Another insulting hooligan, who never studied mathematics, wrote: "An assumption remains an assumption no matter what mathematical function is carried out on it"
I repeat for the last time: the assumption is ONLY 108, the other values are calculated ones (not facts). It should be something even a pgollin can understand. FACT is 93 shells from which these "genius" are unable to deduce the ONLY possible conclusion (FACT again, because NOT depending on 108): PoW effective RoF and #shells/minute was in line with Bismarck one.
Sorry for their impotent anger (as well as their mathematical ignorance). The "annoying table" will still annoy them all
PoW_BS_PG_Output_Comparison_McMullen.jpg (70.88 KiB) Viewed 609 times
Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:05 pm, edited 2 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)
You know nothing about me, my life, what I'm knowing and what I'm thinking. IMO there is no nationalistic insinuation...but I'm willing to learn. So please explain to me what is nationalistic in your opinion or just stay silent.
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
You know nothing about me, my life, what I'm knowing and what I'm thinking. IMO there is no nationalistic insinuation...but I'm willing to learn. So please explain to me what is nationalistic in your opinion or just stay silent.
Who said anything about you in general ?
I said that you don't want to see the (anti)nationalistic insinuation.
That's your problem, not mine.
Did anybody else see a perfectly innocent enquiry about employment get turned into an assumption which was then multiplied by 3 into an apparent FACT? Well, as far as they are concerned only, since the line between the two has always been rather blurred for them.
An assumption remains an assumption no matter what mathematical function is carried out on it.
PGollin is of course correct.
Amazingly this is also correct:
Correct, we cannot mix FACTS like 93 shells with opinions.
And an assumption is an opinion. Therefore the Tedious and Annoying table does just that.
Because there is no actual evidence Bismarck ceased fire at 06:09, 14 minutes or 840 seconds is an assumption and you can't divide a fact by an assumption. So:
#shells/minute
is not mathematically valid.
IMHO Mr Nilsson is the kind of human being who manages to ask the most perceptive questions using the fewest number of letters.
All the best
wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
You know nothing about me, my life, what I'm knowing and what I'm thinking. IMO there is no nationalistic insinuation...but I'm willing to learn. So please explain to me what is nationalistic in your opinion or just stay silent.
Who said anything about you in general ?
I said that you don't want to see the (anti)nationalistic insinuation.
That's your problem, not mine.
„I do not see it“ is a statement. „You don‘t want to see“ is an allegation. „Want“ means that I’m doing something on purpose. I‘m understanding this as an attack against my values and my person, which I refuse to tolerate.
Regards
Marc
"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
I believe that much of this argument stemmed from a recognition that the so-called "Pinchen Plot" of the relative positions of ships was incompatible with normal geometry. This is undoubtedly the case, but I don't think the errors came from any desire to 'cover things up'; I think that Pinchin, being a relatively low-ranking player in the affair, was asked to provide a map to make it easier for the Board of Inquiry into the loss of Hood to see roughly where the witnesses were. So, he asked the witnesses, which were in most cases fairly high ranking officers, who gave him values which -- because of the normal errors of estimation and memory didn't add up. Rather than contradict the officers, many of whom would have been busy with other things, and get involved in a long series of arguments, which could lead to embarrassing appearances of contradiction in court, he simply made up the best map he could, preserving previous testimony. Insofar as the Board of Inquiry was not that concerned with great precision anyway, the technically erroneous 'Pinchin Plot" was accepted as being good enough to satisfy the need at hand. It was probably never intended to represent anything like a definitive representation; it was instead more-or-less intended as an approximate schematic.
I do believe that there were those on the British side who, after the clear drubbing the R.N. had taken at Denmark Strait, suggested, at least in the heat of the moment , that a Board of Inquiry, and perhaps even consideration of a C.M. were appropriate. That was a product of hot heads -- some lacking tactical and technical knowledge -- coupled with a lack of immediate knowledge regarding the exact details of what happened. After clearer testimony and information arrived, i.e. within a few days after the R.N. units engaged returned to port, it became clear that no truly egregious errors had been made, and that no further action was either required or appropriate. So the matter was -- perhaps with some immediate embarrassment -- dropped. No 'cover-up' was required, because nothing significantly had been done wrong. As the old saying goes, never attribute to malice what is more likely due to stupidity, in this case, commenting prematurely before all of the information from the field had come in.
