Cont: The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

[Here_to_learn]

If you look at the official tables on the Swedish Riksdag site .

I guess I should be happy that you now can spell Riksdag correctly. Next step for you is to check what site you actually are on. Riksarkivet is the Swedish National Archive and is a government agency, it's not the parliament.

Yes, it's only a detail, but it's quite typical for you to mix things up.

 

[Vixen]

Now you have heaped on a new claim - that this Moik person was sacked for saying he saw Piht on a German TV news report.

Can you provide evidence for that one? What job was he dismissed from, what grounds were given by his employer and may we add that employer to the increasingly long list of those who are "in on it"?

Has been referenced before. Should be readily searchable in the thread.

 

[Vixen]

But not the relevant knowledge that allows you to assess this information. You've admitted yourself you're not an expert, so you do not have the ability to fully understand if what he is claiming is correct.

I said I had not claimed to be an expert in response to your blatant lies that I had.

That is not the same as being ignorant.

 

[Vixen]

Then stop deleting inconvenient posts and just admit "Oops, sorry guess this was wrong".

Then take it up with the correct person.

 

[Marras]

No he was not. He continued to work for the Swedish Maritime Administration, as head of research.

And he did not criticize JAIC, he was unhappy that a separate investigation was started to investigate how his department handled earlier reports of failures. That investigation came to the conclusion that his department lacked governance, and failed in investigations and analysis.

He also accused Norske Veritas of taking bribes, and said that they were untrustworthy.

Not only that, his transfer didn't happen on 29 September as Vixen claims.

It happened on 15 March 1995. (https://www.hs.fi/kotimaa/art-2000003416643.html)

According to the linked news report it was on his own initiative, but it also says that Stenmark had complained that he had been made the scapegoat on the Estonia investigation.

 

[JayUtah]

I said I had not claimed to be an expert in response to your blatant lies that I had.

That is not the same as being ignorant.

Are you claiming to be competent enough in the physics of ship stability to know whether or not Anders Björkman's declarations along those lines are sound?

 

[JesseCuster]

Now you have heaped on a new claim - that this Moik person was sacked for saying he saw Piht on a German TV news report.

Can you provide evidence for that one? What job was he dismissed from, what grounds were given by his employer and may we add that employer to the increasingly long list of those who are "in on it"?

Has been referenced before. Should be readily searchable in the thread.

I search this forum for posts by you reference the name "Moik" and the earliest post I could find was on 27th December, where you said the following, after quoting from an interview involving Moik.

Moik was sacked from Estline for giving this interview.

None of the information Jack by the Hedge was looking for is there, no reference, no source, no citation. Just a bare claim with no attempt to give any evidence for it. So the questions about Moik remain unanswered (no surprise):

Can you provide evidence for that one? What job was he dismissed from, what grounds were given by his employer and may we add that employer to the increasingly long list of those who are "in on it"?

 

[Marras]

Has been referenced before. Should be readily searchable in the thread.

The search function on this forum is not that good. You have the details at hand so you can access them faster than the others can search for them.

Meanwhile ...

According to the one biography of Moik that I found with google, he worked as a captain of both Mare Balticum and Regina Baltica, both ships operated by EstLine.

Wikipedia also tells that Mare Balticum was previously known as Regina II so it was that ship that Moik was transferring to when he saw the news report in Rostock.

The biography doesn't tell why he left seas, only that he became a harbour master afterwards.

So, when exactly was he fired from EstLine because of an Estonia interview?

 

[Vixen]

Did you know that one specific person heard the news of Piht's survival from Estonian radio but, as far as I know, never spoke about any Svensson interviews?

The person that I'm speaking of is Sirje Piht, Avo Piht's wife.

According to an article on Estonia conspiracy theories written by YLE, Sirje Piht heard from radio that morning that his husband had survived and that later that day Erich Moik phoned her and told that he had seen Avo Piht on a German TV news report.

If there really was a radio interview of Svensson mentioning Piht, I would expect Sirje Piht to remember that. At least the YLE story doesn't mention that.

The YLE article is at https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-11808310

The relevant parts of the text are:



"Captain Avo Piht's wife Sirje Piht hears from radio morning news that his husband has possibly survived. During afternoon she gets a call from harbour town Rostock in Germany that changes Sirje's life.

A family friend of Pihts, captain Erich Moik calls to Sirje happy news: 'Congratulations, your husband is alive! We are here here receiving a new ship with the crew. We were looking at German news broadcast and saw how your husband walked from an ambulance to a hospital with a blanket on his shoulders.' "

Later in the YLE article Jüri Lember confirms that the phone call happened and said that three men recognized Piht from the newsreel.

The simplest explanation is that the three men who thought they recognized Piht were wrong. They saw someone else who looked like Piht. That's also the reason why no one has been able to find the footage again.

One thing that is certain is that no German news station had time to send their own camera crew to Finland in time to get a news report out the afternoon same day. The German news station has shown footage captured by someone else and presumably other news stations over the world showed the same film.

I went to youtube to see if there's something there. There was the 20:30 main news report by YLE. It's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4Y6MvW9nnU .

Starting at about 1:15 on that video there's a scene where two men who have blankets over their shoulders walk from ambulance to a hospital. I believe this is the footage that the Estonian sailors saw in Rostock and they mistook the first man as Avo Piht.

Not necessarily. Most news corporations have anchors or stringers in all the main cities. You don' t really think they fly out every time there is a far away news story?

There is also

. On October 1, 1994, the Estonian Embassy filed a protest with the Swedish Foreign Ministry over access to information about Estonian passengers. Swedish police had also blocked the Estonian consul from visiting the survivors at Södersjukhus Hospital. 1.10.from. "

On October 16, 1994, Aftonbladet said the only surviving officer was the ship's doctor, Viktor Bogdanov, 42. Crew member Anders Vikner had previously called Bogdanov's wife and assured him, "Viktor has been saved and is here with me." But Viktor never came home and has disappeared into the cadres. Vikner has apologized and claimed to have made a mistake in his turmoil.

Then there's:

It has been assumed that the first mechanic, Lembit Leiger, was originally taken to Huddingen Hospital in Sweden, and Commissioner Stridlund told Leigner's relatives that after hospitalization, Leiger would be sent to Tallinn by plane. When the family arrived to pick up Leiger, he was not on the plane. Since then, Leiger has disappeared into the cadres. Commissioner Stridlund later denied all involvement in Spiegel TV. However, there is a letter that Stridlund has sent to Leiger's relatives through the Swedish Embassy in Tallinn. When the Commissioner was reminded of this, he had appealed to the general confusion / disorder.

And

On 01.10.94 representative of "Estline", Mr. Yrjö Saarinen show a telefax dated from the 28:th of September, where A. Piht born in 1954 is on the list of the rescued.

On 02.10.94 a message from reliable sources tell that from Sweden has arrived a fax to the Ministry of International Affairs telling that among other names of rescued are both A. Piht and A. Targama.

Myös esim. New York Timesin artikkeli tapauksen ajalta kertoo Pihtin selvinneen ja keskustelleen viranomaisten kanssa:

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/01/...ite-bow-door-in-estonian-ferry-s-sinking.html

And

Leiger’s wife, Kairi, received a call from a relative in Sweden who told her that a Swedish police superintendent named H Strindlund had called to inform them that her husband had survived. Lembit Leiger had reportedly been treated in Stockholm’s Huddinge Hospital and been released on September 29, 24 hours after having been admitted.
The next day, Mrs Leiger spoke to Strindlund herself. Strindlund informed her of the flight details for the plane on which Leiger would be returning to Tallinn – but he never came home.

The persons listed as survivors and later removed from the list are;

• Navigation Officer Kaimar Kikas and Engineer Agur Targama were both IV:th officers that should be at duty after midnight.
• They were all Estonian.
• Lembit Leiger, Chief Engineer; Tiina Müür, Staff; Hannely Veide and her sister Hanka-Hannika; cruise ship entertainers, all disappeared after being located in Swedish hospitals.
• Lembit Leiger, Viktor Bogdanov, Chief Doctor; Hannely Veide and her sister Hanka-Hannika had all been confirmed rescued and alive by the Swedish police. [It is claimed.]

 

[Vixen]

The JAIC report was in to the sinking. Do you think they weren't aware that it was flooding?


The bloody ship was sinking, taking in large Volumes of water, it was taking on a list to starboard that couldn't be corrected as the ballast tanks were already full in an attempt to correct bad cargo loading, of course there was something badly wrong.

You can shout it was 'bleedin' obvious' as much as you like. However, it was the JAIC's responsibility to draw up a time line. If the flooding in the engine control room was much earlier than the bow visor falling off, then that is salient.

 

[Vixen]

You only deleted it after it was pointed out that there is no evidence for the claim at all.

Incorrect. I didn't see your response until after I had updated my post with the edit.

However, my apologies if it was the case yours was a genuine response in good faith.

I was a bit cross as in the past I have had detractors reproducing something I had edited some hours later, and one, as much as half a day later, with some obvious glee that he or she had done so.

So, sorry if that is not what you were doing.

 

[zooterkin]

Then take it up with the correct person.

That would be you.

 

[Vixen]

Thanks very much for that.

The amount of Californium actually involved appears to be several orders of magnitude less than, for example, the specks of Americium in the couple of domestic smoke detectors in my home. In the context of this thread it also very helpfully illustrates the point that initial reports can be very significantly mistaken.

I do still wonder about Vixen's source* though; it's a safe bet it wasn't from the horse's mouth so to speak.

*Pun? What pun?

<phew!> Only $900K and not $1m - $3m.

So that's all right, then.

 

[zooterkin]

I was a bit cross as in the past I have had detractors reproducing something I had edited some hours later, and one, as much as half a day later, with some obvious glee that he or she had done so.

Simply not possible on this site, unless it's a member of the mod team, in which case it would be an abuse of privilege.

 

[Vixen]

No, the proper name was Hämeentie. Every contemporary text that I've been able to find it uses that name. I have linked quite a few newspapers that use that name to you already.

And I agree, if someone used Härkätie in a Turun Sanomat article I should have found it with my search. But I didn't. There are two possibilities why that happened: either OCR has messed up the news article so badly that the fuzzy search that digi.kansalliskirjasto didn't find it, or the article doesn't exist.

I tried to control the first possibility by searching also for 'maantie', 'murha', 'ruumis', and 'tapettu' and those didn't bring up matches that would have had 'Härkätie' nearby.



And the road was called Hämeentie by 1850s the latest because printed Finnish sources of that decade use the name. It is quite likely that it had been Hämeentie for a long long time before that, because all official written sources use the Swedish form of that name throughout the whole recorded history.



The digi.kansalliskirjasto contains all issues.

By the way, I believe that the article that you photocopied was the one that you mentioned earlier on this thread. Because that one was from Turun Sanomat and it contains mentions of people being murdered on roads. It doesn't say anything about Härkätie though, and I believe that you remember the article incorrectly.




Read what I write, not what you think I write.

I have said that it possible that the article exists. Not that it is impossible. I do think that the better explanation is that you remember wrong, though.

Did you not understand my post wherein I stated that I know the history and you apparently do not. I think you have simply looked at a random textbook, characteristically light on detail, whereas I know about it in depth and intricately.

 

[Vixen]

I'm neither insecure nor afraid. I'm the one qualified to make judgments in these matters that others would consider binding. You're the one floundering through topics you barely grasp.



I'm quite used to interacting with conspiracy theorists, and have even been on U.K. television responding to them. I've been debunking conspiracy theories that fall within my area of expertise for well over twenty years now. I'm quite competent to observe how conspiracy theorists work. My objection to your methods and conclusions has nothing to do with whether it's "OK with the masses." It has everything to do with whether your conclusions are consistent with the facts. We can't even get you to draw a conclusion that's consistent with itself, much less with fact.

You haven't "come to [your] own conclusions." You've simply adopted the conclusions of Björkman, Wilson, estoniaferrydisaster.net, and others, and are borrowing their scholarship (insofar as that word applies) to make yourself look smart and well-read. This is why your critics very soon find out that while you give us citations to putatively primary sources, you don't actually display any knowledge or facility with those sources. From my experience, that's when the conspiracy theorist is cribbing footnotes from other, unnamed sources in order to convey the illusion that she is coming to these conclusions independently from original material.

Nice try with the gaslighting, though.

That might be your problem, that of the logical fallacy of the 'sweeping generalisation'. Because it is your field of expertise to expose conspiracy theorists, you see them everywhere, even when they are not.

 

[Vixen]

No, you can't just wave your hands vaguely at Archimedes and Newton and say that on that basis Anders Björkman's claims must be correct and that you know they are correct.

You tried to demonstrate your own knowledge of ship stability, using a video you found on YouTube, and you failed badly. You couldn't even restate the principles taught in the video in your own words without making an amusing hash of it. You couldn't answer any questions that would have required you to extend your understanding of the material to new situations. You were a poor student.

No, Björkman's claims don't follow inexorably from the great physicists of the past, and you are not competent either in their work or his. No, Björkman's claims are not self-evidently true.

I did not say they were self-evidently true. I can spot which ones are and which ones are not.

 

[zooterkin]

Did you not understand my post wherein I stated that I know the history and you apparently do not. I think you have simply looked at a random textbook, characteristically light on detail, whereas I know about it in depth and intricately.

 

[Vixen]

Then it's not reasonable to expect you to remember the point accurately.



This is not what is in dispute. We know the Egyptians were flown from Sweden to Egypt on an airplane that was later linked with other activities attributable to the CIA. There are proceedings in the ECHR that enter the relevant facts into the record. We don't need to look to journalists to substantiate that.

The question is not how the Egyptians were transported, or on what aircraft, but whether Sweden's treatment of them amounted to "enforced disappearance" under the Rome Statute or any other relevant law. If Anér is your new source for that claim then you're on the hook to provide a verifiable citation to it.

Here we go:

Sven Anér wrote the following letter:

Correspondence 6 June 2001

Embassy of Finland, Stockholm.

Polis Authority at Turku. Commissaire Veikko Koiranen (or deputy)

The following documents are referred to:

A (List 12 above). According my info this list of survivors from the Estonia, dated 28.9 94 at 11.50 hrs, has been handed over by Mr. Eino Selirand of the Finnish embassy at Tallinn to the Port Authority of Tallinn.

B (List 11 above). According notes on the document this list has before 13.25 hrs on 28.9 94 been handed over by Mr Tönu Karu of the Tallinn City Hall to the Baltic News Service at Tallinn. The list names "The first rescued persons known are:"

Two names are on both lists:

Tiina Müür and Avo Piht.

Checking the Turku police lists of surviviors of the same day at 20.00 hrs, stamped and signed by Veikko Koiranen, these two names are missing.

My question is: How come that both names disappear during the day of the 28 september 1994, from the lists of the Turku police, in spite of the fact that they are listed on two earlier, official lists originating from the port of Tallinn, the Finnish embassy at Tallinn, the Tallin City Hall and the Baltic News Service?

These two persons, Müür and Piht, have not been found dead or drowned. What evidence that they had not survived did the Turku police receive on the 28 September 1994? Did the Turku police check with the port of Tallinn, the Finnish embassy at Tallinn, the Tallinn City Hall and the Baltic News Service and did you find that all four were mistaken?

I can very well understand that persons from the Estonia are first declared dead and later are found to have survived, but it is very difficult to understand the opposite event, thus that persons are first declared to have been rescued and thereafter are declared to be dead, without finding the bodies.

I look forward to a reply, friendly regards

Sven Anér

 

[JayUtah]

That might be your problem, that of the logical fallacy of the 'sweeping generalisation'.

The fallacy of sweeping generalization is committed when a general rule is misapplied. There is a general rule that conspiracy theorists can be recognized by certain behaviors. We have discussed many of them in this thread. You are being categorized as a conspiracy theorist because you exhibit the requisite behaviors, and evidence of such has been provided. You have been unable to convince anyone that the categorization is incorrect.

Because it is your field of expertise to expose conspiracy theorists...

Straw man. My field of expertise is science and engineering. Some, but not all, conspiracy theories deal with science and engineering. I expose conspiracy theories not because my field of expertise requires me to do so, but because it provides me with the tools to do so in limited cases.

What was that you were saying about a sweeping generalization?

...you see them everywhere, even when they are not.

Straw man. I don't see them everywhere. I seen them in a skeptics forum posting conspiracy theories in a section of the forum devoted to debating such theories.

So kindly stop gaslighting and provide honest citations to sources you've actually read yourself, not those referred to in books and web sites you've gleaned your arguments from.