The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

please stop bullshitting around with cut and paste statements taken here and there just to mud the water at your convenience.

Do the map yourself with the data and the bearings on the proper thread if you are able to.

You two were the ones that suggested me that bearings are more precise than distances.

So, consequently, ... do it yourself, ... otherwise join the team of ignorance and incompetence repeating the intentional incorrect statements of those liars and cowards required to go under a Court Martial, ... and finally rewarded.

We had enough here in of your useless and no value add repeating on and on the same refrain, ... like the Hood flying for 2 minutes after exploding, ... or the German having opened fire when you liked to.

Lets see how fair you will be on realizing how wrong you both are now on the map, ... lets see, ...

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

We had enough here in of your useless and no value add repeating on and on the same refrain,

Ditto.

Squared

Show us the Silver Bullet and be done with it. If anyone is spouting BS it is the one saying he has irrefutable proof and then refusing to show it, even when every other piece of evidence presented about CMDS dissolves on examination.


All the best

wadinga

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

please stop bullshitting around with cut and paste statements taken here and there just to mud the water at your convenience.

Do the map yourself with the data and the bearings on the proper thread if you are able to.

You two were the ones that suggested me that bearings are more precise than distances.

So, consequently, ... do it yourself, ... otherwise join the team of ignorance and incompetence repeating the intentional incorrect statements of those liars and cowards required to go under a Court Martial, ... and finally rewarded.

We had enough here in of your useless and no value add repeating on and on the same refrain, ... like the Hood flying for 2 minutes after exploding, ... or the German having opened fire when you liked to.

Lets see how fair you will be on realizing how wrong you both are now on the map, ... lets see, ...

Bye Antonio

Antonio:

A similar chart has been reproduced also for the Suffolk using her official bearings and she resulted being at around 9 sea miles from the enemy Bismarck at 05:42, immediately after the " Enemy in Sight ! " signal from Hood / Pow and just before making a circle back north that enlarged her distance at 15 sea miles at 05:52, when Hood opened fire on the enemy.

Ellis:

When fire was opened, the Suffolk was roughly 18,000 yards
astern of the enemy, ready to "flank mark" 'our heavy shisp'
fall-of-shot, We had set watch on the appropriate radio set and
frequency, and called the Hood repeatedly, but without response.
We were still calling the Hood when she blew up,
So Ellis = 18k yds and Antonio = 15nm at 0552:30 (referenced to PoW's salvo chart).

So who's "...bullshitting around..." above?

... or the German having opened fire when you liked to.

Ellis (narrative):

Phase 0550 (B) to 0851 (B)

18. 0550 (B). Suffolk's course 220°, 29 knots, following the enemy.

0553 (B). Heavy gun flashes bearing 185°. Half a minute later Bismarck opened fire to port.

0556½ (B). Prinz Eugen opened fire to port.

0559 (B). Hood blew up.

0600 (B). Enemy bore 208°.
http://www.hmshood.org.uk/reference/off ... 09suff.htm

Leach:

...We had had a concentration signal and waited to open fire in our proper time sector after "Hood" had opened fire. The "Hood" opened fire first and in between the time she opened fire and the time it was due for me to open fire the German ships opened fire...

Rowell:

...The "Hood" opened fire with her foremost turrets with the enemy about 40 deg. on the starboard bow and "Prince of Wales" opened fire with her foremost turrets about half a minute later. Shortly after "Prince of Wales" first salvo "Bismarck" opened fire with all four turrets. The Bismarck's opening salvo fell very close to the "Hood." I think, but I am not sure, that it was just over. The spread was extremely small, I think it was the third salvo from the "Bismarck" which first hit the "Hood" and a fierce fire started on the "Hood" boat deck abaft the mainmast. My impression is that this fire was on the portside. "Prince of Wales" at this time was fine on the "Hood's" starboard quarter...

and Brook

and Norfolk

So who's "...bullshitting around..." above?

like the Hood flying for 2 minutes after exploding

This is what I stated:

dunmunro wrote: ↑Thu Jul 05, 2018 11:39 pm
Hood took about 3 minutes to sink. She was moving at ~1000 yds/min when the magazine exploded. Hood's speed would have declined rapidly as she sank, but not instantaneously, and she probably moved forward about ~500 yds/min average for the 3 minutes or so before she sank.

Re: Jasper, Schmalenbach and 6 salvos...
Post by dunmunro » Fri Jul 06, 2018 7:32 pm

Bill Jurens wrote: ↑Fri Jul 06, 2018 5:40 pm
I visited the wreck of Queen Mary some years ago, and made diagrams of the distribution of the wreckage on the bottom, but I did not record the direction of north on the sketches, so I really don't know the orientation of the debris field. McCartney's recent book should cover that, though. One might be able to see if some of the other British ships destroyed by large explosions there over-ran their original explosion points as well as one typically sees two debris fields in such situations, one caused by the explosion itself, and the other comprising the resting point of the remaining wreckage. The Hood debris field shows just this sort of pattern, and one could, I suppose, measure the offset between the center of the original explosion debris 'donut'
and the position of the conning tower, which probably detached and sank nearly straight down as the bow plunged. I haven't looked at much of this in quite a few years now, but it might be worth pursuing again. Details of the debris fields have been printed in my SNAME paper on the loss of Hood and, as I recall, are also reproduced in the White/Mearns book covering the wreckage. The forensic analysis in the White/Mearns book is highly questionable, but the original data is still there and can be used for study purposes.

It's been my perception that in these sorts of situations -- and there are admittedly only a few to go by -- that there is relatively little forward motion of the individual parts after a large explosion occurs. In the case of Hood, which lost her stern and (probably) suffered nearly instantaneous flooding of many of the larger machinery spaces aft, the ship would have trimmed rapidly by the stern, and the additional drag caused by the large flat bottom would probably have stopped the bow rather quickly. It's not as though she had any power or ability to 'water ski' or somehow skim over the waves after the explosion occurred, as she was, during that time, essentially dragging a partially submerged and very unstreamlined wrecked middle body with her, especially if the hull slewed port or starboard during the post-explosion trajectory, which is fairly likely.

Bill Jurens

The distance of the conning tower to an after(?) barbette is about 1150 meters and the CT is about 600m north of the rest of the debris:

http://www.hmshood.com/hoodtoday/2001ex ... /index.htm

So who's "...bullshitting around..." above?


Your whole reconstruction of the battle is just so much "...bullshitting around...".

[Reubs64]

As someone who has visited this site for years and enjoyed the knowledge posted and shared on here may I express my disgust at the level this forum has sunk to if you pardon the pun. To call 2 men, long passed away, cowards in uniform is beyond contempt, I would love to see how these posters would have reacted to a 15inch shell passing by them , leaving a trail of carnage in its wake. These armchair heroes, based on a short service in a peacetime nondescript navy are modern day Nelsons if their comments are anything to go by. The fact Leach continued to serve his country after such a traumatic experience showed his guts, real guts, not bravado written from an armchair. There was a time I admired A&A,s expertise in this forum but iam afraid these armchair warriors have lost all respect .

[Bill Jurens]

Regarding the so-called 'silver bullet', and taking it for the purposes of the argument as read that for whatever reasons it is felt desirable to withhold it for now, I cannot on the surface of it see why the general nature of the bullet could not be revealed whilst it's detailed content remains -- at least for the present -- confidential. So far as book sales are concerned, a little extra information might actually render potential purchase of the book/paper more likely rather than less. In any case, the nature of the 'bullet' would, it would seem, be almost immediately revealed via the Internet once publication occurs, so sales thereafter would probably revolve more around initial reviews than 'impulse purchase' anyway.

In any case, it would seem to be harmless, and -- for the purposes of this discussion perhaps beneficial -- to reveal if not the content of the 'silver bullet', at least the general nature of this information-laden historical projectile. Is it a complete multi-paged Admiralty file discussing the details of a potential Court Martial in detail, for example, or does it consist only of some rather off-hand sentence fragment left in some historian's reference notes?

Bill Jurens

[northcape]

1) The map is completely useless for any interpretation, since it does not take any error margins into account. The scientific procedure works as follows: Data acquisition/documentation, data processing, data interpretation. Data processing (here: creation of a map) has to take random and systematic errors into account, which need to be estimated from the documentation. Now here we have very sparse documentation of errors, bur we can assume them to be huge (transcript errors, limitations of 1940's equipment, most of all time truncations in the logs at the full minute). If one would do a thorough (scientific) error analysis/estimation, the calculations of absolute positions and ship courses would not be dots and lines on a map, but large circles and broad corridors. The presented map is one out of thousands of possibilities, and does not represent the "most accurate" map because it takes all information into account. It for sure comprises a lot of hard work, but it is just an opinion. The crucial missing information is the error margin, which is essential for any interpretation. Lacking this understanding does disqualify anybody from a serious discussion.

2) All this discussion about a court martial is completely irrelevant. Even if A&A's fabulations would be correct, what is the significance to naval history, to the Bismarck saga, to the DS battle, to the RN conduct? Nothing, zero. It would just be a curious footnote to the Bismarck events, and the only reaction of any reasonable person could be "Aha. Now tell me something more relevant, please."

3) The behaviour of the two proponents is so childish that it is beyond description. Not able to write entire sentences, and excessive use of smileys, lying and twisting of truth, not responding to citical questions on their truth-bending, etc. Everybody has his/her own style, but the contrast between this childish behaviour and the worded accusations of cowardice is huge and painful to watch. Armchair-heroes who obviously gained their understanding of real-world military procedures and actions and conduct from second-rate fiction books are not in the position to call real officiers and real journalists bad names. It is hard to believe that they really served in a military service, but maybe it was just stamping letters in an office or peeling potatoes for the real soldiers on board. I think these are the typical persons who would soil their pants everytime they mistake the mess hall's dinner bell for a battle sign.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

I'm deeply sorry that a very good forum has become a bar fight stage, due to the personal insults that we have received by some RN hooligans, unable to accept the reality of facts, and UNABLE to counter it with an alternative scenario.

They quibble over details (05:52 is not 05:42), ignoring all other evidences (courses, speeds, bearing geometry, Busch distance and Ellis confirmation of them), totally unqualified to build a credible battlemap and thus defining "bullshit" the one made available for free (published since 2005, in its first version, then in 2017 and further refined here) by Antonio (Mr.Dunmunro)....
They desperately beg the "silver bullet" that will be used just to rubbish THEM, not to sell more books, instead of admitting that there are already more than enough evidence for the threat to the two timid officers, as all serious historians have confirmed. (Mr.Wadinga)
They add no historical value whatsoever, but they ridiculously "pontificate" about "forum etiquette" after having come in ONLY to insult (northcape)
They come in the forum pretending to be indignant for their heroes "resizing", but they avoid to condemn the ones who (pgollin), starting 2013, insulted personally other forum members, starting this "escalation" (Reubs64).


I am really disgusted by now, but I do think it's time to call things with their name, from a military standpoint and to recognize that a "humiliating defeat" was "sugar-coated" in order to become a "tactical retreat".


Bye, Alberto

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

you know my friend how and when this intuition started and you know that I immediately told you that the British guys would have not liked it.

Since 2013 we saw the reaction and the insult starting, and things only went worst because they do not like to loose this historical discussion and to accept the truth, and to have to admit what the documents demonstrate.

They do not like to admit that 2 Officers were put under scrutiny and a Board of Inquiry request ( obviously driving a Court Martial ) for their conduct in action was written by the RN First Sea Lord , despite the now surfaced May 31st, 1941 letter Tovey to Pound clearly stating it.

They do not like to admit that 06:13 and the Y turret moved in before the retreat was an invention of Adm Tovey dispatches, helped by WW report, despite Pitcairn-Jones ( RN Historical Office ) clearly stating it on 1948 with the due correction.

They do not like to accept what mathematics and geometry shows as far as Norfolk and Suffolk real distance from the enemy from 05:30 until 06:20.
Despite Capt Ellis autobiography revealing the truth and the lies he declared, despite "The Plot" being an incorrect map, despite I have provided a map were the distances can be easily verified thru the real bearings.

They do not like to accept what the ADM 205/10 shows, the full knowledge and acceptance of Adm Tovey intentionally falsified dispatches by the RN Admiralty board and the politicians up to Sir W. Churchill of this shameful " Cover Up ".

Bottom line, they do not like to admit the fact that 2 Officers at first were subject to an inquiry for their conduct, ... and after few months, ... thru lies and intentional falsification of data, ... after this wrong doing, ... they have been rewarded by the King.

Someone even find this attitude illogical, ... I find it logical given the time and the needs, ... unfortunately absolutely shameful.

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello All,


As has said before:

"There is only one agenda at work here, and it is not a crusade, it is more of a jihad.

Here the only fairy tale (that has been "imposed" by the "winners" for 75+ years) is Kennedy's novel, full of heroes, honorable decisions and consensus from British side.
Why nobody, among the deniers, reacted when, in the movie "Sink the Bismarck", Lutjens was depicted as a Nazi fanatic, without any supporting evidence ?

"Every time you post you make your hidden programme more obvious. There has never been a search for truth, only an attempt to get a miasma of baseless assertions into discussion, as if it had some substance and deserved to be treated seriously. Even on a site dedicated to the Bismarck's history you have not accumulated any support, because the percipient people who visit here have also identified your hidden programme and rewriting history from your biased position is not acceptable to them either. "

Now you try again to pretend chauvinism is at work.

You appear not to have noticed that the "British guys" are also German, Canadian, American, French and Jamaican! I may have left a few other nationalities out, for which I apologize. (Feel free to wade in.) All have expressed disbelief of your evidence, and many have been subject to personal insults as a result.


There is a tradition of asserting RN cover-ups and lies based on non-existent evidence amongst some writers including in our era, Enrico Cernuschi and before him, Marco'Antonio Bragadin whose successful naval writing career straddled the period when Il Duce's propaganda writers were making things up, and the repetition of those same stories by him after the war. Enrico Cernuschi has recently perpetuated Bragadin's assertions in Storia Militare which has also published the current defamation by A & A.


All the best

wadinga

[northcape]

Why nobody, among the deniers, reacted when, in the movie "Sink the Bismarck", Lutjens was depicted as a Nazi fanatic, without any supporting evidence ?

Maybe because that is a fictional movie made for entertainment, and not a piece of scientfic/journalistic work. It is even explicitely stated in the roll-off credits of the movie. How can one even consider to bring this as an comparision into this discussion?

I have to apologize, I stated several times that it is best not to react to this silliness (still believe so). But I have to admit, I'm weak and when I see such profound dumbness (there is no other word to describe it), I'm urged to response(and take the bait of the trolls).

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "You appear not to have noticed that the "British guys" are also German, Canadian,American, French and Jamaican....."

I have always spoken of RN hooligans, not nationality , and the world is apparently full of RN fanatics, people for whom whoever wears the uniform of the RN is automatically a hero and cannot be simply human. This is clearly not the case: during the operation, 2-3 officers were clearly very far from being...Nelson...

Mr.Wadinga is angry because the version of facts imposed (as normal) by the winners is by now proven FALSE..... End of story.
The battle reconstruction of Antonio is UNCHALLENGED up to now (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8231) and very different from the official British version.
The incorrect statements in the official reports are well PROVEN (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6799) and who wrote them was a LIAR as Mr.Dunmunro has politely cleared to us all.
The serious threat to the two officers is a FACT (not invented by Tovey in 1961), as all historians had already confirmed, as per this very thread.


Bye, Alberto


P.S. finally a good suggestion from an insulting guy: possibly after the publication of the true story of the Bismarck operation, it will be a good idea to produce a movie "based on real facts", imagining (dramatically in case of Leach, almost comically in case of Wake-Walker) the real characters of the officers involved: anyway it will "just" be an entertainment movie and nobody "should" feel offended, provided a disclaimer is present in its roll-off credits.

[HMSVF]

Hello All,


As has said before:

"There is only one agenda at work here, and it is not a crusade, it is more of a jihad.

Here the only fairy tale (that has been "imposed" by the "winners" for 75+ years) is Kennedy's novel, full of heroes, honorable decisions and consensus from British side.
Why nobody, among the deniers, reacted when, in the movie "Sink the Bismarck", Lutjens was depicted as a Nazi fanatic, without any supporting evidence ?
"Every time you post you make your hidden programme more obvious. There has never been a search for truth, only an attempt to get a miasma of baseless assertions into discussion, as if it had some substance and deserved to be treated seriously. Even on a site dedicated to the Bismarck's history you have not accumulated any support, because the percipient people who visit here have also identified your hidden programme and rewriting history from your biased position is not acceptable to them either. "

Now you try again to pretend chauvinism is at work.

You appear not to have noticed that the "British guys" are also German, Canadian, American, French and Jamaican! I may have left a few other nationalities out, for which I apologize. (Feel free to wade in.) All have expressed disbelief of your evidence, and many have been subject to personal insults as a result.


There is a tradition of asserting RN cover-ups and lies based on non-existent evidence amongst some writers including in our era, Enrico Cernuschi and before him, Marco'Antonio Bragadin whose successful naval writing career straddled the period when Il Duce's propaganda writers were making things up, and the repetition of those same stories by him after the war. Enrico Cernuschi has recently perpetuated Bragadin's assertions in Storia Militare which has also published the current defamation by A & A.


All the best

wadinga

For those who are interested .....

Andrew Gordon's "The Rules of the Game - Jutland and British Naval Command" has a very interesting appendix in regards to the accuracy of battle plots, charts and the recording of information. Well worth a read and reinforced my opinion on absolutes.


P

.S. finally a good suggestion from an insulting guy: possibly after the publication of the true story of the Bismarck operation, it will be a good idea to produce a movie "based on real facts", imagining (dramatically in case of Leach, almost comically in case of Wake-Walker)

Seeing as Esmond Knight, (highly respected actor btw) was actually there I would cut him some slack in regards his portrayal of his captain.






The proof will be in the pudding and the public and naval historical peers will decide. What I do hope if that website and its forum will be mentioned in any biography so that the readers can come to their own conclusions from the argument and counter argument.

when this intuition started and you know that I immediately told you that the British guys would have not liked it

"Intuition"....


If you start thinking from the beginning that there was a cover up, you will find a cover up. Every snippet of information or ambiguous sentence or "off the cuff remark" becomes supporting evidence even if it's tenuous and an interpretation. The following anger against those who don't agree is either frustration that people don't see your viewpoint or that there is a hole in your argument which is difficult to plug. I will be honest,on occasion I could see a line of argument that messrs A&A were pushing, however messrs Wadinga,Dunmunro et al gave counter evidence and context as to what was said, when it was said, and by who. Isn't that the whole point of the forum? I agree with Mr Jurens (world respected) who suggested that any "silver bullet" is disclosed. If it is a "true" silver bullet then it should do "exactly as it say on the tin" - put to bed any argument. Personally I don't think that withholding it strengthens the argument unless there is concern that its veracity can be challenged.

But isn't that the life of an author?


To critically analyse a set of events and produce your interpretation of the known evidences - and be critically analysed!?

This is clearly not the case: during the operation, 2-3 officers were clearly very far from being...Nelson.

.


Its easy with the Mk1 Retroscope,but then everything has 100% clarity in retrospect.

Nelson was a one off and in many respects a millstone round the necks of the navy for the next 150 years. He commanded in a time where fleet speeds were sub 5 knots and battle ranges 500 yards or less. Hand to command combat usually settled the matter after a protracted battering between the combatants at point blank. He was exceptionally good at what he did in his time. He would however have been aghast at having 28 knot ships with guns that could fight 5+ miles distance relying on complex fire control. I suspect that he would probably change his mantra " no captain can do very wrong if he places his ship alongside that of the enemy." if he had seen and understood the battleships of 1906 - 1945....

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

Aleberto Virtuani wrote :

I have always spoken of RN hooligans, not nationality , and the world is apparently full of RN fanatics, people for whom whoever wears the uniform of the RN is automatically a hero and cannot be simply human. This is clearly not the case: during the operation, 2-3 officers were clearly very far from being ... Nelson ...

I fully agree with you my friend, that was my intent, ... no matter which nationality they have, ... they only see the Royal Navy and they come here in just to control and patrol what has been written, ... and we can see their reactions, ... they try to joke us by saying that they want to know the truth but, ... as soon as the truth start putting in discussion the " novel " they are used to read and see on movies and documentaries made just to celebrate the WW2 winners, ... we can immediately see them abandoning their " desire " for the truth, ... and play defense, ... at any cost as soon as we start changing their loved incorrect assumptions.

Here above we have a good example, ... starting from the nickname that declares the side taken upfront, ... and defending the " honor " of Capt Leach at any cost ( that reminds em of somebody too ... ).

Now tell this guy above that PoW retreat was started around 2 minutes after Hood exploded at 06:00, ... and not at 06:13 like Adm Tovey declared and the RN Admiralty accepted being the truth, ... like the " novelist " Sir L. Kennedy wrote reinforcing it with the statement that PoW retreated after 21 minutes fighting ( from 05:53 until 06:13 = 21 minutes ), ... and tell him that it was the Royal Navy Historical Section itself ( Pitcairn-Jones on BS Nr 5 on 1948 ) to correct back the PoW retreat from 06:13 to a more reasonable 06:03 at least looking at the PoW gunnery plot and Rowell map.

The above guys will not accept it, ... like it will not accept that the Y turret jammed after the retreat and due to the turn away ( Like Capt Leach wrote on his report ) , ... and not before it like Adm Tovey wrote on his dispatches and the Admiralty accepted being the truth, ... obviously taken immediately for granted by teh 2 novelist " Sir Kennedy on Pursuit.

They simply do not like the truth to be written, ... on PoW/Leach... on Wake-Walker, ... on the Admiralty, ... it is their " sacred cow " and they assume no one can touch it.

I am sorry, ... I have no respect for any " sacred cow ", ...

Bye Antonio

[Herr Nilsson]

The battle reconstruction of Antonio is UNCHALLENGED up to now (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8231) and very different from the official British version.
The incorrect statements in the official reports are well PROVEN (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6799) and who wrote them was a LIAR as Mr.Dunmunro has politely cleared to us all.
The serious threat to the two officers is a FACT (not invented by Tovey in 1961), as all historians had already confirmed, as per this very thread.

That’s a matter of opinion. I think Bob Winklareth believes pretty much the same in regard of his theory.

[HMSVF]

They simply do not like the truth to be written

Perhaps they are still waiting.

It's interesting which side is aggressive in their approach... Its an interesting sell.... Anybody who critically analyses it gets a barrage of abuse..

The public and their peers will decide.


Hopefully these pages of threads will be in any bibliography or at least to any pages of reviews. I have never seen such a like. People don't have to fall over and accept your interpretation as gospel (though Im starting to believe this has probably occurred in the past!) and ask difficult questions. Just how many people do you want to be in this forum?

Im starting to suspect the answer is 2. I notice that I haven't seen Paul Cadogan or "Cag" for a long whilst, two thoroughly enjoyable posters of political manner. Is this seen as a war of attrition?

It's certainly easier to steamroller an option in the absence of any opposition or challenge. I believe that a couple of well known authors have expressed doubt, as has a very well known expert in regards to some of the "findings". Are they hooligans too? Are people not allowed to express an opinion other than the one your are ram raiding forward (because it seems to be interpretation and opinion as opposed to the much used "fact")


When ad hominens are thrown with such fury you have to wonder about the veracity of what is being proposed, as invariably it's a diversion to a difficult question a person doesn't want to answer. Same with somebody wanting somebody else to proving a false negative.

I suspect that a lot of the anger is over the use of the word "coward". The dead cannot defend themselves.Sir Henry Leach was around till a few years back (and ironically quoted as a source). Would those who have called his father a coward said it to his face whilst he was still alive? I very much doubt it.Im sure Wake Walker and each had offspring and they probably have had kept memoirs.Have they been contacted for assistance ?


a

apparently full of RN fanatics, people for whom whoever wears the uniform of the RN is automatically a hero and cannot be simply human

So why the use the word coward? Was it necessary?

Also,some of us are well aware of the RN history and some of its "heroes" We are well aware that for every Captain Loftus Jones there was a Captain Kirkby. You should also know that a British past time is building up their heroes and then knocking down to the floor. We are very good at it. What we don't tend do is call them cowards in the presence of interpretation and revisionism without conclusivity especially when there is no right to reply. If you put forward a controversial theory, the onus is not on the detractors to do your work for you.And it has to be conclusive, not relying on intuition, not interpretation nor ambiguity.Whole documents have to be disclosed and their context known.










Again all this could be finished with the silver bullet.




And if its conclusive I offer a "very well done" on your research.





Best wishes HMSVF