It was you who cast aspersions on Professor Amdahl's expertise...
No. I said there were problems with his findings as expressed in connection with Evertsson's film. I went into considerable detail about what those problems were, from the point of view of someone else who is also an expert in modeling and reconstructing collisions, and who has done so professionally. But when it became apparent
you didn't have the qualifications to see what the problems were, it became fruitless to debate it with
you any further.
That's when you started telling us we had to accept his claims because he was so well qualified, regardless of what we thought the errors in those claims might be.
...and thus his qualifications became relevant: he is (a) an expert in marine collisions - he has investigated them first-hand, he knows what they look like; he knows how to do the calculations and (b) he has no dog in this fight...
I don't have a dog in this fight either. Amdahl's qualifications were never in question. However, it requires more than just a review of his qualifications to establish that he is correct in this particular case. But now, just as then, that's all you can do. You recite what you think his qualifications are, and you think that's sufficient to overcome all questions.
...he is Norwegian and thus has no bias conscious or unconscious one way or another.
Why does his nationality matter?
The JAIC never even considered the possibility of a collision - despite the huge hole in the starboard...
You've failed to convince anyone there is evidence the hole was present and visible when the initial collection of data occurred.
My point in bringing up Amdahl was to ask you reconcile his claims with those of Johanson from Estline. You tell us we must respect Johanson as an expert in Baltic shipping when he tells us a sea mine was a plausible explanation. But you previously told us we had to respect Amdahl as an expert in ship collisions when he tells us the injury to
Estonia is consistent with collision damage. Both cannot be true. But instead of picking one of those two and sticking with it, the only point you manage to eke out of that minestrone of expert opinion is that it's just one more way the designated enemy was wrong. You simply can't demonstrate the ability to think in terms that rise above vilifying the initial investigation. Every affirmative conspiracy theory you espouse exists only to show how wrong someone else was, not to establish what actually happened instead. Your answer to whether it was a mine or a minisub never goes beyond, "the JAIC covered it up."
so IMV you err when you claim it did its job properly and thoroughly.
I made no such claim. You're the one claiming affirmatively that the JAIC investigation was flawed in various ways. But the flaws you identify lack evidence in their favor. Pointing out that your attacks on it lack substance is not the same as making an affirmative claim that the reverse must be true.
I don't stamp my feet because I could not care less whether people agree with me or not.
The length of this thread and the majority of its content are evidence that you absolutely cannot abide being disagreed with.
...grilling them on whether they ever studied physics or advanced rocket science and space aerodynamics to shut them down.
That's the
voir dire that allows us to determine whether you know what you're talking about or not on the subjects you raise, or which are raised by others because they are relevant. Of course I never required you to understand "advanced rocket science." I'll let the claim about "space aerodynamics" speak for itself. The only thing I ever asked you about was basic Newtonian dynamics. You assured us you were well versed in it, having had "five years" of instruction. Whereupon I asked you a few simple, elementary questions having to do with Amdahl's findings. Your attempt to answer them, and thus to determine for yourself whether Amdahl's findings were defensible, failed miserably.
If you are unable to see what the flaws are in Prof. Amdahl's findings, as Evertsson reported them, then you are simply not equipped to debate them, and not in a position to demand that others, who are better versed than you on the subject, accept claims contrary to their own knowledge in lieu of such a debate. Instead of acknowledging that gracefully, you stamp your feet -- just as you did in the bulk of the paragraph above that I deleted in my reply. You simply cannot allow your critics to be correct to any degree, and you devolve into emotionally-charged argumentation when it appears that is the case.
