• 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.
JayUtah said:
I've had lengthy interactions with Björkman, but none whatsoever with Bollyn. From what they've written I conclude they are separate people. Besides, you don't seem to be a very reliable authority on who is real and who isn't.



You cited him as your source. You seem to believe he is important.



You have cited both men as your sources, and now are trying to pretend you didn't and don't. In Björkman's case, you vacillate between denouncing him and rehabilitating him as an expert. You continue to use both men as authorities in your argument, even if you do not directly cite to them. You have learned not to mention them, but you have not stopped repeating their ideas.

What is more egregious in my mind is your habitual lying, especially since so much of your argument appears to rest on facts you present on your own authority. Tell us why a rational person should pay attention to someone whose first impulse seems to be to lie.



Straw man. I may disagree with Sir Patrick Moore on political topics, but I still cite him as an authority on astronomy. You are still relying on Björkman to feed you snippets from Aftonbladet, and upon his version of ship stability. Although you tried very hard to conceal that Bollyn was your source for the enforced disappearance claim, you were unsuccessful.
Click to expand...

Actually the source Reformed Offlian provided as a wikipedia footnote as to why Kenneth Svensson got the Swedish Defence Forces Gold Medal of Merit with Sword, also seems to quote the same Aftonbladet article.
 
Mojo said:
:dl:




Do you have a reputable source that said it?

ETA: Perhaps one of the four newspapers that you actually read?
Click to expand...

Any decision that has been before a court of law is in the public domain (with a few exceptions, such as a Family Court).

Why do you believe that only Bollyn (in 2012) is the only person who could have known about the two Egyptians?
 
JayUtah said:
This is the same lame excuse you offer every time one of your authorities revealed not to be one. With neither Björkman nor Bollyn is the question of one of a "personality cult." The question is whether they are reliable authorities for the claims they have made, which you have happily borrowed. The amount of effort you expend dodging an examination of your sources leads me to conclude you know full well who they are and what their reputation is, but you plan to see how far you can lie about what your sources are.

Bollyn is clearly your source for the claim that Sweden committed the crime of enforced disappearance against two Egyptian deportees, and that this should be considered a continuation of their behavior in the MS Estonia case. An honest person would have realized after some discussion that the claim is factually wrong and legally absurd. You have not; you have pressed onward hoping enough of that claim seems superficially credible and that no one would find out where you got it from.
Click to expand...

Utter rot. Now that Spitfire has pointed out that Bollyn has a deluded idea that there is a granfalloon group of people who are running the world, bringing down Christianity and mocking up terror attacks, such as 9/11, I will obviously avoid him like the plague from now on.
 
Vixen said:
... as there was no OSC as of that time, it simply took the persons it rescued to Huddinge.
Click to expand...

What time? What time exactly do you say a Swedish helicopter could have arrived at the scene, without contacting the ships in the rescue area, and have rescued 9 people (how long would that have taken?) again without having spoken to the ships, and flown back to Huddinge? When was the captain who assumed OSC duties confirmed in that role?
 
Vixen said:
...
The fact one team member might have swapped with another team member does not obscure the fact that Y64's tally was one, when earlier Svensson had been giving it large to Aftonbladet that he (his team) had rescued eight human beings plus one who died.
Click to expand...

You still haven't quoted Aftonbladet saying what Svensson said to their journalist. As best I recall you quoted a bit from a secondary source claiming to be quoting Aftonbladet with a bit from the original Y74 rescue man in the first person and then told us this must have come from their own lips. That's some very loose foundations to build your claim of Svensson giving it large to Aftonbladet.
 
Vixen said:
In this context, the idea that one idealised person is the possessor of some kind of esoteric knowledge; his or her followers lap up every word like pearls of wisdom which they can quote like shining drops of molten gold off by heart, whenever the occasion demands it.
Click to expand...

And who is claiming that you or anyone else does this? You have cited people as sources. That's not equivalent to "lap[ping] up every word like pearls of wisdom." But in your case, your cited sources appear not to be reliable authorities on the topics you rely upon them for.
 
Vixen said:
Actually the source Reformed Offlian provided as a wikipedia footnote as to why Kenneth Svensson got the Swedish Defence Forces Gold Medal of Merit with Sword, also seems to quote the same Aftonbladet article.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered, with respect to your lifting of Björkman's Aftonbladet quotes. Now how about the other points I raised?
 
Vixen said:
Heh, has anyone ever seen Bollyn and Bjorkman in the same room together...?
Click to expand...

Has anyone ever seen the Pope and Johnathan Price in the same room together?

That is the level of "argument" you have sunk to, Vixen. Bollyn and Bjorkman don't even look alike.
 
Vixen said:
Utter rot. Now that Spitfire has pointed out that Bollyn has a deluded idea that there is a granfalloon group of people who are running the world, bringing down Christianity and mocking up terror attacks, such as 9/11, I will obviously avoid him like the plague from now on.
Click to expand...


Will you also be avoiding Björkman "like the plague?"
 
JayUtah said:
Because examining people's theories informs us how devoted they are to the otherwise discoverable truth.

I see that in a short space of time you've gone from denying that Christopher Bollyn is a real person -- claiming it to be a pen name of "disiniformationists" -- to saying he's an okay chap and we should listen to him even if he has strange beliefs. As others have noted, this change of heart coincides with your inability to hide him any further as your source for the claim regarding Sweden, the Egyptians, and international law. You'll find him just as difficult to whitewash as Björkman.

You're asking us to trust Bollyn's judgment and legal analysis. You're asking us to trust that he has represented the facts correctly. We're showing you the reasons why such trust should not be granted.
Click to expand...

I see nothing wrong with critiquing the Middle East: pro-Israel, pro-Palestine <shrug>. However, to actually believe there is a conspiracy to bombard the Christian world with pornography is just plain bonkers.

I disagree that the issue of the two Egyptians is Bollyn's copyrighted work. He doesn't have ownership of the news. I am not sure what his motive is, an American (?) guy getting involved in the Estonia disaster. I can only imagine it is the neo-fascist strategy of infiltrating various protest groups and inveigling themselves like cuckoo's eggs. For example, there was a lot of ant-vaxxer protesters in London, a vague meeting of disparate groups and individuals, so course, the far right was in there pretending to be one of them, deliberately causing trouble with the police and agitating civil unrest.
 
JayUtah said:
You tried to cite MV Lehti as an independent source for the legal theory that Sweden's deportation of two Egyptians constituted enforced disappearance as defined in the 1998 Rome Statute, and that a court found as much. It is not an independent source, as it cites to Bollyn.

You have insinuated that this theory is well enough known that other sources have reported on it. But you have yet to cite any such sources, "regularly read" or otherwise. And it really does not matter at this point, because you seem to have forgotten that you identified Bollyn as your source. Bollyn is your problem because you made it so.
Click to expand...

I mistook it for an ordinary newspaper because that is what it looks like when you click on it.
 
Vixen said:
Any decision that has been before a court of law is in the public domain (with a few exceptions, such as a Family Court).
Click to expand...

Which is why you should be able to cite a court case that substantiates your claim that a court found against Sweden for enforced disappearance as defined in the 1998 Rome Statute, in the case of the two Egyptian deportees. You have not done so. You cited a finding in a different case arising out of the same facts, which was prosecuted according to the statute that matches the actions Sweden actually performed. You ventured the absurd excuse it was "really" for enforced disappearance, but that there was no suitable statute.

Why do you believe that only Bollyn (in 2012) is the only person who could have known about the two Egyptians?
Click to expand...

Straw man. The pseudo-legal theory that Sweden committed the crime of enforced disappearance in the case of the two Egyptians, as opposed merely to knowing who they were and what their circumstances were, comes first from Bollyn. You specifically cited to the article he wrote that makes that theory.

Your source is Bollyn.
 
Vixen said:
I will obviously avoid [Bollyn] like the plague from now on.
Click to expand...

We would prefer you read and vet your sources before asking others to accept them. So then will you retract the claim that Sweden committed enforced disappearance in the case of the deported Egyptians?
 
While we're in the mood for 'fessing up, I mistook Utö for Swedish territory, having only seen there was an Utö in Sweden and not checked the map. Sorry if I left people wondering WTF I was on about earlier.
 
Vixen said:
I disagree that the issue of the two Egyptians is Bollyn's copyrighted work.
Click to expand...

No one has invoked copyright.

You cited him as the source for the pseudo-legal argument regarding the two Egyptians and enforced disappearance. You have cited other secondary sources that cite to him for the same theory. He is your source for the theory.

If you now agree that he is an unreliable source, will you concede that the enforced disappearance claim has been refuted? If not, can you provide another source for the claim that isn't ultimately Bollyn?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom