What we're seeing here is a prime example of CTist logic in play.
Every CT starts with a handful of "unanswered questions" that the investigative bodies couldn't not answer for whatever reason. As reasonable people know, in an accident investigation the goal is to pin down the cause, or causes of the event. Planes, cars, and trains don't just crash, buildings don't just catch on fire at random, bridges don't collapse out of the blue. Half the time the causes are obvious, but the investigation will still start at zero to work the evidence to arrive at a conclusion. They do this because the cause of the accident might not be what it initially appeared to be. Yet they do the work. Wreckage is inspected, bodies are autopsied, radar/FDRs/instruments/surveillance footage reviewed, additional, structural, and parts testing is done. Results are presented and sometimes debated. And then an official report is issued.
Most of us posting here already know this.
But the CTist will look at the final report and then build a list of unanswered questions based, usually, on initial news reporting. Reasonable people know that most first reports of a dramatic incident are inaccurate. Things people say they saw are usually misperceptions compounded by panic and shock. Reporters will repeat these initial claims verbatim, and in many cases they become CT folklore. And when the "final report" does not address ALL of the incorrect witness claims the CTist will shout, "Cover-Up!". With the internet and social media things have been compounded as lay people review dozens of videos shot by cell phones, and security cameras of varying quality, and we stuck with a Rorschach Test-on-acid as people now see whatever bogeyman that is haunting their psyches (a UAP caused the UPS crash!). So with many "unanswered questions" the CTist builds their case of a cover-up without ever having to prove their version of events.
The result is that because the CT is based on a series of unanswered question it is the definition of a house of cards.
Most of us know that in a large scale event such as 9-11, the Titanic, Challenger, JFK Assassination, or TWA 800 there are lots of moving parts which compounded the investigations. 9-11 was four hijacked 767s crashing into buildings and PA. The Titanic hit an iceberg, and enough crew survived to give a clear picture of events. Challenger was a hell of a lot of work recovering the wreckage, and then reviewing it piece by piece. JFK should have been a simple crime scene, but with three agencies investigating, and other agencies hiding things we got a mess even though the Warren Commission is correct. People still argue TWA 800 to this day.
TWA-800 is the cousin to the MS Estonia CT. The final report on the TWA accident was wires in the center fuel tank. CTist can't make up their minds between a bomb, a Stinger, or a US Navy launched missile. Like with Estonia's bow visor locking mechanism, the center fuel tank is so off-the-wall to lay people that they can't get their head around it. They recovered the bow visor, and now the car ramp from Estonia, and had returned to photograph the wreck to create a high resolution 3D representation of the wreck as it is today. TWA 800's fuselage sat in an NTSB warehouse for over 20 years, used as a teaching tool for new investigators. CTists ignore this part of those stories. Hundreds of experts have walked the TWA wreckage over the years, only one guy claimed he found evidence of explosives (or a missile, I don't care). With Estonia, only one guy claims he saw an unspent explosive charge in video he reviewed, but none of the dozens of other experts saw it. CTists fixate on the lone outlier and their claims while ignoring the army of experts who contribute to the final report's results.
With Vixen, what we're seeing is the house-cards mentality in reverse. For CTists, if even one element is proven inaccurate then the entire investigation must also be wrong, and thus a new investigation must be initiated. So when one of her arguments, like this EPIRB nonsense, is shot down in flames she cannot cede ground because in her world, the CTist world, if one point is wrong, then everything is wrong. We see this in every CT thread here where active believers engage in debate. Wander into the 9-11 board sometime, and look up Tony Szamboti some time. In his case he should know better, but his ego, and world view override common sense (but he was quality debater). The flip-side is whenever new credible information comes forward most us of accept it, and fit it into our perspectives. And with most accidents and events the new information rarely undermines the official report(s), and usually augments the picture.
MS Estonia got it's second investigation. All the new equipment and technologies were used this time. The wreck survey is already out (I've posted it here), and guess what? The ship sank because the bow visor was knocked off, ripping open the car ramp flooding the car deck, and lower decks resulting in the ship capsizing, and sinking. The gash found on the hull was caused by impact with the sea floor, and subsequent grinding as the hull shifted over time. No explosives, no submarines, no Spetznaz.
Jury is still out on the Kraken.
