• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
The unconstitutional removal of two properly registered asylum seekers remains exactly that whatever term you choose to call it. This is a fact. Thus there is no author copyright over this fact.
Click to expand...


No, words matter. Enforced disappearance has a precise definition irrespective of your private beliefs.
 
JayUtah said:
No, words matter. Enforced disappearance has a precise definition irrespective of your private beliefs.
Click to expand...

It is not a private belief. It is written into statute as decided by a democratic process. That stature provides a legally registered asylum seeker the right to a legal court hearing before being deported and the right to legal representation. In addition, that asylum seeker has the legal right of appeal.
 
Vixen said:
It is not a private belief. It is written into statute as decided by a democratic process. That stature provides a legally registered asylum seeker the right to a legal court hearing before being deported and the right to legal representation. In addition, that asylum seeker has the legal right of appeal.
Click to expand...


The statutory language is what doesn’t agree with you. That’s my point. Enforced disappearance is defined by statute. That statute is different than the one governing due process in deportations and asylum. Your saying one but meaning the other. You are wrong. Bollyn is wrong. You were both wrong together, in the same way.
 
Vixen said:
Perhaps concentrate on the topic thread.
Click to expand...

Hey Vixen! Cconcentrate!

Steve said:
There's an idea! Care to bring us up to date on the official status of "The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened" without incorporating the personal opinions of yourself or others? Because, after all, your opinions have no status or bearing on the official investigation.
Click to expand...

How is that new investigation going? Have they issued any interim reports or info? Have they released anything that supports any of your "interesting" speculations?
 
Vixen said:
Consider the following:

  • You drop a feather and a stone from a tall building. Which hits the ground first?
  • You drop a feather and a stone into the sea to a depth of 100 metres. Which lands at the bottom first?
Click to expand...

That's not how that experiment goes. If you simultaneously drop a tennis ball and a bowling ball of a tall building, both will hit the ground at the same time. So the right question should be:

You drop a 15,500 GT rock and a 15,500 bag of feathers, which hits the ground first.

Either way, it has nothing to do with the topic.


I couldn't find at what force the Estonia was presumed to have hit the sea bed so I inserted the variables I did know and 800.6 meganewtons was the answer that came up. In fact, its deadweight is a further 3,000 tonnes to the 15K tonnes or so, and of course it appeared to sink stern first so who knows how it landed and at what speed given the unknown factors. The JAIC doesn't provide this information so how else is one supposed to work it out other than a heuristic estimate?
Click to expand...

Well...you could look at the high resolution side-scan sonar image and take an educated guess.

The PDF of the preliminary report is here:

https://www.havkom.se/assets/reports/Intermediate-Report-MV-ESTONIA-Jan-2023.pdf

It clearly states, and shows the Estonia's midsection is lying on the outcropping. This is where the cracks in the hull are located.

The report also states this:

5.3 Swedish Armed Forces Enquiry

The Preliminary Assessment made an enquiry to the Swedish Armed Forces regarding information they could provide on the sinking of MV ESTONIA, including whereabouts for Swedish submarines and the use of MV ESTONIA for shipping military
equipment.

The reply of the Swedish Armed Forces stated the following:

• They did not have any sensors that could have registered when MV ESTONIA
hit the seabed.
• They do not have any knowledge of vessels’ movements in the area of the
sinking.
• No Swedish submarine was in the area when the accident occurred.
• Electronic equipment, without connection to weapons, had been shipped on
MV ESTONIA on civilian vehicles. However, on the night of the accident, no
such shipment was made.
Click to expand...

Your questions are being answered.
 
Axxman300 said:
That's not how that experiment goes. If you simultaneously drop a tennis ball and a bowling ball of a tall building, both will hit the ground at the same time. So the right question should be:

You drop a 15,500 GT rock and a 15,500 bag of feathers, which hits the ground first.

Either way, it has nothing to do with the topic.




Well...you could look at the high resolution side-scan sonar image and take an educated guess.

The PDF of the preliminary report is here:

https://www.havkom.se/assets/reports/Intermediate-Report-MV-ESTONIA-Jan-2023.pdf

It clearly states, and shows the Estonia's midsection is lying on the outcropping. This is where the cracks in the hull are located.

The report also states this:


Your questions are being answered.
Click to expand...

"These are not the answers she is looking for" /Kenobi.
 
Vixen said:
Consider the following:



  • You drop a feather and a stone from a tall building. Which hits the ground first?
  • You drop a feather and a stone into the sea to a depth of 100 metres. Which lands at the bottom first?
Click to expand...

Please stop. It's excruciating. Stop pretending you might be able to work out how to calculate a meaningful value for how hard the Estonia hit the seabed.

Even if you had an answer, what good would it do you? How would you use that to decide how much damage landing on a rocky outcrop might do to the hull? It's certainly not a problem I could evaluate but the little I know tells me you're just trying to sound like you understand the concepts involved when you really don't.

I'm not criticising you for not being able to solve the problem mathematically. I'm criticising your pretending that you might be able, when it's clear you barely grasp even the question you're playing at being able to solve.
 
Vixen said:
As I recall someone else pointed out that it had been written by Bollyn. As it was a generic piece I didn't think discovering the author was important for the quick point I was making ATT. Arvo Piht is not owned by Bollyn any more than he owns 9/11.
Click to expand...

If you post sources for your claims without even bothering to check who they are, how do you know that they are reputable? Did you forget about your recent claim that everything you assert is backed by reputable sources?
 
Vixen said:
Consider the following:

  • You drop a feather and a stone from a tall building. Which hits the ground first?
  • You drop a feather and a stone into the sea to a depth of 100 metres. Which lands at the bottom first?
To tackle the question, start by assuming fixed conditions, such as a vacuum. Once you have made this assumption, then you know your answer will be they both land at the same time, ceteris paribus.
Having ascertained that, you can then add in variables such as air pressure and water pressure, etcetera, etcetera.

I couldn't find at what force the Estonia was presumed to have hit the sea bed so I inserted the variables I did know and 800.6 meganewtons was the answer that came up. In fact, its deadweight is a further 3,000 tonnes to the 15K tonnes or so, and of course it appeared to sink stern first so who knows how it landed and at what speed given the unknown factors. The JAIC doesn't provide this information so how else is one supposed to work it out other than a heuristic estimate?
Click to expand...

This is so comically wrong... are you for real??? Find a tall building or a pool and test it yourself!
 
JayUtah said:
Again, your private definitions don’t matter. Bollyn said “disappeared.” You said “disappeared.” No one else did. Either Bollyn was your source or you have no source. Which is it?
Click to expand...


To be fair, Vixen has also claimed a European Court of Human Rights judgment and the "Treaty 1988 (Criminal Law)" as sources for the claim, although she's been unable to provide a link or proper citation for either.

ETA: She also cited “Articles 58 through to 67” of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, but those turned out to be about the court's procedure.
 
Last edited:
I think I've figured this out.

Vixen is Bollyn.

Bollyn is Vixen.

In their kaleidoscope world all things have no separation and all words can freely intermingle. Physics behaves differently and mixtures of mathematical formulae are always germaine to the author's whim. All past events and statements can be magically rearranged, subtracted from and added to in any manner that the entity desires. Rod Serling would steer clear of this alter-dimensional aberration.
 
Mojo said:
To be fair, Vixen has also claimed a European Court of Human Rights judgment and the "Treaty 1988 (Criminal Law)" as sources for the claim, although she's been unable to provide a link or proper citation for either.

ETA: She also cited “Articles 58 through to 67” of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, but those turned out to be about the court's procedure.
Click to expand...

If you go back to the original thread, I recall discussing her statute claims in depth. There was a judgment entered against Sweden for the unlawful deportation of the two Egyptians, denial of due process, etc. The appropriate statute is naturally cited to. Then there is a separate statute from a different body of law defining forced disappearance. I also discuss the case law around that, which decides (among other things) how long someone can be held incommunicado before it becomes a disappearance.

Vixen simply but wrongly believes Sweden violated the statute against enforced disappearance and that the judgment entered in criminal court against them for violating due process makes them guilty of disappearance. That's just not how laws work.
 
JayUtah said:
If you go back to the original thread, I recall discussing her statute claims in depth. There was a judgment entered against Sweden for the unlawful deportation of the two Egyptians, denial of due process, etc. The appropriate statute is naturally cited to. Then there is a separate statute from a different body of law defining forced disappearance. I also discuss the case law around that, which decides (among other things) how long someone can be held incommunicado before it becomes a disappearance.

Vixen simply but wrongly believes Sweden violated the statute against enforced disappearance and that the judgment entered in criminal court against them for violating due process makes them guilty of disappearance. That's just not how laws work.
Click to expand...


The question is, what is her reason for believing that? What did she base it on?

Any idea what the source may have been for the claim that Sweden had disappeared the Egyptians having been "upheld by a court of law and the European Court of Human Rights"?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Heh, that's for you to ask and for me to tell ;):D
Click to expand...



A reminder of Rule 4 with the modification to cover AI-generated content


Darat said:
E2

We have adopted a policy of treating all published material as if it was copyrighted regardless of its actual legal copyright status. This includes articles, images, other media and all content provided by AI systems such as ChatGPT. Under this rule content may be posted within the doctrine of "fair use" (see: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-a.html) - the quoting of brief portions of articles, books, emails, or bulletin board messages, relevant to discussion, is permitted. All quoted material should be credited to the original author or publisher which also includes identifying content provided by AI systems and a link provided (when available) to the original work. It is not possible to declare precisely how much material may be quoted, as it will vary from article to article. We suggest quoting no more than a paragraph. Images and photographs are more problematic in that usually the entire image will be subject to copyright however if they are used as part of, or to make substantial criticism they may be used. But please be aware that such images may still be removed, especially if they contain a copyright notice in the image.

Legal issues arising from copyright are not the only reason for this rule. It is also intended to prevent the disruption that can be caused in a thread by having large tracts of text or many pictures pasted in, and to prevent the Forum from being treated as a personal blog or website. If material is available elsewhere online, it is preferable to restrict yourself to links and short quotes rather than copying and pasting everything, even if you have permission to do so.

Some material, such as jokes, may technically be copyright. However, posting of such will usually be allowed given that variations will likely exist in thousands of emails and websites anyway, and determining ownership would be impossible.

Authors of copyrighted material may post their own work, provided they hold publishing rights to the material.


Should legal issues arise, further action may be taken in addition to that covered by this rule.


Edited 3rd March 2023 to add in AI generated content
Click to expand...

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob
 
JayUtah said:
The statutory language is what doesn’t agree with you. That’s my point. Enforced disappearance is defined by statute. That statute is different than the one governing due process in deportations and asylum. Your saying one but meaning the other. You are wrong. Bollyn is wrong. You were both wrong together, in the same way.
Click to expand...

Whichever statute one likes to use, it is a simple fact that your country cannot 'disappear' you. You might think only tinpot regimes such as the one in Argentina some years ago would 'disappear' people, especially political opponents, or in Europe during the Herzegovina conflict, but actually the shock is that it happened in a country we commonly like to think of as an advanced Western European Democracy. OK, so it was a knee jerk reaction to 9/11 and the US wanted Saudi-Arabic types suspected of being behind the plot rounded up. However, Sweden whisking the two Egyptian nationals off the street, who were there quite legally, at the command of the CIA and without any court order or warrant may have been 'understandable' in the circumstances but it doesn't hide the fact it was a 'disappearance' as set out in the Rome Treaty 1998 edict.

This is relevant because it shows that with regard to the claimed disappearance of several senior crew of the Estonia in 1994 and Carl Bildt working with the US to encourage Estonia the country to join NATO asap shows that Sweden had done it before, if this is what happened.

IMV it is important to establish whether these crew members, including Arvo Piht, were disappeared. Now that the Cold War is over and Yeltsin's glasnost long gone with Russia once again threatening the west, maybe it is time to declassify this information and reveal what happened to those guys.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom