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

[JayUtah]

And many ships today have a different design when it comes to bow ports, that are not raised but instead open sideways. From what I understand, that means that wave pressure actually force the ports closed, rather than the other way around.

Correct. Shortly after the loss of MS Estonia, design practice shifted to clamshell bow doors for just that reason. They're still susceptible to damage from heavy seas and poor maintenance, but they're more tolerant of ordinary seagoing stress.

 

[Axxman300]

No it isn't, it's just two things coinciding without an actual causal connection. If there's a connection, even a "paranormal" one, it isn't a coincidence.

Coincidences are often claimed to be evidence of the paranormal, but they aren't. They're just coincidences.

A coincidence just means you're paying attention to off-the-wall facts. Trying to add meaning to a coincidence is Woo.

The hardest thing I had to accept in my reformation from a CTist to a rational-thinking person is that it is possible for two or more things to be true, yet have no connection within a larger event. Part of my personal penance has been reviewing all the facts from the JFK assassination, and UFO silliness to sort out where I failed. All CTs are fueled by the parifferal information which has nothing to do with the main event. In this case there were over 800 victims, and that means 800 different stories. And the Estonia was huge, and what a survivor heard, or saw depended on where they were located on the ship at any given moment.

So to figure out the truth you focus on the physical evidence first: The bow visor was detached. Inspection by divers revealed no explosives, and the ROV footage shows rippling and deformation at the bow from the impact of the visor's hammering in rough seas. From there you compare the physical evidence with the witness accounts of a loud bang, or explosion, and the ship shuddering. This gives you a complete picture of the bow visor being knocked off in rough seas. That's it, that's all she wrote.

Yet the CTist will disregard the physical evidence to focus on incongruitous factoids: there were a bunch of police officers onboard, one person thought they saw a submarine, one person swears it was an explosion, the divers found weird things in a cabin, etc. Not one of these things has to do with the bow visor, which is the cause of the sinking.

 

[Axxman300]

Survival time for around 10° C is around 60 minutes before exhaustion or unconsciousness and 1–3 hours expected survival time.

Variables like water temperature, sea state, BMI, water movement, and movement of the person in the water make estimates difficult. It's unlikely that a simple number can accurately predict survival time.

Most figures you see are based on an estimate of the amount of time it will take for a person to become hypothermic in calm water. Those estimates greatly understate the danger because they don't consider sea state and make no distinction between water that's flat calm vs rough water with breaking waves, and they also don't consider the relationship between wave splash, inhaling water, and drowning.
In cold water, wearing a standard lifejacket, most people are likely to drown before they become hypothermic and they underestimate the speed with which manual dexterity can be lost.

Unless you're wearing thermal protection like an immersion drysuit or wetsuit, cold water immersion is immediately life-threatening and most people will experience high intensity cold shock, including a complete loss of dexterity and breathing control, at water temperatures between 10° an 16° C.

It's handy to have your refresher course notes in the drawer.

​

The ocean temperature here year round is 13C. When we were kids we'd body-surf. This was before O'Neil (up the road) made wetsuits for surfers/swimmers, so we'd hit the water in swim trunks and t-shirts. The trick was to wade out waste-deep to acclimate, and then move out to the surfline. We'd be in the water for about a half-hour before coming out to warm back up on the sand. Our legs were purple, and lips would be numb. Then we'd go back in for another half-hour, because our bodies were "used to the cold now!".

When we came out the second time we'd be shivering so hard we couldn't speak normally. Being kids, we thought this was hilarious. Three or four of us all huddled under our towels, our bodies shuddering for a half hour until we stopped shaking enough to get our shoes on, and walk home.

Never occured to any of us this could have been lethal. And it lead to more bad decision making later in my youth that would see me almost drown twice, not counting that rip-tide day. And yes, I found out the hard way that cold water will knock the air out of you as if you've been hit by a car. I wasn't expecting it, and I was lucky I was in shallow enough water, or I'd have been dead. The worst case of hypothermia I survived was on a rainy day hike. The air temperature that day was around 9C, and I wore no rain gear on a six-hour hike. I have no memory of the last forty-five minutes of the hike, or how I got back to my truck.

I post this because I don't think of myself of a moron, but I clearly underestimated hydrothermia, and overestimated my physical ability to overcome it. Many people have never experienced hypothermia, and cannot understand what how it deceptively engulfs people, affecting their judgement and thinking, and leading them to their deaths.

To bring this back to the subject, hypothermia will color what the survivors claim they remember, 100%. Add PTSD into the mix, and their recollections must be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[lobosrul5]

The ocean temperature here year round is 13C. When we were kids we'd body-surf. This was before O'Neil (up the road) made wetsuits for surfers/swimmers, so we'd hit the water in swim trunks and t-shirts. The trick was to wade out waste-deep to acclimate, and then move out to the surfline. We'd be in the water for about a half-hour before coming out to warm back up on the sand. Our legs were purple, and lips would be numb. Then we'd go back in for another half-hour, because our bodies were "used to the cold now!".

When we came out the second time we'd be shivering so hard we couldn't speak normally. Being kids, we thought this was hilarious. Three or four of us all huddled under our towels, our bodies shuddering for a half hour until we stopped shaking enough to get our shoes on, and walk home.

Never occured to any of us this could have been lethal. And it lead to more bad decision making later in my youth that would see me almost drown twice, not counting that rip-tide day. And yes, I found out the hard way that cold water will knock the air out of you as if you've been hit by a car. I wasn't expecting it, and I was lucky I was in shallow enough water, or I'd have been dead. The worst case of hypothermia I survived was on a rainy day hike. The air temperature that day was around 9C, and I wore no rain gear on a six-hour hike. I have no memory of the last forty-five minutes of the hike, or how I got back to my truck.

I post this because I don't think of myself of a moron, but I clearly underestimated hydrothermia, and overestimated my physical ability to overcome it. Many people have never experienced hypothermia, and cannot understand what how it deceptively engulfs people, affecting their judgement and thinking, and leading them to their deaths.

To bring this back to the subject, hypothermia will color what the survivors claim they remember, 100%. Add PTSD into the mix, and their recollections must be taken with a grain of salt.

Being immersed in water below 75F/24C can cause hypothermia in a healthy person. Even higher temps for someone unhealthy or starved I believe, since its tougher for them to maintain their core body temp. Being obese will give you a little more time though.

https://www.surf-fur.com/blogs/wott...6039-hypothermia-a-cold-and-warm-water-hazard

 

[lobosrul5]

You have twisted my words.

Then please illuminate me. What was your point in bringing up the Times reporting with either embedded reporters or spies* in the frontlines during the Battle of Stalingrad?!

*can you get a grasp of just how utterly insanely ridiculous it would be for the British government to allow reporting from a spy on the frontline?!?

ETA: oh, catching up on the thread I see you are attempting to gaslight us by now claiming your supposed article was some opinion piece about what German troops thought of British troops or something. Rather than what you actually originally wrote.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

Cumulative damage.

Comet airliners made a number of flights before breaking up.

MV Derbyshire made numerous voyages before breaking up.

My car did thousands of miles before the CV joint failed

You mean, sometimes stuff breaks even *after* it's worked for a while?! Who knew?!

 

[Vixen]

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?

Er, I didn't say anything about "British secret agents infiltrated German front lines to collect German gossip". What I said was that a TIMES correspondent did indeed write an article about the German troops views of the British. You might remember, that well into the last century, many Brits had a near pathological hatred of Germans so that was the point of interest for its readers, I presume, to see if they felt similarly towards the Tommies.

 

[Vixen]

No they don't, there isn't an option on an EPIRB to 'untune' anything
They gave one switch. When it was activated the buoys transmitted as expected.
They were in good working order

AIUI from reading the reports, when the EPIRB is taken out of the box it needs to be tuned in with its registration number or something. Things might have changed with modern developments in satellite signalling but even with Bluetooth one still has to align one's device to it.

 

[JayUtah]

AIUI from reading the reports, when the EPIRB is taken out of the box it needs to be tuned in with its registration number or something. Things might have changed with modern developments in satellite signalling but even with Bluetooth one still has to align one's device to it.

"Tuned in with its registration number."
"Align one's device to it."

It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Vixen]

You are telling lies again
It has to be deliberate.

They were manual only and in good working order and transmitted as expected when activated.

No transmission was received because they were never activated.

You just aren't getting that the ship's electricians set the EPIRBS up in their brackets one either side of the bridge together with the Hydrostatic Unit. This means once released by the HRU, which is triggered by being immersed in up to 4m of water - or removed manually to be thrown overboard - the device then once free of its cage bobs up to the surface and commences to send a signal to the COSPAS-Sarsats satellite which alerts the maritime rescue services.

The mandatory requirement of free-float automatic EPIRB's was required compliance by passenger ferries by Aug 1993, pursuant to the IOM Chapter III regulation as passed in 1988 pursuant to the Herald of Free Enterprise public inquiry held in 1987.

The Rockwater search team stipulate in their report that they recovered one of the HRU's and that the brackets holding the EPIRBS were empty. The maritime official in charge at Estonia the country said they had assumed from the lack of signal that the EPIRBS had got trapped underneath the wreck and hence, had failed to bob to the surface to send a signal.

They were free-float automatic beacons, no two ways about it. It is irrefutable.

 

[lobosrul5]

You just aren't getting that the ship's electricians set the EPIRBS up in their brackets one either side of the bridge together with the Hydrostatic Unit. This means once released by the HRU, which is triggered by being immersed in up to 4m of water - or removed manually to be thrown overboard - the device then once free of its cage bobs up to the surface and commences to send a signal to the COSPAS-Sarsats satellite which alerts the maritime rescue services.

The mandatory requirement of free-float automatic EPIRB's was required compliance by passenger ferries by Aug 1993, pursuant to the IOM Chapter III regulation as passed in 1988 pursuant to the Herald of Free Enterprise public inquiry held in 1987.

The Rockwater search team stipulate in their report that they recovered one of the HRU's and that the brackets holding the EPIRBS were empty. The maritime official in charge at Estonia the country said they had assumed from the lack of signal that the EPIRBS had got trapped underneath the wreck and hence, had failed to bob to the surface to send a signal.

They were free-float automatic beacons, no two ways about it. It is irrefutable.

We aren't getting it, because you are wrong. They were free float, but not immersion activated.

 

[JayUtah]

You just aren't getting...

You're wrong.

 

[Vixen]

I think, you should read Nordic as meaning Finnish.
That would put 1941-42 in the first half of the Finnish alliance with Nazi Germany (yeah, yeah, I know 'Co-belligerents' ). Which makes 1943-44 then the second half, when Finland bowed out of their alliance to save their country from the approaching Soviets.

To paraphrase with those words spoken a long time ago, in that documentary as filmed by George L. 'It was all true. From a certain perspective'. Which neatly sums up, almost all of Vixen's arguments.

That is inaccurate. After the 1939 Winter War and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty of 1939, Germany and USSR had already agreed to carve up Europe between west and east, with Finland going to the USSR, so Germany never had Finland in its sights.

• In Germany's three-front attack on the USSR, St Petersburg, Moscow and Stalingrad, Germany entered Russia from the North via Finland.
• Finland, having lost 10% of its land to the USSR in 1939 as a peace treaty, took the opportunity to claim that land back, plus a little bit more.
• Finland reclaimed Karelia as far East as Lake Onega and Petrovsk, which it occupied for three years.
• When Germany lost the Battle of Stalingrad in 1944, that signalled the end of the war.
• USSR then made Finland leave Karelia, which it did.
• It was ordered to kick out the Germans who had various bases, causing the bloody Lapland War, in which Finnish Lapland was destroyed.
• Finland and Germany were co-belliigerents against the USSR but had different aims.
• Finland never shared Nazi ideology.
• It had Jewish troops who were allowed to worship in their faith.
• Aside from one or two rogue Police Chiefs and Generals, it never persecuted Jews or gypsies.

As for the issue of the UK claiming to have not known about the Nazi 'Final Solution' of Jews until after the war, I found reports in the TIMES as early as 1942 reporting exactly on the brutal enforced rounding up of Jewish citizens in Europe and of the killings. Thus, I believe early newspaper reports often do reveal what has really gone on before the news gets censored or denied. There were news reports of Ensign Ken Svensson in an early day Swedish paper saying he had rescued seven or nine, depending in which edition of AFTONBLADET and taken them to Huddinge Hospital at two in the morning, when the JAIC Report says something quite different completely. Likewise, the Swedish Chief of Maritime Affairs, Stenmark, told a press conference that Bildt and the Finnish & Estonian Prime Ministers were going to Turku to interview Capt Piht (second captain) that morning. Further reputable newspapers, including Danish newspapers, the Helsingin Sanomat and the London Evening news, reported that Piht had been last seen in Helsinki and now no-one was sure of his whereabouts. The Evening standard headline was: 'THE GUILTY WILL BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE!'

In addition to this, Interpol issued an International Arrest Warrant for Piht's arrest dated 11 October 1994.

 

[JayUtah]

Thus, I believe early newspaper reports often do reveal what has really gone on before the news gets censored or denied.

No. They're more likely to be wrong.

...depending in which edition of AFTONBLADET

Your actual source for this is Anders Björkmann.

 

[Vixen]

And there's the clue that Google Translate is giving you the wrong word. Something untuned will still transmit, just on the wrong frequency.

Google has not given me 'the wrong word'.

 

[Vixen]

And Vixen would know, because her office had a bird's eye view of 10ºC Drowning Street.

If you want to know the factual information on the Downing Street bombings, you can find it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downi...tbatten Green, where two of the shells landed.

and here:

https://youtu.be/Ot0RHglIRA0?si=Pan-mk5ZrCcbrJkw

 

[SpitfireIX]

Then please illuminate me. What was your point in bringing up the Times reporting with either embedded reporters or spies* in the frontlines during the Battle of Stalingrad?!

*can you get a grasp of just how utterly insanely ridiculous it would be for the British government to allow reporting from a spy on the frontline?!?
ETA: oh, catching up on the thread I see you are attempting to gaslight us by now claiming your supposed article was some opinion piece about what German troops thought of British troops or something. Rather than what you actually originally wrote.

Not to mention that the idea that the British would risk the lives and waste the time of valuable spies in an attempt to gather information that would have been of marginal importance at best is absurd to begin with.

 

[JayUtah]

Google has not given me 'the wrong word'.

Because you say so?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Er, I didn't say anything about "British secret agents infiltrated German front lines to collect German gossip". What I said was that a TIMES correspondent did indeed write an article about the German troops views of the British. You might remember, that well into the last century, many Brits had a near pathological hatred of Germans so that was the point of interest for its readers, I presume, to see if they felt similarly towards the Tommies.

Jack and I both quoted your post where you said exactly that. Your entire response to Jack's post was "<YAWN>", and you didn't respond to mine at all. So I repeat the salient portion of mine below:

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.

 

[Vixen]

No. A coincidence is simply two observations that have no discernible causal connection but occur in a way that creates a subjective belief of causation. Synchronicity is a hypothesis in psychology to explore why the mind wants to believe that there actually is something going on in a perceived coincidence. Statistical coincidence exists irrespective of the Jung-Pauli hypothesis.

You are presupposing that the mind has a separate will that 'wants' to do anything. For example, when you look up, are you seeing what your mind 'wants' to see or are you just seeing what's in front of you?

So, what most people call a 'coincidence' like someone having the same name or even their dogs, is usually easily explicable. That is using the term 'coincidence' in the same way as 'chance' or 'luck'. When you look into it, it means nothing at all except some fortuitous coming together of two or more events, such as buying a lottery ticket and then winning the jackpot because your series of numbers randomly matched the series of numbers drawn. But the illusion is that the numbers on a lottery ball have some kind of mystic meaning in themselves, when in fact all of the 50 or so lottery balls are actually identical and the numbers thereon incidental.

Where MV Estonia sank was not due to chance, a freak storm, or a rogue captain.