• 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

JesseCuster said:
Previously when Vixen was pushing the demolition charges idea, when pointed out that the hypotheses of the Estonia being sunk because of demolition charges, and it being sunk by being hit with submarine, she floated the idea that both were plausible because the people responsible might have attacked it simultaneously via different methods. This is the kind of nonsense we're dealing with, somehow who is expecting others to take the idea seriously that not only might have the scoundrels responsible planted demolition charges to sink the ship, they might have rammed a submarine into it at the same time just to be sure the ship sank.
Click to expand...
It’s the Rasputin Approach, beloved of Russian hit squads.
 
Helen said:
But what on earth was a charter tour bus doing in the Baltic in that weather? Was it Russian? Did they find and interrogate the driver? Or have they disappeared him😲
Click to expand...
Well knowing the players in my ongoing campaign, the Achronic Omnibus could end up there.....
 
Vixen said:
The bridge always had the opportunity to 'call for help'.
Click to expand...
Your inability to grasp the simple concepts of this case underlines why you can't argue the more complex factors. The bridge made the mayday call as soon as they knew they were in trouble. The issue is THEY DIDN'T KNOW THEY WERE IN TROUBLE UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE. And they didn't know the nature of the problem. This is not an engineering problem, its a human problem.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
OK, fair enough. SwRi from initially showing enthusiasm in their tender letter seem to have taken a more circumspect position based on as you say irredeemable signs of corrosion that negates meaningful analysis. Plus, it seems to be more of a narrative report, with a list of bibliography at the end. I had assumed there were unseen appendices of raw data but it doesn't mention any method or table of results. However, the other two reports, do (excluding the raw data used to analyse results). One would presume the data re HV would be based on scientifically established baselines as to what would be considered abnormal HV in a metallic material. Both conclude signs of an explosion consistent with what Michael Fellows, who started his career as an underwater clearance diver tasked with post-WWII surface and underwater mine and bomb clearance, qualifying in 1959, states the Neumann waves/twinning observed satisfies the legal standard in a court of law as satisfying the burden of proof that the damage to the metal was caused by a bomb. Likewise, Brian Braidwood was a Royal Navy explosives expert. Thus, one finds the treatment of these two fine gentlemen as scoundrels and blackguards peddling conspiracy theories utterly distasteful. AFIAIAC they are persons acting with integrity and professionalism and know what bomb damage and incendiary devices and their components look like. As you know, the preliminary report from a few years ago, on completion of the latest survey, stated some of the hull damage was compatible with the vessel hitting a rocky outcrop or moving against same, being some ten metres away from where it initially landed. Be that as it may. It is to be expected. However, the Arikas team said the next step would be to forensically examine the bow visor itself and this is what it seems to have been doing in the intervening three or four years. When the final report is presented, I am fully confident it will uphold Braidwood's, Fellows' and Westermann's objective and scientific findings that there are, indeed, signs of an explosion having taken place. In Braidwood's estimate, up to three of them, and at vulnerable locations along the side of the locking mechanisms and accentuating arms. with only one accentuating arm being ripped off as a result; the other likely giving way due to the sheer weight of the other successful damage.
Click to expand...

Laudee laudee laudee! What an...interesting post. So you're now committing yourself to the belief that the bow visor was blown off with carefully-placed explosive charges, eh?

Oh and what are "accentuating arms"? Do you mean actuators? Or were there other arms - that we have not yet heard about - whose job was to accentuate (the positive)?
 
JayUtah said:
Indeed, no one has done that.

Phrasing one's questions to outside experts as, "Could this have been caused by explosives?" subtly shifts the burden of proof. Unless the lab draws a conclusion that explosives are impossible, the claimant has a glimmer of hope to cling to. "The lab couldn't rule out explosives," sets the bar very, very low for anyone who wants to wants to believe in explosives, and tries hard to set the bar very high for any who dispute it. And when the brief asks to frame an investigation around that question alone, you won't necessarily get a differential diagnosis. A lab will not necessarily investigate other potential causes that leave the same or similar signs unless they're called out in the brief. It would be doing more work and incurring more cost than was asked for. As I said, it matters greatly what questions were asked.
Click to expand...

Exactly. In effect, stating that "the lab couldn't rule out explosives" is of little more evidentiary value than stating "the lab couldn't rule out a vicious kraken rising from the depths, ripping open the bow visor's bottom lock, then pulling the whole visor off its hinges".....
 
LondonJohn said:
Exactly. In effect, stating that "the lab couldn't rule out explosives" is of little more evidentiary value than stating "the lab couldn't rule out a vicious kraken rising from the depths, ripping open the bow visor's bottom lock, then pulling the whole visor off its hinges".....
Click to expand...
[checks high resolution photos of the visor for suction cup/hook marks - none found - crosses the Kraken off the list. *sigh*]
 
JayUtah said:
They don't have to be in order to be collectively improbable compared to the conventional narrative. Claiming that the bow visor was detached via explosives is overall less probable than failure due to fatigue and poor handling. Claiming that the ship was holed above the waterline by a secret submarine for which there is no evidence is vastly less probable than the conventional narrative. But when you combine the two alternative narratives into one, their probabilities combine to make the combination colossally less probable than the conventional narrative. That's the kind of stuff you should be ruling out at prima facie. It's the equivalent of an ancient Sumerian ceremonial dagger autographed by Napoleon Bonaparte.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of a logic question from school (way back lol). The question was: which of these is more likely to describe a (high) school English literature teacher: 1) a man over the age of 30; or 2) a man over the age of 30 who wears tweed jackets and reads The Guardian (UK left-leaning newspaper)? Of course the second, more specific, description with the greater number of qualifiers is the wrong answer - even though to many people it seems like it ought to be the more accurate description.
 
LondonJohn said:
Laudee laudee laudee! What an...interesting post. So you're now committing yourself to the belief that the bow visor was blown off with carefully-placed explosive charges, eh?
Click to expand...
She almost certainly is not. That rambling screed was just to distract you from her vague admission that the Southwest Research Institute report goes over her head and doesn't actually say what she wants it to say.

LondonJohn said:
Oh and what are "accentuating arms"? Do you mean actuators? Or were there other arms - that we have not yet heard about - whose job was to accentuate (the positive)?
Click to expand...
That's what they were allowed to call them back in the quaint little corner of England where she went to school.
 
JayUtah said:
She almost certainly is not. That rambling screed was just to distract you from her vague admission that the Southwest Research Institute report goes over her head and doesn't actually say what she wants it to say.


That's what they were allowed to call them back in the quaint little corner of England where she went to school.
Click to expand...
So it's Cockney rhyming slang?
 
What if the Kraken was already in the car deck? What if that's what the Swedes were smuggling so they could wage a secret war on Norway? I mean, if we're doing conspiracy theories, do it right, and go big.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom