• 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 Reopened Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
That must have been the other now missing Estonian.
Click to expand...


You mean: the other Estonian who was mistakenly thought to have been rescued on the first chaotic day of the rescue operation, but who subsequently turned out to have died (via drowning, hypothermia, blunt force trauma or crush injuries) in or near the Estonia on the night it sank? That other Estonian?
 
Vixen said:
I hope you now understand why it seems odd why Svensson said he flew eight and a deceased person straight to Huddinge Hospital
Click to expand...

No.

Svensson did not say he did that. Because Svensson was not a pilot. He was one of 3 rescue men aboard Y74 and was injured. He didn't fly anyone anywhere.

And it was not odd in the least that Y74 flew back to base to change crew and refuel after dropping all the rescued and injured at the nearby hospital. They did not attempt to land on a ferry because their flight was not the mystery one you speculate about before all the others and so the original plan to attempt ferry landings had already been abandoned. They did not drop the rescued off at Utö either as that would not have hastened their return to the rescue; they had to change crew at Berga so they went there via the neighbouring Huddinge hospital.

There is nothing odd or confusing about any of that.
 
Marras said:
Do you really think that we will believe you when you invent sources out of thin air?
Click to expand...


CTs are almost always riddled with these sorts of things: "so-and-so says they saw such-and-such evidence" or "so-and-so says they spoke with Mr X, who told them such-and-such".

And of course these pieces of purely anecdotal hearsay (and often double-hearsay) *conveniently* cannot be backed up with any reliable evidence whatsoever. Strange, that......
 
Vixen said:
If 'fuel was running low', it made sense to go to Utö. Unless of course, if it was an earlier flight before the refuelling units were installed in place.
Click to expand...

No. That would actually have been slower when they also had to change crew at Berga.
 
Vixen said:
The On Scene Commander ordered that any helicopters with defective winches should return to base. He also ordered that survivors and the dead be brought to the ships (if they could land a helicopter - and only the Finnish ones could as they had trained for this) or transferred to the special base set up at Utö for them, staffed with a team of doctors and nurses.

A helicopter with a broken winch is not in any immediate danger. It could still drop off the survivors at Utö, as ordered, refuel and then return to base, as ordered.

Instead, whilst obeying the order to return the helicopter with a defective winch to base Y74 seems to have directly disobeyed the order by flying the survivors direct to Huddinge. Claiming low fuel and a defective winch is a pathetic excuse and a likely story by the JAIC.

JAIC 7.5.5

Why would any member of the Defence Forces get the highest medal in the land after having wilfully disobeyed a command from the person in official command of them, the On Scene Commander of all people?
Click to expand...
You are confused.

Y74 did not return with a defective winch. Y64, Y65 and Y69 had winch failures.

Y74 did not try to land on a ferry as the OSC's original plan to do that had already been abandoned as too dangerous in the conditions.

Nor did it fly to Utö as that was chosen as the best place to drop off in Sweden if the helicopter was immediately returning to the search area. It was not. It was going to pick up fresh crew. Going to Utö would have wasted time.

You accuse them of a "pathetic excuse and a likely story" based on your woefully poor grasp of the facts.

Plus of course Svensson was not the pilot so did not control where Y64 or Y74 flew and so could not have been disobeying OSC's instructions in that regard.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
An Estonian radio station claims to have interviewed Svensson, who seemed only too eager to let the world know, and that he said in the interview that he had rescued Avo Piht. He even said Piht came from Hiumaa, an island off Estonia, which surely, only Piht himself could have told him that.
Click to expand...

If Svensson rescued Piht, where did Piht end up? You have claimed that the secretly rescued crew were brought to Huddinge, but the people who claim they saw Piht on TV claim they saw him at Turku.
 
Christopher Bollyn is "a likely pseudonym"?

Ok it's a windup people. She isn't serious, she's just stringing us along.
 
Vixen said:
Did you not understand my response? I said I have been following this case since 1994 as I knew this vessel as Viking Sally and had travel on her. So we have some guy who calls himself 'Christopher Bollyn', a likely pseudonym, and probably a Russian Pro-Iran disinformation agent, who pops up in 2012 pulling bits out of the Estonia scandal into an article, not saying anything not already in the public domain and you have the audacity to claim he must be my guru.
Click to expand...


From the Anti-Defamation League:

Anti-Semite Christopher Bollyn Scheduled to Attend 9-11 Events in California
September 11, 2014

Christopher Bollyn, an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist who focuses on the 9-11 attacks, reportedly will be making several appearances at 9-11 events in California. Bollyn was one of the earliest promoters of anti-Semitic 9-11 theories blaming Israel and Jews for the attacks. . . .

Bollyn has focused most of his research on 9-11 and has continued to make the claim that the terrorist attacks were orchestrated by Israel and the Jews. In Bollyn’s 2012 book, Solving 9-11: The Deception that Changed the World, he writes, “The ‘false flag’ terrorism of 9-11 is a monstrous Jewish-Zionist crime of our time. The true culprits of this heinous crime are clearly being protected by a gang of like-minded Jewish Zionists in the highest positions of the U.S. government….”

Bollyn has also written numerous other articles on his website that accuse Jews of controlling the media and government. Bollyn has attended Holocaust denial conferences in the U.S. and one in Russia in 2002. . . .

In 2007, Bollyn was found guilty of misdemeanor aggravated assault and resisting arrest, after a confrontation with police officers in front of his home in the Chicago area. He never appeared for sentencing and has since is presumed to be living in Europe with his wife, a Swedish citizen, and children.​

Additionally, Bollyn and his wife both acted in Baltic Storm (source), and according to your favored source, Estonia Ferry Disaster, he participated in a symposium along with Björkman [ETA: and Rabe,] and several other Estonia conspiracy theorists.

So the fact is you just pulled the assertion that Bollyn is "probably a . . . disinformation agent" out of an orifice, without even bothering to do any research. You undoubtedly did this because you desperately wish it to be true, in order to avoid even further discrediting your already shredded claims about the Estonia.

Direct question, Vixen: How is it that everything else Björkman and Bollyn say is extremely outrageous, ridiculous, and offensive, but what they say about the Estonia is completely reasonable and totally not a conspiracy theory?
 
Last edited:
Stamuel said:
If Svensson rescued Piht, where did Piht end up? You have claimed that the secretly rescued crew were brought to Huddinge, but the people who claim they saw Piht on TV claim they saw him at Turku.
Click to expand...

That's a remarkable point.

I had not registered, if it was ever mentioned, where this piece claimed to have been shown on German TV was shot. If it was recorded in Turku, and if it was actually Piht, then the Finns had him, and not the Swedes.

Now my assumption is the most likely explanation is mistaken identity of the person shown on TV news, but otherwise it contradicts rather than supports claims that a Swedish helicopter saved him. So far as I know, Swedish helicopters only delivered their rescues to Sweden. None to ferries and none to Finland. And it makes an imagined plot by Sweden to disappear him an awful lot more complicated than it already was.
 
Stamuel said:
If Svensson rescued Piht, where did Piht end up? You have claimed that the secretly rescued crew were brought to Huddinge, but the people who claim they saw Piht on TV claim they saw him at Turku.
Click to expand...

Contradictory information from Vixen? Say it aint so!
 
Vixen said:
Since I had never read 'Bollyn' it must have been from elsewhere.
Click to expand...

If that particularly daft pseudo-legal claim is reproduced in a number of places, you can surely point us at where you heard it. It wasn't Wilson, contrary to your first attempt at deflection. You say it's not Bollyn. So where?

Where does one gets information about the world from?
Click to expand...

I get my information about the law from lawyers and law professors. Where do you get yours? You say you "looked up" the legal theory regarding the Egyptian deportees. You tell us a court found that Sweden had violated the 1998 Rome Statute as regards enforced disappearance. Tell us where you looked it up.

As usual you're dodging the question. And that usually means that your critics are onto you. And in this case that means your source probably is Bollyn but you had hoped no one would find out that your noble crusade to vindicate the survivors of MS Estonia is being fed by obvious crackpots.

I'm quite willing to believe that Bollyn is not your source for the claim. But I require evidence. Since what you claim and what he has published seem to be exactly the same thing, I can really draw no other conclusion until you tell us exactly what other (verifiable) source you "looked up" that told you what you're now claiming.
 
Vixen said:
You are the liar. Faking indignation.
Click to expand...

He's reporting verifiable fact. You claimed you never spoke ill of Svensson. But you did, and you have been presented with examples of it. Your inability to address, excuse, or deny those examples is all the proof we need.
 
Vixen said:
Drew Wilson's book came out in 2006, for a start, and I dare say the newspapers covered the story at the time.
Click to expand...

You dare say? Or you know as much? You said Wilson's mention of the topic in a note in his book led you to research it on your own and stumble across the enforced-disappearance accusation. So can you tell us what newspapers you think proffered the claim that a court had found Sweden in violation of the Rome Statute on enforced disappearances? It's your claim and your burden of proof, and you tell us you previously did your research. So you shouldn't have any problem providing your source.

The thing is, the theory has no legal validity whatsoever, and no factual support you have managed to uncover. It's the kind of thing a lay person would make up and hope nobody consulted a lawyer about it or delved too deeply into the facts. As such, it has a particular smell. So when you and exactly one other person manage to stumble upon the same blatantly wrong theory, it's pretty hard to believe that you both independently came up with it. It's too uniquely stupid to be a common thing.

But as I've said, I'm entirely willing to believe you didn't crib your Egyptian deportee theory from a known crackpot. Just tell us where else you "looked it up," and let us verify it.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
I'm quite willing to believe that Bollyn is not [Vixen's] source for the claim. But I require evidence.
Click to expand...

Oh, look. There's the evidence.

Reformed Offlian said:
For the record, Vixen's lying about never having seen or used Bollyn's work before.

She cited Bollyn, after much prodding from me and others about her sources, in post #2966 of the very first thread of this topic.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13584360&postcount=2966
Click to expand...

Vixen lied. Her source, according to her, is Bollyn.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
That's a remarkable point.

I had not registered, if it was ever mentioned, where this piece claimed to have been shown on German TV was shot. If it was recorded in Turku, and if it was actually Piht, then the Finns had him, and not the Swedes.

Now my assumption is the most likely explanation is mistaken identity of the person shown on TV news, but otherwise it contradicts rather than supports claims that a Swedish helicopter saved him. So far as I know, Swedish helicopters only delivered their rescues to Sweden. None to ferries and none to Finland. And it makes an imagined plot by Sweden to disappear him an awful lot more complicated than it already was.
Click to expand...


In Conspiracyland, it just means that Finland was in on it as well.
 
Reformed Offlian said:
For the record, Vixen's lying about never having seen or used Bollyn's work before.

She cited Bollyn, after much prodding from me and others about her sources, in post #2966 of the very first thread of this topic.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13584360&postcount=2966
Click to expand...
Well well well, would you look at that?

So Vixen, why are you feigning ignorance of Christopher Bollyn, and claiming he is obviously a disinformation agent using a pseudonym when you have outright admitted to using him as your source previously?

Also, are you going to provide the evidence I asked for yet? It's getting awfully tedious to keep asking, and the longer you ignore it the more dishonest you look, shocking that it is that you could look more dishonest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom