• 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 Re-opened Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
One chuckle the Oceanos incident gave me was that the Captain and his crew were first off the ship.


As Treu, Sillaste, Limde and Kadak were all in the same life raft together in warm clothing - Treu even had his passport - and survival suits, Linde even as Tammes was sending his desperate Mayday call, I think we can dispense with the myth the crew hung around to help the passengers, although Piht was seen helping people onto a life raft.
Click to expand...

Notice that the officers that abandoned the Oceanos were prosecuted.

But the crew did help the passengers. we have testimony from the passengers and evidence from the wreck.
Not all the crew are assigned to life rafts or lifeboats.
Engineering staff will have their own assignments.
Once it is obvious that the ship is on it's side and sunk, what were they supposed to do? sing Rule Britannia as they went down with it while saluting?

It is also possible that they were assigned as members of crew to man life rafts, there is supposed to be at least one crew member for each raft.

That they had immersion suits and documents is not surprising. they were trained and experienced seamen. They would have known what to do and if they were sensible had 'grab bags' with their valuables ready to go.

I know when I have been offshore skippering a yacht all my documents were in a waterproof bag ready to go as were those of anyone else with any sense. This is even more important in a storm.
Also for the immersion suit, it would surprise you how fast I can put one on.

As a skipper my grab bag had passport, wallet, credit card, mobile phone, handheld VHF, batteries, sachets of water, flares, handheld GPS, energy bars, chocolate, compass, knife, hand power torch, fishing line and hooks, watermaker, inflatable radar reflector, foil blankets, a pack of waterproof cards and a floating knife.

Not all needed for coastal sailing though.
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
Explosives are CT nonsense. The report appears to disagree about the particular order in which the three locks snapped. There is nothing in that difference of opinion which indicates sabotage.
Click to expand...

The point being made is that Hamburg University did not agree with the JAIC conclusion. A scientific conclusion is supposed to be replicable by others taking the same steps.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Do you have any evidence for this? And no, I don't mean the "staunch Russian Jewish Zionist" or the "arms trader" bit, I mean the "retrieved" bit.

The partial dive transcript you quoted before does not say that the diver retrieved any passengers' effects. Only that he found the case, tried to read the name on it and his contact on the surface said he'd ask if anybody recognised that name.

So, do you actually know if the case was retrieved or is that just an assumption?
Click to expand...

It was sent up to diving bell to be brought to the surface.
 
Vixen said:
I have not claimed Hoffmeister's report claims anything other than what he has claimed it contains.

As I informed Mojo, you can read Hoffmeister's first few paragraphs for yourself which will tell you exactly what the scope of the report is. It is perfectly transparent.

You can read it for yourself, here.
Click to expand...

Yes, it found no evidence for sabotage, it came do definite conclusions.

Are you saying that if there had been sabotage and they had seen the evidence they would have ignored it and made conclusions anyway?
that would be dishonest.
 
Vixen said:
The point being made is that Hamburg University did not agree with the JAIC conclusion. A scientific conclusion is supposed to be replicable by others taking the same steps.
Click to expand...
Forensic engineering investigations are not especially subject to reproducibility. They are not general scientific inquiries. Further, the reproducibility requirement in science is that someone following the same method should arrive at the same result. The university applied a different method. I have discussed their method already.
 
Vixen said:
<faints> Your gracious apology is accepted.

I always understood university academic scientists as having pride in taking due care and diligence in scientific analysis, with an ethical duty to be objective. The professional code of ethics means that one's first loyalty is to one's professional body and you must not let anyone, not even a paying client or an employer induce you or coerce you into being non-objective. There is no reason at all to suspect they fiddled the result. That is tantamount to calling Hoffmeister of Hamburg University 'bent'.
Click to expand...


Oh boy.

What the heck is this all about now? Nothing I wrote in any way stated or implied that in my view the Hamburg Uni report was dishonest or unethical.

I was wrong in one minor facet of the operation of the bow visor. That mistake was utterly immaterial wrt a discussion of the Hamburg Uni report.

I was, however, entirely correct in pointing out to you that the Hamburg Uni report in fact suggested the initial point of failure of the bow visor was one or both of the top hinges of the visor.

And I'd further point out to you that - despite your (apparent) belief that the Hamburg Uni report somehow supports your CT position(s) - it actually supports the JAIC "cumulative fatigue, plus straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back stresses on the night of the sinking" viewpoint. The only difference between the two is that the Hamburg Uni report favours the top hinges as the initial point of failure, rather than the lugs on the bottom lock.
 
Vixen said:
Plenty of people have brought forward evidence of possible sabotage.
Click to expand...

What evidence did they use though?

Your own university report says it was fatigue and corrosion. Is it wrong?

Were I to produce live footage of the accident as it happened, that still wouldn't change the official JAIC report and the one people believe, because people only believe something when it is marked 'official'.

This is how totalitarian regimes work.
Click to expand...

So you don't believe the Hamburg report?
 
Vixen said:
In his book The Hole: Another Look at the Sinking of Estonia Ferry on September 28, 1994, investigative journalist Drew Wilson shows a photocopy of a letter sent to him by the NSA on January 20, 2004, in which the agency refused to provide information on three documents about Estonia because it could cause serious damage to national security.
Click to expand...

NSA is an intelligence gathering organisation. Releasing documents would reveal their techniques and sources.

The NSA were not involved in the Estonia sinking.
 
whoanellie said:
Given all the mistakes that Vixen makes, I'm not sure why folks are disputing this. The Director of Central Intelligence is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the President. The Director is a political appointee who comes and goes. Obama had 6. Trump had 3. The history of the CIA is the replete with political interference in the CIA.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Vixen said:
The point being made is that Hamburg University did not agree with the JAIC conclusion. A scientific conclusion is supposed to be replicable by others taking the same steps.
Click to expand...

Yes, they did agree, fatigue and corrosion caused the separation, they disagreed only in the detail of which lock they thought was the first to fail.
 
Vixen said:
One chuckle the Oceanos incident gave me was that the Captain and his crew were first off the ship.
Click to expand...


Yes. I couldn't stifle my laughter at that as well....

:rolleyes:



As Treu, Sillaste, Limde and Kadak were all in the same life raft together in warm clothing - Treu even had his passport - and survival suits, Linde even as Tammes was sending his desperate Mayday call, I think we can dispense with the myth the crew hung around to help the passengers, although Piht was seen helping people onto a life raft.
Click to expand...


Upon what evidence can we "dispense with th(at) myth"?

Do you think the crew had a duty to descend into the bowels of the rapidly-sinking ship to grab people out of their cabins? Do you think that those crew members who might have been out on deck marshalling evacuation operations should - as those decks started getting submerged - have stood to attention and gone down with the ship? Or would they have had the right, in that sort of scenario, to adopt an "each man for himself" policy and try to get themselves into a life raft by any means possible?
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Given your colossal inability to truthfully report what even your own sources say to the point where you lie about things even when responding to a direct quote, I do not believe you. I think you are lying.

Prove me wrong. Quote the JAIC making the claim that you are attributing to it please.

ETA: On second thoughts, I may well be incorrect about the above. You may not be lying at all, you may simply be incredibly stupid and unable to understand basic english as it is written.
Click to expand...

12.6.1 of the JAIC Report:

Even though the list developed rapidly; the water on the car deck would not alone be sufficient to make the ship capsize and lose its survivability As long as the hull was intact and watertight below and above the car deck, the residual stability with water on the car deck would not have been significantly changed at large heel angles. The capsize could only have been completed through water entering other areas of the vessel.
Click to expand...
 
Captain_Swoop said:
So why mention the 'Zionist Jew' bit?
Click to expand...


D'uh! The pesky CT Rulez clearly state that while it's unacceptable to invoke racist tropes in most circumstances, it's actually wholly acceptable (indeed, it's positively beneficial) to dial them up if they're in support of said CT.

Do make yourself familiar with those Rulez before embarrassing yourself like this again.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
I'm sorry, but are you even aware of the conversation you're having here? I'm serious, are you doing ok Vixen, because a normally functioning human being shouldn't be doing what you're doing here.

Someone asked you to support your claim of sabotage, and you provided the Hamburg report. Do you genuinely not remember this? The idea that the Hamburg report supports sabotage was originally your claim.
Click to expand...

AIUI the conversation was to do with the Atlantic lock.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom