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

[Jack by the hedge]

In the interview transcript Vixen provided (and presuming its accuracy) it appears that Moik claimed colleagues had seen a man they believe was Piht on TV when they were in Rostock. He also appears to go on to accuse Estline of some very serious criminality.

This makes me wonder where Vixen's claim now stands.

I presume we can say that since Moik spoke of Piht having been seen on TV by others and that he trusts them, she will no longer insist Moik saw him directly but rather that he believes others who say they did. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that detail, Vixen.)

There's still the question of his sacking: Was he in fact dismissed? If so, which came first, the sacking or the accusatory interview?

If it was the interview which came first, is it more reasonable to believe he was sacked for saying Piht had been seen on TV, or to believe he was sacked for accusing his employer of serious crimes?

Vixen's claim was the former - that it was for saying Piht had been seen on TV. Is that still your claim, Vixen?

Slipping into X-Files mode for a moment, is that something the shady "Powers That Be" would do? Draw attention to the idea that Piht was alive by dismissing a man merely for saying it? Bit of a plot hole right there.

 

[abaddon]

Hehe. From way back near the start of part I of this interminable discussion:

Well, that's a thing. Textual analysis demonstrates that Vixen is still lifting Bjorkman's tripe even now.

 

[JayUtah]

You were not an investigator for the Estonia accident, either. Like myself, you, too, never had first hand access to the evidence.

That does not compensate for your indiscretion in choosing your sources.

Thus EVERYTHING you know about the case is based on information directed at you.

Not "directed at" me, but information I seek out. And part of that search is evaluating the reliability of the source and the degree to which it conforms to other evidence.

So, were I to ask you for hard evidence that the Atlantic lock broke, does it make you a 'Liar!' if you make assumptions based on your favourite information sheet, itself awash with assumptions?

Hypothetical. Your critics have clearly stated and documented where their information and conclusions are coming from. You cannot seem to do the same. You cannot even remain consistent from day to day on what your conclusions are.

I have no idea what you mean by "information sheet." In engineering, however, the term refers to an authoritative declaration based on measurement and knowledge, not assumption. No one can escape the need at times to assume. But it is not evidence. Nor is it a substitute for correct knowledge and observation. You are supplying only assumptions in place of what would ordinarily need to be established by evidence.

 

[Mojo]

In the interview transcript Vixen provided (and presuming its accuracy) it appears that Moik claimed colleagues had seen a man they believe was Piht on TV when they were in Rostock.

I’m sure I’ve seen something, somewhere, probably in some sort of news report, saying that the man seen on TV had been positively identified by the police as someone else. Unfortunately I was looking for something else at the time so didn’t make a note of it, and can’t find it again now. Does anyone else recall this?

 

[JayUtah]

So if Bjorkman quotes the Laws of Thermodynamics, we are all banned from reading it because you are the self-appointed censor?

I wouldn't use Anders Björkman as an authority on the laws of thermodynamics, even if he listed them correctly on his web site. Those laws, like many other such facts, are easily discovered in many other sources.

In contrast, you seem to refer to information that you claim is also easily discoverable elsewhere, but really seems to be found only on his web site. And you reproduce not only the content, but the characteristic way it is framed and annotated there. Nobody is "banned" from reading it. But its value as evidence is greatly diminished insofar as he provides no further citation and has a reputation for dishonesty. If these materials were so easily discoverable elsewhere then you should easily be able to provide a citation that isn't connected to Björkman.

And in the middle there are his declarations on the physics of sinking ships. Going back to your analogy, if he were to attempt to describe the laws of thermodynamics -- and do so wrongly -- then defending his description would require more than simply mentioning Lord Kelvin's name. You're using him as the authority on specialized knowledge that you can't vet yourself, but others can. Defending that by vague allusions to Archimedes doesn't cut it.

 

[JayUtah]

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

No. The poster asked for evidence that a person was fired for giving the interview. You seem to have a persistent problem understanding what is being asked for.

Did I hear a please.

None required. It's your obligation to cite to your sources and provide evidence for your claims.

Do I hear a thank you.

None indicated. You didn't satisfy the request.

 

[JayUtah]

Whoa! This is a chat forum, not a peer-reviewed paper.

