Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
That isn't even remotely supportive. He used the word "disappear" in its ordinary sense, not in the sense of enforced disappearance such as is a crime under the Rome Statute. Names disappearing from a list is not the same as people disappearing at the hands of government.
Nor is it what I asked for. Are you abandoning the claim that Sweden committed enforced disappearance on two Egyptians, as claimed by Bollyn? Is that claim now irrelevant?
My sources are eclectic. I do my own research. I will go to a central library or national archives and dig out original documents, some never looked at by others since they were deposited. Why? Because I am nosy and I enjoy the Eureka! moments.
For the purposes of this forum, I'll cite links that the reader can look up for themselves and either reject or accept them. Nobody is forced to accept anything. We can all make up our own minds. There is nothing to fear.
Agreed. Certain English colloquialisms such as a person being "disappeared" or "suicided" -- verbs contrived from past participles -- cannot be expected to have direct analogues in other languages. To attribute the idea to Anér would require access to his original Swedish writing and and services of a competent translator to verify that the English rendition is suitably equivalent.
You clearly don't. You've been caught many times cribbing from secondary and tertiary sources. And you cannot discuss the material beyond what those sources offer.
For the purposes of this forum, I'll cite links that the reader can look up for themselves and either reject or accept them.
The first step in making up our minds to accept or reject something is to see the source of the information and assess its reliability -- something you seem particularly inept at doing.
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.
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?
Of course it's not. That thing that Vixen wrote and then deleted? - she never wrote it. If she had it would still be there for all to see. If you cannot find it, it never existed so someone else must be at fault.
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.
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"?
The Owners of the 'Estonia' can hide Captain Piht (Eesti Päevaleht 990917)
Enno Tammer (T) talks to captain Erich Moik (M)
...
(T) You are an experienced seaman - how probable do you consider the three official causes of the accident of the JAIC: design fault, heavy weather and high speed?
(M) ... In what order to consider them ... I cannot say ... but there may have been a fourth ...
(T) Exactly, I am trying to convince the JAIC that there was a fourth cause.
(M) Yes, there may be a fourth. I cannot prove it today, but I recall that also the Germans from the shipyard always have pointed at the technical maintenance of the ship.
(T) Which is the responsibility of the owners. ... in the case of the 'Estonia'?
(M) To be clear it was mainly Nordström & Thulin'. Why do I think about the technical maintenance ... ? You see, the questions start with two persons. They are captain Avo Piht and chief engineer Lembit Leiger. I put the question: For whom was it necessary that these two persons must disappear?
(T) If you put such a question, then you assume that they were rescued.
(M) I am 101% convinced that Piht was rescued. I am also 101% certain that Leiger was at the Huddinge hospital at Stockholm. There are too many indirect signs confirming this conviction. So I am convinced that these two men were rescued.
(
T) But it was necessary to remove them, as they knew too much?
(M) There were two pairs - captain Arvo Andresson and chief engineer Harli Moosaar, and captain Piht and chief engineer Lembit Leiger. Chief engineer Moosaar was a very nice person, but when I compare him with the other chief engineers, he was down on the list. He was very humble, did not try to solve the problems and did not try to fight. With him everything was superficial - the main thing was that it looked nice and proper. With captain Andresson you can say he carried a certain style from the Soviet time. Then the master was on the bridge as a representative figure, while the real commanders were the party and security bosses aboard. The Swedes were not afraid of Andresson and Moosaar. But both Leiger and Piht, as actually happened, were in big conflicts with the Swedes.
Edited by Agatha:
Trimmed for rule 4. Please limit copypasta to one or two paragraohs and provide a link. Spoiler tags do not obviate rule 4.
After such a frank interview captain Moik was dismissed from Estline.
JAIC had a conflict of interest IMV as they had people close to Estline and their shipping industry sitting on the JAIC and were VERY sensitive to any criticism of the Estonian crew.
Agreed. However, I'm told by non-native English speakers that English relies heavily on vernacular, idiom, and slang that don't translate well. Saying "Sweden disappeared the sailors" is not standard English, which is why "disappeared" in this usage often comes with cautionary inverted commas.
You've produced a letter in which your source uses "disappear" in its ordinary sense, not in this special sense.
Very strange choice of words since the Parliament (Riksdagen) is not part of the government (Regeringen). Why make up your own name (that is wrong) when you can use the correct one that is clearly spelled out in the domain name and on the site?
What's your evidence for that? You just posted the interview and then claimed he was dismissed afterward, but you've provided no evidence that he was fired afterward or that interview was the reason he was fired.
You copied and pasted that interview from Anders Bjorkman's website, and Bjorkman doesn't provide a reference for the dismissal or the reason for the dismissal, which is why you can't provide that evidence either, because you're just copying from his website.
You even copied and pasted the above quote, as if it was your own words, you just removed a couple of words, but it's Bjorkman who actually said that exact thing on his website:
Heiwaco said:
After (or before?) such a frank interview captain Moik was dismissed from Estline.
You've declared that Anders Björkman's statements on ship stability and flotation are sound. When asked how you know they're sound, you've given conflicting and unsatisfying answers.
You're proffering expert authority, so the argument that the soundness of the claims is self-evident or is straightforward doesn't work. Expert authority is only relevant if the evidence is not known to be correct on its face or readily discernible to the lay person.
You've alluded to foundational physicists such as Archimedes and Newton, but you've only mentioned their names. You haven't said how their pioneering work somehow results in an endorsement of Björkman.
Most telling, you've attempted to describe yourself the principles of ship stability, referring to a YouTube video that laid out some of the basic concepts of roll stability. You were not successful. You confused elementary concepts such as points and vectors. I asked you to work a problem given a change in the concepts you were present, a common thing to do to test students' apprehension of new material. You demurred. The evidence before us is conclusive enough that you are not competent to judge the soundness of Björkman's assertions on your own.
So please tell us by what means you can know that his claims are sound.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
