• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Axxman300

Philosopher
Axxman300
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
7,423
Location
Central California Coast
Continued from here. As is usual, the split point is arbitrary and participants are free to quote and respond to posts in the previous thread.
Posted By: Agatha






Vixen said:
How can it be a 'simple chain of events' if

  1. There was significant damage to the starboard compatible with a collision
Click to expand...


  1. The starboard side crack would not have been visible to divers in 1994 due to the angle of the ship as she rested on the sea floor. The only reason a few years back is because the ship's list had shifted allowing physical access.

    The fact the crack is on the seams of the hull plating suggests a stress fracture combined with impact with the sea floor.

    All fo the senior crew ere missing - the divers saw three bodies on the bridge and could have brought them up for ID, given a diver reporting a ptoential crime scene.
    Click to expand...

    Spolier alert: They're still on the ship.

    And though incompetence should be a crime, Estonia was an accident scene.

    34 out of the 79 passenger survivors describe bangs and sensations of collisions, as of the time of the accident.
    Click to expand...

    Which is compatible with the hood getting knocked loose, and then knocked off by large waves.


    At least two passengers indicate they noticed something seeming to glide away in the water (Reintaam; Barney.)
    Click to expand...

    Weird, almost as if materials on the Estonia's decks had been somehow washed overboard as the ship rolled in the storm.

    All of these issues could have been cleared up by the JAIC and then we wouldn't be having all of these frantic rumour mills.
    Click to expand...

    Some people are spreading rumors, most are not. And they're re-investigating the wreck, and all you are doing is help cloud the air with wild speculation that will inevitably set up the next round of conspiracy theories when a certain fringe is not happy with the outcome...as always.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vixen said:
Paul Barney said he contacted the relevant department to enquire the reasons for the UK signing the Estonia Gravesite Treaty and had no reply. That is why he thinks MI6 is involved as it appears to be classified information. Graham Phillips appears to have followed Barney's lead, having interviewed him for his film yet doesn't seem to have had better luck.

Nothing to do with 'brightness'.
Click to expand...



I'll repeat:

The person who made the FOI request to the Foreign Office got all the information he/she had requested back in reply: there was a link to the document explaining how/why the UK had acceded to the treaty, and a suggestion of who to ask if the person required any info on the ongoing UK-side management of the situation.

Then, whoever made the second request to the DfT, they clearly didn't understand that 1) the FCDO had in fact already answered the question about how/why the UK acceded, and 2) the matter of the how/why of the UK's accession was nothing to do with the DfT. So yes, whoever made that second request to DfT - given that it appears they already knew about the response to the first request to FCDO - was not particularly bright.

Now, you keep telling us that Barney sees something necessarily sinister in not being able to get answers re "the UK Parliament not having voted on the treaty" and so on. And i'm telling you once again: this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the reality: this was all covered off under previous Acts of (UK) Parliament which provided/provide for the UK to accede to these very simple types of treaty without having to go back to Parliament for approval each and every time.

So in a very real sense - if (and it's a big if, I realise) what you say about Barney's position on all this is correct - Barney is indeed not being very bright when it comes to his (mis)understanding of the situation wrt things being laid before Parliament. And those who advocate for Barney on this matter are similarly lacking in brightness.
 
Vixen said:
Andi Meister's book 'the Unfinished Log Book'. Andi Meister was the Head of the JAIC, leading Sweden, Finland and Estonia.
Click to expand...

In summary this would explain the three bodies as found by the divers, viz.

1) close to the door leading out to the aft on port side, across the door leading to the inside stairway.
2) inside the chart room without further details.
3) in the starboard wing below the broken loose flagbox.

The above is revealed from the voice communication between two divers and the supervisors on board the SEMI 1 according to video tapes B40c and B40d which are available and from the Finnish report of the JAIC, page 131. In addition, more information about the bodies became publicly known partly through the Andi Meister book "The Unfinished Logbook" and partly through the Estonian media. These are:

- the body at the aft port door was wearing a brown or red/brown suit.
- the body underneath the flagbox in the starboard bridge wing had a tattoo on his right hand.

Reportedly neither Captain Andresson nor Juhan Herma nor Kaimar Kikas had a tattoo on their right hand and certainly none of them was wearing a brown or red/brown suit. So, who are the three bodies on the bridge and where does this information come from?
Click to expand...
I don't see anything there speculating about a hijacking, just a question about who 3 bodies were.

Can you quote where Andi Meister speculated that the bridge might have been hijacked?
 
Vixen said:
Given that the mines are certainly there, especially around the old so-called Baltic States governed by the Soviet Union, including East Germany (whose main port along the Baltic is Rostock) and Poland, it is something you might expect the JAIC to have ruled out?
Click to expand...


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.
 
Vixen said:
Can't rule it out? In the Al-Quaeda terrorist attack on USS Cole in 2000 a small boat did exactly that: ram into the side of the vessel with a load of explosives:

wiki

Interestingly, USS Cole did not sink. Obviously the damage to the USS Cole is far greater than that seen on the Estonia.
Click to expand...


And guess what: anyone with the right qualifications and experience who'd examined that ship after the incident would quickly & easily have been able to identify/recognise the tell-tale signs of adjacent-proximity explosives detonation. There would have been pitting and other metallurgical signs on the outer sheet steel of the hull. And there would have also been unmistakeable chemical signatures of an explosion (which would almost-certainly have been so detailed as to tell investigators precisely which type(s) of explosive were used, and in what quantity).

Had the Estonia been similarly attacked by means of an explosive detonation against/near the hull, then those tell-tale pieces of evidence would have been present here as well (even with the ship lying on the sea bed). But there's no such evidence present. Meaning that it's possible to conclude with extremely high accuracy & reliability that nothing like this actually happened to the Estonia.
 
On the (possible) matter of what survivors allegedly said they witnessed: if one or more survivors had claimed to have seen/heard a helicopter and/or small black boat arriving on the scene very shortly after the ship listed and began to sink....

.... well, all that would serve to illustrate would be the notion that ordinary people, when they're flung into these extreme, life-changing situations with almost no warning, can often believe they saw/heard/experienced things that didn't actually take place in reality.

When one adds in the factors specific to this incident - that it was a dark night, in the midst of a storm, with high rolling waves and white caps, constant high levels of white noise, people shouting to be heard above the noise, drenched clothing causing rapid decreases in body temperature, the fact that almost all of the survivors would have had to exert themselves physically to a high level in order to escape the sinking ship and find their way into a life raft - it really isn't hard to understand how some people's minds might have played tricks on them. In addition, it's not altogether difficult to conceive of a situation where as few as one survivor - as they all huddled together in a life raft - talked to the others about having seen/heard near-immediate helicopters & small boats etc, and ending up implanting this (false) memory in several of the others in the same life raft.


(Note, for clarity and accuracy, that I am not suggesting anyone would have knowingly lied; rather, I'm suggesting that it's wholly feasible that one or more people sincerely believed they'd witnessed these things happening, when in fact they didn't happen in reality.)
 
Having black ships and helicopters turn up and whisk away the mystery hijackers, saboteurs right on queue enlarges the conspiracy even further.
Why didn't the assassins, hijackers, drugs gang, or saboteurs just get aboard the submarine?

It started out as a few rogue KGB men or an accidental ramming by an escorting submarine.

Now it involves mines, bombs, submarines, drug smugglers, hijackers, assassins, US presidents, Israel, the CIA, MI5, NATO, KGB, Jamming radio and satellite communications across large areas of the Baltic, secret rescue ships and helicopters.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Now it involves mines, bombs, submarines, drug smugglers, hijackers, assassins, US presidents, Israel, the CIA, MI5, NATO, KGB, Jamming radio and satellite communications across large areas of the Baltic, secret rescue ships and helicopters.
Click to expand...
And none of that involves any sort of conspiracy theory. Any time Vixen mentions rogue KGB agents, arms smuggling to Israel, hijacking of the bridge, minisubs planting mines or shooting torpedos, British submarines escorting the Estonia, submarines being sold to inexperienced buyers, etc. she is merely reporting on current events.
 
JesseCuster said:
I don't see anything there speculating about a hijacking, just a question about who 3 bodies were.

Can you quote where Andi Meister speculated that the bridge might have been hijacked?
Click to expand...

It's worth noting that Vixen is citing Andi Meister as a source, but her reference is to a third party summary, not Meister's book. We are relying on the Estonia Ferry Disaster site again for our information. Now, I'm not saying they provide poor summaries. I literally don't know if their summaries are close to literal. But each step removed from the source is another opportunity to make subtle changes to the claims, intentionally or otherwise (this matters particularly when we use summaries of translations of eyewitness accounts).

None of this is to take away from Jesse's point: Vixen's source doesn't say that Meister speculates on a hijacking at all, which was the question asked.
 
Jack by the Hedge said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let's focus on the tattooed guy for a minute. Here's what Vixen has said about him previously:

Vixen said:
They specifically noted the bodies on the bridge, of which there were three, identified as Kaunasaar (second mate), another officer (not Tammes) and the body trapped under a cabinet with a tattooed hand, which doesn't match any description provided by the deceaseds' relatives of their loved ones.
Click to expand...

Here's what her citation says:

In addition, more information about the bodies became publicly known partly through the Andi Meister book "The Unfinished Logbook" and partly through the Estonian media. These are:

- the body at the aft port door was wearing a brown or red/brown suit.
- the body underneath the flagbox in the starboard bridge wing had a tattoo on his right hand.

Reportedly neither Captain Andresson nor Juhan Herma nor Kaimar Kikas had a tattoo on their right hand and certainly none of them was wearing a brown or red/brown suit. So, who are the three bodies on the bridge and where does this information come from?
Click to expand...

It doesn't say that relatives of every deceased or missing crewman or passenger was asked about the tattoo. It says that no one expected to be on the bridge was known to have a tattoo. That's a hell of a more modest claim.

Vixen, have you found any information at all that the relatives of the Estonia victims were specifically asked about a tattoo? If not, all we know is that during an emergency, there was a person on the bridge that was not on duty or otherwise expected to be there. That hardly sounds suspicious enough to conclude there was a hijacking. For all we know (per your own source), this could have been a crew member.
 
Absolutely pathetic vixen. Absolutely. Pathetic.

You have made very specific claims. Back them up, retract them, or make it even more obvious that you're a liar who hurls insults when she realises she's in a corner with her complete ******** and insane claims.


You don't know what you're talking about. You don't understand how any of the things you're discussing work. You're an ineffectual fantasist who wants to be seen as a mighty crusader for truth when it's patently obvious that you are talking out of your backside.

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?
 
phiwum said:
That hardly sounds suspicious enough to conclude there was a hijacking. For all we know (per your own source), this could have been a crew member.
Click to expand...

We don't know that tattoo man wasn't supposed to be on duty there.
I would exect extra lookouts in a storm and relief helmsman etc. Also in an emergency crew will have been coming and going from the bridge.
 
Captain_Swoop asks the following:

Where is the evidence for the radio channel being 'cut off' and the signal interference?
Where did the 'interference' originate? what area did it cover?
How do you think you 'cut off' or interfere with a radio signal?
We went through this at length already in the thread.

Where is the evidence for the phone network being down?

Do you know how a radio works?
Click to expand...


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.

Russian soldiers silence "Ešt0fl! 3" call for help "Estonia" The call for help on the 16th international radio channel was silenced by a Russian military transmitter on the island of Hogland, the Swedish newspaper "Aftonbiadet" reported. The newspaper refers to Heimo Iivonen, a member of the International Commission of Inquiry, who said that a Russian military envoy based in Hoglandll had prevented him from attending the emergency call. Since September, a Russian radio transmitter has disrupted radio communications on the southern coast of Finland. Even on the night when "Estonia" sank, the transmitter was working and blocking the emergency call frequency. Therefore, it was difficult to understand the "Estonia" call for help. "The first call for help heard on" Silja Symphony "was partly buried in the Russian carrier frequency coming from Hogland. Later," Estonia "was connected to ..Silja Europa". It is unlikely that "Estonia" tried to sound the alarm in the past. The island of Hogland is a closed Russian military area. Therefore, the Finnish authorities cannot do anything directly to stop the jammer. and also in the Gulf of Finland.Radio stations on ships sailing in the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia are constantly tuned to VHF 16. To ensure that calls for help are received. "Iivonen has temporarily failed to intervene in order to take action on this issue." (BNS-,, Aftonbladet 1 ’
Click to expand...

You seem to have great trouble grasping that communications were interfered with for the duration of the 'accident'.
 
Vixen said:
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'.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Vixen said:
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'.
Click to expand...

Are you actually quoting from Aftonbladet this time, or are you relying once more on Anders Bjorkman? ETA, phiwum ninja'd
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
You seem to have great trouble grasping that communications were interfered with for the duration of the 'accident'.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Vixen said:
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'.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
phiwum said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.....
 
Kid Eager said:
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.
Click to expand...



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?")
 
Axxman300 said:
This is just bad Hollywood spy nonsense.
[...]
Russia would not sink a large passenger ship over stolen equipment.
Click to expand...

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.
 
junkshop said:
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.
Click to expand...

The entire phone network was down from 1:02 to 1:58.
 
Axxman300 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
phiwum said:
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.
Click to expand...


You are welcome to read the JAIC report yourself. It is in the public domain.
 
Vixen said:
You are welcome to read the JAIC report yourself. It is in the public domain.
Click to expand...
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
 
Vixen said:
You are welcome to read the JAIC report yourself. It is in the public domain.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
LondonJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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'.
 
phiwum said:
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
Click to expand...

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 said:
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'.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Vixen said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
lobosrul5 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom