Some questions about the battle at the Denmark Strait

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Some questions about the battle at the Denmark Strait

Post by Bill Jurens » Wed Jul 10, 2019 9:17 pm

I will make only a few brief observations and comments.

1) The format of requiring a "yes or no" response can be productive if properly done, but is very difficult to control. In the courtroom, a series of questions along these lines is often disallowed by a judge as 'leading the witness', i.e. represents an attempt to, in small slices, lead a witness to admit to an overall incorrect whole by inappropriately admitting to the truth or ambiguity of small individual parts.

2) Some questions simply cannot be properly answered in a "yes or no" format, e.g. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no."

3) Photographic evidence, particularly photo-journalistic evidence and especially that sort of material published in wartime, is often the victim of deliberate or accidental manipulation. The image itself may be retouched so as to obscure certain details and/or overemphasize others. The image itself may be reasonably accurate, but may be mis-captioned in order to make it more commercially valuable, e.g. a shot that is really of Bismarck firing at some time during the action, otherwise innocuous, would sell better if if were captioned as "Bismarck fires the salvo that destroyed the HOOD" The photo-journalist usually sees himself as a visual story-teller rather than one there to accurately record the event. In that regard, it is often considered acceptable (or even commendable) to somewhat 'bend' and image to suit a given narrative. This sort of thing goes back to people like Matthew Brady, who during the American Civil War sometimes re-arranged bodies and equipment on the battlefield in order to get a 'better' picture. So photo-journalistic evidence, especially in wartime, must always be viewed with a healthy degree of skepticism.

4) The quality of the imagery is, at best, highly suspect for analytical purposes. Initial exposure may have been -- and almost certainly was -- sub-optimal for the films then in use. Manipulation in the darkroom when prints were made is certain. This -- as mentioned earlier -- will certainly result in distortions in image integrity. Cropping the image -- i.e. changing size and aspect ratio -- often destroys any ability to make meaningful or accurate photogrammetric measurements. Further, the images we are seeing are usually taken from the internet, and often extracted from printed publications where the screening process that was used to print full-greyscale images in black and white, i.e. in ink-dots, adds additional artifacts and removes others. The process of digitization -- especially if the copies are made in .jpeg type formats -- also results in computer generated artifacts that further degrade the utility of the image in question. The net result is that a lot of detail is lost, and a fair amount of incorrect apparent detail added, every time the image is reproduced.

5) Those involved in formal photogrammetry and photo-interpretation, at least as practiced in mapping and physical geographic analysis, tend as a whole to be more cautious in their interpretations, mostly because they have all, over the years, made one or two bad judgments where real consequences were involved, e.g. the expenditure of thousands of dollars to purchase what appears to be a grassy meadow that is really a swamp covered in bullrushes and water a half-meter deep. Just as in real life, one passes through a series of phases; the first where one (as a young child) knows nothing and admits to it, the second (as a teen-ager) where everything is relatively clear-cut and black-and-white, and the third (as a mature individual) where one realizes that a lot of things that seem perfectly clear to those less-experienced, are really somewhat grey and indeterminate. In that regard, the photos we are looking at are of such poor overall quality that they overall represent more of a Rorschach (ink-blot) test than a depiction of anything in reality, i.e. the interpretation of the image tells more about the interpretER, than about the image itself.

With apologies to Simon and Garfunkel: "A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest..."

Bill Jurens

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: Some questions about the battle at the Denmark Strait

Post by pgollin » Thu Jul 11, 2019 8:03 pm

.

Very good, and extra marks for the Simon and Garfunkel quote.

.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3541
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Some questions about the battle at the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:53 am

Hello everybody,
"A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest..."
...and a man cannot see what he refuses to see....



As Franz Joseph said about the Mayerling "incident" (when asked by journalists some years later):
Everything is better than the truth

Bye; Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1062
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Some questions about the battle at the Denmark Strait

Post by Byron Angel » Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:14 pm

Well ..... there we have it: Simon and Garfunkel versus Bonomi and Virtuani.

Once again, the indeterminate nature of this exercise arises.

B

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3541
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Some questions about the battle at the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:07 pm

Hello everybody,
for the second time no answer yet to Mr.Rico's questions 3 and 4 from a forum member who prefers to comment:
"there we have it: Simon and Garfunkel versus Bonomi and Virtuani. Once again, the indeterminate nature of this exercise arises."
...well, no. Simon and Garfunkel vs emperor Franz Joseph....


Seriously now, once again the "indeterminateness" fans try to avoid clear (and for the time being quite easy and evident questions).... Why ?
Are they afraid that, answering these evident questions, their indeterminateness "last line of defense" could fail (showing that Antonio's reconstruction cannot be denied) ?


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Some questions about the battle at the Denmark Strait

Post by HMSVF » Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:45 pm

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:07 pm
Hello everybody,
for the second time no answer yet to Mr.Rico's questions 3 and 4 from a forum member who prefers to comment:
"there we have it: Simon and Garfunkel versus Bonomi and Virtuani. Once again, the indeterminate nature of this exercise arises."
...well, no. Simon and Garfunkel vs emperor Franz Joseph....


Seriously now, once again the "indeterminateness" fans try to avoid clear (and for the time being quite easy and evident questions).... Why ?
Are they afraid that, answering these evident questions, their indeterminateness "last line of defense" could fail (showing that Antonio's reconstruction cannot be denied) ?


Bye, Alberto
Closed questions are fine up to a point. They have their uses as long as you recognise their limitations in research. Of course a lot depends on the methodology being utilised I suppose.


Best wishes HMSVF

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3541
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Some questions about the battle at the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:51 pm

Hello everybody,

The rules from Mr.Rico are very clear (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8576#p84207), as well as the voluntary participation (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8576#p84231)....

However, if unwilling to play the game, let's try to either answer the questions or at least avoid any comment, please.


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 654
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Some questions about the battle at the Denmark Strait

Post by Bill Jurens » Fri Jul 12, 2019 8:31 pm

In most cases, excluding the possibility of "indeterminate" and insisting on a binary "yes' or "no" response simply renders the entire exercise futile.

If any 'avoidance' is going on, one must consider the possibility that it's not so much that the people who are indeterminate are trying to avoid submitting a 'yes or no' response in order to forward their agendas, it's because there are other people who wish to avoid submission of an 'indeterminate' response because it fails to forward their OWN agenda, where an 'indeterminate' assessment tend to lead, often, to no firm conclusion at all.

I would like an explanation as to why an assessment of 'indeterminate' is unacceptable in the first place. It would seem to form part of a perfectly acceptable and often used 'yes, no, I don't know' triad.

What we are seeing here, I suspect, is the attempt to establish an argument that is inherently non-falsifiable. (Which, in logical terms, renders it invalid by definition...). All evidence which supports theory 'x' is considered valid and beyond question, whist all evidence in contradiction is considered to be part of a 'cover up' conspiracy, and can thus be disregarded. This would seem fall into the logical fallacy of 'begging the question', i.e. petitio principii...

I, for one, will not be forced into the position of having to render a 'yes' or 'no' position, when neither of those options are, in my opinion, logically valid.

Bill Jurens.
(not as moderator, just as a guy...)

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1062
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Some questions about the battle at the Denmark Strait

Post by Byron Angel » Fri Jul 12, 2019 9:21 pm

Thank you, Mr Jurens. My point exactly.

Byron

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3541
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Some questions about the battle at the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:11 am

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "...insisting on a binary "yes' or "no" response simply renders the entire exercise futile..."
Therefore, if you and some others "fellow contributors" consider the exercise "futile", just don't come in this thread and stay in your "indeterminateness". That's it. Who is playing tricks here, to avoid evident answers in a clear rules game is quite clear.

I have tried to rephrase the question #3 (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8576&start=45#p84326) without obtaining any answer anyway....this shows who is reluctant to admit the truth and to make any progress.
We don't speak quantum physics here, we speak of a real event happened between ships that have (mostly) known courses, known speeds and known cross-bearings... We can speak tolerances, not "indeterminateness"....

I can accept that someone thinks everything is in the world is "indeterminate", but again in this case avoid to post here (if afraid to get nailed to a simple, unique and unavoidable reconstruction of the battle) or provide yes/no answers, as per rules, please.


