Dead or on the lamb?

[l0st]

Also, five of the passengers were found in one cabin on the port side, so I believe that as the vessel’s stern went underwater, it began to take on massive amounts of water. The pitch angle made all the loose furnishings slide towards the stateroom’s exits, which was confirmed by the rescue divers and made entering the ship difficult.

So, the passengers did awaken, but there wasn’t enough time to get out because the exits were already underwater and blocked. In that scenario, 16 minutes was never going to be enough time for the crew to save the trapped passengers.

...

I agree that it is all so incredible and there are a lot of questions left hanging, but to think foul play was behind the sinking is a real stretch of the imagination with the dynamics of this incident.

---

---

@worldstarcountry

Those white lines don't look like rain. The CCTV security camera was fixed somewhere along the port. Perhaps there were finishing nets close to it that were being blown around by the strong winds and moved across the face of the camera. Even the bad camera shake was probably due to the blustering wind.

I read that as well as reported by the divers. It looks like there would have been an exit in the other direction, though? Maybe they couldn't get cabin doors open due to water pressure? It still seems incredible to me. The last article I read (one of the british posts) they were saying that once the boat was on its side it went under in about a minute. Sounds like there is a large hole in the boat somewhere. They also mentioned that there is a large rear hatch that opens and folds down into a deck. Since they're saying the ship sunk from the rear (seems somewhat unusual unless the drain plugs were left out) and quickly there had to have been a direct route for water intrusion through the rear.

Normally, seafaring boats would have sealed windows and hatches all the way around, so even if the boat capsized, if the hull is intact there would be no water intrusion and it would still float. Another issue that bothers me is that nearly all modern boats (modern meaning 1980s+) use foam in the hull, so even if the boat entirely fills with water, it won't sink, just wallow at the surface. Incidentally, I was in a boating accident on the St. Lawrence river back around 1990 and the entire boat was full of water and this is exactly what happened.

Here is a link to some stats and pics of the vessel in question:

https://www.superyachttimes.com/yachts/bayesian

Here is a small example of a foam hull boat:




Edit to add:

The video from the CCTV camera looks normal to me. I've owned homes with old school wired analog CCTV cameras with nigh vision and the streaking white lines are what you see when the raindrops reflect the IR at the camera in the wind.

The video doesn't really show much IMHO. I feel like you can kinda sorta see the mast go down towards the water, if you're paying attention to the blinking lights near the top, you can kinda track when it looks like it flopped over. It still seems odd that the boat appeared to be buoyant until on its side. I'm wondering if they hit something in the water? I did some reading around last night and it looks like boats hitting lost shipping containers is not unheard of. Apparently, the containers tend to float right below the waterline as well, so at night they're not clearly visible. Maybe the wind blew the yacht into something in the water that pierced the hull when it blew over?