The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

[Myriad]

Not my speculation; the claims of Head of the JAIC and maritime expert Andi Meister, who states that divers noted Captain Andresson with a bullet in his head (claim the divers) therefore, if this is true and they did see this then it is reasonable to speculate whether the unknown character with a tattoo on his hand was some kind of hijacker.

Must have been! Sailors never get tattoos.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Not my speculation; the claims of Head of the JAIC and maritime expert Andi Meister, who states that divers noted Captain Andresson with a bullet in his head (claim the divers) therefore, if this is true and they did see this then it is reasonable to speculate whether the unknown character with a tattoo on his hand was some kind of hijacker.

You keep bringing up this claim about one diver who thought the captain's body had a gunshot wound in the head and that another body on the bridge had a tattoo on their hand that wasn't recognised. It would be really great if one time you would cite your source for this, as requested weeks ago.

 

[Mojo]

…who states that divers noted Captain Andresson with a bullet in his head (claim the divers)…

 

[Steve]

I wonder if the hijackers knew that they were on a ship rigged with bombs and that a submarine was sent to collide with it. Very selfless hijackers if they knew and carried on with their mission anyway. Personally, I would have found somewhere else to be.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

A recent one - and it is not even a joke - is the claim that sole Brit survivor Paul Barney, who has done his best to convey what happened in that incident and has worked hard to get to the root of the full story was by LoJo who claimed he was not bright enough to know how to make an FOI request.

Degrading someone just because the poster had a different view from yourself in a couple of previous topics is a rather nasty thing to do IMV.

Says the person who literally accused me of trolling.

It's like you're unaware that your posts are still viewable.

So, are you going to post examples of "callous jokes" that your interlocutors have been making in this thread? That was your claim.

 

[Steve]

What!? You think divers couldn’t see a bullet inside someone’s head? Those diving masks double as x-ray specs.

 

[Axxman300]

You don't think it odd that this 'sonar clutter' had exactly the same dimensions and density as the bow visor and even seemed to be in the correct vicinity?

I guess it is another example of someone seeing Jesus' face in a piece of burnt toast...NOT_!

No, I don't find it odd considering the the shape of the bow and the hull. They reference 50 images but only 4 have this anomaly. That tells me the other 46 images have a clearer view of the bow showing nothing.

That plus they would have had to move the bow in secret with all of the other ships nearby, and that was and is impossible.

 

[Axxman300]

It is cruel and callous to call the opening of a new review of the accident 'a conspiracy theory' as though it is some kind of Big Foot nuttery, and removing it away from 'Current Affairs' which it is, and claiming the survivors had no idea what they were talking about. Denial of survivors' experiences is cold-blooded IMV.

You passed Bigfoot 70 pages ago.

You have divided your time on this thread between touting the testimony of the survivors as gospel and dismissing the survivor testimony you disagree with as either conspiracy or confusing.

Some of the survivors climbed down the back of the open bow ramp to reach the water. They couldn't have done that if the visor was intact.

You can't have it both way, at least not in the real world.

 

[Axxman300]

IMV it shows a great deal of ignorance to assume any mention of the KGB (in a country that was overseen by it up to 1991) or not knowing that the Baltic is heavily mined and one of the deadliest seas in history in terms of warfare and bitter conflicts over sovereignty of its waters or even of torpedoes, 'must be a conspiracy theory'. It shows a paucity of historical or political knowledge.

As to the unidentified man on the bridge, that was noted by the former head of the JAIC who had direct access to the reports and videos that the Swedish navy and Rockwater did. This character is formally mentioned in a report. It is hardly conspiracy theory just because you believe in a comfortably numb world where these things only happen in Marvel comics.

Maybe expand your awareness of the world outside of the USA?

None of this has anything to do with the Estonia sailing at flank speed into a storm resulting in the hood getting knocked off allowing the car deck to flood causing the ship to sink.

In 100 pages you have not been able to get around this simple chain of events.

 

[LondonJohn]

It was a by-the-by comment making the point that 'overseas correspondent' is a common cover for intelligence snooping, that is all. You can like it or leave it.

I just happened to recall Kate Adie saying in an interview that she had been involved with this type of stuff on occasion.

Given her extensive CV in war zones it would be surprising if she had not.

Oh dear.

 

[Andy_Ross]

IMV it shows a great deal of ignorance to assume any mention of the KGB (in a country that was overseen by it up to 1991) or not knowing that the Baltic is heavily mined and one of the deadliest seas in history in terms of warfare and bitter conflicts over sovereignty of its waters or even of torpedoes, 'must be a conspiracy theory'. It shows a paucity of historical or political knowledge.

As to the unidentified man on the bridge, that was noted by the former head of the JAIC who had direct access to the reports and videos that the Swedish navy and Rockwater did. This character is formally mentioned in a report. It is hardly conspiracy theory just because you believe in a comfortably numb world where these things only happen in Marvel comics.

Maybe expand your awareness of the world outside of the USA?

Where are the mines in the Baltic? Where are the torpedoes?
What does the history of warfare in the Baltic have to do with it?
By that measure the North Sea or English Channel are the 'deadliest seas in history in terms of warfare and bitter conflicts over sovereignty of their waters'.

What is important about an unidentified person on the bridge? It could be any member of the crew. We already went through this, the bridge would be a busy place in an emergency.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Not my speculation; the claims of Head of the JAIC and maritime expert Andi Meister, who states that divers noted Captain Andresson with a bullet in his head (claim the divers) therefore, if this is true and they did see this then it is reasonable to speculate whether the unknown character with a tattoo on his hand was some kind of hijacker.

Which diver claimed this? Where is the evidence for this bullet in the head?
Why would another dead person on the bridge be the one that killed the captain?
Why, if he had just killed the captain would he have stayed on the bridge?
Why would he kill the captain in the first place?
Was this before or after the bombs went off and the ship was rammed?

 

[LondonJohn]

A recent one - and it is not even a joke - is the claim that sole Brit survivor Paul Barney, who has done his best to convey what happened in that incident and has worked hard to get to the root of the full story was by LoJo who claimed he was not bright enough to know how to make an FOI request.

Degrading someone just because the poster had a different view from yourself in a couple of previous topics is a rather nasty thing to do IMV.

No. LondonJohn (for that is my username, not "LoJo") said that:

1) the person - who was not Barney - who made the DfT FOI request was not addressing the correct UK Govt department*, which was true;

2) the person - who was not Barney - who made that request obviously didn't understand that the place for the information was the Foreign Office**, which was true; and

3) if Barney thinks a) that there ought to have been some special Parliamentary vote on the UK's accession to this treaty, and b) that the absence of evidence of such a vote is itself evidence of shady goings-on.... then Barney (and Vixen) doesn't understand the situation properly (no such vote was ever required).


Stop misrepresenting other posters' positions. OK?


* The correct UK Govt department to contact re the UK accession to the treaty was the Foreign Office, as I said. And then it transpired that a prior request had been made to the Foreign Office, which had answered the question directly with a link to the relevant text about the UK's accession. The Foreign Office then helpfully pointed out that if the person in question wanted to find out anything related to the ongoing management and maintenance of the UK's position, he/she could check with the DfT. But the question about the manner of the UK's accession had already been answered at that point.

** Because the person obviously didn't realise that the Foreign Office had already answered the question.... and then went on to ask the wrong question to the DfT.

 

[JesseCuster]

Not my speculation; the claims of Head of the JAIC and maritime expert Andi Meister, who states that divers noted Captain Andresson with a bullet in his head (claim the divers) therefore, if this is true and they did see this then it is reasonable to speculate whether the unknown character with a tattoo on his hand was some kind of hijacker.

It's not your speculation that the unidentified body was some kind of hijacker?

Whose speculation was it? Specifics please.

edit: for reference, here is the quote from Vixen where she first suggested the possibility of the bridge having been hijacked. (bolding mine)

Nobody knows what happened to Captain Andresson as he wasn't around to take the May Day. How do we know the bridge wasn't hijacked. A body under a cabinet had a tattoo on his hand and nobody could identify him.

Vixen, if this isn't your speculation about the bridge being hijacked, then please give a reference for where you got it from and who it was that actually speculated it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Where are the mines in the Baltic? Where are the torpedoes?
What does the history of warfare in the Baltic have to do with it?
By that measure the North Sea or English Channel are the 'deadliest seas in history in terms of warfare and bitter conflicts over sovereignty of their waters'.

Yes. Not to mention the fact that the Baltic is an extremely busy area for maritime traffic, and that the Estonia was sailing in a shipping lane that's been used by literally tens of thousands of ships since there was last any conflict in this area. And yet...... not one ship, before or since the Estonia sinking, has ever fallen victim to stray unexploded ordnance.

To say that Vixen's claims in this regard are a stretch would be an insult to stretches.

 

[JesseCuster]

Yes. Not to mention the fact that the Baltic is an extremely busy area for maritime traffic, and that the Estonia was sailing in a shipping lane that's been used by literally tens of thousands of ships since there was last any conflict in this area. And yet...... not one ship, before or since the Estonia sinking, has ever fallen victim to stray unexploded ordnance.

Also, if the Estonia was sank by a mine laid by a submarine that was there so specifically lay a mine to sink the Estonia on that particular night, then why is the history of what mines may have been previously been laid in that sea relevant?

Or is the claim now that the Estonia was sank by a mine, not laid by a Russian minisub on the night the Estonia sank, but by a pre-existing mine laid decades previously due to previous conflict in the area?

 

[Kid Eager]

Also, if the Estonia was sank by a mine laid by a submarine that was there so specifically lay a mine to sink the Estonia on that particular night, then why is the history of what mines may have been previously been laid in that sea relevant?

Or is the claim now that the Estonia was sank by a mine, not laid by a Russian minisub on the night the Estonia sank, but by a pre-existing mine laid decades previously due to previous conflict in the area?

Yes to all of the above, depending on which argument is being made at the time.

 

[LondonJohn]

Also, if the Estonia was sank by a mine laid by a submarine that was there so specifically lay a mine to sink the Estonia on that particular night, then why is the history of what mines may have been previously been laid in that sea relevant?

Or is the claim now that the Estonia was sank by a mine, not laid by a Russian minisub on the night the Estonia sank, but by a pre-existing mine laid decades previously due to previous conflict in the area?

The (current) claim - or "I'm just the messenger, reporting others' claims" as it's now known - seems to be along the lines of "there's been lots of warfare activity in the Baltic, there's lots of unexploded ordnance remaining in the Baltic after all this conflict, so maybe some of this ended up exploding and causing the Estonia to sink".

Despite the fact - a fact which would be glaringly obvious to anyone who has any kind of understanding about such matters - that had the Estonia truly been sunk in this manner, there would have been easily-identifiable structural, metallurgical and chemical evidence on the wreck.

 

[GlennB]

Also, if the Estonia was sank by a mine laid by a submarine that was there so specifically lay a mine to sink the Estonia on that particular night, then why is the history of what mines may have been previously been laid in that sea relevant?

I can't believe Vixen has suggested that a mine might have been laid specifically to damage Estonia. Surely?

 

[Andy_Ross]

I can't believe Vixen has suggested that a mine might have been laid specifically to damage Estonia. Surely?

A 'mini sub' planted it on the hull.