AFM:
The reason the EMC zealots get short shrift is that as a rule, they violate the precept that 99% of other proposers of pet-theories manage to follow:
No matter how improbable your theory, please walk through it from cause to effect. Those opining on fuel waxing, FADEC failure, inner engine icing, pilot error, partial spar valve failure, etc all at least provide the courtesy of a scenario and some sort of support chain.
IMHO, only the proponents of mystical EMC feel that a bit of arm waving, appeal to the vagaries of past unexplained accidents, and exasperated frustration that their explanation is not just ratified as-is, can somehow suffice as support for their otherwise unsupportable stance.
This comes to mind:
That is simply not how scientific inquiry and accident investigation in particular is to be approached. Einstein said:
"Keep an open mind. But not so open your brain falls out."
