The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part II

[Kid Eager]

Captain_Swoop asks the following:


Herewith again the report from Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet at the time. You can also see Chief Officer Heimo Iivonen's report in the JAIC report in which he specifically names the Russians as interfering with signals.

You seem to have great trouble grasping that communications were interfered with for the duration of the 'accident'.

You seen to have trouble grasping, or have intentionally created the inference, that this situation was unique to the night of the Estonia's loss.

This is untrue - the radio interference, as stated in your quoted article and from primary references, observed that this has been an issue over an extended period and had cause complaints to be raised to the Russians.

 

[Axxman300]

This is just bad Hollywood spy nonsense.

The Russians would have either intercepted the truck while in Estonia - where they still had capable people and infrastructure to do so.

Or

They would have contacted their agents - and they still have agents - in Sweden.

Russia would not sink a large passenger ship over stolen equipment.

 

[LondonJohn]

Again, you claim you're about to quote the report from the Aftonbladet, but you don't -- unless that paper is in the habit of reporting that it has reported something. This is very sloppy on your part.

What we have is a paragraph that refers to a report in the Aftonbladet, and mentions some things said there. But there are other sentences that may or may not come from the newspaper. It's really hard to tell. Perhaps every sentence is a summary of what was learned in the paper, but I can't be certain of that.

You really have to stop saying your source is the Aftonbladet. It's not your source. Your source is this website which in turn cites the Aftonbladet and summarizes it (with some short, translated quotes as well). You are one step farther removed from your source than you say.

Indeed.

And frankly, even the most cursory of examinations of that "Estonia Ferry Disaster" website, and its biassed-PoV advocacy position, leads to the uneasy feeling that it might be roughly as reliable - wrt accurate and context-accurate quoting of mainstream media & official reports - as "Loose Change" was/is re 9/11.....

 

[LondonJohn]

You seen to have trouble grasping, or have intentionally created the inference, that this situation was unique to the night of the Estonia's loss.

This is untrue - the radio interference, as stated in your quoted article and from primary references, observed that this has been an issue over an extended period and had cause complaints to be raised to the Russians.

It's telling, isn't it, that (to paraphrase) "....over the duration of the Estonia sinking and associated rescue operation" morphs improperly into "....over the duration of the Estonia sinking and associated rescue operation, in a targeted manner unique to that specific period of time."


Is this the product of ignorance, or of sloppiness, or of a wilful attempt to deceive/misdirect? Who knows? (The answer may lie in the aphorism "cui bono?")

 

[JayUtah]

This is just bad Hollywood spy nonsense.
[...]
Russia would not sink a large passenger ship over stolen equipment.

It reminds me of the Apollo 1 conspiracy theory. Allegedly Gus Grissom was becoming too vocal about safety and quality issues -- with good justification, it seems. So allegedly NASA had to "eliminate" him. And rather than doing so by having him, say, slip in the tub, or crash his jet or car (notoriously common ways for astronauts to die), or have a "heart attack," NASA apparently chose to kill him along with his crew in a manner that destroyed an expensive spacecraft, cast grave doubts on NASA's competence, and practically guaranteed the attention of several investigations by various branches of government.

The characters in conspiracy theories are all either very stupid or very determined to do things the hard way.

 

[Vixen]

For clarification, are you saying that the interference was only for the duration of the accident, or that the accident happened during the time that the interference signal* was active?

Also, why have you put inverted commas around the word accident?

*I apologise if any of my terminology is off, my understanding of radio is rudimentary at best.

The entire phone network was down from 1:02 to 1:58.

 

[Vixen]

This is just bad Hollywood spy nonsense.

The Russians would have either intercepted the truck while in Estonia - where they still had capable people and infrastructure to do so.

Or

They would have contacted their agents - and they still have agents - in Sweden.

Russia would not sink a large passenger ship over stolen equipment.

No, the Russians had no power in Estonia after 1991.

Why wouldn't Russia not sink a large passenger ship over stolen equipment? It had no qualms bringing down the KAL plane with US personnel on board.

See also the current trial over the plane shot down by alleged Russians in Ukraine.

 

[Vixen]

Again, you claim you're about to quote the report from the Aftonbladet, but you don't -- unless that paper is in the habit of reporting that it has reported something. This is very sloppy on your part.

What we have is a paragraph that refers to a report in the Aftonbladet, and mentions some things said there. But there are other sentences that may or may not come from the newspaper. It's really hard to tell. Perhaps every sentence is a summary of what was learned in the paper, but I can't be certain of that.

You really have to stop saying your source is the Aftonbladet. It's not your source. Your source is this website which in turn cites the Aftonbladet and summarizes it (with some short, translated quotes as well). You are one step farther removed from your source than you say.

You are welcome to read the JAIC report yourself. It is in the public domain.

 

[phiwum]

You are welcome to read the JAIC report yourself. It is in the public domain.

Well, thanks, but that doesn't excuse your sloppiness when citing your sources.

Have you read the JAIC report? If so, why isn't it one of your primary sources? If not, why not?

I understand that getting a copy of Aftonbladet from 1994 is difficult. And, of course, I presume a translation is even harder. I think that using a third party summary is not unreasonable, but you should say that you're relying on this third party summary. Every step distant from the original is a chance to introduce errors or bias, intentionally or not.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Jack by the hedge]

You are welcome to read the JAIC report yourself. It is in the public domain.

That's hardly the point.

The point is that you keep making claims of fact which, when prompted, you claim is info from some particular source, but which isn't. It's from some other source which perhaps claims its info is from your named source but which may or may not be an accurate representation or may be mixed up with other claims which are not in your named source.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The entire phone network was down from 1:02 to 1:58.

Which 'entire phone network'?

How did Russia take down the entire phone network?

 

[Axxman300]

No, the Russians had no power in Estonia after 1991.

Why wouldn't Russia not sink a large passenger ship over stolen equipment? It had no qualms bringing down the KAL plane with US personnel on board.

See also the current trial over the plane shot down by alleged Russians in Ukraine.

The Russians have "no power" in Silicon Valley either and yet they and Chinese intelligence and Mossad are all over the place.

It's not about power, it's about operational access, and in case you haven't been paying attention it has been easy to stir up pro-Russian sentiment in the former Soviet states. I wonder how that happens?

And KAL was not a ship, it was an airliner flying through SOVIET AIRSPACE that was never identified as a civilian airliner. The pilot and his radar ground control believed it to be an RC-135. It was a identification. In 1978 the Soviet air force intercepted another KAL flight and forces it to land:

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/korean-air-lines-jet-forced-down-over-soviet-union

They had clear identification and followed, for the most part, international law.

Sinking the Estonia is not even a remote possibility.

 

[Axxman300]

You are welcome to read the JAIC report yourself. It is in the public domain.

I did.

It says the Estonia sank in rough seas after the hood got knocked off and the car deck filled with water.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

So again, are you claiming to be an expert on the KGB? Yes or no?

Have your interlocutors made callous jokes at the expense of the victims of the Estonia, yes or no?

Well?

 

[Vixen]

Do you know how much unexploded ordnance (mostly a legacy from the WWII era) there is strung across the mouth of the Skagerrak between Norway and Denmark? Well, it lights up a map in a manner far more extreme than anywhere else in the Baltic Sea.

Now, the Skagerrak - being the relatively narrow channel through which all maritime traffic going to or from the Baltic Sea must travel - has been one of the most crowded and intensive shipping areas in the entire World over the 75-odd years since the end of WWII. And yet...... over all these years there's not been one single loss of (or serious damage to) a ship in the Skagerrak. Or anywhere else in the Baltic Sea.

"But how can that be?!!", I don't hear you ask. Well, since you don't ask, the reason is this: all of the shipping lanes, and everywhere remotely near those shipping lanes, was cleared of mines and other ordnance at a surface- or sub-surface level within a decade or so of 1945. Of all the UXMs etc that remain in the Baltic Sea to this day, they are all either a) way clear of the shipping lanes, or they're lying on or near the sea bed (thereby posing no risk at all to ships passing overhead at surface level).

There is effectively zero chance that the Estonia somehow hit a left-over mine (or similar) from WWII (or similar). Literally dozens of ships sailed that lane every single day, and had/have done so for the past 75 years. It's functionally impossible that one or more mines (or similar) suddenly materialised close enough to the surface, and close enough to that shipping lane, as to pose a mortal risk to the Estonia - when this had/has never happened at any other time before or since.

You can say that but reputable reporter James Meek in Tallinn and Greg Mcivor in Stockholm reported in the GUARDIAN , 3 October 1994: 'Mine Could Have Sunk Ferry Claim'.

 

[Vixen]

Well, thanks, but that doesn't excuse your sloppiness when citing your sources.

Have you read the JAIC report? If so, why isn't it one of your primary sources? If not, why not?

I understand that getting a copy of Aftonbladet from 1994 is difficult. And, of course, I presume a translation is even harder. I think that using a third party summary is not unreasonable, but you should say that you're relying on this third party summary. Every step distant from the original is a chance to introduce errors or bias, intentionally or not.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

You have the same access to resources as myself. Were I to go to the trouble of finding the original for you I will only get mocked, so why should I bother?

 

[Vixen]

I did.

It says the Estonia sank in rough seas after the hood got knocked off and the car deck filled with water.

Do pay attention. We were talking about communications interference on the night of the accident.

 

[lobosrul5]

You can say that but reputable reporter James Meek in Tallinn and Greg Mcivor in Stockholm reported in the GUARDIAN , 3 October 1994: 'Mine Could Have Sunk Ferry Claim'.

Sounds like they were speculating before any investigation had been conducted as that was just a few days after the sinking. And technically they are correct a mine could have sunk the MV Estonia or any ship for that matter. There is however, no evidence thats what happened.

 

[phiwum]

You have the same access to resources as myself. Were I to go to the trouble of finding the original for you I will only get mocked, so why should I bother?

You weren't mocked for your source. You were criticized for misleading us on the source.

Using more reputable sources, like the original newspaper article, would strengthen your claims. But in the end, choose your own sources but be accurate in what they are, please.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[Vixen]

Sounds like they were speculating before any investigation had been conducted as that was just a few days after the sinking. And technically they are correct a mine could have sunk the MV Estonia or any ship for that matter. There is however, no evidence thats what happened.

It goes to show that people with likely far more expertise in t hese matters than London John did think a mine was possible. This was 3 Oct 1994 and James Meek for the GUARDIAN reported it.

It is no more and no less conjecture that Carl Bildt's claim on the date of the accident itself saying it 'must have been the bow visor falling off'.