• 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:
I have not hitched my horse to any cart.
Click to expand...

You have clearly done so in Björkman's case because you have cited to him on several occasions, some of them recently. If you now propose to unhitch your horse from Björkman, will you now concede he is an unreliable witness on the subject of science and engineering? Will you stop using his material, cited or uncited? Can this finally be decided once and for all?

As I've mentioned several times, this thread is lengthy largely because we must have this same discussion over and over again. You disavow a source, and then just days later you're hitched back up to it as if nothing had ever happened. I tend to agree with Mark Corrigan. I see no evidence you plan to stop using Björkman as a source. It seems your plan is simply not to give a citation to him, but to continue using his material uncredited in the hopes that no one will be able to recognize where it's coming from.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
From JAIC:

"Q 97 (Super Puma)

The Swedish stand-by helicopter Q 97 took off from Visby at 0250 hrs, arriving at the scene of the accident at 0350 hrs. The OSC requested the helicopter to pick up as many people as possible from the sea.

On its first flight Q 97 rescued six survivors from the keels of two upside-down lifeboats. As instructed by the OSC, Q 97 flew them to Utö, where it landed at 0500 hrs. During the stop the crew called ARCC Arlanda, informing about the situation at the scene and asking for as many helicopters as possible." 7.5.5


This was the first 'urgent' helicopter to arrive according to JAIC.
Click to expand...

Right. And why should we take your inference of what your source's claim about what a newspaper said about what two helicopter crew said over that?
 
Vixen said:
...
This underlines my belief there was a helicopter on the scene, having left just after 0200 (EET) within the standard 15-minute time frame, and as there was no OSC as of that time, it simply took the persons it rescued to Huddinge.
Click to expand...

I just checked the report again and MRCC Turku designated the master of the Silja Europa to be OSC at 02:05.

Even if some undocumented flight had existed which took off from Sweden "just after 02:00" there was no possibility of this helicopter arriving at the location of the sinking before there was an appointed OSC.
 
Also Vixen, you've still not provided a real world example of a disinformation agent pretending to hold a specific view in order to link it to extremism. You claimed it happens, so provide evidence.
 
Mojo said:
You said you mistook it for MTV.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

The two quotes in question are...
Vixen said:
the MV Lehti article (which I actually mistook for MTV)
Click to expand...
Why on earth would anyone get their news from MTV anyway?

Vixen said:
I mistook it for an ordinary newspaper because that is what it looks like when you click on it.
Click to expand...
"Looks like" does not mean "is". Surely a genius like you can work that out, right?

In any event, you have suffered another blow to your credibility, Vixen.

What's next? You mistook MV Lehti for the Lord of the Rings?
 
JayUtah said:
You have clearly done so in Björkman's case because you have cited to him on several occasions, some of them recently. If you now propose to unhitch your horse from Björkman, will you now concede he is an unreliable witness on the subject of science and engineering? Will you stop using his material, cited or uncited? Can this finally be decided once and for all?

As I've mentioned several times, this thread is lengthy largely because we must have this same discussion over and over again. You disavow a source, and then just days later you're hitched back up to it as if nothing had ever happened. I tend to agree with Mark Corrigan. I see no evidence you plan to stop using Björkman as a source. It seems your plan is simply not to give a citation to him, but to continue using his material uncredited in the hopes that no one will be able to recognize where it's coming from.
Click to expand...

You have mentioned the 'B' name SEVEN times within the last page. You are fixated by someone who doesn't even register on my radar.
 
Vixen said:
You have mentioned the 'B' name SEVEN times within the last page. You are fixated by someone who doesn't even register on my radar.
Click to expand...

Except you have attempted, regularly, to use him as an authority on naval architecture and buoyancy, so that's also a lie.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Also Vixen, you've still not provided a real world example of a disinformation agent pretending to hold a specific view in order to link it to extremism. You claimed it happens, so provide evidence.
Click to expand...

If you had studied Eastern Europe as you claim in International Relations, you would know that this was a typical Russian activity, intelligence agencies manipulating the public.

One such example is MI5 setting up Combat-18.
 
Vixen said:
If you had studied Eastern Europe as you claim in International Relations, you would know that this was a typical Russian activity, intelligence agencies manipulating the public.

One such example is MI5 setting up Combat-18.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but what?

That's just all nonsense. Provide evidence of Russian intelligence agencies pretending to support something in order to associate it with extremism. You still seem to think you can vaguely allude to things and be taken seriously. Provide examples.

Secondly not only would the hilighted NOT be an example of what you claimed and what I'm asking you for, but it's not even true! Combat 18 was formed by the BNP in order to provide protection details for it's events from anti0fascist groups.

Where on earth did you get the insane idea that MI5 founded it?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
You have mentioned the 'B' name SEVEN times within the last page. You are fixated by someone who doesn't even register on my radar.
Click to expand...

False. You have cited him multiple times as an expert in marine engineering. You continue to use him as an uncredited source. Not only is he "on your radar," you have based large portions of your presentation here on what he says.

In the wake of your recent acknowledgement that you are not careful in how you choose your sources, and your recent resolve to be more careful, it seems prudent to revisit your reliance on a witness we know far better than you, and whom you seem utterly incapable of forsaking.

If you believe he is not "on your radar," you should have no problem conceding that he is not a recognized expert in any sort of science or engineering, and abiding by a promise never to use his material again, credited or uncredited. Will you do that? Or are we going to have to revisit this again in two weeks or so when you sneak back to his material?
 
Vixen said:
Where does it say that?

Was that before or after:

"At one point the rescue man had to be brought up be- cause his flippers had been torn off by the waves."
Click to expand...

It's from here:

https://onse.fi/estonia/chapt17_1.html#6

"At about 0630 hrs the helicopter fuel supply at Utö ran out. After this, the helicopters flew the survivors and the deceased to Hanko or Nauvo, where refuelling took place. The fuel supply at Hanko, in turn, ran out at about 1000 hrs, and five helicopters had to wait for half an hour for a new supply."

Your quotation about the rescue man's flippers is from what the report says about the actions of helicopter Y74. Since it is a quote from a paragraph whose immediately preceding sentence is "At 0715 hrs Y 74 found a raft with three survivors, who were winched up into the helicopter" I suggest the flipper incident was soon after 07:15.

I think you can probably work out whether 06:30 is before or after 07:15.


Actually, your quote is not quite the same as mine: My copy/paste says "because" where your copy/paste says "be- cause". I infer that you are quoting from a secondary source and not the report itself. Perhaps that explains why you didn't know what time the flipper incident happened even though it says so right in the same paragraph.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
You have mentioned the 'B' name SEVEN times within the last page. You are fixated by someone who doesn't even register on my radar.
Click to expand...

Then why have you repeatedly used his crackpot ideas about Archimedes' principle/buoyancy/the inevitability of turtling etc. so relentlessly over many weeks? You linked to his work. He is/was very much 'on your radar'.

Why lie so brazenly when your words are here in black+white for all to see?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Sources please for what Olsson and Svensson allegedly said. What time did any Swedish helicopter get alerted and by whom?
Click to expand...

First Swedish helicopter alerted was the Standby RAS helicopter Q97 at Visby. It was a Super Puma. It was on one hour standby. It was alerted at 02:07 by ARCC Arlanda. It was in the air at 02:50 and was on scene at 03:50. It rescued 15 survivors.
On its first flight Q 97 rescued six survivors from the keels of two upside-down lifeboats. As instructed by the OSC, Q 97 flew them to Utö, where it landed at 0500 hrs. During the stop the crew called ARCC Arlanda, informing about the situation at the scene and asking for as many helicopters as possible.
After refuelling, Q 97 returned at 0540 hrs to the scene and rescued nine survivors, five from a liferaft and four from the water. They were in very poor condition. The pilot decided to take them directly to Hanko on the mainland. Q 97 landed at a sports field in Hanko at 0735 hrs, and local residents quickly summoned ambulances to the field. The crew was advised to fly to the Hanko coast guard station landing field, where they could refuel.
Q 97 took off from Hanko for the accident scene at 0810 hrs and returned to Hanko at 1050 hrs. After refuelling Q 97 returned to its base and finished the mission at 1615 hrs.

Notice that the pilot made the decision to fly to Hanko, I suppose he should have been castigated for not following the OSC commands.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom