• 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.

The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

That's his claim, certainly.

Where is the proof it is an accurate claim?


Mr Anders Björkman graduated from Chalmers University of Technology in 1969 with a. M.Sc. in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering.

"some outstanding questions about the estonia".​

1762985228399.png
Bahnhof
http://privat.bahnhof.se › factgroup › est › bilaga2


PDF

Mr Anders Björkman graduated from Chalmers University of Technology in 1969 with a. M.Sc. in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering. He spent a year in ...
 
That's half true. His desired audience wasn't just a web forum but the world at large. And yes, he pretended to be something he isn't in order to get undeserved attention.
Nahhhh, surely people wouldn't do THAT.....

After all, when they come up against people who actually know what they are talking about, their little book of tall tales would rapidly fall apart....

And they would totally make themselves look like total fools in the process....

Nobody here would be THAT foolish now would they????
 
You're merely repeating his claim, or sources that repeat his claim without evidence. The second document you've presented is a reproduction of a "paper" Bjorkman wrote.

Since you've not actually provided any evidence, I figured I'd do your job for you.

I am emailing Chalmers University of Technology.

The email will state the following:

Hello there, apologies if this is the incorrect email address to use for this kind of enquiry, however I thought I should reach out to you.

I am involved in a discussion regarding Anders Bjorkman, a man who claims to have been a naval engineer. He also claims that he received an M.Sc. in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering from your university in 1969. I was hoping that you would be able to confirm whether or not this is the case?

Again, apologies if this is not the correct place to be making this enquiry, and if that is the case, could you please provide the proper channel for my request?

Yours Faithfully, [my name]
 
Chalmers is rated 165 in the world and no. 1 in Sweden, according to this webpage.

Is it a naval college?
 
You're merely repeating his claim, or sources that repeat his claim without evidence. The second document you've presented is a reproduction of a "paper" Bjorkman wrote.

Since you've not actually provided any evidence, I figured I'd do your job for you.

I am emailing Chalmers University of Technology.

The email will state the following:

Hello there, apologies if this is the incorrect email address to use for this kind of enquiry, however I thought I should reach out to you.

I am involved in a discussion regarding Anders Bjorkman, a man who claims to have been a naval engineer. He also claims that he received an M.Sc. in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering from your university in 1969. I was hoping that you would be able to confirm whether or not this is the case?

Again, apologies if this is not the correct place to be making this enquiry, and if that is the case, could you please provide the proper channel for my request?

Yours Faithfully, [my name]
Firstly, I have had my email allocated a ticket number.

[td]

Hej Edward Baylis,

[/td]
[td]Ditt ärende nedan har registrerats med ärendenummer T-2511-5473 .[/td] [td]
We have registered your case below with ticket T-2511-5473.
[/td]

Secondly and far stupider, I forgot to actually change the [my name] part of that posted I copied and pasted to actually use my name. Fortunately they have my real name anyway.
 
History is littered with people who are expert in one area but totally doolally in others. Scientists such as Bacon believed in alchemy and astrology, for example. To my mind it is the search of knowledge that drives them and the former is how Chemistry came to be born.
First, as has been explained to you ad nauseam, he has demonstrated that he is "doolally" in physics, including nuclear physics. One simply cannot be a competent naval architect without a strong understanding of physics. Why is this so hard for you to accept?

Second, as has also been explained to you repeatedly, even if we were to grant that he is a lunatic in one area but might be a competent professional in another, we would require extremely strong and convincing evidence that that was the case. "Because I (and he) say so" definitely does not cut it.
 
They do not teach naval architecture.
Did they in 1969?

ETA: and they currently teach a Masters in Maritime Engineering, which mentions naval architecture.

 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom