Absolute nonsense.
It doesn't change the salient point of no-one knows what that person is doing around the wreck. That was the thrust of the argument, that it's not possible for unauthorised divers to access it...and here we go back to my original point: turn up in a German boat under a German flag, being sure to set off from a country other than those eight 'Baltic' countries listed under the Treaty. <sfx Here we go round in circles to nowhere, Mulber-ry Bush>
They were literally whipped off the street aka kidnapped, with no due process. No-one knew where they were. The guy's lawyer eventually managed to track them down. In the UK, even the most heinous criminal due for deportation is entitled to have a hearing to argue their case and to be notified, and their families notified with a notice period, together with an indication of where they are being deported to. Your attempt to make out what Sweden did for the CIA as being in anyway normal or commonplace* is risible.
No, those are not the facts of the case.
This is why, if you don't follow a post or understand the logic, instead of calling that person names, just ask for clarification instead of assuming the other person is a wrongdoer and loudly proclaiming it.
No one is claiming it is normal or commonplace. That is you lying about what people say again. You claimed they were disappeared. If someone says that no, they were not you cannot then claim that the person said it was normal and yet that is what you have done repeatedly. You have on this specific point repeatedly and openly lied about what people have said.
What is being disputed here is the cause of the accident. Now, the JAIC assumed an intact hull, so it had to hypothesize a scenario where a huge ingress of water managed to breach the superstructure. i.e., it put forward an explanation that windows on Deck 4 must have smashed and that is how. This is because even with >2,000 tonnes <6,000 tonnes of water filling the car deck, even the JAIC realised that would not be enough to make it sink, with out it turning upside down first. However, it does work if as is argued, there was a breach in the hull. We know now there is a massive 22m gap in the hull. The explanation now is that this breach in the hull happened more recently due to the vessel turning 12° onto a 'rocky outcrop' and not because it was already there causing it to sink the way it did.
You are not competent to assess the JAIC conclusions, nor are you competent to critique the process they used to reach that conclusion.
They can't see what you are doing around the wreck.
They can't see the specific actions that your divers are taking perhaps, but they definitely know you're diving.
No. "Intact hull" is a term of art having to do with stability models. The missing bow visor renders the hull no longer intact, and JAIC understood this. You are trying to make the JAIC sound desperate, but really you simply don't understand their hypothesis.
This has been covered at length multiple times.
I'm sure it does sound like wittering to you. Perhaps next time you don't understand something just ask for clarification; it is nothing to be ashamed of.
There is the anomaly of how many people were rescued.
No, there really isn't, once there was time to reconcile accounts that were originally compiled with incomplete information, due to the understandable confusion of a night-time rescue.
Whoooosh!
No, not whoosh. You claimed that it would be possible for there to have been dives no one knows about, remember?
Oh dear.
Again, glib response that doesn't actually address the point.