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

HMSVF
Member
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:15 am

Re: Some questions about the battle at the Denmark Strait

Post by HMSVF » Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:20 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:11 am
Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "...insisting on a binary "yes' or "no" response simply renders the entire exercise futile..."
Therefore, if you and some others "fellow contributors" consider the exercise "futile", just don't come in this thread and stay in your "indeterminateness". That's it. Who is playing tricks here, to avoid evident answers in a clear rules game is quite clear.

I have tried to rephrase the question #3 (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8576&start=45#p84326) without obtaining any answer anyway....this shows who is reluctant to admit the truth and to make any progress.
We don't speak quantum physics here, we speak of a real event happened between ships that have (mostly) known courses, known speeds and known cross-bearings... We can speak tolerances, not "indeterminateness"....

I can accept that someone thinks everything is in the world is "indeterminate", but again in this case avoid to post here (if afraid to get nailed to a simple, unique and unavoidable reconstruction of the battle) or provide yes/no answers, as per rules, please.


Bye, Alberto

who is reluctant to admit the truth
Your "truth".
and to make any progress

Or basically be railroaded into compliance. Or leave. That seems to have been the way of things till Mr Jurens came along.

I can accept that someone thinks everything is in the world is "indeterminatebut again in this case avoid to post here (if afraid to get nailed to a simple, unique and unavoidable reconstruction of the battle) or provide yes/no answers, as per rules, please
.


Ok.

In any disaster or traumatic event the human mind is completely invulnerable to the events occurring around them?

Yes/No

In any disaster or traumatic event the person documenting or witnessing the event will be immune to error in either documentation or recollection of the event?


Yes/no


Witness testimony, months or even years after the event is considered a 100% reliable?


Yes/no


Pre digital/GPS charts are 100% accurate with no errors involved?


Yes/no


People who witness traumatic events will have have exactly the same recollection of the event.


Yes/no


You can be 100% certain that images captured of that event have not been corrupted for propaganda purposes or through reproduction or through mis tagging?


Yes/no



Best wishes HMSVF

pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: Some questions about the battle at the Denmark Strait

Post by pgollin » Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:59 am

Alberto Virtuani wrote:
Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:11 am

.... Therefore, if you and some others "fellow contributors" consider the exercise "futile", just don't come in this thread and stay in your "indeterminateness". That's it. Who is playing tricks here, to avoid evident answers in a clear rules game is quite clear. ....


Oh dear, I'm afraid that that just shows up your main problem, you think in your own [adjective redacted. WJJ] binary way instead of actually considering the question/facts as are known. Things are NOT just yes or no, and the facts/information that are available at this time are insufficient and imprecise and many of our choices/guesses have to be based on.

You think "digitally" about things that happened in an analogue age - you think you "know" things whereas most people realise that the "fog of war" is a phrase that correctly summarises what we know.

.

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3541
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Some questions about the battle at the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:23 pm

Hello everybody,
"Things are NOT just yes or no..."
...but everyone has hopefully an opinion (based on evidences) of the battle development, therefore can provide his answer in an honest and open way, without quibbling...

The rules have been established by Mr.Rico (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8576#p84207), therefore, if someone is so afraid to provide any "yes/no" answer related to a real event, happened in precise instants and to very simple and evident questions (wisely asked by Mr.Rico, who started with these 4 very easy ones, that were however enough to immediately set off the "indeterminateness" line of defense....), this person can stay out of this thread.
Very simple, very easy but apparently not immediate...



Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3541
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Some questions about the battle at the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:24 pm

pgollin wrote: "you think in your own little binary way... "
Is this a polite way to address another forum member ? If yes, I can define Mr.pgollin way of "thinking" in very interesting ways too, starting from his suggestion about the "fog".....

Where is the "moderator" (not the "guy", who apparently is not convinced of the interest of this thread...) when his side fanatics derail and provoke ?


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3541
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Some questions about the battle at the Denmark Strait

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:37 pm

Hello everybody,

after all the above "excuses", does anybody want to provide clear answers, according to his own "understanding" of the battle, to Mr.Rico's questions ? (Yes/No :wink:)


Bye; Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

Locked