This is a debate forum. Your inability and/or unwillingness to provide evidence for your claims has the consequence that you lose the debate.

 

[JayUtah]

From my notes.

Can you explain why your "notes" contain the same framing and annotation of the letter as appear on the Heiwa website?

If you copied the letter into your notes from another source, then you must have recorded that original source. If you copied the letter from your notes into a post on this forum a day or so ago, then that citation should be readily available. Your notes are not an authoritative reference in and of themselves. They should serve only to help you remember what the authority was.

Further, Anér's mention of "disappeared" is not the colloquial English for enforced disappearance. He uses the word in its ordinary, straightforward connotation, referring not to the men themselves but to their names having disappeared from a list of MS Estonia survivors.

Finally, he is not referring to the two Egyptians deported by Sweden without due process. You were asked to provide your source for that claim, if not Bollyn. Anér is not the source. Please provide a new one. Or have you withdrawn the claim that Sweden did as Bollyn reports? You seem wedded to the allegation that Sweden "must" have perpetrated enforced disappearance on the MS Estonia officers because it has a propensity to do that. That's a poor argument on its face, and no substitute for evidence that Sweden actually did as you allege in that case.

 

[Marras]

Try here.

By the way, this is a link to a different interview of Moik. That you would have noticed if you had tried to read it.

I don't understand Estonian well enough to read it, so I put it through Google Translate.

If the google translate version is accurate, then it gives a slightly different timeline. According to it, Moik learned about Piht's survival by calling some unidentified person in Estonia. Then he confirms the interviewer's information that the people who saw Piht were Aivar Kaur, Enn Lääne, Raivo Mortinson and Tõnu Polakes. So according to this interview also, Moik didn't see the news himself. He then accuses Ulf Hobro of arranging the disappearance of Piht.

Moik also identifies the TV channel as ZDF. I couldn't find ZDF's Estonia coverage online, but I found video by its German competitor ARD. It's at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kqF4iempvg . If you look it from 2:47 forward, you might see familiar footage.

That footage is the same one with the men walking from ambulance to hospital while having grey army blankets on their shoulders. So we know that clip was shown also in Germany.

While this was on ARD, I'm now convinced that it was this same footage shown on ZDF that the sailors saw and for a reason or another, confused the first man as Piht.

 

[Marras]

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

It wasn't your assumption. You read it on Björkman's site and believed it.

You keep on relying Björkman as your primary source of information and only start randomly googling for other sources when asked about it.

 

[Vixen]

...

 

[Vixen]

Got a citation for that? Or will you as usual post something totally unrelated?

Herewith again.

 

[Vixen]

What is the difference between an assumption and an inference?

An assumption is something that you have taken for granted. For example, a belief Moik had seen the TV newsclip featuring Piht. An inference that he left his job shortly after the interview was because of the things he had said about his employers during it. Neither of these qualify as lying.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Vixen, why won't you answer my question? It's a simple yes or no question.

Here, I'll even answer first. I do not consider myself competent to assess Bjorkman's claims with regards to the sinking of the Estonia outside of the most basic ones of fact. I do not possess the physics skills to assess his claims in depth.


Now you go.

 

[Vixen]

In the interview transcript Vixen provided (and presuming its accuracy) it appears that Moik claimed colleagues had seen a man they believe was Piht on TV when they were in Rostock. He also appears to go on to accuse Estline of some very serious criminality.

This makes me wonder where Vixen's claim now stands.

I presume we can say that since Moik spoke of Piht having been seen on TV by others and that he trusts them, she will no longer insist Moik saw him directly but rather that he believes others who say they did. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about that detail, Vixen.)

There's still the question of his sacking: Was he in fact dismissed? If so, which came first, the sacking or the accusatory interview?

If it was the interview which came first, is it more reasonable to believe he was sacked for saying Piht had been seen on TV, or to believe he was sacked for accusing his employer of serious crimes?

Vixen's claim was the former - that it was for saying Piht had been seen on TV. Is that still your claim, Vixen?

Slipping into X-Files mode for a moment, is that something the shady "Powers That Be" would do? Draw attention to the idea that Piht was alive by dismissing a man merely for saying it? Bit of a plot hole right there.

AIUI Moik was in trouble for putting Mörd in hot water, as it were, and for going on television without okaying it with his employers first. That is how it looked to me.

 

[Vixen]

Only to the extent you are fixated on him as your sole source for much of what you claim.



Indeed, there are many legitimate authorities on ships, shipbuilding, and shipping accidents. There are even many legitimate authorities on the loss of MS Estonia. Yet you keep returning to him time and again as your only source on those matters.



Hardly. He was a member here and debated on this forum. You need look no farther than his posts here to see not only how poorly he debates but how poorly informed and dishonest he is. In your case there is simply no excuse for you not to know his reputation.

That you keep trying to conceal your use of him illustrates that you probably realize he is disreputable, and you don't want to reveal that you aren't using many sources as you claim but only one secondary source from which you are cribbing information.

And you can stop gaslighting. It isn't working.

A poster demanded to see what Moik said so I dug out the translated transcript of Moik's interview I happened to have in my notes. I was not aware it came originally from Heiwa as I hadn't saved the source (being a reproduction of a third party, as would be the Laws of Thermodynamics). I am sorry if everybody got super -excited about but I promise you it was pure chance.

 

[Marras]

Herewith again.

Note how he contradicts Moik himself when he claims that Moik saw the film. He also fails to mention that the person calling Piht's wife was Moik so it isn't an independent source.

Also, according to the text Piht was taken to Utö. Does this mean that you are now abandoning the secret Y-64 flight "theory"?

Finally, he says that Piht was seen also in Swedish TV. Did the German secret service steal those tapes, too?

 

[JayUtah]

None of this has to do with what I posted.

A poster demanded to see what Moik said...

No, a poster asked for evidence of your claim that Moik was dismissed for having given the interview.

I was not aware it came originally from Heiwa as I hadn't saved the source...

Then your notes are faulty.

I am sorry if everybody got super -excited about but I promise you it was pure chance.

I don't believe you. You've been caught several times cribbing from Björkman, and almost as many times trying to conceal him as your source. In this case you not only reproduced the text from him, but also his unfounded assumption regarding it.

 

[Vixen]

That does not compensate for your indiscretion in choosing your sources.



Not "directed at" me, but information I seek out. And part of that search is evaluating the reliability of the source and the degree to which it conforms to other evidence.



Hypothetical. Your critics have clearly stated and documented where their information and conclusions are coming from. You cannot seem to do the same. You cannot even remain consistent from day to day on what your conclusions are.

I have no idea what you mean by "information sheet." In engineering, however, the term refers to an authoritative declaration based on measurement and knowledge, not assumption. No one can escape the need at times to assume. But it is not evidence. Nor is it a substitute for correct knowledge and observation. You are supplying only assumptions in place of what would ordinarily need to be established by evidence.

The true critic is he who bears within himself the dreams and ideas and feelings of myriad generations, and to whom no form of thought is alien, no emotional impulse obscure. ~ Oscar Wilde

The JAIC Report whilst crammed with descriptive narrative, it doesn't actually demonstrate how its 18K tonnes of water filled the superstructure: how, when and at what rate. It just makes an assumption the windows on Deck 4 and 5 smashed and the vessel sank within 35 minutes.

However, it never proved that there car deck was breached the way it said it was.

 

[JayUtah]

Not so. I am neutral.

No, you are not. You insist that Anders Björkman is a recognized authority on ships, shipbuilding, and the physics of sinking ships. He is not. And you are entirely predisposed to reject any suggestion that he might not be a suitable authority for your claims.

I haven't clashed with him so I have no personal animosity.

You've had no interaction whatsoever with him, and you seem to be profoundly disinterested in learning whether he is a reliable source on science and engineering. And from that position of willful ignorance you seem to rely heavily upon him.

My pet hate is time-wasting. I see conspiracy theory as one big waste of time.

I would not be interested in Estonia unless it was a genuine concern of mine.

You are a conspiracy theorist. You are literally promoting any or all of several theories that people conspired to sink MS Estonia and then conspired to cover up the real cause. You rely for your sources on people who promote not only that conspiracy but others.

What I see as an increasingly futile waste of time is talking to you. You're clearly entrenched in a happy little ditch of ignorant delusion and have no interest either in learning the knowledge that pertains to your beliefs or in hearing and answering reasons why your beliefs might not be true.