I do not believe that the evidence remaining from the Battle of Denmark Strait is reliable and extensive enough to allow any sort of highly accurate and fully consistent reconstruction to be made. Eyewitness accounts, often uncorroborated, are notoriously unreliable, and the track charts of the three 'major players' in the action, i.e. Bismarck, Hood, and Prince of Wales, were all lost, or at least rendered only partially legible. Incidental snippets of film taken at the time, and since extracted from what amounted to propaganda films produced in Germany are, in practical terms, of little practical value. Isolated still frames of film, again taken more-or-less as 'snapshots' have been poorly archived, and reproduced in (quite possibly retouched) formats do not -- except perhaps in a few isolated cases -- permit significant analysis either of timing or content. Subsequent visual analysis and interpretation of these photos has revealed, more than anything else, the ineptitude of those attempting the job in the first place.
To a certain extent this applies to the presentation of spreadsheet information as well, as the presentation of derived rates of fire to five or six significant figures, based largely on speculation regarding the original figures themselves defies -- at least to my mind -- mathematical sensibility.
In any case, the problems with the 'conspiracy theory' do not really revolve around the details of mathematical analysis -- they are more closely related to, at least in my opinion, inappropriate application of historical methodology.
A month or more ago, I suggested that the proponents of the 'cover-up' analysis bring to the table an additional well-known naval expert, or expert in evidence, to bolster their claims, and perhaps work through and rephrase their allegations on the off-chance that the 'hooligan deniers' simply were not understanding the thesis of the 'conspiracy theorists'. So far, for whatever reasons, this really does not seem to have occurred.
Futher, there remains the mystery of exactly what might be gained by producing a fairly elaborate 'conspiracy' to protect, and perhaps further promote, the reputations of the officers involved. So far as the awarding of decorations, etc., these could have been given regardless of detail --it's not as though awards have not been awarded to undeserving individuals in the past, and that the presentation of medals, etc. to those more deserving has been ignored many times in the past.
For these, and other reasons not here specified, I do not believe that Mssrs. Bonomi, etc. have --at least so far -- presented sufficient evidence to render their claims of some sort of conspiracy to cover up the ineptitude of various British officers involved in the Denmark Strait action, to be a credible one.
who does not see this being a very low level humanity anti-nationalism offensive statement, ... based on a recent Italian tragedy happened in Genova :
Do you design bridges for a living ?
... is either blind, ... unable to understand, ... or does not read any news paper and/or watch TV news.
In any case, ... before writing that he does not see any offense on someone nationality on the above statement, ... he will better be well informed on what he is going to write trying to justify or even defend such a stupid and offensive idiot with no humanity writing a statement like that on a public forum against someone, ... mentioning a recent tragedy were 43 persons died, ... just because he is Italian.
I will NOT comment any further, ... and reply in any way to that statement, ... lowering myself on a nationality offense because someone is so poorly intelligent to have done it, ... I have a dignity and much more humanity than those persons.
Until today I thought that I had to do with poor " hooligans/deniers " about Royal Navy stuffs simply unwilling to accept new surfaced documents because of a blind and stubborn side taken approach, ... not acceptable from my historical research side, ... but understandable.
Today I know that some of them are simply absolutely bad persons with a problematic personality too, ... with no humanity and ready to do all sort of things as it shows in order to try not to loose a discussion ( which has been already lost since a lot of time ) ... and I suggest them to have a good psychologist visit, ... as soon as they can, ... instead of writing in this forum.
Forget about this battle re-construction and the history, ... because you have surely a lot of evident personality problems. ... and it shows.
I feel a lot of pity and compassion, ... also for the other ones not condemning such a statement ... and even trying to justify it or worst .... taking advantage of such a disturbed personality problem, ... but I know it is going to happen exactly like for the Nazism accusation offenses recently received too.
This is who you are. Shame on you all.
Bye Antonio
.
Last edited by Antonio Bonomi on Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
Bill Jurens wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 5:59 pm
So the matter was -- perhaps with some immediate embarrassment -- dropped.
It was dropped because Bismarck was sunk.
In any case, the problems with the 'conspiracy theory' do not really revolve around the details of mathematical analysis -- they are more closely related to, at least in my opinion, inappropriate application of historical methodology.
Conspiracy is a hard word, often used and often creating unwanted buzz. My impression here is that propaganda reasons took over correct reporting of the facts (retreat of Prince of Wales at 6:13 ? Disengaging and leaving the enemy to roam free on the open ocean endangering trade routes ?) , and the final victory on May 27th saved alot of careers. Or at least faces. My opinion is that, due to the need to create and preserve hero figures during the war, and that R.N. was a well established and professionaly ran arm, indictments woulnd't have been made even IF Bismarck, somehow , survived. Let us briefly remember the debacle of PQ17 and the total lack of repressive action (at least documented) done after the tragedy of the said convoy.
So far, for whatever reasons, this really does not seem to have occurred.
Why not wait for the books to be published and discuss then ?
I do not believe that Mssrs. Bonomi, etc. have --at least so far -- presented sufficient evidence to render their claims of some sort of conspiracy to cover up the ineptitude of various British officers involved in the Denmark Strait action, to be a credible one.
It is crdible for whoever has an open mind and a minimal understanding of the war at sea in May 1941.
For more, I'd wait for the books...
As I said past times, the forums sometimes ISN'T a proper mode of discussion.
since you wrote your comments above, ... just 2 straight questions to you :
1) Do you believe that PoW retreated at 06:13 and the Y turret jammed BEFORE that turn away 160° making smoke ?
2) Do you believe that Suffolk and Norfolk from 05:30 until 06:30 where always at more than 15 sea miles from the enemy that morning ?
I just like a very simple answer, ... a YES or NO on the above 2 questions will be enough for me to understand.
Thanks for a prompt reply.
Bye Antonio
In order to honor a soldier, we have to tell the truth about what happened over there. The whole, hard, cold truth. And until we do that, we dishonor her and every soldier who died, who gave their life for their country. ( Courage Under Fire )
Wadinga wrotre: "Mr Nilsson is the kind of human being who manages to ask the most perceptive questions"
and they deserve one the other as human beings, being able to "support" (by "Wastinga!" rant) or to find arrogantly "amusing" the mocking about a tragedy !
Regarding the VERY, EXTREMELY annoying table, 108 is an assumption, 14 minutes is the ONLY credible battle duration: in case Mr.Wadinga has another option, he can present a reconstruction of his own, instead of misusing an old wrong one, proven to be in error by PoW salvo plot.
I hear several blah, blah about this "annoying table" (a table that is just confirming what an expert like Adm.Santarini has already published and should be accepted by now by everyone having a bit of brain) but NO alternative cease fire timing proposed at all by anybody, not even by the most authoritative people here...., of course being such an alternative totally unsupported by evidences......
It looks like the deniers are really cornered by now and unable to propose any different scenario, lowering themselves to personal attacks and unbearable anti-nationalist insinuations.
Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:40 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)
He has been left alone even by his bunch of ignorant insulting hooligans, after they were rubbished one after the other, some of them fairly recognizing their errors, most of them cowardly disappearing after having made fools of themselves.
Well, some of the hooligans have better things to do (e.g.they have a real life) than trying to educate two childish clowns who don't show a minimum understanding of science and facts, actually. In particular since the hooligans have really tried for a very long time and were very patient, but now they just don't waste their time anymore. As said so many times, please go ahead and publish your book or do whatever you want with yout theories. Most people just couldn't care less, and it is also a bit embarassing to watch two grown up men(?) to spend their entire day time on an internet forum, spreading completely irrelevant statements over and over, for months and years.
[Predicted reply: "93 shells ... Excel sheet ... Most accurate battlemap ... losers ... film analysis... 93 shells [in capitals and extra-extra-bold!!)... sugar-coating ... silver bullet ... king's regulations ... 93 shells... cowards ... honour ... fairy-tale ... bla bla bla"]
Is this above insulting looser, so called "northcape", the same already rubbished when arrogantly posting this http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... ese#p79977 showing to everybody his ignorance and anger ? He was very quick supporting a recognized mistake but apparently he had his poor "real life", after he realized he was wrong.....
ANYONE ELSE so miserable ? Do not be shy, I would like to call each of them by their deserved NAME and ATTRIBUTE ! (and I must say that today we have seen the worst people posting here, attracted by a low insinuation like flies by shit)
Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Sep 24, 2018 6:48 pm, edited 4 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)