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

[Axxman300]

Probably. The age of the rock is irrelevant to forensic engineering. The hardness of the rock isn't, but hardness has nothing to do with the speculation I was hoping to learn more about. Most likely the Mohs index (not "MOHS"—it's not an acronym), the age, and a number of other parameters were included in a standard geochemical, radiological, and physical analysis report and the journalists just picked up on parts they thought were interesting.

There's no mention on SU's website, I guess their work is in-house for the investigation. The samples in the photo look interesting, nice and dark with many crystals. I'm sure they'll date it at some point since it's not every day they get a sample from that neck of the woods.

Could be that the age is referenced because the Swedes had dumped rocks on part of the wreck to cover it, and this clarifies that the rock outcrop has been there a while.

 

[Axxman300]

Logical fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Nope, just a basic understanding of gravity, shipwrecks or the 20th Century, a little metallurgy, and a solid grasp of marine geology.

In fact, since this thread started I have watched over a hundred hours of documentaries about shipwrecks, read a couple of books (one on the USS Indianapolis, the other on Bismark), built a 1/350 scale Titanic kit, and I feel comfortable discussing the subject of shipwrecks, and the causes that put them on the sea floor.

Here are some facts about this kind of shipwreck and or maritime accident:

1. Most of the ships that have sunk have done so with their most experienced Captain at the helm.

2. Someone (the captain, crew, the ship company) cut corners on safety.

3. Ro-Ro Ferries are notorious for sinking in rough seas.

4. The weather is always misjudged by the bridge crew, hence the whole "sinking" thing.

The Estonia is a prime example of people being victimized by conspiracy theorists. A "documentary" team violated the law to film the wreck, and used cropped footage to assert an explosion when the wide-shot clearly revealed the cause of the gash as being rock,

 

[Here_to_learn]

I'm struggling to understand the speculated correlation between the geological age of the rock and its presence near the wreck.

I don't know why that was mentioned in the article at all.

If I'm to speculate, I would say that when the type of rock was mentioned (Granidiorite) the journalist said "what is that?", and the age was mentioned as part of the response. Then it was just one few facts to got included in the article.

But that's just speculation. As has been pointed out, the geological age is irrelevant for the actual investigation.

But since we are in the Conspiracy part of the forum, I'm sure we can have many posts about this anyway.

 

[Vixen]

That's only a fallacy if it's asserted as an syllogistic consequent. Determining by means of evidence which of several possible propter hæc best explains the post hoc is the essence of investivation. At this point, stating that the ship got a hole in it because it hit a rock on the bottom is an accurate summary of the results of investigation. Ships have been hitting rocks for centuries and getting holes poked in them.

...And also on the other hand a granite outcrop on the Baltic seabed is hardly the rare event some seem to think. The geology of the svecofinnic seabed is not dissimilar to that of the land mass in Sweden and Finland, and that is roughly 52% granite. Granite is 7 on the Mohs scale. Further up towards the Ålands and the Gulf of Bothnia, there is the newer (in geological terms) sandstone type pebbly sediment, notable for its reddish colour. This is 6 to 7 on the Mohs scale. Further to the east in the Gulf of Finland is the east european crust and older still. The Baltic is extremely shallow, mostly, so of course a ship will hit the bottom relatively hard. Compare and contrast to the Atlantic, where the seabed is extremely deep and is largely flat volcanic basalt.

Wherever the Estonia sank there would be hard granite nearby, so I am not as excited as you are by the finding there is a granite outcrop nearby the wreck.

 

[Andy_Ross]

We already knew it was there, it's under the ship

 

[Vixen]

Nope, just a basic understanding of gravity, shipwrecks or the 20th Century, a little metallurgy, and a solid grasp of marine geology.

In fact, since this thread started I have watched over a hundred hours of documentaries about shipwrecks, read a couple of books (one on the USS Indianapolis, the other on Bismark), built a 1/350 scale Titanic kit, and I feel comfortable discussing the subject of shipwrecks, and the causes that put them on the sea floor.

