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

[Andy_Ross]

The poster asked for the interview with Moik and Mörd. I provided it.

Did I hear a please.

Do I hear a thank you.

No, the poster asked you to support the claim he was sacked for giving the interview.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It is a simple transcript of Moik's interview which you can find in any Estonian newspaper.

Do you have a link to one?

 

[JesseCuster]

There are plenty of references in the press to these news stories. Your claim that Bjorkman made them up himself is ludicrous.

Liar.

I never said that. Quote my post where I said that or retract it.

 

[abaddon]

Vixen's claim was not that he was dismissed for accusing his employer of very serious crimes. She claimed he was dismissed for saying he had seen Piht on TV.

Citation please.

Sure.

The guy who recognised him on TV in Rostock was Captain Moik. He was sacked for saying so in an interview.

I've instantly recognised people on TV and people have recognised me from a two or three second clip of an audience or sports event crowd.

You made that exact claim multiple times.

 

[JesseCuster]

It is a simple transcript of Moik's interview which you can find in any Estonian newspaper.

You weren’t asked for the interview, you were asked for evidence that Moik was fired because of the interview, specifically because he said he recognized Piht on TV.

You’ve been asked this repeatedly and have repeatedly failed to answer it.

 

[JesseCuster]

Yes, that's the same vague reference Bjorkman gives for the interview, no date or any other details.

Which is why that's all you know about where the interview came from.

This is by the by, your claim is that Moik was dismissed from his job because of that interview and you've provided exactly zero evidence for this claim.

Can you provide evidence that Moik was dismissed from his job because of that interview or are you going to squirm your way again out of answer a simple question?

What's your evidence that Erich Moik was dismissed because of an interview he gave?

Citation please of what you are referring to. And don't forget the context.

Jesus wept. You said yesterday that Moik was fired because he said in an interview that he saw Piht on TV. Can't you go back a couple of pages and find your own damn posts or even remember what you've claimed? You need others to find you questions and cite them for you before you'll answer them?

Anyway, here you go:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13709183&postcount=1025

The guy who recognised him on TV in Rostock was Captain Moik. He was sacked for saying so in an interview.

Now answer the question. What's your evidence that Erich Moik was sacked from his job because he said during an interview that he saw Piht on TV.

 

[JesseCuster]

Vixen, you're wrong when you say that Moik claimed to see Piht on TV. In the very transcript that you copied and pasted here, Moik says that his crewmembers saw Piht on TV, he never says himself that he saw Piht on TV.

This is why no-one trusts you when you claim things. Whether it's deliberate or not I don't know, but you can't even report what's written plainly in an interview that you are using as evidence.

 

[JesseCuster]

I'm going to assume (maybe I'm wrong) that the original letter was in Swedish and your text was a translation.

Your text, including the title text "Correspondence 6 June 2001" is identical to that on Bjorkman's website, and searching Google for some exact phrases from the letter, the only result is Bjorkman's webpage.

If you didn't get it from Bjorkman's website, then where did you get it?

I bet you can't provide a reference and will try and squirm your way out of answering the question, because the answer is obvious, you copied it from Bjorkman's website.

Try here.

There you go again, posting links that have nothing to do with the question being asked.

I was asking you about Sven Aner's letter and you post a link to an article about Moik talking about Piht?

 

[zooterkin]

Er, actually I changed it because it wasn't WRP it s/have read RCP. Any objections?

And again, in English?

 

[JesseCuster]

Start a thread on dangerous goods smuggling if you are genuinely interested in this issue. Not being funny but you seem more interested in quarelling than debating. Picking on random wording. There is plenty of material about this, it is not as if it is little known.

Pathetic.

You made the claim that nuclear material smuggling was regularly caught by Swedish and Finnish customs.

When asked for evidence you posted a link that contained zero evidence of any nuclear material smuggling into Sweden or Finland.

When asked again for evidence you provided a grand total of 2 stories.

You've done this before when caught making claims that you can't backup with evidence, either telling others to start new threads on the subject or telling them to search for the evidence themselves.

You've made a claim, been repeatedly asked to back it up, and have made failed attempts to answer the question, and now you're simply backing away from the claim by refusing to discuss it or asking others to search for the evidence you claim exists.

This is a very predictable pattern of behaviour you're engaging in.

 

[Vixen]

Liar.

I never said that. Quote my post where I said that or retract it.

Are we back to playground taunts?

You certainly made it clear that quoting anything that also appeared on a site you claim to detest was verbotten but you never explained why it was not allowed.

 

[Vixen]

Jesus wept. You said yesterday that Moik was fired because he said in an interview that he saw Piht on TV. Can't you go back a couple of pages and find your own damn posts or even remember what you've claimed? You need others to find you questions and cite them for you before you'll answer them?

Anyway, here you go:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13709183&postcount=1025

Now answer the question. What's your evidence that Erich Moik was sacked from his job because he said during an interview that he saw Piht on TV.

It was my assumption. An assumption is assessed on its reasonableness.

Should you disagree with my assumption, the correct way to deal with it is to say, 'I disagree because...[cite source which shows the assumption is incorrect]'.

As for his having seen Piht on TV, that too was an assumption, and it is a common one, as evidenced by author Stephen Davis in his book Truthteller, in which he, too, states Moik saw him.

So you claim that it was Moik's friends who saw him. It doesn't change the thrust of what Moik said.

 

[Vixen]

And again, in English?

TLA.

 

[abaddon]

Are we back to playground taunts?

You certainly made it clear that quoting anything that also appeared on a site you claim to detest was verbotten but you never explained why it was not allowed.

No, Vixen, it is not verbotten. We reject those because such claims are not supported by any evidence at all.

You have nothing. What a surprise. Citations and evidence, you say?

OK. You want me to post it again. Fine.

Vixen's claim was not that he was dismissed for accusing his employer of very serious crimes. She claimed he was dismissed for saying he had seen Piht on TV.

Citation please.

Sure.

The guy who recognised him on TV in Rostock was Captain Moik. He was sacked for saying so in an interview.

I've instantly recognised people on TV and people have recognised me from a two or three second clip of an audience or sports event crowd.

You made that exact claim multiple times.

You flat out lied to everyone.

What shall we make of that?

 

[abaddon]

TLA.

To which three letter acronym do you refer?

 

[Vixen]

No, Vixen, it is not verbotten. We reject those because such claims are not supported by any evidence at all.

You have nothing. What a surprise. Citations and evidence, you say?

OK. You want me to post it again. Fine.



You flat out lied to everyone.

What shall we make of that?

Can't see how, as the quoted interview - which I provided -clearly states:

"T) You were at Rostock the day the 'Estonia' had sunk and your crewmembers saw Piht on (German) TV.

(M) Yes, and I believe them. It is impossible that they saw wrong. They followed the news very carefully as two crew members had their wives on the 'Estonia' and two others had good friends and colleagues on the 'Estonia'. They could not possibly have seen wrong, they knew captain Piht very well."

The interview doesn't say he himself did not see it - it could be a faulty translation from Estonian to English, for all you know. Moik is confirming the fact they were in Rostock as of the time the witnesses concerned claimed to have seen Piht on TV in Rostock.

Likewise, here is Davis' quotes attached.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It was my assumption. An assumption is assessed on its reasonableness.

Should you disagree with my assumption, the correct way to deal with it is to say, 'I disagree because...[cite source which shows the assumption is incorrect]'.

As for his having seen Piht on TV, that too was an assumption, and it is a common one, as evidenced by author Stephen Davis in his book Truthteller, in which he, too, states Moik saw him.

So you claim that it was Moik's friends who saw him. It doesn't change the thrust of what Moik said.

So you have nothing more than assumptions?

 

[Andy_Ross]

.

So you claim that it was Moik's friends who saw him. It doesn't change the thrust of what Moik said.

Is that an assumption?

 

[abaddon]

It was my assumption. An assumption is assessed on its reasonableness.

Should you disagree with my assumption, the correct way to deal with it is to say, 'I disagree because...[cite source which shows the assumption is incorrect]'.

Clearly, you do NOT believe that. Sure, you chuck citations right and left. The problem is that the citations are not even vaguely connected to the question. "I assume unicorns exist because I saw a leprechaun ten years ago". What use is that?

As for his having seen Piht on TV, that too was an assumption, and it is a common one,

Whee, we can play this game all day. I assume that the sightings of Piht are actually a demon imitating Piht in order to oppose the return of jebus and the holy spook. Prove me wrong.

This is all you are doing

as evidenced by author Stephen Davis in his book Truthteller, in which he, too, states Moik saw him.

So you claim that it was Moik's friends who saw him. It doesn't change the thrust of what Moik said.

Liar. There is no other way to post it.

 

[Vixen]

To which three letter acronym do you refer?

In my example of how disinformation agents work, I cited the case of the Revolutionary Communist Party, which was a weird little sect on the far left a couple of decades ago, who have transformed into one of those 'edgy' hard right alternative 'radical right' entrists, now to be found at the core of the Tory government. I had written Workers Revolutionary Party, albeit, hardly much different, albeit probably not so much a 'front' party as RCP were. In addition, I couldn't remember the source re the Attorney General, so I decided to leave it out for now until I found it.

It’s common to attribute some or all of these tendencies to the idiosyncrasies of Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings, or the effects of Brexit, or the rise of rightwing populism. But there is a less noticed and more surprising factor at work, too. Today’s Tory government has adopted some of the style, rhetoric and preoccupations of a defunct radical sect, the Revolutionary Communist party (RCP).

The RCP was a tiny British party, founded in the 70s, officially disbanded in the late 90s. Despite its name, most of its stances were not communist or revolutionary but contrarian: it supported free speech for racists, and nuclear power; it attacked environmentalism and the NHS. Its most consistent impulse was to invoke an idealised working class, and claim it was actually being harmed by the supposed elites of the liberal left.

GUARDIAN

IOW a body with covert subversive aims pretending to be something else. In relation to the Estonia of course there will be similar attempts at subversion, by trying to divert all sceptics into some front group (note how Bollyn is in the USA) so they can be monitored and manipulated with fake news and extreme politics.

So Captain_Swoop's claim I edited my post because I was unable to bear his response is totally incorrect.