There are two main lines of evidence which lead to the conclusion that the visor must have been very close to the wreck, namely:

(1) Several survivors did observe a “white, big object” far forward or at the bow which was moving. They first thought that this was the stabiliser, e.g. Pierre Thiger, Mats Hillerström. The stabiliser fin however is midships, down at bilge keel level and is blue. When their attention was drawn to the actual position of the stabiliser fin in relation to their own position they agreed that the white big object far forward of the vessel had to be the visor. Pierre Thiger made this observation when the vessel was on the side already and he was moving down the superstructure towards the tender bar in the forward part of the vessel. This is, at least, a strong indication that the visor was still attached to the bow when the vessel was on the side with the stern lower than the bow.

(2) The damage indicating that the forepeak deck was deep inside the visor bottom, i.e. that the visor’s shell plating was actually overlapping the forepeak deck and thus preventing the visor from falling off the vessel until a certain heeling angle, say 130°/140°, had been reached. Also the bow ramp on which the port inner longitudinal bulkhead of the visor was resting prevented the visor from moving to starboard. Forward movement and falling off over the bulbous bow was prevented by the still holding starboard actuator being in fully extended condition.

The vessel was on the starboard side, i.e. the heel was about 90°, at about 01.30 hours (several witnesses) and continued to heel to starboard until she was, probably at about 01.40 hours, completely upside down with the stern deep down and the bow rising higher and higher. It has to be assumed that the visor fell off by gravity once the vessel had turned far enough, probably to 130°/140°, when the forepeak deck sticking in the visor bottom and also the bow ramp did not support the visor anymore. It has to be assumed that the foundation of the fully extended starboard actuator broke when becoming exposed to the full weight of the visor.

Since at this time the stern was probably not yet in contact with the sea bottom the vessel might have drifted a short distance further and then settled down at her final resting place.
Based on the damage picture it cannot be excluded that the bulbous bow was in contact with the starboard shell plating of the visor – as shown by the drawing on the next page. This could have caused the big indentation into the starboard shell plating of the visor and the other damages for which there has so far not been a plausible explanation.

This means, however, that it could have been possible that the visor had been jammed underneath the bulbous bow as it was indeed discussed in the media during the first days and as the only published sonar picture indicates after the wreck was found. See pages 699 ff. of our Report and “Dagens Nyheter” of 03.10.94 where it is stated:

»New pictures from the wreck point to the bow visor.
Two ROVs were successful on Sunday in video filming the ‘Estonia’. The commission has issued strict orders to the oil-pollution fighting vessel ‘Halli’, which carried out the operation, not to talk about or show the films made so far.

Apparently it becomes more and more certain that the visor in front of the bow ramp to the car deck has been the cause for the casualty. Dr. Jouko Nuorteva, who analysed the sonar pictures taken after ‘Estonia’ had been located, could give them a new interpretation on Sunday.

According to Nuorteva the vessel is lying on an easterly heading and in the course direction as it had been assumed in the beginning. Adjacent to the bow there is a big object which was either torn off or is hanging from the hull. According to Nuorteva the object could be the damaged visor or part of it. The video pictures should explain if the visor had indeed such a big damage.«

The visor has indeed a very big damage on the starboard side which in shape and dimension may have been caused by the bulbous bow of the vessel when settling down onto the visor already standing on the sea bottom.
Since the visor, however, was standing alone and not in contact with any other object or with the wreck when it was “officially” found on 18.10.94, it has to be concluded that it had been moved to some other location in the meantime or that the published position is wrong. There are indeed indications that this has been the case which will be explained in the following chapter.