Here are some facts about this kind of shipwreck and or maritime accident:

1. Most of the ships that have sunk have done so with their most experienced Captain at the helm.

2. Someone (the captain, crew, the ship company) cut corners on safety.

3. Ro-Ro Ferries are notorious for sinking in rough seas.

4. The weather is always misjudged by the bridge crew, hence the whole "sinking" thing.

The Estonia is a prime example of people being victimized by conspiracy theorists. A "documentary" team violated the law to film the wreck, and used cropped footage to assert an explosion when the wide-shot clearly revealed the cause of the gash as being rock,

Actually one of the guys in the investigation team said there is blackening on the hull wall, where the 'hole' is but that this was likely due to bacterial degeneration. Seems odd to me that he can conclude this before it has even been investigated. Forget conspiracy theories and just get on with investigating it properly.

I don't believe the 139 survivors are conspiracy theorists. Their statements were taken shortly after rescue before they even had a chance to see the news or chat to others, including their own relatives.

Let's concentrate on a proper inquiry instead of dismissing what the eyewitness said they experienced.

 

[Vixen]

I don't know why that was mentioned in the article at all.

If I'm to speculate, I would say that when the type of rock was mentioned (Granidiorite) the journalist said "what is that?", and the age was mentioned as part of the response. Then it was just one few facts to got included in the article.

But that's just speculation. As has been pointed out, the geological age is irrelevant for the actual investigation.

But since we are in the Conspiracy part of the forum, I'm sure we can have many posts about this anyway.

We are in the conspiracy section because people were ignorant of the fact it is a current affairs present day investigation.

 

[JayUtah]

...And also on the other hand a granite outcrop on the Baltic seabed is hardly the rare event some seem to think.

No one thinks that.

The geology of...

No, you don't get to distract from your foibles by posting an irrelevant screed and pretending you're now the teacher.

The post you were responding to challenged your criticism of perfectly reasonable thinking as a logical fallacy. I explained the difference between when such an inference would be illogical (syllogistical deduction) and when it wouldn't be (empirical induction). Do you agree your criticism was inappropriate? If so, say so. If not, defend it.

Wherever the Estonia sank there would be hard granite nearby, so I am not as excited as you are by the finding there is a granite outcrop nearby the wreck.

The point is not to be excited. The point is to parsimoniously explain the observations. If you observe a hole in the side of a ship where it landed on the seafloor after sinking, and the wreck is partially resting on a sharp outcropping of rock near that hole, it is more parsimonious to propose that the outcropping is the cause of the hole than it is to suppose some secret Swedish submarine rammed it or that secret agents planted a bomb.

Actually one of the guys in the investigation team said there is blackening on the hull wall, where the 'hole' is but that this was likely due to bacterial degeneration. Seems odd to me that he can conclude this before it has even been investigated.

It's called experience. And he's not concluding, he's hypothesizing. Either way, you're not qualified to question his judgment or his propriety in offering it—no one cares what you find "odd."

Forget conspiracy theories and just get on with investigating it properly.

That's arrogant, coming from someone who has filled hundreds of pages of this thread with her conspiracy theories and acted like a self-appointed grand inquisitor over her betters. So far the pending investigation has largely confirmed the findings of the JAIC investigation, which you dismissed as a conspiracy to cover up the truth. You and other ignorant armchair detectives contribute nothing to the task of determining what really happened and holding the right people accountable.

I don't believe the 139 survivors are conspiracy theorists.

Straw man; no one is claiming they are. But neither are they magicians or clairvoyants. It's possible they're simply mistaken. Eyewitness testimony is neither sacrosanct nor paramount in a forensic engineering investigation. It still must be reconciled with other evidence. Don't pretend we haven't already discussed this at excruciating length.

Let's concentrate on a proper inquiry instead of dismissing what the eyewitness said they experienced.

Since you have neither training nor experience in the field, kindly refrain from lecturing us on what you think the proper role of eyewitness testimony is in a forensic engineering investigation. While you cloak yourself in virtuous concern over the plight of the survivors, hundreds of pages of discussion with you leaves me with the impression you're more concerned with convincing others how smart you are.

We are in the conspiracy section because people were ignorant of the fact it is a current affairs present day investigation.

No, you aren't the teacher enlightening the benighted skeptics. We're in the conspiracy section because you used news of a second investigation as a springboard to post a pile of conspiracy theories.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't know why that was mentioned in the article at all.

If I'm to speculate, I would say that when the type of rock was mentioned (Granidiorite) the journalist said "what is that?", and the age was mentioned as part of the response. Then it was just one few facts to got included in the article.

That's as good an explanation as any, but see also below.

Could be that the age is referenced because the Swedes had dumped rocks on part of the wreck to cover it, and this clarifies that the rock outcrop has been there a while.

Yes, this is the kind of hypothesis I was wondering about. Age of rocks is not per se a factor in this kind of investigation. But if there's a need to differentiate this rock from subsequent fill contamination of the site, then rock age (as part of an overall geological profile) is something to consider.

..read a couple of books...

If you haven't yet, read Erik Larson's Dead Wake about the Lusitania. It explains a lot in lay terms, and Larson is a superbly entertaining author.

The Estonia is a prime example of people being victimized by conspiracy theorists. A "documentary" team violated the law to film the wreck, and used cropped footage to assert an explosion when the wide-shot clearly revealed the cause of the gash as being rock,

It's instructive to see how Vixen's concern over the survivors suddenly wanes when confronted with evidence of Evertsson's deception. He can toy with the survivors all he wants, but as soon as we suggest simply that their evidence be considered appropriately then we're the callous ones.

 

[Mojo]

We are in the conspiracy section because people were ignorant of the fact it is a current affairs present day investigation.

We are in the conspiracy section because the O/P of the original thread posted a lot of rubbish about cover-ups, the ship being sunk by a bomb, by a submarine ramming it, by the Russians hitting it with a WWII mine, or by the bow being dissolved by nuclear waste, because it was being used to smuggle Soviet-era military equipment, possibly at the behest of Bill Clinton, or being sunk because gangsters decided to push a truckload of narcotics out of the bow doors, about the Swedish Government disappearing people, about helicopter crew members being given medals to compensate them for having rescues they carried out hushed up...

 

[Axxman300]

Actually one of the guys in the investigation team said there is blackening on the hull wall, where the 'hole' is but that this was likely due to bacterial degeneration. Seems odd to me that he can conclude this before it has even been investigated. Forget conspiracy theories and just get on with investigating it properly.

There is a distinct difference between bacterial degeneration and scorch marks. I'm not qualified to comment on bacteria, but scorching of metal and paint is obvious. There is none of it around the breach of Estonia's hull.

And it was investigated properly years ago.

I don't believe the 139 survivors are conspiracy theorists. Their statements were taken shortly after rescue before they even had a chance to see the news or chat to others, including their own relatives.

Weird, a bunch of normal people suddenly found themselves fighting for their lives in inflatable liferafts after the ferry they were on sank rather fast in dramatic fashion. And somehow manage to give seemingly conflicting stories which were dependent on where they were when it became clear they had to abandon ship. After sifting through the testimony their statements are consistent with the know facts of the bow visor breaking loose in rough seas.

By contrast, the Titanic survivors who abandoned ship over the course of an hour or so, in flat-calm seas gave conflicting accounts of the ship breaking in half. Those reports were dismissed until Ballard discovered the wreck in 1985. If 706 people on a flat calm sea couldn't agree on a dramatic structural failure (yes, it was dark, the ship would have been seen in silhouette against the stars), then 139 people whose main focus of that night was not dying will give dramatically varying accounts.

Let's concentrate on a proper inquiry instead of dismissing what the eyewitness said they experienced.

Nobody's dismissing their accounts, just placing them in contexts with the now growing mountain of physical evidence.

 

[Vixen]

We are in the conspiracy section because the O/P of the original thread posted a lot of rubbish about cover-ups, the ship being sunk by a bomb, by a submarine ramming it, by the Russians hitting it with a WWII mine, or by the bow being dissolved by nuclear waste, because it was being used to smuggle Soviet-era military equipment, possibly at the behest of Bill Clinton, or being sunk because gangsters decided to push a truckload of narcotics out of the bow doors, about the Swedish Government disappearing people, about helicopter crew members being given medals to compensate them for having rescues they carried out hushed up...

Learn to tell the difference between conspiracy theory and the reporting of factual current affairs. For example, Donald Trump claimed the Georgia Election was fixed. Your reporting this claim is a factual reporting of the news. Likewise, the German Shipmakers did and do dispute that a wave would have caused the bow visor to fall off. Whether or not you agree with this, it remains a factual reporting of an important party's view and thus is entirely relevant. Likewise the Estonian government did indeed believe that the MV Estonia crew were 'disappeared'. Again a factual reporting of the Estonian government's accusation of the day.

 

[Vixen]

There is a distinct difference between bacterial degeneration and scorch marks. I'm not qualified to comment on bacteria, but scorching of metal and paint is obvious. There is none of it around the breach of Estonia's hull.

And it was investigated properly years ago.



Weird, a bunch of normal people suddenly found themselves fighting for their lives in inflatable liferafts after the ferry they were on sank rather fast in dramatic fashion. And somehow manage to give seemingly conflicting stories which were dependent on where they were when it became clear they had to abandon ship. After sifting through the testimony their statements are consistent with the know facts of the bow visor breaking loose in rough seas.

By contrast, the Titanic survivors who abandoned ship over the course of an hour or so, in flat-calm seas gave conflicting accounts of the ship breaking in half. Those reports were dismissed until Ballard discovered the wreck in 1985. If 706 people on a flat calm sea couldn't agree on a dramatic structural failure (yes, it was dark, the ship would have been seen in silhouette against the stars), then 139 people whose main focus of that night was not dying will give dramatically varying accounts.




Nobody's dismissing their accounts, just placing them in contexts with the now growing mountain of physical evidence.

The Titanic was entirely different from the Estonia in that it took four and a half hours to sink. People died because the lower class passengers, servants and maids, etc., were locked in on the lower floors and unable to reach the deck. Most of the survivors were the first class passengers. Yes, there are lessons to be learnt but the Titanic was not a simple accident, it was a sequence of events including the arrogance of the captain.

 

[JayUtah]

Learn to tell the difference between conspiracy theory and the reporting of factual current affairs.

We have. You've been posting mostly conspiracy theories. That's why you're in the Conspiracy Theories section. Everything Mojo mentioned is a conspiracy theory you've argued here.

 

[Axxman300]

The Titanic was entirely different from the Estonia in that it took four and a half hours to sink.

Two and a half hours.

People died because the lower class passengers, servants and maids, etc., were locked in on the lower floors and unable to reach the deck.

Some were stuck behind locked gates. Many were not. That fact is easy to look up.

Most of the survivors were the first class passengers

Which is the prime reason Titanic is the best recorded sinking disaster in history prior to WWII. Their written accounts are still studied and debated today.

Yes, there are lessons to be learnt but the Titanic was not a simple accident, it was a sequence of events including the arrogance of the captain

Yes, a captain who was sailing too fast for the sea conditions his ship was in at the time. Titanic sailed headlong into a sea full of icebergs. They ignored warnings from other ships about ice. Estonia sailed headlong into a storm it was never designed to survive, its captain trying to make up for lost time. Both accidents had been preceded by similar accidents, yet safety was ignored.

Both accidents are straight-forward. Neither sank as a result of a conspiracy.

 

[JayUtah]

Both accidents are straight-forward. Neither sank as a result of a conspiracy.

Let's not get too distracted. Under neither set of diverse circumstances did we get a consistent or dispositive body of eyewitness testimony. Eyewitness testimony is important, especially if we get to interview the witnesses properly. But it is not superlative. Just because it comes from a human whose feathers we might fear to ruffle, or for whom we might be inclined to sympathize for having survived a trauma, doesn't mean we afford it excessive reliability.

 

[Mojo]

Likewise, the German Shipmakers did and do dispute that a wave would have caused the bow visor to fall off.

Nobody has claimed that "a wave ... caused the bow visor to fall off", although it's a strawman you have repeatedly raised.

Likewise the Estonian government did indeed believe that the MV Estonia crew were 'disappeared'. Again a factual reporting of the Estonian government's accusation of the day.

Please can you show some evidence for that having been reported as the Estonian government's belief?

 

[Mojo]

Learn to tell the difference between conspiracy theory and the reporting of factual current affairs. For example, Donald Trump claimed the Georgia Election was fixed.

And Trump's narrative about the election being fixed or stolen is a conspiracy theory.

 

[catsmate]

Are we going round for another lap?

I'm reminded of the Victorian fad for Pedestrianism. Around and around in a never-ending circle of exhaustion, sleeplessness and madness.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Learn to tell the difference between conspiracy theory and the reporting of factual current affairs. For example, Donald Trump claimed the Georgia Election was fixed. Your reporting this claim is a factual reporting of the news. Likewise, the German Shipmakers did and do dispute that a wave would have caused the bow visor to fall off. Whether or not you agree with this, it remains a factual reporting of an important party's view and thus is entirely relevant. Likewise the Estonian government did indeed believe that the MV Estonia crew were 'disappeared'. Again a factual reporting of the Estonian government's accusation of the day.

Are you now disavowing all of the conspiracy theories listed by Mojo that you pushed in this very thread?