• 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.
junkshop said:
A minor quibble in the grand scheme of things, but Stenmark was not "waterways transport minister".

ETA: ninja'd by Here to learn
Click to expand...

Not a minor quibble, his status as a minister is being used to add importance to anything he said.
 
Vixen said:
The fire watch man, Silve Linde claims he was on the car deck by the bow when he as almost knocked to his feet by a loud bang and an enormous pitch. In his initial interview with a newspaper, DN I believe, he never mentioned seeing water, just hearing a bang, and during the course of his seven interviews - changing his story all the time - the lound bang became a tiny noise that could only be heard from about five metres away of the bow visor and that he had gone to the information desk on Deck 5 to ask the lady to unlock the car deck (which was locked during the journey) when let's face it, he already had access and was probably going to ask her to announce an alarm.

He was in a life raft even before Ainsalu got his Mayday out. Hopw do we know? Because he claims he looked at his watch.

Truth is, there never was any great amount of water on the car deck that was not normal for that vessel in rainy weather, since the bow visor leaked.

Linde, True, Sillaste and Kadak got out because they knew the lower deck was being flooded.


The story the JAIC and the shipping company wanted to stick to (who had an interest on the JAIC) was the bow visor being the prime site of the accident, with everything else shipshape and Bristol fashion.
Click to expand...

How many of these alleged seven interviews have you read? How much of what you describe of them is your usual unreliable hyperbole? How do you know what he needed to do to get access to the locked car deck? Why should we accept your wild assumption that he decided the best thing to do was to tell the information desk to raise an alarm when there's no reason to believe that happened?

The fact is that if the bang he heard was indeed one of the locks breaking, it's no surprise that there wasn't water flooding the car deck at that point.
 
Vixen said:
How do you know 'he was never interviewed'? He was at Turku Hospitial, where the three prime ministers met to interview Sillaste (who was seen in handcuffs).

The press and the government never withdrew their earlier claims he was alive.
Click to expand...

How do you know he was ever at Turku hospital?

Earlier you told us he probably travelled to Turku Hospital with the three prime ministers. So it seems you think all three countries are "in on it".
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Germany too it seems.
Click to expand...

And the CIA obviously; that's a given. Presumably the Israelis as they'd want to know what became of their super secret Soviet shopping list. And the Russians; they somehow know exactly what happened even if they're not in on it. And the British because they suspiciously went along with signing that agreement to leave the wreck undisturbed.

There's hardly anyone left who's not in on it.
 
Vixen said:
According to Hesari, he was:

HS 1.10.1994
Click to expand...

Let's look at that snipped again: "Captain Pihti has been questioned by the Estonia Crash Investigation Commission, Bengt Erik Stenmark, head of security at the Swedish Maritime Government, said on Friday. However, the investigatory panel on Friday disputed Stenmark's information."

(There may have been some autocorrect accident with Piht's name as "pihti" is a Finnish word).

So, according to that snippet Stenmark told that the commission had interrogated Piht. And the second sentence says that the commission themselves say that they have never done that.

In a longer context that article does not say that Piht is alive. Even the header reads: "There are many different versions of captain Piht's fate".

In summary, the first paragraph states that Swedish and Danish newspapers have reported on 30 September that Piht has vanished from a hospital in Helsinki and that they claim to have gotten the information from Helsinki Police. The official survivor lists don't have Piht so according to them he is dead.

Then comes the paragraph that Vixen quoted above.

The third paragraph states that Helsinki criminal police has talked to survivors that were brought to Helsinki on ships. Pauli Kokko from police states that he can't remember any Piht from the group but that they had time to talk only to about half of the approximately 40 survivors.

The fourth paragraph says that identifying the dead is a job of Turku police. The chief of the western area criminal police Kurt Alopaeus tells that the last reliable observation of Piht was round midnight before the accident on the bridge of Estonia.

In the final paragraph Alopaeus tells that they have tried to check all information about Piht but that they haven't been able to confirm that he is alive but that they can't be certain that he is dead.
 
Marras said:
Let's look at that snipped again: "Captain Pihti has been questioned by the Estonia Crash Investigation Commission, Bengt Erik Stenmark, head of security at the Swedish Maritime Government, said on Friday. However, the investigatory panel on Friday disputed Stenmark's information."

(There may have been some autocorrect accident with Piht's name as "pihti" is a Finnish word).

So, according to that snippet Stenmark told that the commission had interrogated Piht. And the second sentence says that the commission themselves say that they have never done that.

In a longer context that article does not say that Piht is alive. Even the header reads: "There are many different versions of captain Piht's fate".

In summary, the first paragraph states that Swedish and Danish newspapers have reported on 30 September that Piht has vanished from a hospital in Helsinki and that they claim to have gotten the information from Helsinki Police. The official survivor lists don't have Piht so according to them he is dead.

Then comes the paragraph that Vixen quoted above.

The third paragraph states that Helsinki criminal police has talked to survivors that were brought to Helsinki on ships. Pauli Kokko from police states that he can't remember any Piht from the group but that they had time to talk only to about half of the approximately 40 survivors.

The fourth paragraph says that identifying the dead is a job of Turku police. The chief of the western area criminal police Kurt Alopaeus tells that the last reliable observation of Piht was round midnight before the accident on the bridge of Estonia.

In the final paragraph Alopaeus tells that they have tried to check all information about Piht but that they haven't been able to confirm that he is alive but that they can't be certain that he is dead.
Click to expand...

Well creative interpretation in favor of her own conspiracy flavor of the week is not exactly uncommon with our intrepid reporter of referenced, linked and confirmed facts.
 
Steve said:
Well creative interpretation in favor of her own conspiracy flavor of the week is not exactly uncommon with our intrepid reporter of referenced, linked and confirmed facts.
Click to expand...


And she still appears manifestly unable to figure out (far less accept) that a clamorous media, in the immediate aftermath of a disaster such as this - when all sorts of rumours and counter-rumours are swirling around, where fact and supposition get irredeemably intermingled, where media sources are vying with each other to get consumers' attention with the most "insightful" and sensational reportage - can and do make serious mistakes or misinterpretations.

This whole "It said XYZ in a Finnish newspaper the day after the disaster, so I'm entitled to use XYZ as a reliable datum point" schtick is way, way past its sell-by date now.
 
LondonJohn said:
And she still appears manifestly unable to figure out (far less accept) that a clamorous media, in the immediate aftermath of a disaster such as this - when all sorts of rumours and counter-rumours are swirling around, where fact and supposition get irredeemably intermingled, where media sources are vying with each other to get consumers' attention with the most "insightful" and sensational reportage - can and do make serious mistakes or misinterpretations.

This whole "It said XYZ in a Finnish newspaper the day after the disaster, so I'm entitled to use XYZ as a reliable datum point" schtick is way, way past its sell-by date now.
Click to expand...

One thing that is almost impressive is the obsession with ferreting out from the thousands upon thousands of printed words these obscure little nuggets in order to misinterpret them.
 
Steve said:
One thing that is almost impressive is the obsession with ferreting out from the thousands upon thousands of printed words these obscure little nuggets in order to misinterpret them.
Click to expand...


The obvious poster-boy for media getting things stunningly wrong in a "fog of war" or "rushing to get the scoop" scenario is, of course, the "Dewey defeats Truman" headline in the Chicago Tribune re the 1948 US Pres Election result.

More recently: around an hour after the first aircraft hit the WTC on 9/11*, the on-air anchor for Sky News in the UK (which generally has a pretty decent reputation for reliability and moderate reporting/editorial) declared "The entire eastern seaboard of the United States is under attack".

And, closer to home (wrt this forum....), when Amanda Knox (and Sollecito) stunningly won their appeals in the Italian Supreme Court in 2015, someone at the ever-***** Daily Mail pressed the wrong button and uploaded to their website not only the polar opposite outcome (that their convictions had been upheld), but included wholly-invented details such as Knox breaking down and prosecutors expressing their satisfaction.


