Continuation The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part V

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Vixen

No, the JIAC gives the reason as being 'low on fuel'.

No. Not "the reason". One consideration. Don't try to twist what the report says when we can all read it for ourselves.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

I've had lengthy interactions with Björkman, but none whatsoever with Bollyn. From what they've written I conclude they are separate people. Besides, you don't seem to be a very reliable authority on who is real and who isn't.



You cited him as your source. You seem to believe he is important.



You have cited both men as your sources, and now are trying to pretend you didn't and don't. In Björkman's case, you vacillate between denouncing him and rehabilitating him as an expert. You continue to use both men as authorities in your argument, even if you do not directly cite to them. You have learned not to mention them, but you have not stopped repeating their ideas.

What is more egregious in my mind is your habitual lying, especially since so much of your argument appears to rest on facts you present on your own authority. Tell us why a rational person should pay attention to someone whose first impulse seems to be to lie.



Straw man. I may disagree with Sir Patrick Moore on political topics, but I still cite him as an authority on astronomy. You are still relying on Björkman to feed you snippets from Aftonbladet, and upon his version of ship stability. Although you tried very hard to conceal that Bollyn was your source for the enforced disappearance claim, you were unsuccessful.

Actually the source Reformed Offlian provided as a wikipedia footnote as to why Kenneth Svensson got the Swedish Defence Forces Gold Medal of Merit with Sword, also seems to quote the same Aftonbladet article.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Vixen

This underlines my belief there was a helicopter on the scene, having left just after 0200 (EET) within the standard 15-minute time frame...

There was no 15-minute standby and Y64 was not the SAR standby anyway.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Do you have a reputable source that said it?

ETA: Perhaps one of the four newspapers that you actually read?

Any decision that has been before a court of law is in the public domain (with a few exceptions, such as a Family Court).

Why do you believe that only Bollyn (in 2012) is the only person who could have known about the two Egyptians?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

This is the same lame excuse you offer every time one of your authorities revealed not to be one. With neither Björkman nor Bollyn is the question of one of a "personality cult." The question is whether they are reliable authorities for the claims they have made, which you have happily borrowed. The amount of effort you expend dodging an examination of your sources leads me to conclude you know full well who they are and what their reputation is, but you plan to see how far you can lie about what your sources are.

Bollyn is clearly your source for the claim that Sweden committed the crime of enforced disappearance against two Egyptian deportees, and that this should be considered a continuation of their behavior in the MS Estonia case. An honest person would have realized after some discussion that the claim is factually wrong and legally absurd. You have not; you have pressed onward hoping enough of that claim seems superficially credible and that no one would find out where you got it from.

Utter rot. Now that Spitfire has pointed out that Bollyn has a deluded idea that there is a granfalloon group of people who are running the world, bringing down Christianity and mocking up terror attacks, such as 9/11, I will obviously avoid him like the plague from now on.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Vixen

... as there was no OSC as of that time, it simply took the persons it rescued to Huddinge.

What time? What time exactly do you say a Swedish helicopter could have arrived at the scene, without contacting the ships in the rescue area, and have rescued 9 people (how long would that have taken?) again without having spoken to the ships, and flown back to Huddinge? When was the captain who assumed OSC duties confirmed in that role?

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

OSC could not issue 'commands' the OSC was a coordinator for the various resources at the scene.

Of course, there is the point that if the captain/pilot of any aircraft is at bingo fuel, they absolutely have the right to tell the OSC to foxtrot oscar and RTB immediately.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Vixen

...
The fact one team member might have swapped with another team member does not obscure the fact that Y64's tally was one, when earlier Svensson had been giving it large to Aftonbladet that he (his team) had rescued eight human beings plus one who died.

You still haven't quoted Aftonbladet saying what Svensson said to their journalist. As best I recall you quoted a bit from a secondary source claiming to be quoting Aftonbladet with a bit from the original Y74 rescue man in the first person and then told us this must have come from their own lips. That's some very loose foundations to build your claim of Svensson giving it large to Aftonbladet.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Vixen

In this context, the idea that one idealised person is the possessor of some kind of esoteric knowledge; his or her followers lap up every word like pearls of wisdom which they can quote like shining drops of molten gold off by heart, whenever the occasion demands it.

And who is claiming that you or anyone else does this? You have cited people as sources. That's not equivalent to "lap[ping] up every word like pearls of wisdom." But in your case, your cited sources appear not to be reliable authorities on the topics you rely upon them for.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Actually the source Reformed Offlian provided as a wikipedia footnote as to why Kenneth Svensson got the Swedish Defence Forces Gold Medal of Merit with Sword, also seems to quote the same Aftonbladet article.

Asked and answered, with respect to your lifting of Björkman's Aftonbladet quotes. Now how about the other points I raised?

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Heh, has anyone ever seen Bollyn and Bjorkman in the same room together...?

Has anyone ever seen the Pope and Johnathan Price in the same room together?

That is the level of "argument" you have sunk to, Vixen. Bollyn and Bjorkman don't even look alike.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Utter rot. Now that Spitfire has pointed out that Bollyn has a deluded idea that there is a granfalloon group of people who are running the world, bringing down Christianity and mocking up terror attacks, such as 9/11, I will obviously avoid him like the plague from now on.

Will you also be avoiding Björkman "like the plague?"

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Because examining people's theories informs us how devoted they are to the otherwise discoverable truth.

I see that in a short space of time you've gone from denying that Christopher Bollyn is a real person -- claiming it to be a pen name of "disiniformationists" -- to saying he's an okay chap and we should listen to him even if he has strange beliefs. As others have noted, this change of heart coincides with your inability to hide him any further as your source for the claim regarding Sweden, the Egyptians, and international law. You'll find him just as difficult to whitewash as Björkman.

You're asking us to trust Bollyn's judgment and legal analysis. You're asking us to trust that he has represented the facts correctly. We're showing you the reasons why such trust should not be granted.

I see nothing wrong with critiquing the Middle East: pro-Israel, pro-Palestine <shrug>. However, to actually believe there is a conspiracy to bombard the Christian world with pornography is just plain bonkers.

I disagree that the issue of the two Egyptians is Bollyn's copyrighted work. He doesn't have ownership of the news. I am not sure what his motive is, an American (?) guy getting involved in the Estonia disaster. I can only imagine it is the neo-fascist strategy of infiltrating various protest groups and inveigling themselves like cuckoo's eggs. For example, there was a lot of ant-vaxxer protesters in London, a vague meeting of disparate groups and individuals, so course, the far right was in there pretending to be one of them, deliberately causing trouble with the police and agitating civil unrest.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

You tried to cite MV Lehti as an independent source for the legal theory that Sweden's deportation of two Egyptians constituted enforced disappearance as defined in the 1998 Rome Statute, and that a court found as much. It is not an independent source, as it cites to Bollyn.

You have insinuated that this theory is well enough known that other sources have reported on it. But you have yet to cite any such sources, "regularly read" or otherwise. And it really does not matter at this point, because you seem to have forgotten that you identified Bollyn as your source. Bollyn is your problem because you made it so.

I mistook it for an ordinary newspaper because that is what it looks like when you click on it.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Weasel words. Svensson was not the pilot. Flying Y64 or Y74 was not what "he did".

Your claim of what Radio Kuku claim to have broadcast appears to be morphing into something "witnesses" (listeners?) claim it broadcast. Which is it?

That seem an oddly appropriate name....

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Any decision that has been before a court of law is in the public domain (with a few exceptions, such as a Family Court).

Which is why you should be able to cite a court case that substantiates your claim that a court found against Sweden for enforced disappearance as defined in the 1998 Rome Statute, in the case of the two Egyptian deportees. You have not done so. You cited a finding in a different case arising out of the same facts, which was prosecuted according to the statute that matches the actions Sweden actually performed. You ventured the absurd excuse it was "really" for enforced disappearance, but that there was no suitable statute.

Quote:

Why do you believe that only Bollyn (in 2012) is the only person who could have known about the two Egyptians?

Straw man. The pseudo-legal theory that Sweden committed the crime of enforced disappearance in the case of the two Egyptians, as opposed merely to knowing who they were and what their circumstances were, comes first from Bollyn. You specifically cited to the article he wrote that makes that theory.

Your source is Bollyn.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Is that a concession that the excerpt shows that the label "anti-Semitic" is properly applied to Christopher Bollyn?

Absolutely. Reads like an Anders Brevik manisfesto, except instead of Muslims, we have Jews.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I will obviously avoid [Bollyn] like the plague from now on.

We would prefer you read and vet your sources before asking others to accept them. So then will you retract the claim that Sweden committed enforced disappearance in the case of the deported Egyptians?

[Jack by the hedge]

While we're in the mood for 'fessing up, I mistook Utö for Swedish territory, having only seen there was an Utö in Sweden and not checked the map. Sorry if I left people wondering WTF I was on about earlier.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I disagree that the issue of the two Egyptians is Bollyn's copyrighted work.

No one has invoked copyright.

You cited him as the source for the pseudo-legal argument regarding the two Egyptians and enforced disappearance. You have cited other secondary sources that cite to him for the same theory. He is your source for the theory.

If you now agree that he is an unreliable source, will you concede that the enforced disappearance claim has been refuted? If not, can you provide another source for the claim that isn't ultimately Bollyn?

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I mistook it for an ordinary newspaper because that is what it looks like when you click on it.

What does this say about your ability to locate and recognize reliable sources of information?

You have said you are interested in getting to the bottom of the MS Estonia tragedy. How is that purpose served by your inattention to the reliability of your sources?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

What time? What time exactly do you say a Swedish helicopter could have arrived at the scene, without contacting the ships in the rescue area, and have rescued 9 people (how long would that have taken?) again without having spoken to the ships, and flown back to Huddinge? When was the captain who assumed OSC duties confirmed in that role?

JAIC report, 7.1: "at 0205 hrs MRCC Turku designated her master as the On-Scene Commander (OSC)"

MRCC Turku told Silja Europa it would arrive 'in ten minutes'. This was at 0227.

Olsson said he arrived at 0300 (he is associated with Y74)

MRCC Stockholm duty operations log starts at 0202.

Svensson told Aftonbladet he left Berga just after 0200.

When you consider that on any journey between Stockholm and Tallinn, the expected occupancy rate was 70% Swedish nationals, and the vessel was 50% Swedish owned, are you sure it is reasonable that the first Stockholm helicopter would not get there until almost 0400?

Bearing in mind MRCC had been getting tip offs from the public that something was going on in the Baltic. The first it knew was a lorry driver ringing them up. At the same time circa 0154, MRCC Stockholm was ringing MRCC Turku to find out what was going on. MRCC Turku could not get through until 0158.

Don't you feel there must surely have been a sense of urgency?

Not, 'Oh just have to give the guys an hour to get here, first'.

Especially as Berga is a sizeable naval base.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by abaddon

Of course, there is the point that if the captain/pilot of any aircraft is at bingo fuel, they absolutely have the right to tell the OSC to foxtrot oscar and RTB immediately.

There was a refuelling station especially for the helicopters at Utö.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

Will you also be avoiding Björkman "like the plague?"

I know next to nothing about the guy. However, from a page someone cited it would appear he is a 'denier' of all sorts of things.

As I do not like anarchists or deniers, then he never was my cup of tea anyway.

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Vixen

In this context, the idea that one idealised person is the possessor of some kind of esoteric knowledge; his or her followers lap up every word like pearls of wisdom which they can quote like shining drops of molten gold off by heart, whenever the occasion demands it.

The idea that I am a follower of some not-even-particularly bright or literate person is just so funny.

That is something of a reasonable definition of cult of personality, so I will accept that.

What is not reasonable however, is your attempt to claim that we think that you are under the spell of anyone. We don't claim that, we just claim that you have cribbed extensively from deluded lunatics in formulating your bizarre ideas.

You don't have to think everything that Bjorkman says is gospel to cite him as an expert in something he is expressly not an expert in, for example.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

While we're in the mood for 'fessing up, I mistook Utö for Swedish territory, having only seen there was an Utö in Sweden and not checked the map. Sorry if I left people wondering WTF I was on about earlier.

The Swedes have the cheek to call Utö, Finska Utö as though theirs is the real one.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I know next to nothing about the guy.

You have been presented with an extensive catalogue of Björkman's errors in and denials of science. He is a former member of this forum, and has posted extensively. Why has this failed to inform you? What else would be required in order to provide you with an accurate picture of his reliability in science and engineering?

And if you "know next to nothing about" him, then how were you once so confidently able to tell us he must be respected because he was a fully qualified marine engineer? It seems all you know about him is what he believes and tells people about himself.

Quote:

As I do not like anarchists or deniers, then he never was my cup of tea anyway.

No one is talking about "anarchists." You cited to Björkman early in this thread, and several times since, and even recently. You have at times spent considerable effort trying to rehabilitate him as an expert witness in marine engineering. You still rely upon him for Aftonbladet quotes and commentary. You may have disavowed him with your keyboard, but you have not given up on using him as a source. You're just concealing it as best you can.

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Vixen

MRCC Turku told Silja Europa it would arrive 'in ten minutes'. This was at 0227.



Olsson said he arrived at 0300 (he is associated with Y74)



MRCC Stockholm duty operations log starts at 0202.



Svensson told Aftonbladet he left Berga just after 0200.



When you consider that on any journey between Stockholm and Tallinn, the expected occupancy rate was 70% Swedish nationals, and the vessel was 50% Swedish owned, are you sure it is reasonable that the first Stockholm helicopter would not get there until almost 0400?



Bearing in mind MRCC had been getting tip offs from the public that something was going on in the Baltic. The first it knew was a lorry driver ringing them up. At the same time circa 0154, MRCC Stockholm was ringing MRCC Turku to find out what was going on. MRCC Turku could not get through until 0158.



Don't you feel there must surely have been a sense of urgency?



Not, 'Oh just have to give the guys an hour to get here, first'.



Especially as Berga is a sizeable naval base.

Sources please for what Olsson and Svensson allegedly said. What time did any Swedish helicopter get alerted and by whom?

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I mistook it for an ordinary newspaper because that is what it looks like when you click on it.

So what you are admitting here is googling for any other source for the same bonkers claims you are making, taking one look at the layout of the website and deciding "**** it, that will do".


Amazing.

[abaddon]

Originally Posted by Vixen

There was a refuelling station especially for the helicopters at Utö.

Which is no use for the survivors, the repairs or the fuel remaining. Or for that matter getting the helicopter back on scene as fast as possible.

And it doesn't matter anyway. That is a call made by the pilot.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

You have been presented with an extensive catalogue of Björkman's errors in and denials of science. He is a former member of this forum, and has posted extensively. Why has this failed to inform you? What else would be required in order to provide you with an accurate picture of his reliability in science and engineering?



No one is talking about "anarchists." You cited to Björkman early in this thread, and several times since, and even recently. You have at times spent considerable effort trying to rehabilitate him as an expert witness in marine engineering. You still rely upon him for Aftonbladet quotes and commentary. You may have disavowed him with your keyboard, but you have not given up on using him as a source. You're just concealing it as best you can.

I would never rely on the call of a crowd who often are just a baying mob who enjoy the sport of chasing someone down. It's like being lost and then following the crowd thinking they are going the same way and then discovering they were not at all.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Any decision that has been before a court of law is in the public domain (with a few exceptions, such as a Family Court).

Oh good. You’ll be able to cite it then.

Quote:

Why do you believe that only Bollyn (in 2012) is the only person who could have known about the two Egyptians?

What are you claiming that he knew about the two Egyptians?

Loads of people seem to have known that the two Egyptians were extradited to Egypt without due process, and with insufficient guarantee that they would not be tortured. We have actual court decisions confirming this.

What you are claiming is quite different. You claim that they were disappeared, and that a court (you initially claimed it was the ECHR) has confirmed this. Is this the ‘knowledge’ that you are attributing to Bollyn? What evidence is it based on?

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

Sources please for what Olsson and Svensson allegedly said. What time did any Swedish helicopter get alerted and by whom?

From JAIC:

"Q 97 (Super Puma)

The Swedish stand-by helicopter Q 97 took off from Visby at 0250 hrs, arriving at the scene of the accident at 0350 hrs. The OSC requested the helicopter to pick up as many people as possible from the sea.

On its first flight Q 97 rescued six survivors from the keels of two upside-down lifeboats. As instructed by the OSC, Q 97 flew them to Utö, where it landed at 0500 hrs. During the stop the crew called ARCC Arlanda, informing about the situation at the scene and asking for as many helicopters as possible." 7.5.5


This was the first 'urgent' helicopter to arrive according to JAIC.

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I would never rely on the call of a crowd who often are just a baying mob who enjoy the sport of chasing someone down. It's like being lost and then following the crowd thinking they are going the same way and then discovering they were not at all.

You are raving.

You've been told, multiple times, that Bjorkman does not think that nukes are possible. Whatever you think of your interlocutors here (and wasn't it you who used to nanny us for being rude?) that is a fact that even you have accepted. This denial means the man is incompetent in physics, or is willing to ignore physics in order to cling on to his delusions. Either way he is not someone that can be relied upon as an expert in physics.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

So what you are admitting here is googling for any other source for the same bonkers claims you are making, taking one look at the layout of the website and deciding "**** it, that will do".


Amazing.

It showed that the two Egyptians' plight was in the public domain.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I would never rely on the call of a crowd who often are just a baying mob who enjoy the sport of chasing someone down.

Your personal distaste for your critics is noted.

You're the one citing him as an authority, despite knowing next to nothing about him. Far from a "braying mob," we have actually done the legwork necessary to determine whether he is a reliable source or not, up to and including debating him directly and interactively exactly as we are doing with you. We have presented to you the facts that are the fruits of that investigation, and you seem to have no stomach for them. Why is that?

So since you're dismissing a proper review of Anders Björkman's claims as nothing more than mean-spiritedness, are you back to trying to rehabilitate him as a witness?

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Vixen

It showed that the two Egyptians' plight was in the public domain.

How so? It merely cites to Bollyn, who is the one trying to draw the comparison between the Egyptians and the missing MS Estonia officers by fabricating a pseudo-legal theory. The question is not whether the two Egyptian's plight was known. The question is what the actual character of that plight was. Your source claims they were "disappeared," not merely expelled injudiciously from the country. Your only source for that claim is Bollyn.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Your personal distaste for your critics is noted.

You're the one citing him as an authority, despite knowing next to nothing about him. Far from a "braying mob," we have actually done the legwork necessary to determine whether he is a reliable source or not, up to and including debating him directly and interactively exactly as we are doing with you. We have presented to you the facts that are the fruits of that investigation, and you seem to have no stomach for them. Why is that?

So since you're dismissing a proper review of Anders Björkman's claims as nothing more than mean-spiritedness, are you back to trying to rehabilitate him as a witness?

I have not hitched my horse to any cart.

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Vixen

It showed that the two Egyptians' plight was in the public domain.

But not, crucially, that their plight equated to enforced disappearance, which was your claim.

You have been asked for where you got the legally incorrect bonkers opinion that the case of the two Egyptians was enforced disappearance. You've quoted Bollyn as a source, who is a delusional nutcase and not a legal expert, and some far right fake newspaper that quotes Bollyn. Now you're desperately trying to distance yourself from these two (well, one really) sources, so people are asking you for where you did find this information. You've just claimed it is publicly available, except that the publicly available information, including the court case you cited, does not support the conclusion you have claimed.

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I have not hitched my horse to any cart.

This is what is commonly called "a lie". You've continued to crib from Bjorkman even after his obvious insanity was brought to your attention. Again, you take your incorrect ideas on ship buoyancy from him, and every time you've quoted Aftonbladet it has come from Bjorkman's quoting of said paper, right down to including the gaps in the quotes that Bjorkman does. That you're trying, apparently without shame, to hoodwink us into thinking you are not using Bjorkman's nonsense just goes to show that you know it is a lie.