The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[Steve]

You are simply providing your own 'alternative view'. Andy Meister was head of the JAIC and it was the JAIC's remit to investigate the disaster. That is what they were appointed to do! Settling for a 'strong wave' unproven hypothesis was abnegating their duty. They weren't supposed to guess. "Oh well, we can't agree, and the police and the naval divers won't tell us anything, so we'll just do a descriptive narrative for a peaceful life".

BTW the bow visor was not visible from the bridge, hence the JAIC recommendation it is constructed nearer, in future.

A bow visor, by definition, and function, is located at the bow. It cannot arbitrarily be constructed elsewhere on a ship at the whim of a committee.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I don't care how James Patterson (never heard of him before)

James Patterson is a best-selling author, screenwriter, producer, and (rarely) actor. He mostly writes fiction, often crime novels, but occasionally dabbles in true crime, often with an investigative journalist as co-author, as with The Idaho Four. According to IMDB:

In 2007, one of every 15 hardcover novels sold was a James Patterson title.​

It is classical misogyny for women to be slurred as 'mad, demented and stupid' on social media. Not saying you are a misogynist but you seem to epitomise Eleanor Roosevelt's ascription, re those who discuss ideas ~vs~ those who focus on people and personalities, bearing in mind the two or three Gaussian-equation sigma I am away intellectually from the latter. 'Cognitive decline', ha ha. Your insults reflect on you, not me.

If @Vixen is two or three standard deviations away from the latter, I hate to imagine how far she might be from the former.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

They weren't supposed to guess.

Good thing Andi Meister didn't stick around then. Guessing, as opposed to investigating, seems to be his thing, if the claims you've presented from him so far are any indication.

 

[Mojo]

Seriously, what kind of drugs did they have in Estonia back then that addicts in Sweden wanted? Was Estonia the lone source for these narcotics? And why dump it in the middle of a storm when they'd have no clue is Swedish Customs had been tipped off or not. No cell phones back then, how would they know?

And, if they didn't want the consignment confiscated by Swedish customs "owing to its street value", how would instead losing it in the sea benefit them?

 

[dorricc0]

<gibberish snipped>

BTW the bow visor was not visible from the bridge, hence the JAIC recommendation it is constructed nearer, in future.

The visor was not visible WHEN CLOSED.

They could see it when open, Exhibit A:

I mean, if someone can get a (simple, easily checked) detail like this wrong, what does that say for the rest of their assertions? To get this wrong, after hundreds of pages of chitchat and 'research', ...

Come to think of it, with all of the other claims raised then debunked, maybe Vixen is thinking of a completely different disaster, not the Estonia.

 

[Matthew Best]

I think I see the real reason the ferry sank. Something sliced it into at least six pieces! I suspect a laser weapon of some sort, or a very large chef's knife.

 

[Dabop]

I mean, if someone can get a (simple, easily checked) detail like this wrong, what does that say for the rest of their assertions? To get this wrong, after hundreds of pages of chitchat and 'research', ...

Come to think of it, with all of the other claims raised then debunked, maybe Vixen is thinking of a completely different disaster, not the Estonia.

It was obviously a coverup- look the evidence was plain in this documentary about the Estonia sinking....

 

[Jack by the hedge]

This is where there is a gap in communication because I did not say the car deck ramp was raised in a storm to offload an allegedly problematic truck. I was very clearly quoting one of the claims the JAIC was faced with. Simonton gap strikes again!

You're not claiming any of this nonsense is true. You just keep bringing it up, over and over and over, as if it had merit. Just because a claim is both stupid and contradictory doesn't mean you can't raise it yet again, as if it wasn't. That's what the highly intelligent do, apparently.

 

[The Common Potato]

AIUI those actuary tables were devised in the 1940's when everybody was more svelte and lithe owing to eating proper two veg and meat meals and not more than three times a day. No stuffing their faces in front of the tv. Kids used to walk to school and go cross country running. So I think if your BMI says you are about 7lbs overweight, you probably look slimmer than most people you meet. Voronin being >17st overweight at age 37, strikes me as definitely in the health-risk range assuming he was average height.

That's vaguely what I recall.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Cheers. And I don't think it really undermines most of your point, anyway. Even if some people on the Estonia had cell phones, Vixen's ideas are rubbish.

I'm not up on the precise specs of 90s mobile phone tech, but I'm pretty certain there would have been no coverage at sea! A satalite phone maybe, but that's an expensive bit of kit that random people wouldn't be carrying. I wonder if this means that a previous claim that all comms were being jammed is now dropped.

 

[Andy_Ross]

These are the six main survivors whose stories are told by Nelson.

So where are their actual words?
What did they say to him.
All we have is his words, not theirs.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Meister says on p 163 (a hurried Google translate):




You may recall Harry Ruotsalainen had a similar theory, based on the black squares on a sonar print-out. Plus the stern ramp door was also found to be ajar at the top by about 18". He was a military forces chap who went Estonia as an intern to help analyse information. He says he was 18 and saw the printout first hand. Hence, he developed his theory of trucks being despatched to the sea bed.

Was he drunk when he developed his theory?

 

[Vixen]

I mean, if someone can get a (simple, easily checked) detail like this wrong, what does that say for the rest of their assertions? To get this wrong, after hundreds of pages of chitchat and 'research', ...

Come to think of it, with all of the other claims raised then debunked, maybe Vixen is thinking of a completely different disaster, not the Estonia.

I am right:

From JAIC Report Section 21: Conclusions, Actions by the crew subsection:

• The visor could not be seen from the conning position, which the Commission considers a significant contributing factor to the capsize. In all incidents known to the Commission where the visor has opened at sea due to locking device failure, the opening was observed visually from the bridge and the officers of the watch were able quickly to take appropriate action.

 

[Vixen]

So where are their actual words?
What did they say to him.
All we have is his words, not theirs.

You can always order his book free of charge from your local library* and appraise it for yourself. Maybe, as he taught or teaches at the same Uni as JayUtah, he can be contacted there and asked directly what his sources were.

*ISBN 978-1-934074-21-3 Apprentice House Press, Baltimore, Maryland, 2010.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I am right:

From JAIC Report Section 21: Conclusions, Actions by the crew subsection:

• The visor could not be seen from the conning position, which the Commission considers a significant contributing factor to the capsize. In all incidents known to the Commission where the visor has opened at sea due to locking device failure, the opening was observed visually from the bridge and the officers of the watch were able quickly to take appropriate action.

You're wrong as usual.

If the visor was raised (by some lunatic fantasising they could push a truck out into the raging sea instead of just grabbing whatever suitcase of drugs you're imagining and throwing that overboard) then it would have been seen by the bridge.

The visor could not be seen because it was not raised, it broke off.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I am right:

From JAIC Report Section 21: Conclusions, Actions by the crew subsection:

• The visor could not be seen from the conning position, which the Commission considers a significant contributing factor to the capsize. In all incidents known to the Commission where the visor has opened at sea due to locking device failure, the opening was observed visually from the bridge and the officers of the watch were able quickly to take appropriate action.

Your own source points out right after the bit you highlighted that it would have been seen if it was raised.

This is pathetic even for you vixen.

 

[Vixen]

You're wrong as usual.

If the visor was raised (by some lunatic fantasising they could push a truck out into the raging sea instead of just grabbing whatever suitcase of drugs you're imagining and throwing that overboard) then it would have been seen by the bridge.

The visor could not be seen because it was not raised, it broke off.

The claim trucks were offloaded refers to the stern car ramp, not the pointy end. In any case, those two Estonian athletes who literally climbed down the car door ramp (stern was already beneath the waves, remember) said they climbed down the car door ramp, so it must have still been shut!

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Oh so you're confirming that the truck story is bollocks then?

 

[Vixen]

Oh so you're confirming that the truck story is bollocks then?

I have what is called an open mind; entirely objective.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I have what is called an open mind; entirely objective.

Well that's nonsense. The second part at least, you're not even slightly objective.