You're not being surrounded by angry villagers. You're being presented with evidence that contracts your claims—evidence which you assiduously try to rewrite as some kind of mob violence.
Because he is objectively unable to demonstrate the required expertise.
His claims that the ship's hull would have retained enough buoyancy to preclude sinking in minutes instead of hours is contradicted by every flooding model in the field.
Unfortunately that wasn't all your expert witness was interested in, including matters clearly beyond his understanding and experience. Your disagreement with Björkman notwithstanding, you agree with him in the question of the ship's purported buoyancy. You first reported his conclusions without citation. When asked where those conclusions came from you revealed you had copied them from Anders Björkman, whom you said you took as possibly some sort of expert. You had no idea whether he was an expert when you cited him as one, and you admitted at the time you were unable to determine the validity of any of those claims on your own.
Can I suggest you start a new thread on this fellow, as he is merely a small footnote to the Estonia accident investigations, and I am not actually the slightest bit interested in him, although I can see he seems to stir up all kinds of excitement here. I was not around when he was on the forum so your displeasure in him really has nothing at all to do with me. I cannot and will not be a proxy for him.
Regarding Bjorkman, obvs.
Stop handwaving, and stop lying about what I am saying.
Please provide sources for this.
So what if say, an expert explained exactly what was wrong with his calculations and claims regarding the Estonia?
Yes, maybe several years ago. But do you know what? I am the type of person able to change my views based on new information.
No. He's someone you cited as an expert and whose conclusions you continue to rely upon. We will test the strength of your evidence in the thread where you offer it.
False. You cited him as an expert and are trying vigorously to rehabilitate him as one despite evidence completely refuting his purported foundation of expertise.
You cited him as an expert, apparently unaware that your critics had direct evidence that he cannot demonstrate the expertise you rely upon him for. You still cannot explain your desperate to explain away your critics rejection of your witness as somehow irrational or mean-spirited.
Why? You aren't able to understand it.
Yes, go ahead.
You have not changed your views. You still maintain that the ship sank suspiciously quickly and you have cited no authority beyond Björkman for that expert judgment. That, coupled with your otherwise inexplicable need to rehabilitate Björkman as an expert witness tends to support the conclusion that you still consider him a source for that original claim.
I would like to point out that I am very much not an expert.
I am the source. This is my field of expertise.
That is incorrect. Captain Mäkelä was of that view. Even Capt Thornroos was shocked. To claim that Bjorkman is the representative of all the parties that have reservations in the matter is totally misguided. Andi Meister and Margus Kurm are very explicit in their scepticism. You really can't get away with the claim only whacko conspiracy theorists have grave doubts.
More importantly, Björkman stands alone in his claim that the ship sank suspiciously quickly contrary to buoyancy. There are plenty of naval architects in the world and they all generally agree on the manner of the ship's sinking. There are many flooding models to choose from. The ones we use today are based on quite complex fluid dynamics. The ones that would have been used at the time MS Estonia sank were based on simple flow through an orifice and presumed a general diffusion through the vessel. Björkman's claims are nonsensical not just because they ignore such things as downflooding, but because they actively actively deny it. It's the same schtick as is rejection of nuclear weapons. It's not as if he's quibbling with some arguable detail of some particular niche claim. It's as if he rejects the entire field.
They did not study it. They simply expressed shock. A lot of us did. That is not an expert judgment.
They did not study it.
Actually yes I can.
What do you have to say to Captain Mäkelä, Capt Thornroos, Andi Meister, Margus Kurm, Jutta Rabe, or even Bemis and Braidwood were they alive? Presumably they are all fakes and badly educated.
Can you provide an explicit example so that we can all see what you are talking about?
Well Rabe was a conspiracy theorist and a nutter, but that isnt the point.