The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[JayUtah]

Just because you cannot understand how anyone can be interested in this topic.

No, he is correct. Your only "interest" in this topic seems to be what conspiracy theories you can wring out of it. Your selective treatment of sources and their reliability is ample evidence for that.

 

[Mojo]

Is the narrative that

Many a true word spoken in jest! You should write spy fiction as you are good at this. But seriously, does anyone really believe the diver is simply strolling around the cabin like a tourist and it was a case of, 'Oh look! I've found a briefcase here...amongst a load of other suitcases and bags!" Controller: 'Oh wow. That is so amazing!' Diver, 'Wait, there's a name tag on it!' Controller: 'No! That's fantastic! What does it say?' Diver: 'It's fricking forrin!' Controller: 'Spell it, then.' 'Alpha, romeo, november, india' "OMG! This is so exciting! Spell it again, Sam!" <fx diver repeats various spellings> "Just let me see if that name rings a bell - " Diver: 'There's a babushka here as well, which I'll film so as to show he's a Russian". Controller, 'That's super! Is there anything else that grabs your attention?' We-eeelll!

Strangely, none of that was in the transcript you posted. Were you lying about what they said then, or are you lying about what they said now?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

British understatement.

No.

 

[Mojo]

As I recall engineer Sillaste said communication from the engine room to the bridge was via monitors

2. he did not communicate with the bridge "via monitors" - hint, a monitor is a device for displaying images, not talking through.)

No, you misunderstand. Communiques were carried to and from the bridge by a team of highly-trained lizards.

 

[Mojo]

I've been told it's in the post.

I can't read Estonian so I have no idea what is in Meister's book

Have you learned to read Estonian in the last ten days?

 

[EHocking]

I've been told it's in the post. Meister looked towards Estonia's inerests, just as Sweden looked to theirs. (cf. Stenström throwing away the Atlantic lock, which he knew to be key evidence.) Why willfully throw evidence away unless you are motivated to?

Ah, so you admit that Meister's motives and aims were not to provide evidence but to protect Estonia's interests, by misrepresenting "evidence" and inventing conspiracy theories regarding the Swedish government.

At least we agree on something.

 

[EHocking]

Have you learned to read Estonian in the last ten days?

Silly boy.

You do know you can copy text from a photo and then translate it using the 'Lens' feature (google or Apple, etc.). No, vice versa, Rabe is quoting Meister's book.

I mean, how long can it take to translate 239 pages via Google Lens????

 

[Vixen]

More gibberish. Quote me saying that anyone interested in the Estonia is a nutter or idiot, or indeed quote me saying I am not interested in it. That's the two things you have directly accused me of in this post so for once in your life pony up.

You do it by implication. It's what a bad debater does. Instead of concentrating on the issue, they start attacking individual people (such as 'Bollyn' or Björkman [or Mignini]) instead of the abstract ideas they might be presenting.

 

[JayUtah]

You do it by implication. It's what a bad debater does. Instead of concentrating on the issue, they start attacking individual people (such as 'Bollyn' or Björkman [or Mignini]) instead of the abstract ideas they might be presenting.

No.

You cite to Bollyn and Björkmann as sources to support your claims. When your critics convincingly show that these sources are unreliable at best and flat-out factually wrong at worst, you spin it to make it sound like your critics are mean-spirited and petty for questioning your sources. You're the one arguing constantly in bad faith.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You do it by implication. It's what a bad debater does. Instead of concentrating on the issue, they start attacking individual people (such as 'Bollyn' or Björkman [or Mignini]) instead of the abstract ideas they might be presenting.

Nope. Quote me doing what you accused me of.

Bollyn is a conspiracy theorist and antisemite. Bjorkman is a self-aggrandising liar who made up his qualifications and doesn't think atomic bombs can work.

Quote me claiming that any comments I have made about them, you or anyone else are because I think people interested in the Estonia are idiots or nutters, and quote me saying I'm not interested.

 

[Vixen]

Ah, so you admit that Meister's motives and aims were not to provide evidence but to protect Estonia's interests, by misrepresenting "evidence" and inventing conspiracy theories regarding the Swedish government.

At least we agree on something.

You can have pride in your newly independent nation and flagship cruise/ferry and still retain objectivity. Think about the conflicting interests. IF Sweden did know there was illicit cargo on the ferry, then it is clear the passengers were seen as collateral. If this came out, it could cause a massive public scandal, so decision is made to classify it and give the public a mundane cause. Sweden's rationale might reason it as thus, with Estonia being newly independent and Sweden as allies of USA keen to not give Russia an excuse to reinvade, that was the best solution all round. Estonia, suspecting of a cover up of the circumstances, is angry at the implied assumption it was all their fault. Whilst the maintenance and poor registration of passengers on board were all lacking, ultimately, if the sinking was sabotage (given the circumstances) the Estonians on the other hand have a motive to pass blame onto Sweden. It is not as simple as Meister wanting to protect the reputation of his country, because Sweden also needed to, if there was dodgy cargo on board giving rise to risk of passenger danger.

 

[zooterkin]

You can have pride in your newly independent nation and flagship cruise/ferry and still retain objectivity. Think about the conflicting interests. IF Sweden did know there was illicit cargo on the ferry, then it is clear the passengers were seen as collateral. If this came out, it could cause a massive public scandal, so decision is made to classify it and give the public a mundane cause. Sweden's might reason it as thus, with Estonia being newly independent and Sweden as allies of USA keen to not give Russia an excuse to reinvade, that was the bast solution all round. Estonia suspecting of a cover up of the circumstances is angry at the implied assumption it was all their fault. Whilst the maintenance and poor registration of passengers on board were all lacking, ultimately, if the sinking was sabotage (given the circumstances) the Estonians on the other hand have a motive pass blame onto Sweden. It is not as simple as Meister wanting to protect the reputation of his country, because Sweden also needed to, if there was dodgy cargo on board giving rise to risk of passenger danger.

But, of course, you don't have the slightest evidence of any illicit cargo.

 

[Mojo]

You can have pride in your newly independent nation and flagship cruise/ferry and still retain objectivity. Think about the conflicting interests. IF Sweden did know there was illicit cargo on the ferry, then it is clear the passengers were seen as collateral. If this came out, it could cause a massive public scandal, so decision is made to classify it and give the public a mundane cause. Sweden's might reason it as thus, with Estonia being newly independent and Sweden as allies of USA keen to not give Russia an excuse to reinvade, that was the bast solution all round. Estonia suspecting of a cover up of the circumstances is angry at the implied assumption it was all their fault. Whilst the maintenance and poor registration of passengers on board were all lacking, ultimately, if the sinking was sabotage (given the circumstances) the Estonians on the other hand have a motive pass blame onto Sweden. It is not as simple as Meister wanting to protect the reputation of his country, because Sweden also needed to, if there was dodgy cargo on board giving rise to risk of passenger danger.

Those "if"s are doing a lot of heavy lifting.

 

[Vixen]

No.

You cite to Bollyn and Björkmann as sources to support your claims. When your critics convincingly show that these sources are unreliable at best and flat-out factually wrong at worst, you spin it to make it sound like your critics are mean-spirited and petty for questioning your sources. You're the one arguing constantly in bad faith.

You have been shown a webpage re the rendition of the two Egyptians which has nothing to do with 'Bollyn'. All Björkmann does is provide the basic diagrams of how buoyancy works. As I said, no-one owns a fact. A fact remains a fact whoever quotes it.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

You have been shown a webpage re the rendition of the two Egyptians which has nothing to do with 'Bollyn'. All Björkmann does is provide the basic diagrams of how buoyancy works. As I said, no-one owns a fact. A fact remains a fact whoever quotes it.

You're changing horses. You claimed they were disappeared, not renditioned. THAT is the claim that came from Bollyn.

 

[Mojo]

You have been shown a webpage re the rendition of the two Egyptians which has nothing to do with 'Bollyn'.

The claim you were relying on Bollyn for, though, was that they had been disappeared.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

He self-describes as M.Sc. Naval Architect. His qualifications and his vocation can of course be two different things.

Self-descriptions needn't resemble qualifications or vocations.

(For some reason, I am unusually aware of that as I read this thread.)

 

[Vixen]

Silly boy.

I mean, how long can it take to translate 239 pages via Google Lens????

Finns can read Estonian quite well but not perfectly as Estonian sentence structure and syntax has become germanised thanks to the influx of High German over the ages. For example, the word in the title, 'Lopetamata' (unfinished) is almost identical to the Finnish word (lopettamatta = 'without ending'). I doubt it'll be that difficult.

 

[JayUtah]

You have been shown a webpage re the rendition of the two Egyptians which has nothing to do with 'Bollyn'.

Asked and answered. The web page was not your source as it does not offer the specific spin you put on it, which is identical to the spin Bollyn put on it and seems to be found nowhere else—that of the occurrence being an "enforced disappearance" in violation of international treaties on crimes. You cited to Bollyn as support for other claims. It's clear Bollyn was your source for this one too, and your ongoing denial of this is a bad-faith argument.

All Björkmann does is provide the basic diagrams of how buoyancy works. As I said, no-one owns a fact. A fact remains a fact whoever quotes it.

No. Björkmann wrote and spoke extensively on his claim that the bow-visor hypothesis was a lie. He very prominently positioned himself as an expert on how ships float and sink, and on that basis proposed that the mainstream narrative was false.

Keep in mind that many of us have debated Björkmann directly, including on the subject of MS Estonia. We don't need you to tell us what his claims are. Your ongoing gaslighting is a bad-faith argument.

 

[Vixen]

The claim you were relying on Bollyn for, though, was that they had been disappeared.

Just as Bollyn was right about Stenström, he was also right about the CIIA requesting Sweden rendition those two Egyptian guys. It's not his invention nor his ownership of the facts.