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.
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?
No.
Have you learned to read Estonian in the last ten days?
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.
Silly boy.
I mean, how long can it take to translate 239 pages via Google Lens????
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.
Nope. Quote me doing what you accused me of.
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.
But, of course, you don't have the slightest evidence of any illicit cargo.
Those "if"s are doing a lot of heavy lifting.
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.
The claim you were relying on Bollyn for, though, was that they had been disappeared.
Self-descriptions needn't resemble qualifications or vocations.
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.
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.
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.
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.