• 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.
JayUtah said:
It sounded like you were trying to claim you didn't use Heiwa as your source for the Aftonbladet articles. You said you had Google Translate and access to other sources of the articles in Swedish.



You got it from the Heiwa website, not from some other source as you previously insinuated. So the claim that you're not relying upon Anders Björkman is entirely false.
Click to expand...

The only Aftonbladet articles from Heiwa - and they were accredited to Heiwa - were the ones relating to Svensson on 28/29 Sept 1994.

Any others would have been direct from their own webpage.
 
Axxman300 said:
Nobody cares.

This has NOTHING to do with Estonia's bow visor getting knocked off in rough seas.

Neither man died, both received $500,000 in compensation from Sweden. Case is closed.
Click to expand...

So an 'illegal deportation' is worth $500K...? One of the guys was given permanent residency as a citizen, after fulfilling criteria.

Do you agree it was not just a 'deportation gone wrong' but something a whole lot worse?
 
Vixen said:
So an 'illegal deportation' is worth $500K...? One of the guys was given permanent residency as a citizen, after fulfilling criteria.

Do you agree it was not just a 'deportation gone wrong' but something a whole lot worse?
Click to expand...

I. Don't. Care.

This has nothing to do with MS Estonia's bow-visor getting knocked off in rough seas it had no business sailing.
 
Vixen said:
I am not allowed to.

I wrote a piece about some close relatives having been builders. A poster took the opportunity to mock them which I was not prepared to tolerate so I removed the post.

Nothing to do with hiding anything.


The other post I deleted was a reply to a poster but then I noticed they had called me a moron.


Nothing nefarious about it at all.

Please show me the Rome post you claim I deleted.
Click to expand...
That's not the conversation that the post you deleted took place in. God you're really bad at this, aren't you?

The post you deleted was you claiming that Sweden admitted to disappearing the two Egyptians. This was in a separate conversation from your conversation about your family who were builders.
 
Vixen said:
Why not just ask the OP to step forward? He is a great stickler for 'honesty' so let's see.
Click to expand...

I assume that you are attempting to claim it is me, since I did use the word "moronic" in a post. Unfortunately the post is not accusing you of being moronic, it is accusing you of being a liar, and stating that the only other option if you want to argue against that accusation is that you're a moron.

MarkCorrigan said:
Nope. You know that isn't what it means to be disappeared. You've been informed multiple times that you are simply wrong, and every time you've attempted to argue the point the exact wording of the legal statutes has been presented to show you that you're wrong. You are now clearly and deliberately lying, or are too stupid to understand what for legalese is plain English.

So, dishonest or moronic. Your choice I guess.
Click to expand...

ETA: Even then your obvious attempt to make this not be an epic fail on your part fails itself, because this post has nothing to do with your claims regarding your family at all which is what you are now trying to claim the conversation was about.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
The only Aftonbladet articles from Heiwa - and they were accredited to Heiwa - were the ones relating to Svensson on 28/29 Sept 1994.
Click to expand...

You're using Anders Björkman as a source not only for your ship stability claims, but for other things where his purported expertise in marine engineering is irrelevant. That is the basis of my claim that you consider him one of your principal sources.
 
Vixen said:
Those two Aftonbladet articles about Svensson on 28 and 29 Sept 1994 were important.
Click to expand...

You only think they are important because they feature prominently in Bjorkman's narrative. In fact, you haven't shown that you know anything about them, or have original ideas about why they are important, independently of what Bjorkman tells you.

You even accepted his assertion that the JAIC report fails to credit Svensson clearly with seven rescues, as well as his pretense that the report is somehow unclear on this point. "If they were actually saved by Kenneth Svensson is unclear." It is not. Everybody else in this thread who looked at the report understands that it describes Svensson as rescuing seven people including all six on Y 74. But Bjorkman says he is confused as to what the report is saying, and tellingly, you are somehow confused on the same point.

https://heiwaco.tripod.com/epunkt141.htm

Even more tellingly, you are *committed* to continuing to feign confusion on this point even after several people have explained it to you, and shown you in the report where it is clear.

And you even manage to get Bjorkman wrong. At one point he writes this:

"According the Final report Kenneth only rescued one person before he fell in the water and could not be winched up."

and you somehow spun this into the final report only crediting Svensson with one rescue total. A distortion that even Bjorkman does not present, although a careless reading of his page might give that impression.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
...the OP had called me a moron...
Click to expand...

junkshop said:
...Who is this OP who called you a moron? IIRC, you are the OP of this thread, are you not?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Why not just ask the OP to step forward? He is a great stickler for 'honesty' so let's see.
Click to expand...

junkshop said:
What are you talking about? YOU started this thread. YOU are the OP.
Click to expand...

abaddon said:
Well you are the OP, so step forward and demonstrate some honesty.
Click to expand...

Vixen, what do you think 'OP' means?
 
junkshop said:
Vixen said:
...the OP had called me a moron...
Click to expand...

junkshop said:
...Who is this OP who called you a moron? IIRC, you are the OP of this thread, are you not?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Why not just ask the OP to step forward? He is a great stickler for 'honesty' so let's see.
Click to expand...

junkshop said:
What are you talking about? YOU started this thread. YOU are the OP.
Click to expand...

abaddon said:
Well you are the OP, so step forward and demonstrate some honesty.
Click to expand...

Vixen, what do you think 'OP' means?
Click to expand...
Betting on a claim of "just a typo".
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Why would they blow up the granite with dynamite?
Click to expand...

If you want to build anything underground, you need to blow up the granite. That's simple. The folks who are building a large house near my home have been blasting the foundations for two weeks now.

But Vixen is really wrong when she claims that explosives are easily available in Finland. Laki vaarallisten kemikaalien ja räjähteiden käsittelyn turvallisuudesta ("Law on safe handling of dangerous chemicals and explosives", https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2005/20050390) states that only three kinds of explosives can be handed over to private individuals:

1) fireworks that have been approved for private use

2) blank shells intended to be used with starter pistols

3) signal and illumination flares that have been approved

There's also the exception that ammunition may be handed over to people who have a licensed weapon.

The Panostajalaki ("Demolition certificate law", https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2016/20160423) then lists what certificates are needed for doing different demolition jobs.

[Edited to add: those are the current laws, back in 1994 the laws were essentially the same, but for example, a wider range of fireworks were considered appropriate for private use.]
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom