• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

[Continuation] The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

junkshop said:
Fair point, I ****** up there.

Amended post, then:

Rabe claims that an unidentified person that she claims claimed to be a Swedish naval diver claimed to have seen a body that they claimed to have identified as that of Cpt. Andresson, with what they claimed was a bullet wound in their head.

No evidence provided. All there is are claims. All there are are claims? All there are is claims? That syntax got weird, but I digress. Point is: unevidenced claims and a flair for the dramatic melodramatic is all Rabe has ever had.

TLDR: We've all read your bat-**** conspiracies theories before. There is no need to repeat them yet again.
Click to expand...

I fully understand that not everyone is interested in this topic. Surely there is a topic that better serves your interests than this one?
 
Vixen said:
I fully understand that not everyone is interested in this topic. Surely there is a topic that better serves your interests than this one?
Click to expand...

I'm interested in hearing you defend your deferential and uncritical approach to Rabe's claims, which you seem unwilling to believe or disbelieve for the record.
 
Vixen said:
Is this playground name-calling? Or do you have a rational basis for the jibe?
Click to expand...

Yes, as have been exhaustively raked over in these threads multiple times. When we point out her utter lack of any evidence for any of her insane, baseless claims you whine that we're not taking her word for it because she's a "respected journalist".

Even if she were a respected journalist and not an insane crank, she still needs to support her claims, which she absolutely does not do.

I am more inclined to listen to an expert in a field about their opinions on that field, but they still have to support those opinions, and if they make claims of fact then that goes doubly so.

We're back to the Ian Wright thing again where you attempted to defend Anders Bjorkman, an absolute nutcase with no actual expertise who regularly pulls things out of his ass but that you wanted us to listen to because you thought he was an expert. In that case he wasn't even an expert, but even if he had been he would need to provide actual evidence for his claims.

This is something you really don't seem to understand, or more likely are pretending not to so that we can keep paying you attention. It doesn't matter who someone is when they make a claim, what matters is if they can support that claim. Sure, if an actually respected journalist like say, Woodward and Bernstein say something I'm more likely to hear them out than Joe Headcase on the internet, but if they started on about conspiracy theories I would still need them to provide evidence for every claim they make.
 
Vixen said:
Is this a variation of 'When is the last time you beat your wife'?
Click to expand...

Nope, you frequently do exactly what Jay is saying you do.

When did you last beat your wife isn't actually a bad question to a proven and known wife beater.
 
Vixen said:
I fully understand that not everyone is interested in this topic. Surely there is a topic that better serves your interests than this one?
Click to expand...

I am interested in this topic. That is why I find your periodic attempts to reintroduce various bat-**** conspiracy theories, as if they hadn't already been thoroughly debunked, frustrating.

Safety at sea is an important issue. Companies that risk, let alone cause, the death of innocent passengers by cutting corners and fudging rules need to be held to account. More specifically, the people in charge of those companies need to be held to account.

Bat-**** conspiracy crap like your contributions in these threads serves only to distract from their culpability for valuing profit over life.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Yes, as have been exhaustively raked over in these threads multiple times. When we point out her utter lack of any evidence for any of her insane, baseless claims you whine that we're not taking her word for it because she's a "respected journalist".

Even if she were a respected journalist and not an insane crank, she still needs to support her claims, which she absolutely does not do.

I am more inclined to listen to an expert in a field about their opinions on that field, but they still have to support those opinions, and if they make claims of fact then that goes doubly so.

We're back to the Ian Wright thing again where you attempted to defend Anders Bjorkman, an absolute nutcase with no actual expertise who regularly pulls things out of his ass but that you wanted us to listen to because you thought he was an expert. In that case he wasn't even an expert, but even if he had been he would need to provide actual evidence for his claims.

This is something you really don't seem to understand, or more likely are pretending not to so that we can keep paying you attention. It doesn't matter who someone is when they make a claim, what matters is if they can support that claim. Sure, if an actually respected journalist like say, Woodward and Bernstein say something I'm more likely to hear them out than Joe Headcase on the internet, but if they started on about conspiracy theories I would still need them to provide evidence for every claim they make.
Click to expand...


I am not really interested in this 'personalities' stuff. Your calling someone an insane crank does not make them so.
 
Vixen said:
I am not really interested in this 'personalities' stuff.
Click to expand...

Pointing out that somebody is patently unqualified and therefore obviously lying about his background and credentials is not "personality stuff," especially when that person is begging to be believed as an expert.

Your calling someone an insane crank does not make them so.
Click to expand...

Someone acting as such, however, does.

You claim to be perfectly objective. Yet a better, more critical approach, rejects such obviously unqualified and non-credible evidence. Defend your approach.
 
JayUtah said:
No.

I outlined the assumptions you made in favor of a conspiracy theory. Explain why you made them when you claim that you are perfectly objective.
Click to expand...

I have read all sides of the issue carefully and I do not see that the German Group of Experts are 'insane cranks'.
 
It's not personalities stuff, you're just deflecting and running away again because you can't actually answer my point.

Where is Rabe's evidence for any of her lunatic claims?
 
junkshop said:
More specifically, the people in charge of those companies need to be held to account.
Click to expand...

As part owner of an engineering company who produces things subject to human-safety requirements, I take very seriously the need to meet the highest standards. As a participant in investigations intended to hold practitioners to account and ferret out the causes of failure, I take very seriously the need to maintain high standards of integrity and fairness in such investigations.

Bat-**** conspiracy crap like your contributions in these threads serves only to distract from their culpability for valuing profit over life.
Click to expand...

Armchair detectives are worse than useless. Vixen's approach is wrong, unfair, and self-indulgent. It causes far more harm than any benefit it might realize.
 
JayUtah said:
Pointing out that somebody is patently unqualified and therefore obviously lying about his background and credentials is not "personality stuff," especially when that person is begging to be believed as an expert.



Someone acting as such, however, does.

You claim to be perfectly objective. Yet a better, more critical approach, rejects such obviously unqualified and non-credible evidence. Defend your approach.
Click to expand...

Look. The accident happened locally to me. There are many people in this area who helped in the rescue effort. There are many people employed in the Meyer Werft shipyards. Werft built the recent Icon of the Seas. Werft built Viking Sally (reconditioned into the Estonia). I know for a fact that the workmanship on the Werftt shipyard is first class. Therefore, I am not going to write off the Germans as 'insane cranks'. If they dispute the bow visor caused the accident - and of course, I get why they would - I am going to listen to them carefully as to what they have to say.
 
Except that we did listen, and the physical evidence doesn't match what they say so we dismiss what they say as being wrong.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
It's not personalities stuff, you're just deflecting and running away again because you can't actually answer my point.

Where is Rabe's evidence for any of her lunatic claims?
Click to expand...

She has brought out a book, a documentary and a fictionalized film based on fact.

She attended the shipwreck site (there is now a warrant out for her in Sweden). She retrieved some pieces from the hull and had them tested at independent metallurgists labs.
 
Vixen said:
She has brought out a book, a documentary and a fictionalized film based on fact.
Click to expand...

But you admit you just assume all those publications were properly researched and corroborated. Why would you make assumptions that support sensationalist claims if not to indicate your belief in the claims?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Some of us are more interested in the world we live in than others. Some people want to understand what happened, others do not.
Click to expand...

You have demonstrated almost total ignorance of the sciences that pertain to your claims. You are almost entirely unable to admit error. None of that is consistent with being merely curious about the world. Your approach is worse than useless, and I am asking you to defend it if you can.
 
JayUtah said:
You have demonstrated almost total ignorance of the sciences that pertain to your claims. You are almost entirely unable to admit error. None of that is consistent with being merely curious about the world. Your approach is worse than useless, and I am asking you to defend it if you can.
Click to expand...

I do not have to justify myself.


Any more than you have to justify your interests.
 
Vixen said:
Look. The accident happened locally to me. There are many people in this area who helped in the rescue effort. There are many people employed in the Meyer Werft shipyards. Werft built the recent Icon of the Seas...
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

Vixen said:
...I know for a fact that the workmanship on the Werftt shipyard is first class...
Click to expand...

Really? I'm not saying it isn't: I'm not in any way qualified to judge that. Are you? If so please provide your relevant bona fides.

Vixen said:
...Therefore, I am not going to write off the Germans as 'insane cranks'...
Click to expand...

So, I've had a little play with the search function (hence the delayed response), and it would appear that the only person that has used the highlighted phrase in reference to the German Group of Experts is a poster by the name of Vixen.

Well, gosh.
 
Last edited:
junkshop said:
Irrelevant.



Really? I'm not saying it isn't: I'm not in any way qualified to judge that. Are you? If so please provide your relevant bona fides.



So, I've had a little play with the search function (hence the delayed response), and it would appear that the only person that has used the highlighted phrase in reference to the German Group of Experts is a poster by the name of Vixen.

Well, gosh.
Click to expand...

I am amazed you had no idea that Rabe was a part of the German Group.

Perhaps revise what the issues are before jumping in and claiming to be an expert in the matter.
 
Vixen said:
She has brought out a book, a documentary and a fictionalized film based on fact.

She attended the shipwreck site (there is now a warrant out for her in Sweden). She retrieved some pieces from the hull and had them tested at independent metallurgists labs.
Click to expand...

Not an answer.

Lots of nutters write books. The question is does she have any evidence for what she wrote in the book?
 
Vixen said:
I am amazed you had no idea that Rabe was a part of the German Group.

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


What?


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

Appointment

The German 'Group of Experts' was formed in the beginning of February 1995 in accordance with a decision of the Managing Director of Jos. L. Meyer GmbH, in Papenburg - Dipl. Ing. Bernard Meyer.

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...



"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?

.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Your insults reflect on you, not me.
Click to expand...


What insult would that be? You can either justify your approach, or have people draw their own conclusions about it. Your willful ignorance and ongoing self-delusion of infallibility reflects on you, not me.
 
Last edited:
All of the false claim of suspicious events come from a single source: Rabe. Her tactics over this case ended with having her press credentials revoked due to questionable ethics. She never seeks out independent sources, only other conspiracy loons to echo her baseless allegations.

This tragedy is straightforward:

Ro-Ro ferries have a long history of maritime disasters. Almost all of them involve a faulty ramp door failing in bad weather, and the rest involve mistakes made by the crew. Estonia was both.

MS Estonia was never designed for open ocean transit, and had only sailed in rough seas on time before.

The warning sensors on the bow ramp, and bow cover were inadequate. And the crew failed to properly inspect the car deck, and the bow.

The bridge crew improperly made calls for help before issuing a MAYDAY, and even then wasted time before giving GPS coordinates (although this may had been the result of the GPS being on the steep end of the bridge, and difficult to reach with the ships listing). The result was a confused and slow response by rescuing elements.

Bottom Line: Bad weather+ rogue wave + bad design for the conditions + poor crew performance = Sinking.

No bombs, no submarines, no Spetsnaz team, no MI-6/CIA/EIEIO, no Bill Clinton. Just the usual suspects found in every major maritime disaster: An experienced caption trying to keep to schedule regardless of the weather conditions, assumptions about the ship's seaworthiness under those harsh conditions. A half-assed crew from a country with notoriously low standards for everything for professionalism to safety. And fate/Murphy's Law.

The sinking of MS Estonia is not hard to understand at all.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Nope, you frequently do exactly what Jay is saying you do.

When did you last beat your wife isn't actually a bad question to a proven and known wife beater.
Click to expand...

Also "When did you last beat your wife?" can be answered "Never", the famous illustration of begging the question is "When did you stop beating your wife?". But to quote Shakespeare, "Meh, close enough".
 
P.J. Denyer said:
Also "When did you last beat your wife?" can be answered "Never", the famous illustration of begging the question is "When did you stop beating your wife?". But to quote Shakespeare, "Meh, close enough".
Click to expand...

I think there's been some confusion with "When did you last see your father?", the title of the painting of a possibly fictional scene from the English Civil War, where a young boy faces the dilemma of whether to tell the truth (as he has been brought up to do) and put his father in danger, or lie to protect him.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Not an answer.

Lots of nutters write books. The question is does she have any evidence for what she wrote in the book?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. She hired the skills of Gregg Bemis, a Harvard and Stanford Law and Economics graduate with a passion for marine issues, and held a 33% share in the wreck of the Lusitania. He accompanied her to the Estonia wreckage site. Likewise, she hired the skills of ex-Naval explosives expert, Brian Braidwood and naval bod Michael Fellowes MBE to write up a report on the three independent metallurgy labs she sent samples from the bow hull for expert independent analysis, including one in the USA and another used by the forensic police in Germany. Rabe also undertook extensive filming of the wreck and interviewed numerous people. She claims to have seen the pilot's logs and TV footage of Piht, which she now suspects has been completely deleted by the security forces.

It is not just Rabe, the Estonian head of JAIC also brought out a book called the Pilot's log book, or similar.
 
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.
 
JayUtah said:
What insult would that be? You can either justify your approach, or have people draw their own conclusions about it. Your willful ignorance and ongoing self-delusion of infallibility reflects on you, not me.
Click to expand...

This thread is about the sinking of the Estonia. I am not sure what it is you are so upset about.
 
Axxman300 said:
All of the false claim of suspicious events come from a single source: Rabe. Her tactics over this case ended with having her press credentials revoked due to questionable ethics. She never seeks out independent sources, only other conspiracy loons to echo her baseless allegations.

This tragedy is straightforward:

Ro-Ro ferries have a long history of maritime disasters. Almost all of them involve a faulty ramp door failing in bad weather, and the rest involve mistakes made by the crew. Estonia was both.

MS Estonia was never designed for open ocean transit, and had only sailed in rough seas on time before.

The warning sensors on the bow ramp, and bow cover were inadequate. And the crew failed to properly inspect the car deck, and the bow.

The bridge crew improperly made calls for help before issuing a MAYDAY, and even then wasted time before giving GPS coordinates (although this may had been the result of the GPS being on the steep end of the bridge, and difficult to reach with the ships listing). The result was a confused and slow response by rescuing elements.

Bottom Line: Bad weather+ rogue wave + bad design for the conditions + poor crew performance = Sinking.

No bombs, no submarines, no Spetsnaz team, no MI-6/CIA/EIEIO, no Bill Clinton. Just the usual suspects found in every major maritime disaster: An experienced caption trying to keep to schedule regardless of the weather conditions, assumptions about the ship's seaworthiness under those harsh conditions. A half-assed crew from a country with notoriously low standards for everything for professionalism to safety. And fate/Murphy's Law.

The sinking of MS Estonia is not hard to understand at all.
Click to expand...

Whilst it is true the vessel was designed to cross between Finland and Sweden, which she did for many years, OTOH it is hardly true that she traversed across 'open ocean'. The journey from Tallinn to Helsinki for example is just 90km so not really different. I don't believe this is a factor in the accident.

As for the Mayday, this is very interesting because the Mayday was made by Tammes, the second or third officer. It should have been made by the Captain, yet this is not even mentioned in the JAIC report. According to the watchman* he was on the bridge as he had been behind him as he was ascending the stairs. The impression of the nearby Mariella captain was that Tammes or whoever, had been trying to communicate earlier ( ship near Sweden claims to have picked up an attempted message earlier). The fact Tammes was unable to give the coordinates immediately (it was NOT GPS) and his colleague could be heard calling them out in the second recorded attempt indicates he was unable to see them, no doubt clinging on for dear life at a severe list. He was using a hand held device which again raises the question of why not use the much better quality radio devices on the bridge.

As the captain of nearby Silja Europa told the press, the storm was no worse than usual for a September night.

And no, Estonia is not a crap country with a crap crew.

*This guy was jailed for drug smuggling later and was amongst the first off the ship, so who knows how reliable his testimony is.
 
JayUtah said:
What insult would that be? You can either justify your approach, or have people draw their own conclusions about it. Your willful ignorance and ongoing self-delusion of infallibility reflects on you, not me.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
This thread is about the sinking of the Estonia. I am not sure what it is you are so upset about.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in JayUtah's post that even hints at upset. It is a logical and accurate statement. Perhaps you are projecting your own upset at being unable to provide a logical approach to the sinking of the Estonia without resorting to unevidenced speculation, and even outright lies, by both yourself and those whose opinions you see as supporting your own.
 
Vixen said:
... She claims to have seen the pilot's logs and TV footage of Piht, which she now suspects has been completely deleted by the security forces.
Click to expand...

We've all seen the TV footage of 'Piht'. It's on YouTube. It's not him. Conspiracy loons leap to conclude the bit with him in must have been edited out by Sinister Powers.

It shows survivors arriving at hospital in Finland, none of whom is Piht, but when the footage was shown on German TV news, someone mistakenly thought they saw him. So the police went to the TV station to get a full copy of the broadcast footage, which lovers of conspiracy theories rewrite in their heads as the Men In Black turning up to remove and destroy all copies of the footage, ignoring the illogic of thinking that doing so at one German TV station would erase what was recorded in Finland and sent to goodness knows how many places.

This is just as bonkers as people who watch footage of the moon landings while claiming NASA "lost all the tapes" of the very thing they're watching.

I'm feeling more than a little sorry for this dead horse. How many more floggings must it endure?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom