IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 19th September 2021, 04:50 AM   #441
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,740
Originally Posted by junkshop View Post
Source? Citation? Evidence? Anything at all to back up this theory of a conspiracy?
The hole in the starboard was not investigated. The passenger survivor accounts not investigated. The claims of poor maintenance not investigated. The claim the vessel was seaworthy was not investigated.

The JAIC declared that there was no damage to the ship other than at the car ramp and bow visor.

Isn't that lying by omission?
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 04:51 AM   #442
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,572
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
Why would an accidental sinking of the Estonia by a leftover WWII unexploded mine be "hugely political and embarrassing" but an accidental sinking of the Estonia by a failing bow visor not be such that it's worth the Swedish government's while going to the byzantine lengths to cover up the former story and railroad an investigation into coming up with the latter cover story?

Remember that I asked you about "an unexploded leftover WWII mine", i.e. an accident. You're answering an entirely different scenario involving sabotage, which I didn't ask about.
A ship being sunk by a naval mine in a main shipping lane would be cause for great concern.
Sailings would be stopped, a 'notice to mariners' put out detailing the danger and the navy would be in there with mine countermeasures vessels.

Why would it be covered up? it would be perfect 'cover' for the real plot.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 04:53 AM   #443
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,572
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
Are you suggesting that the crew, when abandoning a sinking ship, took the ship's communication equipment with them, all the way to shore and to hospital, and then used the ship's communication equipment to contact their employers? Seriously?

In the immediate aftermath of "facing death in the face" (your words), you're suggesting that the crew made the decision to phone their employers? People phone their loved ones and immediate family in those situations to let them know they're safe, then don't phone their employers to discuss the details of how the disaster happened.

And do you have any evidence that the crew actually did that? Where's your source, citation and proper reference for this idea that the crew called their employers after the rescue? Remember, your posts are sourced, cited and properly referenced.
What were the surviving crew supposed to have said to the company? Did they tell the boss it was a mine that sank the ship?
Why didn't they mention this to anyone else?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 04:59 AM   #444
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,740
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
That's not what I asked you.

You stated that it is obvious that the Estonia was sunk by an act of sabotage.

So I then asked you if that means you're going back on your claim that it was probably sank by an accidental collision with a friendly submarine.

You stated that you didn't know.

How can you think it's obvious that it was sank by an act of sabotage and simultaneously not be sure if it was probably sank by an accidental collision with a friendly submarine?
I said, it was obvious to me.

This is because:
  • it sank super fast
  • survivors independently of each other related bangs going off at Swedsih midnight - indicating a timed device
  • passengers relate feelings of a collision - slammed into a wall/flungonto the floor with force
  • some passengers recount a feeling of the vessel momnetarily stopping, consistent with a collision
  • two passengers relates seeing something moving away in the water
  • two passengers recount seeing military vehicles being loaded just before departure
  • passengers complain that their eye witness accounts have either been disregarded or rewritten in the JAIC report
  • the Swedish government immediately claimed it was 'just an accident' due to flooding o the car deck before it could possibly know
  • the hole in the starboard has been known of and recorded in a published newspaper as early as 1997 (the Kaleva)
  • the JAIC never investigated the hole in the starboad claim nor the reports of bangs and/or a collision
  • the JAIC report says categorically the 'only damage was in the bow'.
  • despite various film crews revealing the hole in the starboard, for example, in 2010, it still was not investigated
  • when an English survivor requested a FOI document setting out why the UK were signatories to a Baltic area treaty he received no reply
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:03 AM   #445
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,740
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
You weren't asked about witness statements.

You were asked about survivors being asked in the immediate aftermath of the disaster what happened to give some idea of what caused the disaster.

When someone is asked in the immediate wake of a disaster what happened to allow rescuers or investigators some idea of what happened, you don't have lawyers, cops, signed statements, witnesses, etc. Where do you get this nonsense from?

The point being made was that any information imparted to rescuers becomes hearsay. For example, if a survivor told a rescuer 'there was a fire', is that adequate reason for the Swedish government to announce that 'a fire caused the accident', or is it a ludicrous assertion (see Captain_Swoop's original post for the context of this conversation).


The JAIC relied solely on the survivor crew testimony. Survivor Third Engineer Sillaste, did not tell Bildt, Laar, Aho and the attending SuPo that the bow visor had fallen off when they interviewed him on the day of the accident 28 September 1994, so where did Carl Bildt get his claim from, to make a confident statement of fact at the press conference on the same day?
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:04 AM   #446
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,543
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
What were the surviving crew supposed to have said to the company? Did they tell the boss it was a mine that sank the ship?
Why didn't they mention this to anyone else?
What's quite bizarre about this is, according to Vixen, the surviving crew and passengers would not have said anything useful to rescuers or first responders in the aftermath of the disaster because of the trauma, shock, insomnia, etc. they had just suffered that would allow the Swedish government to have any idea of what might have caused the disaster, but that the crew would have phoned their employers in the same situation using communications equipment they had taken from the ship, and given their employers enough information for the head of Estline to give a carefully weighed considered opinion as to what might have caused the disaster.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:05 AM   #447
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,740
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
Why would an accidental sinking of the Estonia by a leftover WWII unexploded mine be "hugely political and embarrassing" but an accidental sinking of the Estonia by a failing bow visor not be such that it's worth the Swedish government's while going to the byzantine lengths to cover up the former story and railroad an investigation into coming up with the latter cover story?

Remember that I asked you about "an unexploded leftover WWII mine", i.e. an accident. You're answering an entirely different scenario involving sabotage, which I didn't ask about.
Because whilst Johanson of Estline was giving a genuine statement of his opinion, Carl Bildt already knew what caused the disaster hence the immediate cover up from Time Zero.

He claims he forgets who told him of the accident or when.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:07 AM   #448
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,543
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I said, it was obvious to me.
If it's obvious to you that the Estonia was sunk by an act of deliberate espionage, then you can't still hold the view that the Estonia was probably sunk by an accidental collision by a friendly submarine, which is something you said earlier in this thread.

I asked you if you no longer hold that view, and you said you didn't know.

So I'll ask you again, are you discarding your earlier opinion in this thread that the Estonia was probably sunk by an accidental collision by a friendly submarine for a new opinion that it was obviously sunk by a deliberate act of sabotage? You can't hold both views simultaneously, they're mutually exclusive.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:08 AM   #449
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,740
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
If it is secret how do you know about it?

What is your evidence for this secret Swedish navy investigation?.
Nothing secret about it. Swedish navy divers went down to the wreck as soon as it was located. They were quite separate from the outsourced Rockwater divers. What goes on in the military stays in the military. You should know that.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:11 AM   #450
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,740
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
Are you suggesting that the crew, when abandoning a sinking ship, took the ship's communication equipment with them, all the way to shore and to hospital, and then used the ship's communication equipment to contact their employers? Seriously?

In the immediate aftermath of "facing death in the face" (your words), you're suggesting that the crew made the decision to phone their employers? People phone their loved ones and immediate family in those situations to let them know they're safe, then don't phone their employers to discuss the details of how the disaster happened.

And do you have any evidence that the crew actually did that? Where's your source, citation and proper reference for this idea that the crew called their employers after the rescue? Remember, your posts are sourced, cited and properly referenced.
The context was, whether Johanson had had a chance to discuss the accident with the crew when he gave his interview to James Meek of the GUARDIAN. If Captain_Swoop thinks Bildt had a chance to chat to rescuers who had chatted to survivors then why not the employers, likewise. If your staff are involved in an accident of course you try to contact them ASAP. We are talking about likelihood, not whether there is any evidence either of these scenarios happened.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:16 AM   #451
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,740
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I don't know what you're trying to prove.d

Immediately after an accident, when there is a paucity of evidence regarding the cause, a reporter is not there to judge the credibility of an authority giving his opinion. The opinion itself is newsworthy.

That the comments from an authority for the ferry company appeared in a newspaper is not evidence that what the authority said is credible. Duh.

Your refusal to accept this obvious fact is embarrassing.
If James Meek flew all the way to Tallinn, or his stringer on his behalf, there will also have been research assistants who automatically made their way to the British Library Newspaper Library which was then situated in Colindale and had a collection of original newspapers going back to year dot, and foreign newspapers mostly on microfiche. The place was daily jampacked with hacks doing research (often on the past foibles of celebrities in the news) or lawyers looking for trade (ambulance chasers or noting who inthe local papers was going to court, and thereby getting the office to send out fliers to the individuals named offering their services).

One can always spot the articles that are well researched.

I am betting that Meek's team will almost certainly have looked up the possibility of a mine being the culprit for the shocking disaster.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:19 AM   #452
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 34,806
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
To send a clear message.

What was the “clear message”, and who was it sent by and to?

And if it was done “to send a clear message”, why the cover-up?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 19th September 2021 at 05:20 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:20 AM   #453
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,572
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The hole in the starboard was not investigated. The passenger survivor accounts not investigated. The claims of poor maintenance not investigated. The claim the vessel was seaworthy was not investigated.

The JAIC declared that there was no damage to the ship other than at the car ramp and bow visor.

Isn't that lying by omission?
We have no evidence for a hole in the hull at the time of the sinking. What can be seen now does not look like a hole caused by ramming or explosives, it looks like a fracture or tear along a weld seam line caused by the ship being subjected to stresses and forces it was not designed for.
Estonia has shifted position since the sinking and the hole aligns with known topological features of the seabed.
We went over this in great detail previously in the thread.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:21 AM   #454
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,572
And so we have a complete reset of the entire thread.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:24 AM   #455
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,740
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
If it's obvious to you that the Estonia was sunk by an act of deliberate espionage, then you can't still hold the view that the Estonia was probably sunk by an accidental collision by a friendly submarine, which is something you said earlier in this thread.

I asked you if you no longer hold that view, and you said you didn't know.

So I'll ask you again, are you discarding your earlier opinion in this thread that the Estonia was probably sunk by an accidental collision by a friendly submarine for a new opinion that it was obviously sunk by a deliberate act of sabotage? You can't hold both views simultaneously, they're mutually exclusive.
I have always held that my default position is that things happen because of 'cock up' rather than evil intent. So, if the submarine - if it was a submarine - that collided with the vessel was Swedish/British then it could well have been accidental. If Russian, obviously hostile.


We don't know what nationality object caused the hole in the starboard.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:26 AM   #456
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,572
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The context was, whether Johanson had had a chance to discuss the accident with the crew when he gave his interview to James Meek of the GUARDIAN. If Captain_Swoop thinks Bildt had a chance to chat to rescuers who had chatted to survivors then why not the employers, likewise. If your staff are involved in an accident of course you try to contact them ASAP. We are talking about likelihood, not whether there is any evidence either of these scenarios happened.
Where did I say Bildt 'chatted' with the survivors?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:28 AM   #457
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,572
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post

One can always spot the articles that are well researched.

I am betting that Meek's team will almost certainly have looked up the possibility of a mine being the culprit for the shocking disaster.
I bet they didn't.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:29 AM   #458
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,572
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I have always held that my default position is that things happen because of 'cock up' rather than evil intent. So, if the submarine - if it was a submarine - that collided with the vessel was Swedish/British then it could well have been accidental. If Russian, obviously hostile.


We don't know what nationality object caused the hole in the starboard.
What submarine?

We already went through in detail why a submarine would not have made hole above the waterline or even one of the form seen on Estonia.

You seem to have forgotten it all. Don't you remember? it's the reason you switched to explosives and saboteurs aboard the ship doing it.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:33 AM   #459
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,206
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No, I didn't say the divers faked any damage.
I'm not struggling back through the previous hundred page thread to fling your own words at you, especially as you just squirm and obfuscate when anyone does that, but when you started your Bildt couldn't have known schtick you definitely remarked on how convenient it was that the bow door was later found detached, clearly implying it could have been arranged that way by divers.

Quote:
Bildt, when asked the same question at the time, replied 'I don't remember'.

Of course he remembers!
That's a weak-ass inference to hang a fantastical criminal conspiracy on.

Quote:
Bildt did not interview any survivors until late afternoon 28 Sept 1994 the same day of the accident and that was Sillaste, together with Aho and Laar and the police. Laar confirmed Sillaste never mentioned the bow visor in that interview.

If you look at the JAIC report you'll see the other crew were not interviewed until 29 Sept 1994.

Bildt made the bow visor announcement as per press conference with the Swedish press at circa 4:00pm 28 Sept 1994 when nobody could possibly have known this for sure...unless they had military/intelligence personnel who were there at the time or ... actually carried it out.
Irrelevant. The timings of formal interviews do not tell us anything about what the survivors said in the hours after their rescue.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:36 AM   #460
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 37,572
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
I'm not struggling back through the previous hundred page thread to fling your own words at you, especially as you just squirm and obfuscate when anyone does that, but when you started your Bildt couldn't have known schtick you definitely remarked on how convenient it was that the bow door was later found detached, clearly implying it could have been arranged that way by divers..
That's why we have had the secret Swedish navy divers introduced in to the narrative. Obviously they used explosive charges to detach the visor and move it away from the ship (fill in the details of how they managed this yourself)
Then when they had finished they forgot to clear up all the unexploded ordnance and just left it all behind.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:43 AM   #461
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,543
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I have always held that my default position is that things happen because of 'cock up' rather than evil intent. So, if the submarine - if it was a submarine - that collided with the vessel was Swedish/British then it could well have been accidental. If Russian, obviously hostile.
You have recently stated that it was obviously an act of sabotage which means that it was hostile, an obvious act of sabotage cannot be an accidental collision from a friendly submarine.

You can't think it was an obvious act of sabotage whilst simultaneously think it might have been caused by an accident caused by a collision with a friendly submarine escorting the Estonia.

So I'll ask you again, now that you have made it clear that you think the sinking of the Estonia was an obvious act of sabotage, it means that you no longer think it was probably an accident caused by a collision with a friendly submarine.

So I conclude that you no longer hold that opinion. If I'm wrong then explain how you can simultaneously think that Estonia was sunk by an obvious act of sabotage and that it was also probably sank by an accidental collision with a friendly submarine.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:46 AM   #462
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,543
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
So, if the submarine - if it was a submarine - that collided with the vessel was Swedish/British then it could well have been accidental. If Russian, obviously hostile.
How could a Russian submarine colliding with the Estonia be an obvious act of sabotage?

Are you suggesting that the Russians might have sank the Estonia by deliberately ramming it with a submarine? Who signed up for that suicide mission?

Last edited by JesseCuster; 19th September 2021 at 05:47 AM.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:48 AM   #463
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,206
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Yes, showing pictures of controlled explosions is very spectacular but most times a mine on a ship's hull or a ship running into one would not be as ferocious as it has not met explosive with explosive as in a controlled blast.

You knows as well as I do explosives come in all quantities. They can be big or small.
I can't fathom what on earth this is supposed to mean. Controlled explosions are very spectacular? Meeting explosives with explosives? What?

Sea mines contain large quantities of high explosives. They're intended to do major damage to warships designed to survive damage. There was no mine. There was no evidence of explosions. There was no evidence of explosives aside from one cryptic claim that an object might be an unexploded charge of some unidentified type.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:52 AM   #464
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 34,806
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
Why would an accidental sinking of the Estonia by a leftover WWII unexploded mine be "hugely political and embarrassing" but an accidental sinking of the Estonia by a failing bow visor not be such that it's worth the Swedish government's while going to the byzantine lengths to cover up the former story and railroad an investigation into coming up with the latter cover story?

Remember that I asked you about "an unexploded leftover WWII mine", i.e. an accident. You're answering an entirely different scenario involving sabotage, which I didn't ask about.

It must have been sabotage, because otherwise the government wouldn’t have covered it up, and without a cover-up there would be no reason to think it was sabotage.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:52 AM   #465
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,206
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It was a perfectly reasonable supposition at the time by Johanson of Estline. Given the sheer speed of sinking.
It was not likely. It was a stretch. He was deflecting blame.

But the relevant point is that it would not have been an act of sabotage, and you now claim to believe sabotage was very obvious to you, so I hope we can assume you don't think Estonia struck a mine.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:54 AM   #466
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 34,806
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
How could a Russian submarine colliding with the Estonia be an obvious act of sabotage?

Are you suggesting that the Russians might have sank the Estonia by deliberately ramming it with a submarine? Who signed up for that suicide mission?

It would probably be no more dangerous than the other plan of retrieving a potentially unstable WWII mine and hitting the Estonia with that.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:56 AM   #467
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,740
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
What was the “clear message”, and who was it sent by and to?

And if it was done “to send a clear message”, why the cover-up?
Consider this: the Russians shot down a KAL airplane, which included a US congressman amongst the passengers. The relatives were not allowed to bring home the bodies of the deceased, as was the practice for US personnel killed abroad in military accidents. No fuss was made about this because it was considered Russia had a right to shoot down the plane as it was illegally in its airspace, albeit by pilot error.

Then compare and contrast to the likely Estonia scenario: Sweden was smuggling out Russian military and state secrets via the Estonia passenger ferry in September 1994, and as confirmed in the Swedish Riksdag (parliament) in 2005. In most sovereign states, espionage and treason are considered a higher level of crime than murder, and even a casus belli. When this was going on it is clear members of the crew and customs would have been aware of this and word must surely have got back to Russia*, especially with so many officials still loyal to the Auld Ancienne Regime. According to an article in the STATESMAN, Russia had warned the UK and Sweden formally twice to cease stealing their state secrets.

If, as Hedrenius and Ovberg claim, the ferry on 28 Sept 1994 was loaded with Russian FSU military equipment - as it definitely had been on 14th and 20th September 1994, Russia or its elite ex-KGB agents [who enjoyed almost complete autonomy from its government] were certainly tipped off by someone or some body or other, then if Russia or its elite agents then took steps to prevent the USA-ordered smuggled cargo from reaching its destination in Stockholm, then it puts the Russians 'in the right' because it had (a) warned the UK and Sweden and (b) it had a sovereign right to protect its state secrets. Thus, Sweden would naturally be loathe to admit it was the cause of the disaster as it had wrecklessly used 556 of its own citizens, as well as 250 Estonians and 17 other nationalities making up almost 900 known mass deaths as collateral damage to ship out the smuggled material.

The same principle that put Russia 'in the right' to shoot down the KAL aeroplane is the one that theoretically puts them in the 'right' for efficiently and effectively stopping the latest round of equipment smuggling by Sweden/USA.

That is the clear message IMV.




*The Estonian Head of Defence, Simm was convicted in 1996 of high treason and imprisoned for ten years - he had been providing Russia with state secrets, such as EU security briefings and confidential internal state matters.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:57 AM   #468
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,206
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It very likely and almost certainly (cf eyewitnesses Hedrenius and Ovberg) carried military cargo and thus would have ipso facto needed a military escort. Wouldn't want bootleggers getting their hands on such sensitive material!
Surely the story is that bootleggers had got their hands on Soviet military equipment and were selling it to whoever paid. If you're smuggling stuff, surely it makes more sense to do it discreetly than brazenly and openly with an armed escort. But either way, why not just follow the ship on radar?
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:58 AM   #469
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,543
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
It would probably be no more dangerous than the other plan of retrieving a potentially unstable WWII mine and hitting the Estonia with that.
Which Vixen has said she doesn't rule out.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 05:59 AM   #470
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,206
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It is true, is it not? People won't accept something as being true until it is endorsed by the Murdoch/Barclay Brothers/Fox News/AP/Reuters press. This is hardly controversial. If the cap fits, wear it. If not, then why take it personally?
We're all sheep except for you.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 06:05 AM   #471
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,740
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Surely the story is that bootleggers had got their hands on Soviet military equipment and were selling it to whoever paid. If you're smuggling stuff, surely it makes more sense to do it discreetly than brazenly and openly with an armed escort. But either way, why not just follow the ship on radar?
What good is that? If someone attacks your protected vessel carrying ultra sensitive cargo, how will tracking by radar ensure its safety?
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 06:06 AM   #472
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,740
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
Which Vixen has said she doesn't rule out.
The only point I made was that Johanson's opinion it might have been a mine was a perfectly sound one as of the time, when nobody knew anything more. At least his opinion was honestly held.
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 06:07 AM   #473
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 34,806
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If, as Hedrenius and Ovberg claim, the ferry on 28 Sept 1994 was loaded with Russian FSU military equipment - as it definitely had been on 14th and 20th September 1994, Russia or its elite ex-KGB agents [who enjoyed almost complete autonomy from its government] were certainly tipped off by someone or some body or other, then if Russia or its elite agents then took steps to prevent the USA-ordered smuggled cargo from reaching its destination in Stockholm, then it puts the Russians 'in the right' because it had (a) warned the UK and Sweden …

Sort of like a Mankad? Within the rules but against the spirit of the game?

Quote:
That is the clear message IMV.

But what is the point of trying to cover up a clear message?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 19th September 2021 at 06:11 AM. Reason: Some sort of wierdness happened
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 06:07 AM   #474
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 25,740
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
We're all sheep except for you.
Where did I say that?
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 06:07 AM   #475
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,047
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The crew managed to nip into warm clothing and survivor suits sharpishly so why wouldn't they have ensured their NMT's weren't likewise safe and waterproofed. After all, they managed to find their way to life rafts tout suite despite their 'poor training'.
Maybe. Maybe not. All of this is supposition on your part.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 06:13 AM   #476
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 34,806
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Where did I say that?

Here:
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It is true, is it not? People won't accept something as being true until it is endorsed by the Murdoch/Barclay Brothers/Fox News/AP/Reuters press. This is hardly controversial. If the cap fits, wear it. If not, then why take it personally?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 06:16 AM   #477
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,206
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I have always held that my default position is that things happen because of 'cock up' rather than evil intent.
So it was very obvious accidental sabotage.
Quote:
So, if the submarine - if it was a submarine - that collided with the vessel was Swedish/British then it could well have been accidental. If Russian, obviously hostile.
It seems Western submarines can accidentally collide with ships but Russian submarines cannot.

Quote:
We don't know what nationality object caused the hole in the starboard.
The sea bed in international waters doesn't have any particular nationality. Nor does gravity.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 06:21 AM   #478
JesseCuster
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 1,543
Originally Posted by Vixen
So, if the submarine - if it was a submarine - that collided with the vessel was Swedish/British then it could well have been accidental. If Russian, obviously hostile.
Another point to consider Vixen, earlier in this thread you offered the scenario that the Estonia might have been sank by a collision with a Russian submarine that was being sold to inexperienced third world buyers.

In that scenario, the act of sinking by a Russian submarine, was not "obviously hostile", it was accidental.

So given that you now think the sinking of the Estonia was an obvious act of sabotage, have you changed your opinion that is might have been sunk by an accidental collision with a submarine being sold to inexperienced third world buyers?
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 06:21 AM   #479
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,206
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
What good is that? If someone attacks your protected vessel carrying ultra sensitive cargo, how will tracking by radar ensure its safety?
What type of attack do you imagine their defending against and with what? If the cargo you're speculating about was genuinely "ultra sensitive" why put it on a civilian passenger ferry at all?
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th September 2021, 06:22 AM   #480
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 12,206
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Where did I say that?
Oh, sorry, I misunderstood.

We're all sheep, including you. Better?
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:16 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.