• 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.

Cont: The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
I see you decided to quickly look it up. That is a good habit to adopt when debating.
Click to expand...

You should try it sometimes. Also check the material you're presenting as evidence to support your case, to make sure it actually does support it. Kemo sabe?
 
Yes.

You do understand that your claim it was a combat only medal is wrong now, right?
 
"I'll have to come back to this another time"? No Vixen. You've been proven to be wrong. You don't get to just put a pin in it. Admit you were wrong.

Come on, it's not the end of the world to admit it, is it?
 
Vixen said:
Explain 'the war-like situation'.
Click to expand...

1. Rescuing survivors from a ship sinking during a storm with severe waves.

2. Even if you don't think it applies to the rescue of the Estonia, that wasn't my point. My point was you claimed it was a combat medal. It is not. You. Were. Wrong.
 
Vixen said:
You forget that pre-online newspapers, people read paper copies and often kept souvenirs of key events.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming to have original copies of these editions? Let's imagine not. So now we may wonder what exactly the provenance of your quoted text is, and whether we should trust it.
 
Vixen said:
Is this personal abuse?
Click to expand...

You claim to be expert at interpretations. How to you interpret that?

You have been asked many times in recent pages to provide cites for your claims. You have provided none. If you have such cites please provide them. Or concede that you cannot. Ignoring these requests merely further erodes your already low credibility.
 
Vixen said:
I am very well, thank you for asking. I note you are now desperately trying to employ the last-chance-saloon-logical-fallacy-of-a-scoundrel: the ad hominem.

As I said, this is not a topic about belief such as in religion or philosophy so whether or not you believe it, is completely irrelevant. As George Orwell remarked: "However much you deny the truth it goes on existing".

As an example, you have this idea that your insisting that the EPIRB's did not work because it needed a couple of crew members to take it off the wall and chuck it in the water makes it so. Nothing will dissever you of your belief that if you say it was a manual EPIRB* then it becomes one by virtue of your assertion despite the marine communications experts and the chief coastguard explaining to the JAIC their bafflement as to why there were no EPIRB signals, despite their being programmed to automatically trigger when in contact with four feet of water.



*"Oh no, not the flipping EPIRB's again!"
Click to expand...

You were shown the specifications of the EPIRB used on the ship. Again it was gone in to in great detail.

Again you are ignoring everything that went before and just going back to the start.

That's why I am asking if you are ill.
You seem to forget long detailed conversations you were a part of.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Nor are all the recipients on the list provided. It even highlights those that were.

Thank you for providing a list though. You didn't actually address my point though, that being that it is not an award given only for actions in combat.
Click to expand...

Medals and decorations were gone in to at length
There have been a number of awards with the same name over the decades.
They are not just combat awards.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Flying in extreme conditions in to danger.
Putting your life at risk and acting above and beyond the call of duty.
Click to expand...

Absolute nonsense in respect of a winchman working in a four-man iirc team of many and arriving some three hours late (according to the JAIC) to a standard civilian rescue effort, of which dozens of rescuers were already there, is NOT equivalent to the Gold Medal with Sword in combat or war-like situations. It was Sweden's highest military honour, equivalent to the Victoria Cross. My close relatives received Liberty Crosses with Swords AND Oak Leaves and they actually were on the front line face-to-face with the enemy over a period of time.

It is quite clear the the Estonia incident was not perceived as a civilian accident by the Swedish Military. What Ensign Ken Svensson really did heroically is classified information, as one would expect in conditions deemed a war. In this case the dying embers of the USSR. It is in plain sight. Whilst the early newspaper reports are censored and the JAIC do not mention it, make no mistake that medal was awarded for a genuine military reason.

In addition, whilst the Swedish rescuers were delayed arriving due to poor communications, their pilots also were unable to land their helicopters in the ships' decks because they didn't have the skills that Finns had, who were able to land. This will be due to the type of training beforehand and not a reflection on their abilities or heroism.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
It is quite clear the the Estonia incident was not perceived as a civilian accident by the Swedish Military. What Ensign Ken Svensson really did heroically is classified information, as one would expect in conditions deemed a war. In this case the dying embers of the USSR. It is in plain sight. Whilst the early newspaper reports are censored and the JAIC do not mention it, make no mistake that medal was awarded for a genuine military reason.
Click to expand...

Pure, unadulterated conspiracy-mongering.
 
Andy_Ross said:
You were shown the specifications of the EPIRB used on the ship. Again it was gone in to in great detail.
Click to expand...

IIRC someone, probably you, linked to the manufacturer's specifications & it was shown that the regulations were changed as a direct result of this accident so that ships of these type would have to carry beacons that didn't need to be manually activated. Am I remembering correctly? I certainly remember this was comprehensively put to bed a very long time ago.
 
Vixen said:
The JAIC do say in their report conclusion the accident was caused by a strong wave. How do you get around that?
Click to expand...

By reading the rest of the report, which its authors were kind enough to include. It's also essential to read the report with the correct depth of understanding in the relevant fields, and in the overall field of forensic engineering investigation. When you latch onto one statement and rip it bleeding from its context, you don't get to crow about how perfunctory it now seems.

You started this Saga of Stupid by praising a new investigation that you hoped would expose the conspiracy you say attended the JAIC investigation. Now that further work has largely confirmed their original findings and methods, you see far less interested in that work. You're just back to hurling every debunked conspiracy theory out there again. It's becoming apparent what you're really interested in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom