Nyt on kuulkaas vanha eksynyt internetin vesillä. Joskus kun en jaksa nykyistä misinformaation määrää, niin googlainen ainoastaan 1990-luvulla julkaistuista nettisivuista tietoa. Kuten vaikka hillosipuliresepteistä tai jostain muusta sellaisesta, mistä tieto ei nyt merkittävästi vanhene. No, kokeilin tätä nyt huvikseni Estonian suhteen, ja löysin jotain mielenkiintoista.
Aika väsyneenä tätä nyt olen lueskellut, mutta täällä on nyt joku anarkistinen raportti vuodelta 2001. Kyseesä on siis itsenäinen komitea, joka kritisoi sekä JAIC:ia että Meyer Werftiä yhdessä osiossa M/S Estonian tutkintaa: matkan kulussa ennen onnettomuutta.
Aika kiinnostavaa, sinänsä, mutta saattaa olla myös turhaa. Mikä osui täällä erityisesti nyt kuitenkin silmään sillä tavalla, että ajttelin jakaa kanssanne, on tällainen lippulappunen tutkatiedoista Suomen rannikkovartiostolta. On vissiinpä näkynyt kaksi tunnistamatonta alusta vesillä tuona iltana. Sukellusveneteoriaahan ei ollut ilmoilla vielä 2001 käsittääkseni, eli tätä kirjoittaja ei tuolloin ole osannut arvella, on vaan sivuuttanut nämä tutkan tuntemattomat alukset.
The Finnish printout of "all passenger traffic" 27.09.94 called 'Estonia' 1758 40H.
The following picture has after the accident been the official printout, the log, of M/V Estonia's last route. To our knowledge this log has never been analyzed by JAIC. As seen it is not an printout of the M/V Estonia route, but an printout of the "passenger ship fleet", consequently it contains log information for more than one ship. Our analyze of the content has shown that the logs represent three ships where only one single log can refer from M/V Estonia. The other two ships are unidentified, confirmed by our analyze not to be anyone of the known ships in the Gulf of Finland this night. It is not possible to conclude the single log no. 5 as being from Estonia only from this "printout". Our conclusion that no. 5 originates from M/V Estonia is a result from putting together and analyzing all material presented in this report.
Picture 8. Printout of the Finnish "Estonia log."
In the left of the picture we have noted the logs from 1 to 32 in red. Those can be found on our plot (picture 10). All notes and areas in color has been added by us. The logs no. 1 - 4 are most likely to be from the same ship as the distance between them only are about 100 - 200 meters at "the same time". The log no. 5 can not be from the same ship as no. 1 - 4 as it in such case have had a speed of not under 36 knots. The follow-up of no. 5 is noted to have been lost (from Russarö, see also note at the bottom of the picture). Later the follow-up is moved to "Örö", no. 12 and 13, where the radar cover two ships. The follow-up is again lost, no. 25, for one of the ships, but it seem as the tracking has continued 30 minutes later, no. 27.
We have also analyzed a digitized printout for "Estonia" in the same way as described in the examples above (picture 2 and 5) with the result that this "Estonia-plot" correspond perfectly with the unidentified ships from the log in picture 8. However, as it is named "Estonia" with the same reference "1758" as the log in picture 8, the Finnish Coastal Surveillance must have had a reason believing this to be the Estonia plot.
Picture 9. Digitized printout for "Estonia"
In this picture 9 named "ESTONIA" we can se a handwriting "MEVAT MAALI 1758". "MEVAT" is the Finnish short name for "sea surveillance information system" (merivalvonnan tietojörjestelmä), and "MAALI" is the target, i.e. the ship in question. Every ship get a reference number, in this case it is 1758 (the Universal Coordinated Time for the ship entering in to the radar surveillance sector). Entering such sector does not automatically result in plotting the ship, at the time in 1994 mainly because it took a lot of computer memory. It was only when a ship came into a closer coastal range that it was plotted. It was still possible to follow each ship on the radar as they were identified with a reference number.
In the picture we can also read a note "SVO" and a text in Finnish that we have not fully been able to interpret. The word "seurannan" meaning "follow-up" can be seen together with "vastesenotto[?]", vasta meaning in the beginning/earliest. It may describe "loss of tracking" or "beginning/change" maybe to a "new ship". The position correspond with no. 12 and 13 in picture 8 where it refers to "follow-up moved". After that point we can follow two ships very close to each other for a while.
At this time in 1994, it was not possible to identify single ships from the automatic radar surveillance. All ships were at to be manually identified, either afterwards as a reconstruction of the events, or during the night by contacting any ship for identification. As all the ships besides the two unidentified ones described here and M/V Estonia have been successfully traced, it is understandable if the unidentified ships have been mistaken for M/V Estonia, especially if they really were unknown. See also the GGE interview (204 K) from 1998.
Alla kuvat, johon viitataan. Osaatteko tulkita? Mulla silmät jo harittaa, perkele.
Tässä vielä lähde:
http://privat.bahnhof.se/wb576311/factg ... route.html
Voisi Börjet jo pikku hiljaa luovuttaa sen visiirin sieltä lukittujen ovien takaa viron valtiolle. Siinähän ei tunnetusti ole mitään nähtävää joten mikäs siinä nyt oikein kun pitää armeijan toimeista jemmailla kun yhtä hyvin tuosta saisi vaikka muistomerkin torille.
