• 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.

Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
So you do grasp the concept of classified information being information withheld from that country's nationals.

But that's not what classified means. Classified is withheld from anyone who wants it outside those who are allowed to see it. China just blanket bans anything that makes it look bad. Those are not the same thing at all.

Why are you making claims that require an understanding of Intelligence studies that you clearly do not have, and why are you continuing to ignore my request re: the book you insinuated I don't have?
 
Fact is, the JAIC credits "the Y 64 rescue man" with all seven of these rescues, as you yourself, perhaps inadvertently, just documented.



Did Aftonbladet ever write any follow up articles? Did they issue any corrections in later editions? Do you know?

We know the Aftonblad account is wrong. There weren't eight survivors aboard Y 64 when it cut Svensson loose, not even in your two-trip timeline.

No, you don't know, because you've just borrowed an extract from Bjorkman's website and fetishized it as if it were the newspaper of record.

How many people does Dagens Nyheter say he rescued? That's generally regarded as the newspaper of record in Sweden, not Aftonbladet.

You actually inadvertently cited Eriksson's article when you referred to the wikipedia source, which was an article ten years later looking back on it and the author uses Eriksson's words virtually verbatim.

DN is behind a paywall.
 
I never said that. You're lying again.

I think that the bizarre stories you've spun about disappeared crew members, Israeli arms trading, Spetsnaz, rogue KGB agents, black sites, secret trials, blank torpedo firing minisubs, wheeled submarines, lock dissolving nuclear material, trucks full of heroin being pushed off the ship by crew members, escort submarines, rendition flights disguised as cargo flights, etc. I think they are imaginative fantasies.

Why do you insist on portraying what others say so blatantly dishonestly? That's twice in quick succession you've lied about what I've said.

You keep lying that my well-sourced and referenced citations are my imaginative fantasies. Your saying it doesn't make it so.
 
But that's not what classified means. Classified is withheld from anyone who wants it outside those who are allowed to see it. China just blanket bans anything that makes it look bad. Those are not the same thing at all.

Why are you making claims that require an understanding of Intelligence studies that you clearly do not have, and why are you continuing to ignore my request re: the book you insinuated I don't have?

So you can grasp the concept of Defence Forces classifying a thing because it 'makes it look bad'.
 
You actually inadvertently cited Eriksson's article when you referred to the wikipedia source, which was an article ten years later looking back on it and the author uses Eriksson's words virtually verbatim.

DN is behind a paywall.

That doesn't really respond to anything I wrote.
 
You keep lying that my well-sourced and referenced citations are my imaginative fantasies. Your saying it doesn't make it so.
Your sources -- when you choose to disclose and acknowledge them -- are laughable. Glomming into someone else's imaginative fantasies doesn't suddenly make you a trustworthy investigator.
 
So you do grasp the concept of classified information being information withheld from that country's nationals.

Why would he grasp an incorrect concept?

Classified information is withheld from anyone who doesn't have both the appropriate clearance and need-to-know, regardless of nationality.
 
...

And to date, you still haven't bothered to dig up the original article, as important as you claim it is. You continue to rely on Bjorkman's extract.

Is this true, Vixen? When you have claimed to be quoting Aftonbladet have you in fact been quoting another source claiming to be quoting Aftonbladet?

With your established record as a dismally poor reporter of facts, should we not in fact doubt that Aftonbladet even said the things you keep claiming?
 
That doesn't really respond to anything I wrote.

You asked for a citation from DN. However, it is behind a paywall. Few newspapers have internet archives going back to the early nineties and Helsingin Sanomat is one of them. As newspaper reports are time-stamped they provide an excellent chronology.

The chronology shows Piht is regarded as a survivor.
 
So you can grasp the concept of Defence Forces classifying a thing because it 'makes it look bad'.
Can you grasp the concept that classifying something rarely erases it from all knowledge? I've worked in classified facilities whose existence was denied as a matter of course, but there was never any question that they existed.

What's the parsimonious conclusion in the complete absence of evidence? That the thing didn't happen, or that it must have happened exactly as the proponent imagines it?
 
So you can grasp the concept of Defence Forces classifying a thing because it 'makes it look bad'.

You have shown zero indication that you have any grasp of intelligence studies. None. You clearly don't understand the process of or even fully comprehend what classification is. You're claiming to understand something that's outside your extremely limited knowledgebase again.

Now, are you finally going to answer my request? Stop deflecting and answer.
 
Can you grasp the concept that classifying something rarely erases it from all knowledge? I've worked in classified facilities whose existence was denied as a matter of course, but there was never any question that they existed.

The work of Porton Down is classified as a matter of course, but even wikipedia has a general explanation of what it is.
 
You asked for a citation from DN. However, it is behind a paywall. Few newspapers have internet archives going back to the early nineties and Helsingin Sanomat is one of them. As newspaper reports are time-stamped they provide an excellent chronology.

The chronology shows Piht is regarded as a survivor.

I asked you about DN to see if you knew. It's obvious you don't. (For the record, neither do I). You haven't really researched early newspaper reports at all, but rather latched onto the one you found extracted from Bjorkman's website.

Aftonbladet was neither the only nor the most prestigious Swedish newspaper covering the incident. It makes no sense to suppose that anybody would regard your Aftonblad article as some sort of holy writ. Only someone hanging on Bjorkman's every word about all things Estonia would think it was.
 
Ensign Kenneth Svensson did indeed get the Swedish Defence Forces Medal of Merit, Gold with Sword, did he not?

Or is that a 'conspiracy theory' that he got a medal but nobody else did in that category, not even silver or bronze.

Is it a fact?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Yes. That's never been in dispute. But the rest of Y64's crew did not. Which was a problem for your version of events. So now you have had to modify the tale of your invented early flight yet again so that now you want us to imagine that the feats for which he got the medal were on the earlier flight and deliberately misattributed to the later one.

So you now claim it was around 3am when Svensson took over from his injured colleague and carried on rescuing survivors until he too was injured and couldn't carry on.

But then the injured Svensson went back out to do more rescuing at around 6am. Right? Sure.
 
Is this true, Vixen? When you have claimed to be quoting Aftonbladet have you in fact been quoting another source claiming to be quoting Aftonbladet?

Her quotes have ellipses in exactly the same places they appear in Bjorkman's material. Vixen has not evinced any knowledge of Aftonbladet's coverage outside of those extracts (such as whether they issued any corrections/updates on following days).

When I pressed her for links to the original article, she admitted she didn't have it, and only reluctantly provided a link to a page that, in turn, linked back to Bjorkman.
 
Last edited:
The Mariella docked into Stockholm, whereupon it was boarded in Swedish waters by police who flew in by helicopter.


"... The police ordered all 25 (sic) survivors to be locked up in a separate area of the ship. They were forbidden to communicate with other passengers, even if many survivors wanted to have contact with them. The police and guards from the ship maintained strict control of the rooms with the survivors. If they wanted to go to the toilet ... they were escorted by the guards.
The survivors were partly questioned by the police already aboard the 'Mariella'. Some were not permitted to telephone their relatives, when they so wished, they had to ask permission. Some were only granted one telephone call. Before the called they were forced to reveal the name and civic ID number of the person they wanted to call. ...
When later the survivors arrived at the port of Värtan ... they had to wait until the 'Mariella' was emptied of normal travellers. The police wanted to prevent mutual contact using all means. ... Thure Palmgren ... was not permitted to leave the group. Swedish police forced him violently into the bus against his will. He (Palmgren) said to me that he had never been so angry and upset. Some of the survivors considered that the police committed a crime, i.e. illegal arrest.
When all survivors had been transported to the Söder hospital they were all locked up in wards. Police guarded the doors. When one of the survivors wanted to leave the ward, he was forced back in a very unfriendly manner ..."
-

Jörle-Hellberg

Why would it require a 'vast conspiracy'? Fact is, these people were listed as survivors and no explanation has ever been given for their removal from the lists. Given this was put in the public domain, there should be some kind of retraction or correction.

They were brought in by Y64 and Mariella.

Why would Mariella go to Sweden when the rescue was under Finnish jursidiction? Well we know Piht seems to have ended up in Turku and then Helsinki.

Mariella didn't receive any survivors from helicopters, one injured survivor was picked up from Mariella by the Finnish helicopter X 92 for emergency transport to hospital by stretcher. One injured survivor was picked up from Isabella by Finnish helicopter X42 by stretcher.
These were both wire transfers as the ships were rolling too much for a landing.

Only two helicopters managed to land on ships to transfer survivors to them, they were both Finnish helicopters, OH-HVG got on to Symphony and OH-HVD got on to Europa.
After this it was too rough to land safely so all survivors were taken direct to shore, that is one of the reasons more helicopters were called in to the rescue.

Here are all the wire transfers.

Y 74 another Finnish helicopter lowered medical staff on to the Symphony by wire as it was too rough to land on the deck.

X 42 attempted to land seven men of the Turku city fire department aboard Europa to serve as rescue men but this was abandoned because the vessel was rolling so badly that it would have been dangerous to land on the helicopter deck. They therefore stayed with the helicopter all day as first-aid personnel.

X 62 In the late morning, attempted to land five physicians and six firemen and an air traffic control office aboard Europa however, it proved impossible to land, as the stern deck of the vessel was rising and falling about 10 metres at a time so they were winched down instead.

Y 65 rescue man got stuck on the winch rope when it jammed and had to be flown to the Europa where he was put on to the deck.

Y 75 lowered medical staff to the Symphony in the afternoon.
 
Last edited:
See the Felix Report. Apparently Vladimir Putin is or was a member of the Felix Group.



Russian intelligence claims there was illicit cargo on the Estonia.
Your evidence is Russian anti-Western propaganda you can't even be bothered to quote.

Impressive.
 
AIUI this was Der Speigel ; Jutta Rabe a journalist investigating the story says that is what she was told when she tried to acquire the news reel.

Germany did not sign the Estonia Gravesite Treaty, despite being a major Baltic state.

But you claimed that a German news company had it's video seized by secret police.

If it was in Germany it could only have been German secret police.

That would mean that Germany is part of the conspiracy and is 'in on it'

I don't think Sweden can send it's police to seize video from a German company.
 
They probably thought the public too stupid to put two and two together. A medal is an award is it not? Does the UK Prime Minister have to justify why he gave his brother a peerage?

That doesn't answer the question.

If it was a secret mission, why award him a medal that draws attention to him?

Why didn't the rest of the crew get a reward for flying the secret mission?
I would think the pilot at least would get something
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom