non-sequitur as well, depending upon whether @Vixen intended that sentence to have anything at all to do with the sentence I highlighted.



Here @Vixen admits the first fact @MarkCorrigan stated, as though being a triple niner somehow refutes the fact that @Vixen has claimed to be a triple niner, yada yada. That is not a fallacy, but it is an example of a non-responsive response to the point at issue.



@Vixen's entire answer here is another example of a non-responsive response. @MarkCorrigan asked four questions, with a fifth question (why should I believe you?) implied by his point 2. @Vixen is at a loss to understand why anyone would express a view concerning @Vixen's sincerity, and believes there may be a Simonton gap; both of those things tell us something about what is going on in @Vixen's mind, but they have absolutely nothing to do with why @Vixen assumes no one else could be a triple niner (which is what @MarkCorrigan's third question is asking).

So @Vixen's entire response is something very like a non-sequitur.


No one is saying it's a crime to write feint when you meant faint, or to fail to understand what Latin phrases such as ad hominem and non-sequitur actually mean. Those are indeed errors of a type everybody makes now and then.

What's comical is the evident determination to continue to rely upon such errors even after those errors have been pointed out by many, many people over a period of many, many years. While claiming to be a triple niner.

But comedy is not a crime. Please carry on (note meanings 2, 6, and 10).

I'm more inclined to consider this entire trainwreck (shipwreck???) of a thread more in the line of this Carry On meaning... but less funny than those Carry On's lol

Hell the entire Vixen storyline makes less sense than the one from this....

"Carry On favourite Barbara Windsor makes her debut in this outrageous send-up of the James Bond movies. Fearless agent Desmond Simpkins and Charlie Bind, aided and abetted by the comely Agent Honeybutt and Agent Crump, battle against the evil powers of international bad guys STENCH and their three cronies."

LOL- STENCH- thats what this thread needs, an 'evil organisation' with a cool name, to go with the flying, driving submarines, radioactive goo eating the ships and alive/dead/missing crew-members who may or may not be dressed in uniform as they gallantly stood at their posts as the ship disappeared below the waves, cause everyone knows they 'HAVE' to go down with the ship.....

 

[JayUtah]

Look, you have said before you have a marked hatred of conspiracy theorists...

I do not like what conspiracy theorists do. Don't make personal what isn't.

...so your labelling me as one is simply your get-out clause for heaping opprobrium on me.

If you feel you have been personally attacked, report the post for moderation. Do not keep saying as much for rhetorical effect.

If it makes you feel better, I don't mind being a proxy for your offloading...

You whine incessantly about how badly you think you're being treated.

...as long as we understand what is really going on here.

What's really going on here is no more complicated than someone who doesn't know what they're talking about but won't stop talking. And doing so in a forum specifically intended to test and oppose such claims.

 

[JayUtah]

Two issues here: (1) It explains the difference in thinking. You: personalities. Me: ideas.

No. You aren't willing to espouse, expound, or defend any of the ideas you throw around. Nor are you willing to educate yourself in the knowledge that pertains to those ideas so as to discuss them rationally. You rarely go beyond, "Because I say so." You borrow the ideas of obvious crackpots at least far enough to use them to throw shade on your betters, but then shrink to the back bench as soon as those ideas are challenged on the same grounds you propose to apply. Ideas seem to have no value in your thinking except to the extent they establish you as an astute critic of others' work.

Every thread you visit soon becomes about you, not the subject at hand. The thinking therefore has to expand to include a new category. In addition to personality and ideas, we have to include behavior. You behave often enough as a child; you resort too often to childish games instead of straightforward discussion. When you do so you're often dealt with appropriately in the hopes that the rebuke will restore the debate to good faith. If you don't like your behavior to occupy so much of the discussion, behave differently.

Listening to someone's ideas doesn't make me their follower.

You're quite willing to follow them insofar as they disagree with a conventional narrative. But you quickly drop them when you are asked to defend them to the same standard you apply to the conventional narrative. That's intellectual cowardice. You borrow others' ideas to make you look smart, but then decline to allow those purported smarts to be tested by your own standards.

Anders Bjorkman could be a one-legged ginger or a strapping German with gingivitis, I wouldn't care a darn.

Irrelevant. You present him as an authority in physics and engineering when he patently is not. And you care very much about that, because you want to borrow his ideas on the premise that parroting them will make you look smarter than you are.

If you have a problem with Anders Bjorkman take it up with him.

We have.

Nowt to do with me. I certainly haven't borrowed his ideas.

You certainly have, and you occasionally forget yourself and try to rehabilitate him as your expert witness so that you can keep borrowing those ideas. Your decision to rely upon him and other clearly unreliable sources is squarely on you. We can certainly hold Björkmann responsible for claims he makes. And we can hold you separately responsible for insisting that we take them seriously.

He thinks the accident was the fault of the Estonian crew so I am quite capable of hearing the views of others without adopting them. It's called being objective and applying reason.

He also wrongly thinks the ship should not have foundered as claimed, and attempts to offer a physical argument to justify that. You have explicitly told us that you accept such a model because however much a crackpot we may think he is on other subjects, he is qualified to make those judgments. It's called knowing what you're talking about.

OK, so one might be wrong but IMV that is far better than following the crowd and being swayed by someone else's views on personalities and prejudices.

Straw man. First, you don't stop to think that the crowd may be right according to the evidence, and that this is the reason there's a crowd. Second, your critics' claims are not based on "personalities or prejudices," but upon a careful consideration of testable fact. These are facts that they seem to know, and you seem not to know.

In contrast you seem to follow anyone and everyone who says something about a conspiracy involving the JAIC, even when those viewpoints are patently false. In your case, not having one preferred viewpoint is not a virtue. You follow any and every thing—if only for a moment—based solely on what it isn't, not on what it can demonstrate it is. If none of your semi-professed viewpoints can have any staying power even under casual inspection, that should be telling you something.

So 'let's all hate Anders Bjorkman' sounds pathetic to me.

You continue to try to rewrite questions of one's foundation of competence as if they were personal attacks. Anders Björkmann is a poor expert witness because he demonstrates he lacks a correct foundation of expertise from which to offer judgment. Similarly, your claims are often rejected because you too demonstrate that you lack a correct foundation of expertise from which you offer your judgment. Trying to claim you're being personally attacked for such a lack of foundation is what sounds pathetic to me. What's further pathetic is ignoring the nature of comments you want to portray as innocent and casual, but which are quite clearly attempts to challenge the prevailing narrative from an undeserved position of knowledge and authority.

 

[JayUtah]

I comment on it as do others, we aren't licensed engineers.
We comment on our own areas of knowledge and experience.

I am quite happy to defer to you and be corrected on matters of seafaring. I recognize your experience in that area. It applies to the matter of MS Estonia, and I'm fortunate to be able to learn from you.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Two issues here: (1) It explains the difference in thinking. You: personalities. Me: ideas. Listening to someone's ideas doesn't make me their follower. For example, my liking 'Sailing' doesn't make me a Rod Stewart fan or even amenable to his view on life. Anders Bjorkman could be a one-legged ginger or a strapping German with gingivitis, I wouldn't care a darn. Likewise, who cares if Isaac Newton liked solitude or if Hemingway was as pissed as a newt? What's interesting to me would be their ideas. (2) If you have a problem with Anders Bjorkman take it up with him. Nowt to do with me. I certainly haven't borrowed his ideas. He thinks the accident was the fault of the Estonian crew so I am quite capable of hearing the views of others without adopting them. It's called being objective and applying reason. OK, so one might be wrong but IMV that is far better than following the crowd and being swayed by someone else's views on personalities and prejudices. So 'let's all hate Anders Bjorkman' sounds pathetic to me.

Amazing, you're committing the exact lie I called you out for in the post you quoted.


Let's go through it point by point shall we?

Two issues here: (1) It explains the difference in thinking. You: personalities. Me: ideas.

Where did I even begin to talk about personalities, except to point out that is the lie you are continually telling?

Listening to someone's ideas doesn't make me their follower.

No, but repeating them as if they were an expert does mean you are proffering them as said expert. Which Bjorkman is manifestly not. He isn't an expert Vixen no matter how much you (and he) desperately want him to be. He's a delusional crank on the exact subject you are upholding him as an expert in. Do you get it yet? You are attempting to use someone who thinks atomic weapons are impossible because of physics as an expert in physics. This is the equivalent of proffering someone who doesn't believe in the germ theory of disease as an expert in medicine.

Anders Bjorkman could be a one-legged ginger or a strapping German with gingivitis, I wouldn't care a darn. Likewise, who cares if Isaac Newton liked solitude or if Hemingway was as pissed as a newt?

Except I'm not discussing any of that. I, and others are pointing out that his ideas are bollocks. He is a delusional crank in exactly the area you are claiming to be using his ideas in.

(2) If you have a problem with Anders Bjorkman take it up with him.

I don't have a problem with HIM. I have a problem with you using him as an expert in an area he is less competent in than I am. I am not a physicist. I am definitely not a maritime engineer. I still know more about it than he does because he is a delusional crank on these subjects.

I certainly haven't borrowed his ideas.

You presented him as an expert. Then when we confronted you over the fact he is no such thing and his ideas are nutter butters you attempted to hide that he was your expert, then you disavowed him publicly but continued to spout his unevidenced gibberish as if we wouldn't know that's what you were doing, and then you finally started this idiotic attempt at gaslighting by claiming we are against you parroting his rubbish because we think he's rude or whatever.

No Vixen, we do not accept your use of him as an expert because he isn't an expert. He's a delusional crank and self aggrandising liar.

He thinks the accident was the fault of the Estonian crew so I am quite capable of hearing the views of others without adopting them. It's called being objective and applying reason.

But you don't do that, you parrot his insanity without actually understanding why it's insanity, then get offended when we won't accept this obvious con artist as a credible expert.

OK, so one might be wrong but IMV that is far better than following the crowd and being swayed by someone else's views on personalities and prejudices.

It is neither a personality issue nor prejudice to not accept insane cranks as experts. That you keep whining and pouting about it doesn't make it true.

Anders Bjorkman is less competent in physics than my 12 year old niece. At least she accepts that nuclear weapons are real.

All you're doing here is continuing your pathetic attempt at gaslighting everyone else into accepting we hate Bjorkman because we think he's a big meanie pants or whatever guff it is you're trying to cram into our mouths today. No. We do not accept him as an expert because he is verifiably wrong about physics.

So 'let's all hate Anders Bjorkman' sounds pathetic to me.

I don't hate him. I pity him, if anything, because he's a sad lonely crank shouting into the void that only the chronically conspiratorial and clueless pay any attention to. You might as well quote David Icke on world politics, because they're equally capable in the respective fields.

 

[JesseCuster]

Er, Dick Cheney was US Secretary of Defence under then POTUS George HW Bush.

Vixen, you said you're willing to admit mistakes. You haven't acknowledge this factual error (if you have, I apologise, I couldn't find it).

Are you willing to admit you were factually wrong in saying this about Dick Cheney?

He wasn't US Secretary of Defense, or CEO of Halliburton, or owner of Halliburton, in 1994. This error is particularly funny as you clearly think you're so much smarter and more knowledgable than everyone else, hence the "Er" at the start and the big red exclamation mark at the end. Maybe spend 10 seconds Googling something before spouting it as fact in such a snarky way.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen, you said you're willing to admit mistakes. You haven't acknowledge this factual error (if you have, I apologise, I couldn't find it).

Are you willing to admit you were factually wrong in saying this about Dick Cheney?

He wasn't US Secretary of Defense, or CEO of Halliburton, or owner of Halliburton, in 1994.

In fairness to Vixen, he WAS SoD for Bush Sr. From 1989-Jan 1993.

Bill Clinton was actually the President at the time of the sinking of the Estonia however.

Oh and Cheney was Bush's second choice behind John Tower.

 

[JesseCuster]

In fairness to Vixen, he WAS SoD for Bush Sr. From 1989-Jan 1993.

True, but Vixen said he was Secretary of Defense under then POTUS Bush Sr, the "then" clearly referring to the time of the sinking (or the Rockwater dive). Either way, he wasn't Secretary of Defense at the time.

 

[Mojo]

Big deal. Factual error soon corrected.

Indeed it was, as long ago as 2021.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Putin was Lieutenant Colonel IIRC. As of the fall of the USSR he was working as a disgruntled cab driver. Nobody in the military was getting paid so they had to take up day jobs. Putin as of the time of the MS Estonia accident was Mayor of St. Petersburg and twinned with Turku, where he exchanged visits and even had a plaque in the shape of a foot placed in the pavement outside the Maritime Museum (since removed thanks to the Ukraine aggression).

Putin was never mayor of St. Petersburg; he had recently been appointed deputy mayor when the Estonia sank. Is this mistake a big deal by itself? No. But taken as part of your entire body of work, it serves as a further illustration of a) your cavalier attitude toward the facts, and b) your penchant for exaggerating the importance of certain bad actors in your various conspiracy theories.

 

[Axxman300]

It was a crime scene investigation as the over all supervisors were the police

And they gave the divers a list of tasks to perform. Also, I suspect that in Europe these things are run by law enforcement anyway. Oh, and what crime was committed? The Estonia was not designed to sail in open seas, and not designed for that kind of weather, and there were maintenance issues. But at the end of the day bureaucracy was the other factor that sank the ship, and at the end of the day prosecuting incompetence has always been mostly impossible.

You have not seen the entire video because it was heavily edited. Rockwater claim to have destroyed the original 'as per contract'.

Didn't say I've seen all of them, just the ones available online. Doesn't matter, they didn't find anything to contradict the final report.