The sinking of MS Estonia: Case Reopened Part VII

[JayUtah]

BTW you need to spell his name correctly: 'Anders Björkman'...

Indeed, that's probably my fault. I habitually (though not intentionally) misspell his name and others copy me. Back when I was debating him (at another forum) there was another conspiracy theorist who had a Scandinavian name that ended in -mann and a given name Anders, and I never got over my confusion.

I saw it on their webpage.

Indeed, and so did I after being pointed there by another member. I then was able to go on to confirm that Chalmers had a degree program in naval architecture in 1969. Yes, I'm a bit chagrined that I drew a premature conclusion based on a hasty search and was called out for it. But I'm happy to set that record straight and deal with the facts as they are, not as how I wish or imagine them to be. But you must also consider that Chalmers also has research and degree programs in the kind of maritime-adjacent careers that we know Björkman [checks spelling] actually pursued. It's perfectly likely that he received a MSc from that school in the year cited, but in a field more adapted to loss adjustment for the marine insurance industry.

His diagrams on buoyancy are perfectly conventional and clear.

How would you know? We tested your knowledge of buoyancy and found it wanting. Besides, you're stabbing at straw men again. The issue is not so much with "diagrams" as with the case he builds around them.

Not sure why you think this guy has anything whatever to do with me.

Because you borrow more than his "diagrams." You repeat his claims regarding buoyancy as presumptively expert support for your claim that MS Estonia should not have rolled on her side, stayed there, and sunk. You say it should have turned turtle and floated for hours. This is Björkman's characteristic claim. You have stopped citing him as the authority for it, but you've provided no substitute authority and you keep making the claim. It's therefore reasonable to conclude that you are forced to acknowledge that Björkman is a poor source, but you wish to keep using him anyway.

...and all the other relevant maritime stuff

The "other relevant maritime stuff" that is taught at Chalmers includes the business side of shipping, which is applicable to the work we know he did. It has nothing to do with naval architecture.

...you would be expected to show a decent grasp of the foundations (physics, maths, etc).

Agreed. And since Björkman cannot demonstrate a mastery of the relevant sciences—indeed he displays a mockery of them—then he is a poor source, including for scientific claims regarding MS Estonia. He is not an authority on ship buoyancy.

I have noticed a tendency in people when they disagree with another person; they'll look for something like the other person's appearance or some such and try and drag that down a bit as if that is in anyway a logical criticism.

No.

Whenever any of your authorities is properly impeached according to facts, you try to spin it to seem like an attack on personal grounds. Björkman is a poor source because he is obviously, provably wrong in nearly all his attempts to do science. That he was taken seriously by some number of people initially is unfortunate but understandable: he was previously unknown.

 

[JayUtah]

Scientists such as Bacon believed in alchemy and astrology, for example.

As did Isaac Newton, at least as far as alchemy is concerned. Both were faithful Christians. In the notation thread I cited to a chapter in one of Bacon's most noted works. His interest in measuring time was aimed at devising a calendar that would let him and his fellow Christians reliably predict Easter. Bacon believed in some aspects of astrology, but not the overtly superstitious ones. And both Bacon and Newton believed there was something to alchemy. These were not considered irrational beliefs at the time. But what is more important is that both Bacon and Newton tried to make alchemy work using what we would recognize today as the rudiments of the scientific method—and both failed. Newton would go on to try to make a scientific defense of Christianity, which (to put it charitably) is not his best work. He failed there too.

Similarly about half the scientists in my company also believe that God gave a new Christian holy book to a farmer in rural New York some two hundred years ago, and that there are wizened old men in an office building in my city who literally talk to God. I hired those people neither because or in spite of those beliefs, but because they could demonstrate proficiency in the knowledge and skills that I need to do my work. Their side beliefs are irrelevant.

The difference between them (and Bacon and Newton) and Anders Björkman is that Björkman's nutty science is directly relevant to the foundation of his claims regarding MS Estonia (and 9/11 etc.). They're not just irrelevant side beliefs. And to be fair, if not necessarily charitable, we ignore that his beliefs are facially nutty and point out simply that to support them he exhibits gross incompetency in a broad swathe of physics and engineering. That's all it takes to make him a poor authority. We don't have to look to any further sins he may have committed. Despite our efforts to depersonalize the argument and focus simply on what he is or isn't proficient in, you insist on mischaracterizing our objection as some "personality conflict." Why is it so important to you that your critics' assessment of a source you claim you don't subscribe to be seen as irrational or improperly motivated?

As much as you struggle to disavow him out of one side of your mouth and rehabilitate him out of the other, he is a topic in this thread for the sole reason that you cited him as an authority for your claim that the manner in which the ship sank was suspicious. You can disavow him now, if you wish. But you cannot rewrite history to pretend that you never relied upon him and don't continue to advocate his claims.

 

[JayUtah]

I've done some research of my own, and I think 3 is the worst possible grade that is still a pass, whereas 5 is actually a very good grade.

So he got the lowest pass possible for ... Marine Engineering

Was that just a single class, or a series of them? Marine engineering is a specialized field, as are many others. To qualify in them, you need an entire program of study. In contrast, many schools offer one-course survey classes that do a sort of high-altitude flyover of the subject to give people some of the rudiments that may be helpful in their own more extensive studies in other areas.

He got a good grade in ... Ship Hydromechanics

For the benefit of strangers to the field, this is the study of how ships are maneuvered. It does not include a study of buoyancy, flooding models, or what happens when ships are damaged or sinking.

And of course nothing in that program of study has to do with nuclear weapons or space travel. When I studied and taught engineering, I learned only the rudiments of nuclear weaponeering. When I was called upon to do work for the U.S. Dept. of Energy, I had to come up to speed on the details, which took the better part of a year. If one were to look at my college transcripts, one would find little there to support the notion that I know about nuclear weapons. However, when called upon I can speak about them with reasonable correct authority.

ETA: Of course the issue is that he may well have shown himself capable in these fields 60 years ago, but his much more recent comments show that he has lost that expertise since then. Anyone who thinks nuclear bombs are impossible or that you can accurately simulate a building collapse with pizza boxes is manifestly incompetent at physics, irrespective of any capability they might once have had.

Correct. In the end, the assessment of Björkman's aptitude as an authority on ships sinking or any other manifestation of the physical sciences is based on his ability to demonstrate a proper working understanding of those principles. His grades in college are informative but not dispositive. Those of us who tested him on those subjects found him to be grossly lacking. He doesn't understand how nuclear weapons work. He doesn't understand the engineering of space travel. And more on topic, he doesn't understand ship stability or buoyancy. And in testing him on those subjects, we found that his misunderstanding of the physical sciences writ large at the time of the test ran deep. It's not just one or two slip-ups.

What I find especially disturbing is his willingness to publicly challenge topics in which he should know he has no proficiency. This seems more consistent with a desire for notoriety than it does a desire to set the record straight. And the fact that he lied about being a "naval architect" when his actual employment was as a functionary in the insurance business seems to support that characterization. People whose principal goal is fame are not always trustworthy reporters of truth.

 

[Vixen]

And? It is. It's also not part of the University of London. Nor, for that matter, is University College London (UCL) (though UCL and UCH are affiliated with each other). Nor is LSE part of the University of London, for that matter, it is also independent.

Describing UCL as 'an architectural college', assuming that's what your acquaintance actually did, would be inaccurate.

LSE is part of London Universities. (Edited to correct obvious typo).

 

[Vixen]

As Carl Sagan said, they also laughed at Bozo the clown.

Being a contrarian doesn't make you a lone genius. Demonstrably having no grasps of the basics indicates you are extraordinarily unlikely to be right by accident.

I am not a contrarian.

 

[GlennB]

LSE is part of UCL.

"No, the London School of Economics (LSE) is not part of University College London (UCL)
; they are both separate, independent universities that are members of the federal University of London. UCL is a constituent college of the University of London, and LSE is also a member institution of the University of London, but they are distinct and separate universities with their own campuses and administrations"

 

[Vixen]

Indeed and I stand corrected, he does have one. That is a surprise to me given how much of a moron he is but there we go. I jumped the gun in stating he does not have one, and the archivist found it.



So yes, he does have one, and yes I have a copy of his diploma now.

PS. See this Vixen? This is how you should react when you've been shown to be incorrect about something, not doubling down and gaslighting.


ETA: Does anyone know how Masters Degrees in Sweden are scored? As in, what would be a good mark and what wouldn't? He seems to have got either a 3 or 4 in everything except chemistry II where he got a 5. I don't know if that means his score for Chem II was better or worse than everything else.

So you were very quick to drag down* someone based on your own angry ASSUMPTIONS.

*Strong words because faking qualifications to present yourself as an expert to the public is serious fraud, even if only ethically.

I would suggest you check your facts before saying horrible things about people just because you disagree with them.

 

[Vixen]

Indeed and I stand corrected, he does have one. That is a surprise to me given how much of a moron he is but there we go. I jumped the gun in stating he does not have one, and the archivist found it.



So yes, he does have one, and yes I have a copy of his diploma now.

PS. See this Vixen? This is how you should react when you've been shown to be incorrect about something, not doubling down and gaslighting.


ETA: Does anyone know how Masters Degrees in Sweden are scored? As in, what would be a good mark and what wouldn't? He seems to have got either a 3 or 4 in everything except chemistry II where he got a 5. I don't know if that means his score for Chem II was better or worse than everything else.

No, sorry, I wouldn't assume someone was a miscreant just because I disagree with their views. I'd advise, think about what they are actually saying before getting into defensive mode.

 

[Vixen]

I've done some research of my own, and I think 3 is the worst possible grade that is still a pass, whereas 5 is actually a very good grade.

So he got the lowest pass possible for Maths, Mechanics, Mechanical Technology, Foundry Technology, Applied Thermodynamics and Flow Theory, Construction Materials I, Drawing Technique, Welding Technology, Industrial Organisation, Industrial Psych and Worker Protection, Marine Engineering, Shipyard Technology, Electrical Engineering, Industrial Electrical Measurement Technology, and Construction Materials II.

He got a good grade in Linear Algebra, Numerical Analysis, Statistics, Physics somehow despite thinking a-bombs are impossible, Strength Theory, Machine Elements, Transport Technology, Ship Hydromechanics, Marine Electrical Engineering, and Refrigeration & Ventilation Technology.

He got an excellent grade in Chemistry II.

ETA: Of course the issue is that he may well have shown himself capable in these fields 60 years ago, but his much more recent comments show that he has lost that expertise since then. Anyone who thinks nuclear bombs are impossible or that you can accurately simulate a building collapse with pizza boxes is manifestly incompetent at physics, irrespective of any capability they might once have had.

Has it crossed your mind he might have been seriously interested in the logistics of dropping atomic bombs and its aftermath. If you read more widely, for example, Kazuo Ishiguro, who verifies events via autobiographical fiction, you wouldn't need to feel so threatened by people shooting the breeze on abstract notions however ridiculous.

 

[Vixen]

If Bjorkman has a decent grasp of the foundations of physics and maths, then why does he claim crackpot ideas such as nuclear weapons being impossible and that space flight is impossible?

Ask him. Why ask me? We are all responsible for our own actions.

 

[JayUtah]

I am not a contrarian.

It can be argued you are. You claim you carefully consider all your sources. But when we evaluate your sources ourselves, we find that you tend to select and promote them essentially according to whether they support or challenge the conventional narrative. You are quick to adopt sources that challenge the conventional narrative even if they are objectively unreliable, and you tend to disregard sources that support the convention narrative even if they are well-founded.

So you were very quick to drag down* someone based on your own angry ASSUMPTIONS.

No.

As stated numerous times, we reject Anders Björkman as an authority based on our own examination of his proficiency in the relevant sciences. You propose to rehabilitate him on the grounds that he holds an appropriate degree and therefore should be assumed to know what he's talking about. While his academic credentials are now firmly established, he has never been able to produce any evidence that he worked as a naval architect. And this is not merely an argument from silence, as we have affirmative evidence that his employment was otherwise. When he was dismissed from that job, he formed his own sole proprietorship whereby he can claim to be anything he wants.

Further, as usual it is your critics who are honestly seeking and vetting your sources, not you. And it is your critics who are accepting the facts as they are, even if that sets back their arguments.

 

[JayUtah]

Has it crossed your mind he might have been seriously interested in the logistics of dropping atomic bombs and its aftermath.

Irrelevant. He claims atomic bombs are physically impossible and offers a completely wrong scientific explanation for why he thinks so. What is your ongoing interest in trying to rehabilitate Anders Björkman as an expert witness if he has nothing to do with your argument?

 

[JayUtah]

Ask him.

We have. He failed.

Why ask me? We are all responsible for our own actions.

Your actions include citing Björkman as an expert witness in favor of your claims that the sinking of MS Estonia was somehow suspicious. You are responsible for your choice of sources, so we ask you.

 

[JayUtah]

No, sorry, I wouldn't assume someone was a miscreant just because I disagree with their views.

It is not necessary to characterize anyone as a "miscreant" (or as anything) in order to note that he cannot display a proficiency he either claims or implies, and therefore his judgment is unreliable as an expert.

I'd advise, think about what they are actually saying before getting into defensive mode.

We are. Our rejection of Anders Björkman is based exclusively on his inability—as expressed in his own words—to demonstrate a correct understanding of the relevant physical science principles.

You propose to rehabilitate him largely on the character of his academic activity, which was nearly three decades out of date when he began his public activities espousing various conspiracy theories. You further propose to rehabilitate him by mischaracterizing criticism of him as improperly based on animus or personality.

I ask again. Why are you so interested in rehabilitating a witness you lately claim is now irrelevant to your argument?

 

[Andy_Ross]

LSE is part of UCL.

No it isn't

 

[Vixen]

As did Isaac Newton, at least as far as alchemy is concerned. Both were faithful Christians. In the notation thread I cited to a chapter in one of Bacon's most noted works. His interest in measuring time was aimed at devising a calendar that would let him and his fellow Christians reliably predict Easter. Bacon believed in some aspects of astrology, but not the overtly superstitious ones. And both Bacon and Newton believed there was something to alchemy. These were not considered irrational beliefs at the time. But what is more important is that both Bacon and Newton tried to make alchemy work using what we would recognize today as the rudiments of the scientific method—and both failed. Newton would go on to try to make a scientific defense of Christianity, which (to put it charitably) is not his best work. He failed there too.

Similarly about half the scientists in my company also believe that God gave a new Christian holy book to a farmer in rural New York some two hundred years ago, and that there are wizened old men in an office building in my city who literally talk to God. I hired those people neither because or in spite of those beliefs, but because they could demonstrate proficiency in the knowledge and skills that I need to do my work. Their side beliefs are irrelevant.

The difference between them (and Bacon and Newton) and Anders Björkman is that Björkman's nutty science is directly relevant to the foundation of his claims regarding MS Estonia (and 9/11 etc.). They're not just irrelevant side beliefs. And to be fair, if not necessarily charitable, we ignore that his beliefs are facially nutty and point out simply that to support them he exhibits gross incompetency in a broad swathe of physics and engineering. That's all it takes to make him a poor authority. We don't have to look to any further sins he may have committed. Despite our efforts to depersonalize the argument and focus simply on what he is or isn't proficient in, you insist on mischaracterizing our objection as some "personality conflict." Why is it so important to you that your critics' assessment of a source you claim you don't subscribe to be seen as irrational or improperly motivated?

As much as you struggle to disavow him out of one side of your mouth and rehabilitate him out of the other, he is a topic in this thread for the sole reason that you cited him as an authority for your claim that the manner in which the ship sank was suspicious. You can disavow him now, if you wish. But you cannot rewrite history to pretend that you never relied upon him and don't continue to advocate his claims.

I agree some of Bjorkman's views are eccentric and his politics weird but no-one forces you to agree with him. Yes it is common for people to run people down if their views differ from yours but I have never been interested in the person, as it were, unless there is something impressive about them. Bjorkman must be in his '80's by now and not the same person as of 1998. I honestly can't see the point in caring. It's like caring about some guy who wrote that article in Washington Post today. Who cares? What's important is the IDEAS imparted in the article.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Ask him. Why ask me? We are all responsible for our own actions.

We did ask him,he was a member of the forum.

 

[Vixen]

No it isn't

Yes it is.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Yes it is.

What is your evidence for this?

 

[Vixen]

"No, the London School of Economics (LSE) is not part of University College London (UCL)
; they are both separate, independent universities that are members of the federal University of London. UCL is a constituent college of the University of London, and LSE is also a member institution of the University of London, but they are distinct and separate universities with their own campuses and administrations"

It's part of London University. I did not say UCL.