• 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

GlennB said:
"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"
Click to expand...
It's part of London Univer
Andy_Ross said:
What is your evidence for this?
Click to expand...
I read it. BTW my writing UCL in haste is a typo.
 
Vixen said:
I agree some of Bjorkman's views are eccentric and his politics weird but no-one forces you to agree with him.
Click to expand...
The same straw man you always trot out. No one is talking about his politics or any sort of "eccentric" belief. He is provably wrong in exactly the ways you need him to be right.

Vixen said:
Yes it is common for people to run people down if their views differ from yours...
Click to expand...
Rejecting someone as an authority for lack of demonstrable foundation is not to "run them down." You insist on mischaracterizing the reason for rejecting him as an expert, which makes us question your motives in trying to rehabilitate hm.

Vixen said:
...but I have never been interested in the person, as it were, unless there is something impressive about them.
Click to expand...
You cited him as a source. Although you claim now that he has nothing to do with your argument, you are unresponsive to observations that he does, and that you're still trying to rehabilitate him.

Vixen said:
Bjorkman must be in his '80's by now and not the same person as of 1998.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. My debates with him took place many years ago, as did his work on MS Estonia and others. His deficiency cannot be attributed to advanced age.

Vixen said:
I honestly can't see the point in caring.
Click to expand...
Then explain your disproportionate interest in rehabilitating him as an expert.

Vixen said:
What's important is the IDEAS imparted in the article.
Click to expand...
The ideas put forward by Björkman and invoked by you to support your argument are not just abstract proposals but are in fact attempts at expert judgment that he (and you) expected to be given evidentiary value. Evaluating those ideas—and assessing their evidentiary value—necessitates examining the foundation of that judgment, which we find to be grossly inadequate and provably wrong. Ideas promoted as expert judgement do not stand on their own on the merits. They are necessarily connected to the demonstrable, testable expertise of the person offering them.
 
Vixen said:
AFAIAC his basic explanations of buoyancy are perfectly sound.
Click to expand...
Asked and answered. You are not qualified to judge that. Further, what is at issue is not whatever elementary principle he points to but his conclusion that the foundering of MS Estonia was suspicious from a scientific standpoint. It is precisely that conclusion—not the straw men you continue to deploy—that you proposed be taken as evidence in the form of his expert judgment.
 
Last edited:
MarkCorrigan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh dear. Someone should write to his nursery school to find our whether he was any good at spelling.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Seriously? First you claim he was a fraud and imposter, then when Chalmers confirmed he did have the qualification he said he had, you've turned to seeing if you can find anything there in order to hang onto your obsession with personalities. I guess the next step will be to look at his hairstyle to see if he ever had a mullet. I mean there has GOT to be something that proves he knows nothing NOTHING about marine engineering.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
So far as I am aware, Kazuo Ishiguro's first novel does not deny the reality of the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Imagining a survivor whose narration is unreliable in part because she does not like to remember that reality is not the same as denying that reality. Not that it would matter even if an avowedly fictional novel were to deny that reality. Ishiguro's readers can distinguish fiction from reality, even though @Vixen cannot.

So far as I am aware, Kazuo Ishiguro's fiction has not given us any account of the MS Estonia disaster, whether imagined or otherwise.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
So far as I am aware, Kazuo Ishiguro's first novel does not deny the reality of the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Imagining a survivor whose narration is unreliable in part because she does not like to remember that reality is not the same as denying that reality. Not that it would matter even if an avowedly fictional novel were to deny that reality. Ishiguro's readers can distinguish fiction from reality, even though @Vixen cannot.

So far as I am aware, Kazuo Ishiguro's fiction has not given us any account of the MS Estonia disaster, whether imagined or otherwise.
Click to expand...
He's written several around the topic. Great writer.
 
Vixen said:
Seriously? First you claim he was a fraud and imposter...
Click to expand...
That was the picture of evidence at the time. It was widely known that he was a loss adjuster in the insurance field all the while he was claiming to be a naval architect, although this wasn't discovered until later. And his demonstrated lack of proficiency was obviously inconsistent with his having earned an advanced degree in the physical sciences. And until just very recently, the school in question could produce no record of his attendance.

Vixen said:
...when Chalmers confirmed he did have the qualification he said he had, you've turned to seeing if you can find anything there in order to hang onto your obsession with personalities.
Click to expand...
No. You are the one obsessed with personalities. We're looking squarely and only at his qualifications.

Vixen said:
I mean there has GOT to be something that proves he knows nothing NOTHING about marine engineering.
Click to expand...
You mean other than his demonstrated lack of understanding?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom