Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

[LondonJohn]

Oh look, we're back to attempting to rehabilitate heiwa again. Vixen, do you understand that the problem with heiwa isn't that we 'had a falling out' with him but that his views on certain topics prove him to be incompetent?

Not only incompetent, but an out-and-out nutjob with a head crammed full of ludicrous conspiracy theories. He's about as credible at this point as Jim Corr or David Icke.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You are missing the point that these included key members investigating the Olaf Palme assassination.

Your point appears to be an invitation to consider the potential drowning of these people as a motive for causing the sinking. Unfortunately it runs into the sand because it simply goes no further than your what-if. There's no worthwhile evidence the sinking was other than a stupid accident and it's far from clear what putting these particular people's lives in danger would achieve, or for whom, anyway.

 

[Mojo]

You are missing the point that these included key members investigating the Olaf Palme assassination.

Why would key members of the investigation of the Olaf Palme assassination be smuggling stolen Russian military hardware?

 

[LondonJohn]

Let's get this into context. YOU were the one who asked me what physics background I had and I duly replied. I have never claimed to have expertise in the matter, so your snorting derisively at O-level Physics is your strawman, as is your demand that one needs a college degree in the topic to debate the unusual sinking of a passenger ferry ship.

Uhm, nobody's ever "demand(ed) that one needs a college degree in the topic to debate the unusual sinking of a passenger ferry ship". On the other hand, in order to have a well-informed, intelligent debate about the unusual sinking of a passenger ferry ship, it is advantageous to have sufficient grasp of the principles involved - whether general scientific principles or those that are more specific to maritime engineering and floating bodies. By contrast, it's frustrating and destructive to have to confront opinions which are deficient in that knowledge, but which pretend to have a good understanding of it.

Just because you fell out with Heiwa and he has some whacky views in other areas (I see nothing wrong with considering the logistics of Apollo or the Atom Bomb or even 9/11; why shouldn't people talk about topics that intrigue them?). However, he is a qualified ship architect and some of his calculations and graphs pertaining to the stricken Estonia are perfectly factually sound. In one place he expresses an opinion that the Estonians are to blame in some way. (Which I don't agree with.)

The Bible is a load of Bronze-age mythological nonsense, but nevertheless it does contain some decent and accurate aphorisms. I think it was Matthew who said something like "By their deeds will you know them", meaning that one can understand a person by looking at what they say and do. And Heiwa has said and done more than enough to expose him as a total CT nutter - so much so that, even without looking at his views on the Estonia disaster, there would be zero reason to believe that he'd be anything other than a crazy CT adherent on that too. But of course when one actually examines his Estonia theories, it's manifestly clear that he is indeed a CT nutter on this subject as well.

Why are you so fearful of people expressing an opinion? It is not the end of the world if someone has an opinion you oppose.

I think you're betraying a fundamental misunderstanding when you employ the word "fearful" here. The correct word would be "dismissive", when it comes to people expressing an opinion which is very clearly a) flying in the face of the known evidence, b) inventing "evidence" which doesn't actually exist, c) contradicts many areas of science and engineering, and d) studiously avoids the only explanation which actually does fit the evidence and the science/engineering.

In addition, you do not need special qualifications to debate the various expert views on what sank this ship.

Well, at the most basic level this is of course true. But to have a well-informed, intelligent debate about what sank this ship, it's vastly advantageous to be able to understand even basic scientific principles. And it took less than 35" (and far less than 35') to figure out that not every participant in this thread passes even this low threshold.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Why would key members of the investigation of the Olaf Palme assassination be smuggling stolen Russian military hardware?

Less facetiously, is there any evidence whatever that the Palme investigation was derailed by the loss of "key" investigators.

 

[LondonJohn]

Less facetiously, is there any evidence whatever that the Palme investigation was derailed by the loss of "key" investigators.

To my recollection, these were all civilian back-office administrators for the police force. As such, they categorically were not "key investigators" into anything whatsoever (other than perhaps whether the cleaners had been paid correctly last month, or when the management accounts were next due).

 

[Jack by the hedge]

To my recollection, these were all civilian back-office administrators for the police force. As such, they categorically were not "key investigators" into anything whatsoever (other than perhaps whether the cleaners had been paid correctly last month, or when the management accounts were next due).

That's my recollection too, but I didn't want to be accused of dismissing back office staff by suggesting they could not be "key" to an investigation. What if Palme's killer had devised a perfect plot, where temporary replacement staff might mis-file vital documents, or detectives might not make a critical visit to a witness, annoyed because their expenses were not being reliably processed?

So the invitation is there: if Vixen can show that the sinking derailed the Palme investigation, perhaps there will be something to discuss.

 

[JayUtah]

Let's get this into context. YOU were the one who asked me what physics background I had and I duly replied. I have never claimed to have expertise in the matter...

Let's keep restoring context. Why did I ask you what your background was in physics? Because you made and endorsed arguments premised on allegations of physics principles. You further assured us that those arguments proved your point. That's tantamount to claiming that your conspiracy theories are correct as a matter of physics. Your ability to think correctly about physics is front and center in that argument.

Your answer then wasn't that no physics expertise was needed. Instead it was that you had it, in the form of "five years" of education on the subject. You evaded when asked for more clarity, until it was finally discovered you were talking about ordinary levels, an elementary degree of education accomplished by thousands of U.K. children, and hardly a position from which one can assess others' expert work.

Regardless, you were asked to demonstrate a level of proficiency commensurate with your claims. You could not do so.

...so your snorting derisively at O-level Physics is your strawman...

How ironic. I'm not "snorting derisively" at anything, so the straw man is yours. Your claim of "five years" of physics education was cryptic--deliberately so, in my judgment. In context, you were insinuating to have a level of understanding developed enough to evaluate and endorse the work of purported experts. Only when the truth was finally dragged out of you did we understand you had only O-level expertise. There's nothing wrong or shameful about that. But it does not rise to the level of proficiency that you would need in order to know whether your own arguments were correct.

...as is your demand that one needs a college degree in the topic to debate the unusual sinking of a passenger ferry ship.

Straw man. I made no such demand in as many words. However, if one is credibly attempting to determine why a ship sank--unusually or otherwise--or why an airplane fell out of the sky or why a building collapsed, one must do so from a position of correct knowledge regarding how such things are designed, built, and operated, and from a competent understanding of the physical laws that govern the environment in which they operate.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have no problem with the notion that uncovering evidence of financial malfeasance should require the skills of a forensic accountant. Those skills include knowledge of the conventions of accounting and experience with the business environment in which they operate. It's reasonable to assert those are not common knowledge, and therefore that not anyone can be considered competent to determine whether some given account is proper or improper. Sure, laypersons will idly debate the findings because that's just human nature. But if the lay debate ignorantly concludes that the experts' investigation was wrong, is the world obliged to give it any attention?

I demand nothing except that people who want their statements to be given weight should show that they know what they're talking about.

Just because you fell out with Heiwa and he has some whacky views in other areas...

I see you're back to trying to rehabilitate Anders Björkman as an expert witness. No, there was no "falling out." I've never known an Anders Björkman that wasn't a provable crackpot. His MS Estonia conspiracy theory is just one of the many technical topics he has written upon and made a fool of himself over.

(I see nothing wrong with considering the logistics of Apollo or the Atom Bomb or even 9/11; why shouldn't people talk about topics that intrigue them?).

Straw man. Björkman wasn't simply "considering" those topics or "talking about" them. He was making patently absurd and provably false claims about them, and doing so from a purported position of expertise. With no justification beyond parroting his false claims to expertise, you want his argument about MS Estonia somehow to stand apart from that. You seem to think none of his obvious crackpottery should affect his technical credibility on the one topic that's near and dear to you. Your assessment of his credibility is clearly predicated not on whether he has or can demonstrate expertise, but on whether he's telling you what you want to hear.

However, he is a qualified ship architect...

No, he isn't. You simply believed him when he said he was.

In any case, your assertion that a proper understanding of physics vindicates your conspiracy theories isn't limited to Björkman. You've attempted other technical arguments and have proven yourself unable to understand them or the rebuttals made to them.

...and some of his calculations and graphs pertaining to the stricken Estonia are perfectly factually sound.

This is exactly the sort of factual allegation that can only be made credibly from a position of relevant expertise, and therefore the type of statement which prompted me to ask whether you had the appropriate knowledge to make it. You demonstrated that you don't. You are not competent to determine whether Björkman's technical argument is sound.

Nor are you willing to respect anyone else's expertise when they show you how it isn't, or your errors in all the other technical subjects you try to argue. So kindly stop pretending this is about the proper respect for expertise in general. You're simply angry that your critics have seen through your crackpot sources, so you're trying to pivot the argument to intellectual elitism or some other point you think you can win.

This point is about you pretending to have knowledge you don't, and expecting others to accept that pretext.

Why are you so fearful of people expressing an opinion?

Straw man. I don't care so much about opinion. Instead, I am opposing allegations of fact which are clearly and provably in error. That you somehow feel you are competent to allege such facts when you yourself don't know them is arrogant and merits further criticism.

In addition, you do not need special qualifications to debate the various expert views on what sank this ship.

Yes, you do, if your aim is to determine which if any of them is correct.

 

[Here_to_learn]

You are missing the point that these included key members investigating the Olaf Palme assassination.

What? What source do you have for this?

And by the way, who is this Olaf? Is he the murdered Swedish PMs fsvorite snowman?

 

[Reformed Offlian]

What? What source do you have for this?

And by the way, who is this Olaf? Is he the murdered Swedish PMs fsvorite snowman?

Let it go.

 

[Vixen]

News today from Aftonbladet about a secret agreement by the then Swedish PM Carl Bildt and the Swedish military to allow transportation of military equipment on passenger ships.

The armed forces carried out more transports of defense equipment on the accident ferry Estonia than had previously been known.

This is stated by the National Accident Commission after interviewing representatives of the defence.

Jonas Bäckstrand, chairman of the ongoing Estonia investigation at the State Accident Commission (SHK), says that the commission has asked several questions to the Armed Forces to clarify questions that have existed during the almost three decades that have passed since the night of the accident on September 28, 1994.

Some of the question marks have concerned transports of defense equipment on board Estonia. The armed forces have previously stated that two such transports have taken place, on September 14 and 20 of the same year. But now SHK states that the defense carried out more such transports.

Aftonbladet



It was classified information but in light of the new investigations it has now been revealed that there was such an agreement. Swedish Radio writes:

Other information, which was previously classified, has now become public. For example, the secret agreement between Customs and the Swedish Armed Forces, which made the military transports on private ships.

There you can see, among other things, that a senior official at the Ministry of Defense receives a copy of the agreement in 1992.

Jonas Bäckstrand at the Accident Commission again:

- It appears from Johan Hirschfeldt's investigation that a chief official in the government office has also been on the mailing list. So that the government can be considered to have had knowledge of that agreement.

The Minister of Defense at this time was the Moderates' Anders Björck .

Sveriges Radio

 

[Axxman300]

And?

 

[Vixen]

It's not a science degree. Its accounting isn't it?

Psychology actually

 

[Mojo]

News today from Aftonbladet about a secret agreement by the then Swedish PM Carl Bildt and the Swedish military to allow transportation of military equipment on passenger

Swedish military equipment?

 

[Vixen]

And?

You may recall there has been no acknowledgement from the Swedish government that there was/were stolen Soviet military equipment on board the M/S Estonia, or that there may have been.

Hirschfeldt submitted his report to the Government on 17 February 2005. Hirschfeldt states that defense equipment was transported to Estonia on two occasions in September 1994. He also writes that there was nothing to indicate that defense equipment was transported on other occasions.

https://sok.riksarkivet.se/estonia?infosida=transport-av-forsvarsmateriel

Note the date Appeal Court Judge Hirschfeldt was commissioned by the Swedish rikstag to confirm or deny the Customs Officer claim that he was ordered by 'sources higher than the democratic government' (i.e., the highly secretive military intelligence service KSI) to wave through certain vehicles carrying military equipment (presumed taken from the old Soviet regime in Estonia) on two particular dates in the two weeks leading up to the disaster; the Swedish government has always denied that it had a practice of doing this other than on those two verified dates.

So now there was an agreement after all, which had been classified but now is declassified as of today. You can see the danger and risk to the public in removing highly secret former-Soviet military equipment (including space technology) stolen away by smugglers, when Russia had warned Sweden twice to desist?

Two witnesses, Sarah Hedrenius, (sworn statement to the police 2nd Oct 1994) and Carl Övberg (witness statement 10th Oct 1994) declared they had seen a military truck get onto the M/S Estonia 'at the last minute' - in fact, departure was delayed by about quarter of an hour.

Question: Why has the JAIC not even mentioned this? How is it possible for two random witnesses unknown to each other and in different parts of the ship (Hedrenius in the lobby Café Neptunus sleeping on a bench on the upper deck, quite nearby fellow survivor, Paul Barney) and Övberg in Deck 1, the lowest above the hull deck 0 (sauna and swimming pool) to give all of this information in a signed statement to the police yet be completely disregarded and the sightings ignored? She witnessed the military truck from the upper deck and he from the road as he was running late and had to wait for them to embark first.

Note the date then was within days of the accident 28 Sept 1994. Hirschfeldt in 2005, over ten years later. He destroyed all of his documents.

If dangerous politically sensitive goods are going to be transported on a public ferry, then the public had a right to know of ALL of the relevant facts that may have put their lives in danger.

 

[Axxman300]

You can see the danger and risk to the public in removing highly secret former-Soviet military equipment (including space technology) stolen away by smugglers, when Russia had warned Sweden twice to desist?

No, I really don't. Russia was selling it's gear on the black market. Getting mad about it was a smoke screen.

Two witnesses, Sarah Hedrenius, (sworn statement to the police 2nd Oct 1994) and Carl Övberg (witness statement 10th Oct 1994) declared they had seen a military truck get onto the M/S Estonia 'at the last minute' - in fact, departure was delayed by about quarter of an hour.

Question: Why has the JAIC not even mentioned this?

Answer: It had nothing to do with the bow visor getting knocked off by large waves in storm. The JAIC doesn't mention the possibility of military vehicles for the same reason they didn't publish the menu specials for the MS Estonia's main restaurant that night - it had nothing to do with the sinking. This is a non-sequitur, a straw-man. You're blowing smoke.

How is it possible for two random witnesses unknown to each other and in different parts of the ship (Hedrenius in the lobby Café Neptunus sleeping on a bench on the upper deck, quite nearby fellow survivor, Paul Barney) and Övberg in Deck 1, the lowest above the hull deck 0 (sauna and swimming pool) to give all of this information in a signed statement to the police yet be completely disregarded and the sightings ignored? She witnessed the military truck from the upper deck and he from the road as he was running late and had to wait for them to embark first.

How many Volvos did she see? This number is equally important to this case. Please find out and get back to us.

Note the date then was within days of the accident 28 Sept 1994. Hirschfeldt in 2005, over ten years later. He destroyed all of his documents.

And?

If dangerous politically sensitive goods are going to be transported on a public ferry, then the public had a right to know of ALL of the relevant facts that may have put their lives in danger

So had the MS Estonia warned passengers there was a couple of army trucks onboard, they would have all canceled their trip? Your over emphasis on military equipment is a sad attempt to obscure the fact that Estonia was never designed for open ocean travel, and certainly not up to standard as far as sailing in rough seas at the scale of that night. This fact is underscored the Estonia sinking, especially in the way the captain drove her that night making the outcome inevitable.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

... Hirschfeldt states that defense equipment was transported to Estonia on two occasions in September 1994...

This confused me at first but I assume you meant transported on Estonia, rather than to Estonia.

Note the date Appeal Court Judge Hirschfeldt was commissioned by the Swedish rikstag to confirm or deny the Customs Officer claim that he was ordered by 'sources higher than the democratic government' (i.e., the highly secretive military intelligence service KSI) to wave through certain vehicles carrying military equipment

I note the sinister hyperbole. Was Hirschfeldt tasked with confirming orders came from sources higher than the democratic government? Did Hirschfeldt say orders came from sources higher than the democratic government? I presume the answer is no.

He said there were two shipments in September and he had no indication there were any others. Now we have the revelation that wasn't the whole story; there were "a handful" of previous shipments, carrying what they say was defence related technical equipment and documentation, though not weapons or ammunition. And there was an agreement that Customs officers would wave this material through.

Once again you invite us to imagine this is a motive for Russia to massively overreact and, instead of merely intercepting the truck carrying what is presumed to be ex-Soviet tech sold on the Estonian black market, they let it get onto a ferry and then contrived to sink it, mid-voyage, in heavy seas. Well it's a nice movie plot but there's still no worthwhile evidence the sinking was anything other than a stupid accident, so it remains fantasy.

 

[Axxman300]

Sweden makes some of the most advanced weapons in the world. This would be like SAAB smuggling Soviet Volgas. I could see stealing Soviet hardware for a solid laugh, or maybe to be used to make a commemorative Cold War fountain.

 

[Vixen]

You are missing the Finnish guy Westermann's (_?) assertion - and he is on a working party committee with the current Estonian government so can't be written off as a 'deluded crank' or CT-er - that when he was sent to Estonia as an 18-year-old intern to investigate the incident, he saw sonar graphics which showed a series of dark squares in the water behind the ship's course and he said these were interpreted as am possible truck falling out of the ship, the series showing movement, from their shape and size, and fits in with the theory (yes we are back to this) that the crew or someone opened the car ramp to get rid of the truck. Could be something that worked successfully in the past before.

 

[Vixen]

This confused me at first but I assume you meant transported on Estonia, rather than to Estonia.




I note the sinister hyperbole. Was Hirschfeldt tasked with confirming orders came from sources higher than the democratic government? Did Hirschfeldt say orders came from sources higher than the democratic government? I presume the answer is no.

He said there were two shipments in September and he had no indication there were any others. Now we have the revelation that wasn't the whole story; there were "a handful" of previous shipments, carrying what they say was defence related technical equipment and documentation, though not weapons or ammunition. And there was an agreement that Customs officers would wave this material through.

Once again you invite us to imagine this is a motive for Russia to massively overreact and, instead of merely intercepting the truck carrying what is presumed to be ex-Soviet tech sold on the Estonian black market, they let it get onto a ferry and then contrived to sink it, mid-voyage, in heavy seas. Well it's a nice movie plot but there's still no worthwhile evidence the sinking was anything other than a stupid accident, so it remains fantasy.

Translation error should read from Estonia to Stockholm. Bildt was an ally with the CIA and he was keen to help the US get their hands on Russia's space programme and other stuff.