DS reversed photo theory and battle maps comparison

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Patrick McWilliams
Member
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:17 pm
Location: Belfast

Re: New Photos

Post by Patrick McWilliams » Mon Jun 20, 2005 3:40 pm

Hi Antonio,

I see now that you were referring to the three photos you mentioned above!

Ok, leavng aside no. 2, which you say is not great quality, nos 1 and 3 appear to strengthen your case, assuming I have pictured them correctly in my mind.

Let me know if the two crude images shown below are close to the orientation of the ships in each of these photos! The arrows show the direction of fire.

How does the one I was speaking about last time, with the prominent bow wave (as I see it), fit into the sequence? This is unclear to my mind.

All the best,

Patrick
Antonio Picture 1 (Bis. is the larger ship, obviously)
Image

Antonio Picture 3
Image
Last edited by Patrick McWilliams on Wed Jun 22, 2005 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3800
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Denmark Strait new photos

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:20 pm

Ciao Patrick and all,

first of all let me thanks you from my heart to have me taken into this questions :D ... lately I am really not so excited to still write about my hobby in public forums :( .

Anyway, here I am and thanking you again I will restart hopefully with no problems :?.

I see you got right photo ( picture as you called ) nr 1 which is the one in Bundesarchiv.
That is exactly the perspective of the 2 ships position according to that photo.
Lagemann ( PG photographer ) was on PG starboard side aft, close to is usual 105 mm center or aft platform and took a very good photo of Bismarck port side whith her main turrets and guns turned abaft to port.
It is similar to Nh 69728 but probably taken a bit earlier and much, much better and clear ( I still do not understand why in so many years nobody choose this one for a books been by far the best on that sequence of photos ), you can see on the Bismarck a lot of ship details and you see also a piece of Prinz Eugen railings down below the photo.

Than there are other 2 photos not so good taken from very far away were you see Bismarck very badly ( just a small shadow with smoke leaving her on the back ).
In one you see 3 small puffs of smoke ( as the 3 by 150 mm port side turrets fired ) on the other you see the usual 2 bigger cloud when one of the main turret group fired.
What is important is that those 2 photos matches exactly on my map at 06.06 and 30 seconds more or less, when PG and BS were very distant as you can verify yourself connecting on my map teh 2 tracks at that moment.
Personal collection photos.

Last one is the one you called picture 3 ( which is the 4th in my counter ).
Thsi photo was taken after the NH 69730 ( the flash effect one you have on your signature by the way ) were you can see the wake of Pg as well if you look from Bismarck bow to the right just under the horizon, you will notice a clear line, that is the PG wake left behind the heavy cruiser.
( if you do not have a complete and clear enough photo just write me and I will send one to you ).
You can estimate PG direction also referencing properly to the visible gun barrels angles of the 105 mm A/A guns visible on top right of the photo ( this what a study / discovery made by 2 good gentleman months ago, it was not my finding :D ).

Your drawing is correct and that is the PG and BS relative position and course more or less, Bismarck will cross soon PG back wake.
The wake of PG you see on the photo is the stern wake and not the bow according to me ( otherwise the ships will surely have a collision ).
So one photo ( Nh 69730 ) is taken before this 4th new one, .. they are 15 seconds one after the other.

Hope my explanation is clear enough.

Ciao Antonio :D

Robert J. Winklareth
-
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:58 pm
Location: Woodbridge, VA USA
Contact:

Post by Robert J. Winklareth » Tue Jun 21, 2005 2:38 pm

Hi sniffa,

Welcome aboard the KBismarck forum. Sorry for the delay in responding to your message, but a combination of circumstances put me behind the power curve in keeping up with responses on both forums, including the Bismarck-class.dk forum. When I performed my autopsy on NH69726, I tried to be cold, calculating, and above all, impartial, even though I am of course the proponent of one side of the controversy.

The main (rear) mast in the photograph presented an ambiguous clue, one that could be used to support either side of the argument. I therefore had to look at the totality of the evidence. There were only a few points that were ambiguous or coincidental and could support the belief that NH69726 was a port bow shot of the Bismarck. On the other hand, all of the areas examined were consistent with the photograph being a port quarter view of the Bismarck.

So it was not a matter of choosing between the two alternatives regarding the mast, but whether either alternative supported the overall conclusion as to the orientation of the Bismarck in the photograph. The port quarter aspect of the Bismarck was the only view in which all of the points of comparison between NH69726 and existing port bow and port quarter views of the Bismarck are consistent.

My concept of the battle and reversed photo theory have already been generally accepted, but you would not get that impression by visiting the two forums. My position on the matter has been accepted by Sir Ludovic Kennedy, author of the Bismarck book "Pursuit," Prof. Dr. Jurgen Rohwer, internationally recognized as the foremost authority on the history of the Bismarck operation, and the German Office of Military History Research in Potsdam, Germany.

My concept of the battle and reversed photo theory have been accepted by the editorial staffs of Chatham Publishing in London and the U.S. Naval Institute Press. My book "The Bismarck Chase" has sold over 5,000 copies and has received mostly favorable reviews from international maritime and naval trade journals. Amazon rated the book as 3-1/2 stars (70 percent) with respect to reader satisfaction.

What you see here are mostly the views of those who disagree with my overall concept, but who have failed to prove any of the evidence and facts that I presented to be wrong. The Prinz Eugen War Diary (Logbook) has the first-hand accounts of gunnery officers Jasper and Schmalenbach describing how they had the Bismarck in their sights as the German flagship gradually moved up on the port side of the Prinz Eugen before the order was given for the Prinz Eugen not to fire over the Bismarck.

The Prinz Eugen War Diary and the battle diagrams prepared by Schmalenbach and other noted German historians clearly prove that the Bismarck was on the port side of the Prinz Eugen during the latter half of the battle and therefore any photographs to the contrary had to have been reversed. My detractors cannot refute those facts, so all they can do is ignore them and keep harping on their own unsupported points of view.

Best regards.

Bob

Randy Stone
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: The Left Coast

This persistent false claim is annoying...

Post by Randy Stone » Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:30 pm

Robert J. Winklareth wrote:...My concept of the battle and reversed photo theory have been accepted by the editorial staffs of Chatham Publishing in London and the U.S. Naval Institute Press. My book "The Bismarck Chase" has sold over 5,000 copies...
Bob
Mr. Winklareth:

We have been through all of this before and let me repeat -- for the benefit of those who haven't been previously made aware of these facts: the U.S. Naval Institute Press does not 'endorse' any particular point of view when they publish a book and -- in your specific case -- has never endorsed your reversed photograph theory.

As you well know, and have previously admitted, your book was published by the Naval Institute Press as part of an agreement with Chatham to publish your book in North America and related possessions. The Naval Institute Press had no editorial oversight or input with regard to your manuscript and you have previously admitted they were not in possession of nor did they review the final proofs of your manuscript.

In fact, when I spoke with a Director (that's a capital 'D' incidentally) of the Naval Institute Press about three weeks ago concerning some issues, we spoke about your volume and it was reiterated to me -- as if I needed reminding -- that the above facts, namely that the Naval Institute Press had no editorial oversight or control over your manuscript and that they do not endorse your theory are facts and any comments to the contrary are -- and let me quote here, "...wholly without foundation."

This individual also stated that the 2000 or so copies of your book which the Press acquired as a result of their marketing agreement with Chatham's was about normal for a non-Institute published volume and that there were about 150 or so copies left since they received their stock in mid-1998 or so.

Why you continue to insist -- not only in print but after having been previously confronted with facts to the contrary and admitting to these same facts no less -- that the Naval Institute endorses your view when said view is so readily impeached is beyond me. To knowingly persist with this false claim merely discredits your position, calls into question your judgment and further erodes your reputation. Personally, I find your comments to be incredibly distasteful and I would add that they naturally call into question every claim you assert of authoritative support for your position, including those of Sir Ludovic and Dr. Rohwer, letters from whom you steadfastly refuse to produce in support of your claims of their support assuming, of course, that the letters exist at all.

Randy Stone

Robert J. Winklareth
-
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:58 pm
Location: Woodbridge, VA USA
Contact:

Post by Robert J. Winklareth » Wed Jun 22, 2005 1:52 am

Hi all,

As I have explained before, the editorial staff of the U.S. Naval Institute Press accepted my concept of the battle and reversed photogrph theory when I initially presented my manuscript to them. At the time, they declined to publish my book because they felt that there was insufficient new material to publish a whole new book on the subject.

They recommended, however, that I prepare my new findings as articles for publication in the magazine "Naval History." Why would they do that if they rejected my concept of the battle and reversed photo theory. I did not take their asvice because the articles would not have told the whole story as to how the battle was actually fought.

Instead, I solicited support from noted naval historians like Sir Ludovic kennedy and Prof. Dr. Jurgen Rohwer. Kennedy concurred in my concept of the battle and reversed photograph theory and proposed my publishing the essence in a British trade journal. Dr. Rohwer, after having my manuscript and supporting material for six monthe=s to analyze them against the Bismarck archives at the Institute for Contemporary Hisatory, concurred in my concept of the battle and reversed photo theory.

Dr. Rohwer assisted me in getting my book published by Chatham Publishing, which has an arrangement with the U.S. Naval Institute Press to distribute their books in the United States. I don't know what transpired between Chatham Publishing and the U.S. Naval Institute Press at that time. Randy could be right that they had no inpur to the editorial process at that time, but that does not change their earlier sentiments which I have in writing.

Randy demanded before that I produce these documents to confirm my claims. In Randy's case, it wouldn't make any difference because he has already said that he is out to dis

Robert J. Winklareth
-
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:58 pm
Location: Woodbridge, VA USA
Contact:

Post by Robert J. Winklareth » Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:11 am

Hi all.

Sorry, but my keyboard froze on me.

As I was saying, Randy already said that he was out to discredit me and my book. That is why he continues to post his later conversation with the U.S. Naval Institute Press without my explanation of what happened earlier, which I have aready posted at least once before. That would only be fair, but who would ever accuse Randy of being that. Why the crusade to destroy me?

What has Randy ever contributed to the annals of naval history? How about some constructive criticism for a change, or hasn't Randy ever heard of the word "constructive"?

Best regards to all the rest of you.

Bob

Randy Stone
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: The Left Coast

Oh really ?

Post by Randy Stone » Wed Jun 22, 2005 3:09 am

Robert J. Winklareth wrote: As I was saying, Randy already said that he was out to discredit me and my book... Bob
Mr. Winklareth:

Would you be so kind as to provide specific posts, comments, statements or whatever where I said I am "...out to discredit (you) and (your) book" ?

Randy Stone

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Endorsements

Post by Bill Jurens » Wed Jun 22, 2005 5:18 am

It is perhaps less important to determine how the various alleged endorsers of the original text felt about the manuscript then -- i.e. prior to publication -- as it is to determine how these same individuals and institutions feel about the manuscript NOW, after so much additional analysis and examination has been done.

So far as I know, none of the individuals or institutions that are repeatedly mentioned on the endorsement list of Mr. Winklareth has lifted the slightest finger in his defense. One wonders why they have not, at least as yet, taken the time to patiently explain exactly where the 'traditionalists' have gone wrong in rejecting the Winklareth Hypothesis.

In that regard, I wrote Dr. Rohwer some time ago to obtain his current views on the subject, but he has not yet replied.

Although I can understand Mr. Winklareth's reluctance to release the exact text of previously received endorsements, I would suggest that rather than continue to use these individuals as references, it would be both appropriate and useful for him to request that his endorsers produce CURRENT confirmation of their continuing support, and perhaps explain why they have apparently left him to defend his viewpoints more-or-less entirely on his own.

Bill Jurens.

Robert J. Winklareth
-
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:58 pm
Location: Woodbridge, VA USA
Contact:

Post by Robert J. Winklareth » Sat Jun 25, 2005 7:17 pm

Hi Bill,

Why are you continuing to beat a dead horse? I began writing "The Bismarck Chase" in 1993 as an effort to correct certain discrepancies in earlier publications and to present a new scenario on the battle based on my analysis of the facts as known to me at the time.

Since then, I have come into the possession of primary source documents, thanks to Frank Allen, Jose Rico, and John Asmussen, which provide far more detailed information than I had available at that time. My origianal text of the battle requires substantial updating as a result of that information.

Back in April 2003, I posted on both forums my updated version of the battle under the topic "Battle Scenario." Since then I have continuously updated my point of view as new evidence surfaced. My latest complete update on my position was posted under "Summary of Battle" in February 2005.

If you want to challenge me on anything I presented in that latest update, be my guest. But why would you want to dredge up that old material which I long admitted is no longer current if not to try to discredit me and my work. Why the vendetta?

Bob

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 761
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

No Vendetta

Post by Bill Jurens » Sat Jun 25, 2005 11:43 pm

Hello, Bob:

No vendetta, honest.

I was responding to your often-repeated statements that your theory was supported by various individuals and institutions, and more precisely to your implication that these endorsements, apparently dating back to 1993 or so, are still relevant. One very recent example follows:

"My concept of the battle and reversed photo theory have already been generally accepted, but you would not get that impression by visiting the two forums. My position on the matter has been accepted by Sir Ludovic Kennedy, author of the Bismarck book "Pursuit," Prof. Dr. Jurgen Rohwer, internationally recognized as the foremost authority on the history of the Bismarck operation, and the German Office of Military History Research in Potsdam, Germany. "

Leaving aside your claim that your concept of the battle has "... already been generally accepted..." (which I doubt) your implication -- if I am reading you right here -- is that these endorsements, though apparently supporting a description of the battle which you yourself seem to now see as obsolete, are still somehow relevant. It is unclear to me however, to exactly which version of the battle -- your 'old' one or your 'new' one these endorsements actually apply.

Another poster has cast doubt upon the basic veracity and validity of these claims for a variety of reasons. I have little comment to make in this regard, although I do find it strange that these endorsing individuals and/or institutions have not taken, individually or collectively, some action to re-state and perhaps clarify their positions and the exact reasons for their support, particularly when an attack on you might well be seen as an attack on them as well.

In any case, these certainly ARE old endorsements, and I'd suggest that it might now be appropriate for you to either cease quoting them in support of your work (as it would appear that they at best support OLD work) or -- if you wish to continue to use them in support of your updated hypotheses -- obtain updated versions which can be shared with others. If these individuals and/or institutions do indeed still support your hypothesis, they should be willing to re-state their support for general public consumption, and perhaps even be willing to provide detailed reasons for their conclusions.

There comes a point, I think, where the claims of support, should be demonstrated, and demonstrated to be current. In other words, just like on a resume, it's time to 'check your references...'


Bill Jurens

User avatar
mac.one
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 8:30 pm

Post by mac.one » Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:33 am

Sharp but apt

Robert J. Winklareth
-
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:58 pm
Location: Woodbridge, VA USA
Contact:

Post by Robert J. Winklareth » Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:48 pm

Hi all,

Without having to produce private communications, the support I received from Dr. Rohwer is contained under Acknowledgments in my book "THe Bismarck Chase" for the whole world to see. I told you what happened, and that is the end of it. You can believe it or not. If I would ever be caught in a lie, I would be crucified by my detractors, and rightly so.

Again, instead of belaboring the inconsequential, why don't they challange the facts that I presented in February under "Summary of the Battle"? Were Prinz Eugen gunnery officers Jasper and Schmalenbach lying when they describe in the Prinz Eugen War Diary (Logbook) that they had the Bismarck in their sights as the German flagship gradually moved up on the port side of the Prinz Eugen until the order was given for the Prinz Eugen not to shoot over the Bismarck?

Were Paul Scmalenbach and the other noted German historians distorting history when they presented battle diagrams showing the Bismarck on the port side of the Prinz Eugen throughout the entire second half of the battle? These hard core facts presented in first-hand accounts in primary source documents by eyewitnesses on the scene of the battle clearly prove that the photographs had to have been reversed.

They can't refute these and other facts presented as direct quotes from official documents and first-hand accounts of the battle, so they have to resort to character assassination of the author. They have made their point, so let's get on with the issues at hand.

Best regards to all.

Bob

Randy Stone
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: The Left Coast

Mr. Winklareth...

Post by Randy Stone » Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:25 am

...Given that you yourself brought up the letters of support from Messrs. Rohwer, Kennedy and the Naval Institute in support of your hypothesis to begin with, I am at a loss to understand why you now categorize such support as ‘inconsequential.’ Of course, considering that you have previously – as I noted – repudiated these claims it becomes mind boggling that you would again raise them...and then subsequently claim them as inconsequential !

In any event, since we all now agree that your claims regarding Messrs. Rohwer, Kennedy and the Naval Institute, et.al. are – as you write – inconsequential, we can look to your ‘facts’ regarding the Jasper and Schmalenbach reports, which – one might note – have been ‘cherry-picked’ by yourself to support your hypothesis rather than considering the totality of what they reported. In considering all of what they reported it becomes obvious that your hypothesis can not be sustained.

It seems to me that your constant and plaintive pleas to avoid ‘vendettas’ and ‘character assassination’ are unfortunate digressions from this exercise, digressions we certainly do not need. So I hope this is the last we hear of support from Rohwer, Kennedy, the Naval Institute and others; it does become tiresome.

In point of fact – of course, after I had read your book several times and have checked it against various sources which I personally hold or to which I have direct access – I rejected your assertions out of hand. Unlike many others who have rejected your hypothesis upon detailed examination of the image of Bismarck, I dismissed your entire hypothesis by virtue of the fact that you have never satisfactorily explained how the weather phenomenon depicted in the photography could be reversed. How could the weather possibly be reversed in the manner you suggest ?

Of course, since the weather phenomenon can not be reversed, your hypothesis can not even begin to stand. As a matter of fact, if you can’t get the weather straight in the Denmark Strait, what point is there to even discussing details related by Jasper, Schmalenbach...or anyone else, for that matter ?

I truly feel sorry for the position you find yourself in; it must be incredibly uncomfortable.

Randy Stone

Robert J. Winklareth
-
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 5:58 pm
Location: Woodbridge, VA USA
Contact:

Post by Robert J. Winklareth » Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:08 pm

Hi all,

If Randy wants to cite quotes from Jasper and Scmalenbach that differ from what I have posted and prove otherwise from what I have said, please let him do so and we can all discuss it right here on the forum. My statement that indorsements are inconsequential compared to the facts in no way diminishes their importance in reinforcing the truth.

Again I say let's debate the issues and not the personalities, unless of course Randy really has no technical issues to debate. I have posted the exact quotes from Jasper, Schmalenbach and others who support my point of view under "Summary of Battle" last Febreuary. I never saw anything by Randy that refuted that evidence. Let him do so now.

Best regards.

Bob

Randy Stone
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: The Left Coast

I am sorry, Mr. Winklareth...

Post by Randy Stone » Sun Jul 03, 2005 8:44 am

...but I simply have to turn you down on ‘restarting’ this or any other topic absent new or additional material. I can not, and will not, play the pawn for you. And frankly, what is there to ‘discuss’ – as you put it – concerning the Schmalenbach and Jasper testimony when you bitterly dismissed seven simple questions regarding this very topic as digressions from the issue and, when presented with an abbreviated list of three questions, you then chose to flee this very same conversation in April (on John’s Bismarck Board) without answering a single question ?

Additionally, in this thread alone, you have made a point of attacking me personally by making unfounding allegations which you have absolutely no intention of substantiating – and knowingly so, as you might say. Further, you cast any critical attention on your hypothesis as ‘character assassination’ or a ‘vendetta’ designed to ‘discredit you and your work’ rather than responding in a mature manner with logical reasoning buttressed by factual evidence. In so many words, it appears to me that you’ve done a good enough job of discrediting your own work without any help from others.

Moving to the issue of ‘constructive’ criticism, I have long made it clear that you could very easily ‘clean up’ your manuscript with, at the very least, a total rewrite of the Battle of the Denmark Strait which reflects reality rather than the totally unjustified position you have taken. It is certainly unfortunate that you had no one of knowledge nor editors of note who could have steered you away from the totally indefensible position you now occupy.

All of which brings the reader to the point where he asks himself why you would stake out such an extreme position; why would you stick you neck out so far. Well, the answer – so far as I am concerned – appears rather simple: you read a couple of books – to judge from the rather anemic bibliography which supports your book – and thought that you had an answer to an issue which, to be quite frank, never existed. And presto ! You concocted a scenario fitting a preconceived notion of what you thought went on. And then you made your fatal mistake: you cherry-picked facts to suit your story. And it all went downhill from there.

That is not to say that your book has no merit. I have – after all – always maintained that if one is presented with lemons, make lemonade. Thus, I have cited your book numerous times as an example of exactly what happens when an author arrives at a conclusion and then ‘finds’ facts to justify his conclusion; in that sense your book has served its purpose. Likewise, it has been written by some that your book has stimulated others to detail the facts of the Battle of the Denmark Strait and I suppose this has been the case. But doesn’t it seem that you could have arrived at the facts yourself rather than forcing others to do so ?

After all, isn’t that what an author is actually supposed to do...enlighten his readers rather than leading them astray ?

I could discuss some other aspects as well but this will do for starters.

Randy Stone

Post Reply