This is a circular argument, it was removed because you are making claims. can you substantiate them?
Did you delete it? It’s not like my reply magically was deleted by me.
Why can’t you answer the question?
The question is what exactly? You used the exact document that was removed by Gaijin for not being allowed, but can’t understand that? It’s not like I can delete your post for you now, which is why I asked if you deleted it.
That said slide #59 was never cleared for realease?
If you want the story, even TheEuropeanCanadian released it on his more recent youtube video. If you couldn’t tell by the slideshow, it is setup to show the history of the swedish military in its entirety. It should also be noted this document was removed from Gaijins own forum post earlier this week after it was determined to not be unclassified. This information is widely known at this point, so it’s up to you to actually stay up to date on it. Video link here → https://youtu.be/PlorvdCIfW8
And so why would we not trust that a A historian has done their due diligence, in the creation of said presentation, it was given publically.
This is not the requirement Gaijin uses, things are removed for a lack of positive proof, that elements are actually declassified, there is a grey zone of documents that have been properly FOIA’d but did not retain their statements, its generally why the 30-50 year rule also exists since it covers most edge cases.
And its not like they’ve made a statement indicating it was removed, and since i read the article ~20 minutes post release, the edit hadn’t happened yet, not do I care to particularly re-read articles for no reason.
Where was such a determination made?
That video is 10 hours old, who says I’m even in a time zone that would make this feasible? Also I have far better things to do with my weekend, than pay attention to the most boring CC in the program.
Just because someone is a historian, does not mean that they actually did their due diligence to see if something actually had been properly channeled to be public information. Here is the email from the author of the presentation anyways since you still need someone to explain to you its not supposed to be there.
Here is the translated transcript below: From: Rickard O. Lindström Date: Mon, Mar 7, 2016, 7:18 PM
Many thanks for pointing this out - you are absolutely right. The presentation with those details should not have been on the website.
I have tried to figure out how this happened, and I think I know now… I was forced to change server space provider, as the one I had shut down their operations. In connection with this, I uploaded “most of it” to a new host, but a lot of the pdf files had disappeared (most of them). Last year I received a notice from someone that my links were not working and I then started looking for old files. I found my presentation from 2012 in ppt format and converted it to pdf format. What I must have forgotten was that, last time, I had cleaned up the presentation so that it could be published openly. An extreme oversight on my part.
Now the file and the link have been removed.
Once again - many thanks for pointing this out.
Best regards, //Rickard
-----Original Message----- From: [Name Redacted] Sent: March 7, 2016, 18:31 To: Rickard O. Lindström Subject: Questionable slides?
Hi Rickard! I was browsing around your excellent website when I saw that in the presentation “Combat vehicles today and tomorrow (2012-11-08)” there are (as I understand it) exact details regarding protection levels on the Strv 122 and M1. I reacted a bit to this; admittedly the vehicle is 20 years old and the information would hardly surprise any intelligence analysts, but is this information really declassified? A bit silly of a question to ask perhaps, as it would likely be you or someone in your vicinity at the FMV (Swedish Defence Materiel Administration) who would be responsible for the declassification, but in any case. Sorry for sticking my nose in, I was just a bit surprised.
With kind regards, [Name Redacted]
All I’m looking for is supporting evidence, a little stronger than someone else said something, so it must be true.
I didn’t exactly need a transcript.
You can look on the forum in question as well. Gaijin has yet to publicly admit they used it, but when questioned about it, Stona sends Men In Black neuralyzer memes as a response. Regarding the Hull Armor of the M1A2 SEP V3
Rickard was a Strategic Analyst within the FMV (Swedish Defence Material) so he had access to the presentation and data from it
He himself had a cleared version that omits 9 slides, each to do with the armour protection and that is the version that can be found with Arsenalen, he accidentally uploaded the uncleared version to his site and well once someone sees a thing on the internet, its there forever and as soon as he realised he removed it
That is the email shown above
https://se.linkedin.com/in/rickard-o-lindstrom-896784127?trk=people-guest_people_search-card
2 Likes