* 9/11 is a fairly useful comparator to the Estonia disaster in terms of the media dynamics, the confusing (and often contradictory) nature of information and rumour, and the mistakes/falsehoods/misinterpretations that were reported in the mainstream media in the immediately-ensuing days. I'm highly confident that were I a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, I could easily cobble together a patchwork of early-days media reports - including reports from respectable outlets - which could be used to contradict the subsequent findings of the official inquiry (including findings of fact) and to support my CT of choice...
 
Vixen said:
That is a rather childish argument. Bollyn just happen to be a random quote from the internet in response to a poster. I believe it was from MV, which I had mistaken for MTV (a rather popular tv channel here with interminably long commercial breaks).
Click to expand...


What was your source for the claim that the Swedish government disappeared the two Egyptians, and that this was confirmed to have happened by court decisions (you initially specified the ECHR)?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Neither of them reflect my own views.
Click to expand...

Citing them as the source of claims you wish to repeat for your own benefit makes at least some of their views your views. That's the vital concept behind the practice of citing authority.

The argument is not that you quoted a noted anti-Semite on a point of alleged law and history, therefore you too must be an anti-Semite. The argument is that because his particular brand of anti-Semitism has little basis in fact, the other declarative statements he has made -- for which he is the only source -- are also suspect. And in this case, they are facially incorrect; we can determine for ourselves what laws Sweden broke in the case of the deported Egyptians.

The argument that you quoted a self-proclaimed naval architect on a point of physical law is more straightforward. Anders Björkman cannot demonstrate a competent knowledge of physics, including ships. That he takes that incompetence into deeply felt historical issues such as 9/11 is not the point.

Stop trying to force other people's ideologies onto me.
Click to expand...

It's not about "ideologies." It's about whether they are reliable reporters of fact. You're being presented with evidence that they are not. Trying to make all that seem irrelevant or uninteresting does not address the problem. You need to get past the straw man that your sources are being rejected for their "ideology." They're being rejected because they demonstrate to be distant from verifiable truth in exactly the way your argument requires them to be truthful.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Bollyn just happen to be a random quote from the internet in response to a poster.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. You were shown evidence that you had paid careful attention to the article.

I believe it was from MV, which I had mistaken for MTV (a rather popular tv channel here with interminably long commercial breaks).
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. MV cites to Bollyn. They are not Bollyn's source, nor yours, nor the originator of the idea.
 
Steve said:
One thing that is almost impressive is the obsession with ferreting out from the thousands upon thousands of printed words these obscure little nuggets in order to misinterpret them.
Click to expand...

I believe it more likely that a secondary source is doing this for her. There are enough MS Estonia conspiracy theorists that all this distortionary legwork has probably already been done. I think she's repeating the interpretation fed to her by a secondary source and copying the footnote that source provides in order to convey the illusion that she's quoting primary sources.
 
Vixen said:
Neither of them reflect my own views.
Click to expand...

When it comes to the question of whether Sweden has form for committing enforced disappearance, Bollyn's views *are* your own views, as respresented in this thread. You have repeated his talking point uncritically in spite of being unable to establish any other basis for it, and in spite of being shown the flaws in it.

And remember, this was *after* you first tried to insinuate that he was a Russian disinformation agent. Why would you rely solely on a source you yourself initially believed (or at least pretended to believe) to be Russian disinformation agent?

Stop trying to force other people's ideologies onto me.
Click to expand...

Using Bollyn was your choice. If you don't like being criticized for that, stop using him as a source.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What is your evidence for this?

Suella Braverman workers revolutionary party doesn't produce any results when I search for it.
Click to expand...

Presumably she was a member uring during her student days, you know, the same time she was Chair of the Cambridge University Conservative Association. The two groups are clearly highly complimentary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom