• 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.

The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

Years ago on here, back when I was a simple lurker, there was a fellow, Michel somebody?, who was convinced that he had psychic abilities and could transmit his thoughts. After much debate, a test was devised whereby Michel would think of a number and 'transmit his thoughts', and forum participants were invited to guess the number he was thinking of. Now, Michel was so convinced of his ability that even when (lets say) the number he was thinking of was 2, if someone guessed 3 or 1, that was close enough to count as a correct guess and confirmed his ability; 4 is 2 twos, so that was also a hit, and equally, if someone guessed 10, well that's 2 in binary, so that counted as a hit as well. Posters' answers to his questions were taken as affirmation even when they were downright the opposite, and even outright sarcasm was taken seriously by Michel. Eventually, many posters realised there was no reasoning with this person, and in fact he should seek professional help. The experienced members of the forum started to discourage others from engaging with Michel, because it was not helping but encouraging him to indulge in his illusions. Some new members would get involved in the debate but it was just more of the same cycle, Michel was absolutely convinced of his abilities and superiority. To everyone else, there were signs of mental illness. It went on for years.

Oops, I seem to have posted in the wrong thread.
 
dorricc0 said:
Years ago on here, back when I was a simple lurker, there was a fellow, Michel somebody?, who was convinced that he had psychic abilities and could transmit his thoughts. After much debate, a test was devised whereby Michel would think of a number and 'transmit his thoughts', and forum participants were invited to guess the number he was thinking of. Now, Michel was so convinced of his ability that even when (lets say) the number he was thinking of was 2, if someone guessed 3 or 1, that was close enough to count as a correct guess and confirmed his ability; 4 is 2 twos, so that was also a hit, and equally, if someone guessed 10, well that's 2 in binary, so that counted as a hit as well. Posters' answers to his questions were taken as affirmation even when they were downright the opposite, and even outright sarcasm was taken seriously by Michel. Eventually, many posters realised there was no reasoning with this person, and in fact he should seek professional help. The experienced members of the forum started to discourage others from engaging with Michel, because it was not helping but encouraging him to indulge in his illusions. Some new members would get involved in the debate but it was just more of the same cycle, Michel was absolutely convinced of his abilities and superiority. To everyone else, there were signs of mental illness. It went on for years.

Oops, I seem to have posted in the wrong thread.
Click to expand...
Michael H was having fun.
 
Vixen said:
It remains to be seen whether the upcoming report satisfactorily answers the question posed by persons lobbying on behalf of public disquiet.
Click to expand...

(I snipped the pointless repetition of your whole jumble sale of twaddle, just to save time and space.)

Can you describe exactly what this question is? Briefly, please.
 
Vixen said:
Here's how I go about problem solving and why the sinking of the MV Estonia is a problem to be solved, and not a 'conspiracy theory'.
Click to expand...
The sinking of the Estonia has been explained. You are pushing conspiracy theories. The people you are relying on are conspiracy theorists. Simply reciting your faith in them is not sufficient to overcome the evidence of their dereliction and dishonesty. And yours.

Vixen said:
My opinion doesn't really matter. My belief is that the public are owed an explanation.
Click to expand...
No, your belief is that the public has not received an adequate explanation, and you fancy yourself to be the person to say so, and then to provide one. Except that you are colossally ignorant of the things that one would need to do know in order to do that, and you're reaching out to unreliable and dishonest sources in order to compensate for that ignorance. Most conspiracy theories are propagated by people who are trying to look smarter than they are.

Vixen said:
The relatives who were 'misinformed' deserve a proper explanation as to how this could have happened.
Click to expand...
Your shenanigans here have nothing to do with providing comfort or closure for the survivors. Quite the opposite—you're keeping alive a tragedy for your own sick fantasy needs. And being quite dishonest in that attempt.
 
Last edited:
dorricc0 said:
To everyone else, there were signs of mental illness. It went on for years.
Click to expand...
To be clear, Michel had already admitted he suffered from untreated schizophrenia. This is important because the forum rightly forbids discussion of members being mentally ill unless the member has disclosed it themselves. Thus it is improper to suggest that @Vixen's apparently uncomfortable relationship with facts and the means of substantiating them might be the result of disordered thinking (except insofar as she has admitted to memory lapses).
 
Vixen said:
Here's how I go about problem solving and why the sinking of the MV Estonia is a problem to be solved, and not a 'conspiracy theory'.

Assumptions: The persons lobbying for a reinvestigation of the sinking are not 'conspiracy theorists', they are reputable, highly-educated and persons well-informed of the facts. Rabe, Bemis, Evertsson, and Kurm have all visited the wreck in person. Andi Meister, as former Transport Minister for Estonia and former JAIC head, is another person well-informed of the facts. The assumption is: these persons are of good character and high repute and have gone to some great lengths to point out flaws in the JAIC report.

The Issues:

  1. The hole in the hull appears to have been known of as of the time of the JAIC investigation. Meister points out an incursion into the vessel of up to five metres of muddy sludge; it's not just the windows of the bridge that appeared broken to the divers but that the infrastructure had been breached. Later, in year 2000, on Eagle One, F Gregg Bemis and Jutta Rabe relate they were surprised by the sheer number of bodies lying on the seabed, as though they had fallen through the hull. Again, neither of these matters were mentioned in the report.
  2. The repot omits - according to the aforesaid - identification of the bodies on the bridge, when the bridge crew could be identifiable by their crew uniform. Divers reported seeing a guy in a brown jacket, or covered in mud, across the door of the bridge; the Captain reportedly with clear bullet wounds to the forehead, it is claimed and some guy covered with a flag from the flagbox (and tattoo on hand, meaning he can't be Captain Andresson).. Given the disaster, it is natural to suppose the JAIC would at least identify what was observable on the bridge, given the Captain of the ship in any disaster is a key figure for investigation as the captain is the person in charge and in control, just as a driver would be a person of interest in a car accident.
  3. The fact that so many persons are absolutely adamant seven of the senior crew and bar/entertainment staff were notified as being survivors and then allegedly removed from the survivor list, together with Swedish government minister, Stenmark, declaring second Captain, Pith, as having been interviewed, the JAIC needs to provide an explanation as to how these notions came about.
Outcome:
  1. Owing to the efforts of, most recently, Henrik Evertsson, and earlier, by Rabe, Braidwood and Bemis - a survey carried out by a Swedish newspaper at the time showed that 73% of the Swedish public were in favour of their expedition to the site on Eagle One in August 2000 - due to strong pressure especially from the Estonian parliamentary 'working party' headed by justice minister, Margus Kurm, it was decided to carry out a fresh survey of the wreck. This commenced circa 2021.
  2. Margus Kurm carried out a rival expedition to that of Rene Arikas, for the new JAIC, which shows the lack of trust and confidence in the official investigations.
  3. The new investigation spokesperson has announced a preliminary result, that the holes found in the hull were likely due to a nearby rocky outcrop and that ten thousand different images had been undertaken of the wreck from all sides, with new technology. The report is still under progress, due to be released by the year end.
  4. In the interim, Evertsson and Andersson, the filmographer, have been charged and convicted under the Estonia Treaty (gravesite peace). Rabe is under a Swedish arrest warrant. Nobody has heard any more from Margus Kurm about his rival expedition.
  5. The new investigators say they have identified two further vessels that were in the region the night of the disaster.
Conclusion: There has been a genuine reason for the reinvestigation, designed to answer the questions raised by the various actors, who cannot be classed as 'conspiracy theorists'. We won't get answers as to why there was a mix up over the senior Estonian crew, or the bodies on the bridge. It remains to be seen whether the upcoming report satisfactorily answers the question posed by persons lobbying on behalf of public disquiet. Already one of the directors of the Evertsson production, 'This Changes Everything' Lars Borgnås has tried to submit a 30-page 'confidential document', which the Swedish investigators say is a 'fake'. This, too, is real, and not a product of a conspiracy theorist's imagination. Again, this is a reputable journalist (who may or may not be misguided). Then there will be the scrutiny of the final report by various recognised experts. Swedish prosecutors have already said there will be no further action. So certainly not a conspiracy theory but a valid and well-justified reinvestigation. The report will need to explain the timeline of the 'rocky outcrop' damage and whether it explains all or just some of the concerns raised by legitimate parties.
Click to expand...
What you're saying is the ghost is in the room with you now. I'll call a plumber...I mean exorcist...
 
Vixen said:
The fact in question here is not the spacecraft business, it is the issue of which newspaper source reliably reported what Jutta Rabe said, and that newspaper, as requested by Junkshop, was Süddeutsche Zeitung, which his newspaper source the Postimees reliably reported what Voronin's relatives said in denial, the denial being that Voronin was some kind of operative smuggling stuff, as claimed by Rabe. Clear now?
Click to expand...
No. The question is why she said what she said and if it was true. As pointed out she is not a reliable source.
Neither you, nor any of the dubious "sources" you have quoted, have supported the claims regarding Voronin with evidence.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Whose personality am I supposedly fixated on? Are you going to claim that my refusal to accept Bollyn as credible is because I dislike his personality like you tried to do with Bjorkman?

Just answer the questions and stop deflecting. It's genuinely pathetic.
Click to expand...
Obviously your dislike of Bollyn is because you're part of the Zionist Criminal Network that persecutes him.
 
Vixen said:
The source is Jutta Rabe. Obvs if Voronin was an operative smuggling intelligence, that is ipso facto going to be secret. But the Rockwater company, owned by the Halliburton Group, itself owned by Dick Cheney at the time provides the USA link.
Click to expand...
Utter bollocks. Still no evidence I see.
 
catsmate said:
We have covered why she is not a reliable source.
Click to expand...
We have covered all @Vixen's sources, many of them multiple times. We have provided evidence of their unreliability and dishonesty. Her response is inevitably to deny that they are the source, to pretend the evidence amounts to nothing more than personal dislike or "character flaws," or to assert that some groups of people should be considered inherently reliable despite the evidence.

Her lengthy justification for her behavior here begins with the assumption that her sources are honest, reliable, and properly motivated. She is simply unwilling to consider the mountain of evidence presented here that this is an untenable assumption. Ordinarily we would then dismiss the bulk of the argument, since its assumptions do not hold. Out of an abundance of undeserved charity, we can look at the rest of that screed and see that it boils down to nothing more convincing than, "I'm not a conspiracy theorist and these aren't conspiracy theories," followed by the umpteenth recitation of the conspiracy claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom