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

[GlennB]

Didn't need a switch. They were free floating automatic buoys activated when immersed in water, wherein they are released by the HRU and the aim is for them to reach the surface and automatically start transmitting their location to the COSPAS-SARTS satellite system. Proof is, the authorities requested to see the Norwegian logs of all satellite messages during that time frame.

lie ... pie ... pork pie ... porkie

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I think it is more to do with the fact that had it been a preplanned operation then what is salient isn't the fact of equidistance but more that the accident took place as soon as it got to international waters, which would coincide with that point as it is politically determined, who owns what part of the waters.

So the time and the distance and the equidistance claims are all red herrings which can be struck off your list of suspicious circumstances, as all that mattered was its being in international waters.

That raises a few questions. How long after it left Estonian territorial waters did it get into trouble? (It looks to me as if it was over 30 nm into international waters so I'd be interested to see your source for the "as soon as" claim.) Also why should it matter that it was international waters and if the "as soon as" claim were true, why would the implied haste be important?

 

[Vixen]

re: the photo of Viking Sally/Estonia with the bow visor slightly raised, there's a pretty good chance the photo was taken at the entrance to either Turku or Mariehamn. Hell, given that it was the 80's, it might even have been Stockholm itself.

And for those so inclined, the first couple of minutes of the linked YouTube video shows the opening and operation of the bow visor on the last train ferries across the Great Belt in Denmark. It even shows the lock disengage.

(And for those into those sort of things, these particular train ferries only allowed operations though the bow. The rear of the train deck was fitted with couplers for the trains).

The picture of Viking Sally was definitely taking in the archipelago, and in which you can see is full of islands, as in the background. Here's what the archipelago looks like and you can even see buoys in the background which do not necessarily indicate being in a port but are to aid with narrow lanes through the islands.

archipelago by Username Vixen, on Flickr

archipelago 2 by Username Vixen, on Flickr

archipelago 3 by Username Vixen, on Flickr

archipelago 4 by Username Vixen, on Flickr

These are pics I took last year.

Is there any evidence that the ferry had to raise its bow visor before approaching port?

Who unlocks the Atlantic lock if that is the case?

 

[Vixen]

I'm guessing the standards were changed after the sinking.

The first investigation and the new one are both looking at the bow, and ramp details. I know changes were mandated after the disaster. The MS Estonia had only sailed in rough weather one other time, according to the history. I don't know if this was luck, or out of caution. So many sinkings are a result of a ship getting lucky in a bad storm, and the captain, and shipping company assuming they can push their luck in the future.

MV Estonia had sailed in a far worse storm some five weeks earlier.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Mojo mischievously decided to conflate the Brits with Stalingrad because they were in the same sentence.

So I hope that is now clear.

Since what you actually wrote was this:

The daily on-the-spot TIMES newspaper report on the Battle of Stalingrad, together with maps and charts brought it to life for me. They even had reporters on the German front line, who must have been British secret agents to have infiltrated it in the first place.

There was no mischief at all involved in taking that to be a claim the Times published reports from British secret agents infiltrated into the German front line at Stalingrad. While you might claim that your front line remark was meant to refer to different events rather than specifically Stalingrad, it's hardly less absurd to say British secret agents infiltrated any other German front line and had their reports published in the Times.

 

[SpitfireIX]

If you had followed the thread, you would be aware I and a co-author were researching the early years of WWII from a nordic perspective, that is 1941-1942 mainly, and those were where I took photocopies (which were quite expensive, especially for A3, as TIMES was a large broadsheet which didn't even fit A3). If you knew your history you would also know Stalingrad was towards WWII end and was - hello?!!! - Germany versus Russia, so would have zero to do with British troops. Mojo mischievously decided to conflate the Brits with Stalingrad because they were in the same sentence.

So I hope that is now clear.

No. You wrote:

(link) If you have ever researched history you will have discovered they are an excellent source. When researching WWII, I found no shortage of books on the topic. Unfortunately, despite having attractive covers and five-star write ups, I found it impossible to get beyond page 18 of most of them as they all had the same turgid style of listing events like a school textbook. So I visited the British Newspaper library. The daily on-the-spot TIMES newspaper report on the Battle of Stalingrad, together with maps and charts brought it to life for me. They even had reporters on the German front line, who must have been British secret agents to have infiltrated it in the first place.

There is no reasonable reading of the hilited portion other than that you were suggesting that the Times somehow had reporters on the German front lines at Stalingrad.

And to add to what AR wrote, the early years of WWII are generally considered to be 1939-1941, the middle years 1942-1943, and the later years 1944-1945. So that puts Stalingrad squarely in the middle of the war.

Finally, as a side note, I'm rather curious as to why you would consider "the early years of WWII from a nordic perspective" to mainly concern events in 1941 and 1942, when the Winter War and the German invasions of Denmark and Norway had all concluded by July of 1940.

ETA: Beaten to the punch by Jack

 

[Vixen]

I have to think that you have never spent much time in 10ºC water. Certainly not much more than a half hour to an hour, tops, because that's how long it would take to render you unconscious.

There is nothing "mild" about it.

This case study by Integral Risk has examined various factors, including temperature:

It is also relevant to note that the sea temperature at the time of the incident was a relatively mild 10.5º Celsius. Even in these conditions, it is estimated that 1/3 of all those that escaped the sinking ship, died of hypothermia before rescue vessels and SAR helicopters arrived on scene around 1 hour after the Estonia sank. Compare this to the Surface Sea Temperatures found around the higher latitudes in Spring, where sea temperature range from zero to around 6º Celsius. At those temperatures, humans with no thermal protection will typically die from cold injuries within 15 – 60 minutes. These facts remind us that even when people are able to escape from a sinking vessel, the threat to their survival is far from over. In the case where sea temperatures are 10º or cooler, it is highly likely that people who enter the water will not survive for more than an hour before succumbing to hypothermia and death.

https://www.integralrisk.global/cas...t=Of the 106 crew members,, 43 (41%) survived.

The point being discussed was how important it is to avoid entering the water at all and the provision of thermal clothing in the life rafts.

 

[Vixen]

My guess is Vixen thinks that because a 10^oC temperature for the weather is mild then it must be the same for water.

That this is a hilariously stupid idea doesn't alter my assumption.

It is official that the temperature was 10.5ºC in the water that night.

 

[Vixen]

What, exactly, is the difference between an amusing story and a coincidence? How do you, Vixen, distinguish between the two?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Phiwum took his name and his son's name and claimed it was an amazing coincidence that his Dutch neighbours in the Netherlands had two dogs of the same names as he and his son, citing the probability of their names being the same as other Americans (he says 10m /1 against, using a probability calculator of names).

But there are many factors that go into giving names.

My two christian names are also likely to show high improbability of anyone having the same two christian names on Phiwum's name probability calculator. UNTIL you realise my two names are linked to a festive season. AHA!!! Given the popularity of parents naming their kids because of this big festive season, suddenly the two together are not so improbable after all!

Just an amusing story.

I bet the Dutch neighbours called their dogs something like Lassie or Marley after some popular US film which is why they were not Dutch names or even 'dog's names'.

A coincidence is something that is paranormal. Jung called it 'synchronicity'.

Truth is, the coincidental factors in the MV Estonia sinking are probably more to do with preplanning than any 'numerology' or 'synchronicity'.

 

[Vixen]

You claimed the Times had correspondents reporting to them from the German front lines.

I said there was an article in the TIMES in which a 'correspondent' wrote about what German soldiers were saying about British soldiers. I am pretty sure I photocopied this as it was quite interesting. Can't be bothered to do another search as I don't believe you or Mojo are really interested in the article.

 

[whoanellie]

Life-saving equipment doesn't count as 'flotsam'.

That's a lie

 

[Jack by the hedge]

The water temperature was relatively mild compared to how cold the Baltic can get. It was not at all mild for any humans dropped into it and was lethal unless rescue arrived quickly.

Your calling it "a mild 10°C" changes the meaning substantially.

 

[whoanellie]

I think it is more to do with the fact that had it been a preplanned operation then what is salient isn't the fact of equidistance but more that the accident took place as soon as it got to international waters, which would coincide with that point as it is politically determined, who owns what part of the waters.

So the time/place where the Estonia first entered international waters, the midpoint of the journey, and "Swedish" midnight all coincided? Is that a coincidence or a funny story?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Truth is, the coincidental factors in the MV Estonia sinking are probably more to do with preplanning than any 'numerology' or 'synchronicity'.

I doubt this. Your collection of 'suspicious' coincidences looks just like numerology-style garbage to me. Feel free to make your case for why anyone should consider it indicates pre-planning instead.

 

[Vixen]

lie ... pie ... pork pie ... porkie

Here we go again.

 

[Vixen]

So the time and the distance and the equidistance claims are all red herrings which can be struck off your list of suspicious circumstances, as all that mattered was its being in international waters.

That raises a few questions. How long after it left Estonian territorial waters did it get into trouble? (It looks to me as if it was over 30 nm into international waters so I'd be interested to see your source for the "as soon as" claim.) Also why should it matter that it was international waters and if the "as soon as" claim were true, why would the implied haste be important?

International waters are unpoliced and anyone can lurk around in them.

Think of the guy with his X-Box submarine going down to look at the Titanic. Because he was in international waters he didn't need to adhere to no stinkin' rules.

 

[Vixen]

Since what you actually wrote was this:

There was no mischief at all involved in taking that to be a claim the Times published reports from British secret agents infiltrated into the German front line at Stalingrad. While you might claim that your front line remark was meant to refer to different events rather than specifically Stalingrad, it's hardly less absurd to say British secret agents infiltrated any other German front line and had their reports published in the Times.

<YAWN>

 

[GlennB]

Wait a minute. <drivel snipped>

The building in your line-of-sight towards Downing St would have blocked your view. Stick to the discussion at hand, eh? You had no view, let alone a "bird's eye view".

eta: It would be better to refer to Mountbatten Green there, as the Foreign and Commonwealth office opposite 10/11/12 Downing St totally dwarfs those buildings. If you'd had any view it would have been the left half of Mountbatten Green

 

[Jack by the hedge]

International waters are unpoliced and anyone can lurk around in them.

Think of the guy with his X-Box submarine going down to look at the Titanic. Because he was in international waters he didn't need to adhere to no stinkin' rules.

That makes no odds to any saboteur aboard the Estonia and there's no evidence whatever of any other vessel being involved.

So it doesn't address why international waters were important, it doesn't defend your claim the ship had only just entered international waters, and it doesn't explain why any haste to act after entering international waters would be significant anyway.

0/3

 

[Jack by the hedge]

<YAWN>

May I take that to mean you still believe British secret agents infiltrated German front lines to collect German gossip for publication in the Times?