The Court Martial for the Denmark Strait

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

Capt Ellis was a liar, ... and his own autobiography is the written confirmation of it.

He was anyhow in very good company been a liar, ... even if he was less coward than the others.

The bearings and the geometry determining the real correct distances are waiting for you all on the proper thread, ... since months.

Of course I assume that you are able to understand and measure them on a map, ... and now I start having some doubts about it, ...

Bye Antonio

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

pgollin wrote: "The King's Regulations gives the detail and applicable procedures and rules."

So it should be easy for him to post the relevant King's Regs articles related to the "misconduct in presence of the enemy" (the actual topic here, because we are not speaking of... ship members' drunkenness or salute to superiors or duelling.... ), but he is unable, just because the King's Regs are taking care of what is not already specified in the (much more) important Naval Discipline Act (Articles of War) in terms of discipline.

I can suggest him to read art. 26 of his King's Regs BEFORE speaking again, showing his self-opinionated and well recognized ignorance.
He can now post the relevant King's Regs articles detailing the misconduct for cowardice or negligence; in alternative, I will post from King's Regs, just to have the pleasure to rubbish ONCE AGAIN this poorly educated guy.

Dunmunro wrote: "Ellis in no way confirms anything that Antonio has worked on, and his original theory didn't even take into account Suffolk's 360d turn from 0442-0550."

Unfortunately for Mr.Dunmunro, Ellis distance (18,000 yards) confirms Busch's one (176 hm) with just a timing error......
Why did Ellis wrote "at open fire" is a speculation exercise for Mr.Dunmunro, I'm personally not interested at all in this detail.

Antonio last battlemap takes into account SF turn away started at 5:42, moving her from 9 sm to 15 sm at 5:55, thus trusting bearings and courses (confirming Busch) instead of Ellis timing, but the distance at 5:42 cannot be changed from 9 -10 sm, as demonstrated by the fact that NOBODY has been able to produce an alternative scenario for SF position.....



Bye, Alberto

[dunmunro]

Dunmunro wrote: "Ellis in no way confirms anything that Antonio has worked on, and his original theory didn't even take into account Suffolk's 360d turn from 0442-0550."

Unfortunately for Mr.Dunmunro, Ellis distance (18,000 yards) confirms Busch's one (176 hm) with just a timing error......
Why did Ellis wrote "at open fire" is a speculation exercise for Mr.Dunmunro, I'm personally not interested at all in this detail.

(my emphasis)

Yes, a ~10 minute variation in timing between Busch and Ellis (memoir) but you're "...personally not interested at all in this detail..." But then why bother with messy details when you can just make up whatever you want?

We know that you (whoever "you" are) have no interest in the truth as you've made that abundantly clear over the years.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,
as you see from the above post this insulting guy insists, now with low insinuations....

I ask him, whoever he is (as his nickname is hiding his real identity , possibly he is just ashamed of it ....while my name is fully in clear) to present facts and alternatives to Antonio reconstruction of SF position or to finally SHUT-UP in his ridiculous denial of what is demonstrated by bearings, courses, speeds, Busch AND Ellis !
He has only Tovey's despatches at point 17 to support his "fairy tale"......


Bye, Alberto

[HMSVF]

Hi HMSVF,
no, the anger started with the use of the word "idiot" used in 2013 against Antonio when he had his "intuition" by a poorly educated person (pgollin) here (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... iot#p54913), and continued during these years with joking, mocking and insinuations about "stupidity", "revisionism", "liars", etc. from other forum members.
This very first insult was never condemned by ANY of the "good respectful and educated guys", possibly because they were not willing to listen at any accusation against these two timid officers and preferred to ignore the provocation.....
You have recently personally been asked by me to explicitly condemn at least the last unprovoked insults (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... iar#p79032) and to distinguish yourself from these poor people, but you did not. Therefore, please don't even try to play the role of a neutral person anymore, because unfortunately you are not.

Thank you for your kind reply.....

I try to be objective.Your side says one thing I listen and assess. The so called "hooligan element give a repost. I reassess. To be frank I don't really care what you call each other.The advantage of being alive is that you have the ability to answer back! I do find it extremely distasteful to castigate those who are dead cowards or liars when the evidence appears to rely on the interpretation of a couple of documents and a soul source - Tovey.Yes various authors have ade reference to the alleged events. And who was the source? Tovey. Ive read a lot about maps and plots and to be honest Northcape makes a salient observation. The information you get out is only as good as that put in. Again,I would recommend reading Andrew Gordon's book and in particular the appendix that deals with track keeping, plots and navigation. Its a very interesting read and observation in regards to the accuracy of battle maps. Bill Jurens on one of the other threads commented that the charts were not meant to be used as a forensic analysis so to be frank, no ,nobody has produced a chart ,but to be honest if the information is based on dead reckoning, estimated positions and accurate recording of times then the chances are that there could be a 1000 permutations as Northcape said and what Andrew Gordon comments on. This isn't the age of Aegis we are talking about, its good old pen and paper. Of course if you think that there is a cover up then.....

Perhaps half the problem is that a qualitative answer is being produced for what is a qualitative research.


To be frank the end result of Denmark Straight was a thumping defeat. Even the most ardent "hooligan" recognises that. Where there is divergence is in regards to what happened after.We are told that its fact that XYZ happened (e.g. Leach bottled it and ran for the hills) ,if somebody suggests ABC then they are a falsifier despite the fact that neither can be conclusively proved either way as "actors on the stage" are long dead. There seems to be a willingness to believe everything that the Kreigsmarine recorded, yet the RN accounts are treated with circumspect. Personally I think both sides of the coin should be treated with suspicion as witness accounts can be infamously unreliable.Is a chap under fire going to be as good in recording information as somebody on exercise? I doubt it.

I would read some of Innes McCartneys forensic shipwreck papers to see just how wrong some witness's could be. Liars? Nope, they were just men with brains that are easily overwhelmed in traumatic/life changing/stressful events. There must be 1000's of medical journals that have studied this - and pertinently many more that deal with PTSD and PTA. Just think about that when you declare the information inputed into chart reliable.


Now if it pleases you, you can call me all the names under the sun. Quite frankly I don't really care. I deal with life and death situations daily and I'm not going to lose sleep over what is effect, a tiny footnote in history that a very small number of people have an interest in. We are all but grains of sands on a beach and life is way to short to get uptight.

If the silver bullet proves to be decisive I have no problem whatsoever in saying "well done, you were right".


At the moment, like it or not, no matter how much you shout or scream at me this is still very much an open verdict at best.


Unless the silver bullet is as devastating as what is being ade out.




Best wishes (as always)



HMSVF

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

HMSVF wrote: "Thank you for your kind reply.....I don't really care what you call each other....this is still very much an open verdict at best"

Thank you for having clearly taken the distance from trivial and poorly educated people and demonstrating who you are through your post above, in which you have even acclaimed ("salient" ) those who insult !

By now, I can't care less of what you think. If you don't believe Tovey regarding the threat and you prefer to live in the "fog of war", your problem. All historians believed him and Antonio could build a consistent battlemap (the only one for the time being), after too many years of wrong versions that went to the printers.....


Bye, Alberto


P.S. we are only lucky that the Kriegsmarine provided some documents and key witnesses, even if this fact deeply annoys the ones who would have preferred the one-side sugar-coated version of this otherwise militarily poor story. The anger of these people against the ones who dared to touch their sacred cow is apparent and they will get even worse....

[HMSVF]

By now, I can't care less of what you think. If you don't believe Tovey regarding the threat and you prefer to live in the "fog of war", your problem

Again,


Thank you for your courteous reply....


Best wishes HMSVF

[Alberto Virtuani]

HMSVF wrote: "Thank you for your courteous reply...."

Again, thanks to you for condemning the insults I have received from your "friends", despite you have been KINDLY asked to distinguish from these poorly educated people here (http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 905#p79047).


Bye, Alberto

[wadinga]

Hello All,

Is has been said

Capt Ellis was a liar, ... and his own autobiography is the written confirmation of it.

He was anyhow in very good company been a liar, ... even if he was less coward than the others.

This is indicative of the dismal depths to which those who are desperate to keep the CMDS myth alive, without of course prejudicing the commercial value of the Silver Bullet they are withholding, are prepared to go. With CMDS proved untrue, as is becoming clearer upon investigation, the whole contrived Conspiracy Fantasy collapses without any foundations. Trying to out-Cernuschi Cernuschi in the matter of inventing non-existent RN misdemeanours and cover-ups has sent the promoters beyond rational thought. A puerile argument over who called who "idiot" first has ensued, from people who think it not unreasonable to call those who disagree with their contentious assertions "hooligans and trolls".

Ellis' report as originally sent in by signal 2221B 29/5/41 is the same as that formally submitted later. There has been a fatuous suggestion he was coerced at the time into writing things that never happened and that his ramblings in his memoir, written tens of years later, where they differ, are some hidden truth emerging, rather than simple mistakes about the dimly remembered past.

Although the mere presence of King George V and Norfolk in the same anchorage has been trumpeted as proof positive that Tovey and Wake-Walker must have colluded in creating "intentional differences" to hide the latters' cowardice and incompetence, this would be difficult for Ellis to assist since his report was transmitted before he reached any harbour.

I expect someone will insist I produce a signal log to prove W-W didn't coerce Ellis by remote control, but if I did there would be a load of rubbish about secret ciphers and unrecorded messages.


It would be very convenient if:

As far as this thread goes, I think we are done.

The May 31st, 1941 letter ( responding the Pound May 28th, 1941 ) beginning this story is now available, ... the final October 1941 rewarding by the King too.

What happened in between is written into this 130 thread page

The continued existence of the shaky foundation of the CMDS myth would allow the monetisation of Antonio's entirely imaginary and defamatory Conspiracy Theory to take place before exposure.


The May 31st letter from Tovey indicates there was no CMDS threat against Leach and Wake-Walker, and not even a serious request for B of I, and this is reinforced by the maintenance by Pound of those officers in their demanding roles.

The May 28th letter from Pound to Tovey remains to be discovered, assuming it was preserved, which will undoubtedly clear up what Pound actually suggested in May 1941 rather than what Tovey imagined and asserted without confirmation 15-20 years later.


If the Silver Bullet exists at all, and may be discovered in Public Records, say at Kew for instance, then it remains to be discovered and published.


And I know who will try...…………. Keep watching this space.

All the best

wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

I suggest to take a look and find both the May 28th, 1941 letter from Adm Pound to Adm Tovey, most likely asking him to call the Board of Inquiry on the conduct of the 2 Officers due to their conduct while in action against the enemy, and get ready to write the due Circumstantial Letter for the Court Martial to be called for them.

In addition you can take a look to find the still missed tactical plots of the HMS Norfolk and HMS Suffolk, ... so we can verify at what distance they assumed to be that day, and use the additional bearings to improve the map we already have made nailing them down to where they really were., … just as declared by Capt Ellis about the Suffolk, admitting that he did declare a false statement on his report.

Opss, .. I am sorry, ... I forgot that many here in are not competent and knowledgeable enough in mathematics and geometry to realize what a map is showing, ... do not mind, … just find them and pass them to me, ... so we can see what they show.

Meanwhile we continue to laugh about a Navy that went from a formal inquiry on the conduct of 2 cowards, ... thru many lies, ... to finally reward them with a medal.

Just incredible ...

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

Once again you put words in RN officer's mouths. Where in Ellis' ramshackle unedited, unpublished memoir does it say:

admitting that he did declare a false statement on his report

You just made that up didn't you? He may have indeed have contradicted what he said at the time, when it was fresh in his mind. You know, a bit like Tovey. Remembering things that didn't happen, many, many years later

not competent and knowledgeable enough in mathematics and geometry to realize what a map is showing

Knowledgeable enough to know why you hid the Dead Reckoning end positions for Norfolk and Suffolk on PoW's chart and invented imaginary D/F ing to explain them and further pretended how a bearing only could give those positions.


All the best

wadinga

[Antonio Bonomi]

Hello everybody,

if the above ignorant, incompetent and poorly knowledgeable person can take the disturb to study mathematics and geometry and go to the proper thread, he will be able to realize himslef that what I stated is correct.

Here in :

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 057#p79057

Take the real official data, bearings and speed of both Suffolk and the German warships and put them on a map from 04:47 ( radio message from Suffolk ) until 06:29 ( another radio message of Suffolk ) and verify them on a map.

Just like for the Norfolk you will realize how close they really were to the enemy that morning.

Hopefully you will be able to realize once for good that I am right and you are simply wrong ( I hope for you intentionally wrong ).

Simple, scientific and irrefutable.

Bye Antonio

[wadinga]

Hello Antonio,

So Ellis didn't

admitting that he did declare a false statement on his report

and you did just make it up.

What's in the Silver Bullet? How does it irrefutably confirm CMDS? Is it just an imaginary thing like Ellis' admission?

As for the mapping stuff we have Ellis statement, made before Tovey could consult with anyone about your Fantasy Conspiracy:

0447 (B). Enemy bore 186°*, 15 miles, course 220°, speed 27-28 knots and bore 196° at 0456 (B).
0520 (B). Enemy bore 203°, 15 miles, possibly increasing speed; and shortly afterwards altered course 30° to port and then back to starboard.
17. 0542 (B). Received Norfolk's 0541 reporting sighting enemy, followed by Prince of Wales' 0537 and Hood's 0543. The mean of these placed the enemy some 280°, 14 miles from Suffolk's plot position, and sights obtained shortly afterwards confirmed this. As, however, the Battle Cruiser Squadron was now in touch with the enemy, no amending position report was made at this point.

All the best

wadinga

[dunmunro]

Hello everybody,

if the above ignorant, incompetent and poorly knowledgeable person can take the disturb to study mathematics and geometry and go to the proper thread, he will be able to realize himslef that what I stated is correct.

Here in :

http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... 057#p79057

Take the real official data, bearings and speed of both Suffolk and the German warships and put them on a map from 04:47 ( radio message from Suffolk ) until 06:29 ( another radio message of Suffolk ) and verify them on a map.

Just like for the Norfolk you will realize how close they really were to the enemy that morning.

Hopefully you will be able to realize once for good that I am right and you are simply wrong ( I hope for you intentionally wrong ).

Simple, scientific and irrefutable.

Bye Antonio

Your last map seems to show Norfolk and Suffolk only ~28k yds apart...yet we know that this is not possible because they cannot see each other, ergo your map is wrong. Pinchin's map best approximates what we know about visibility (or lack thereof) between Norfolk and Suffolk.

[Alberto Virtuani]

Hello everybody,

Wadinga wrote: "we have Ellis statement, made before Tovey could consult with anyone"

pardon....why a report dated June 11 should not have been agreed with Wake-Walker - Tovey by Ellis ?

Anyway, such "statements" are just giving an estimate distance of 15 sm at 4:47 (more or less correct) and 5:20 (incorrect, it was already down to 12,5), due to course and speed of SF vs.Germans + available bearings..... Distances are unreliable, while bearings are more reliable (as a certain Mr.Wadinga explained to us long time ago, before being nailed by the same bearings).....

Dunmunro wrote: " Pinchin's map best approximates what we know about visibility (or lack thereof) between Norfolk and Suffolk."

Back is Mr.Dunmunro with Pinchin's Plot (proven to be a false document time ago, invented before the board to support Wake-Walker false declaration about Hood distance from Norfolk at 6:00)......

Hasn't Mr.Dunmunro noticed that the bearings between NF and SF are left "truncated" in this false document ?
Has he noticed that in the "Plot" the distance between SF and Hood at 5:52 (open fire) was 33 sm ? Has he noticed that at 6:00 the same "Plot" distance SF - Hood was 30 sm (with SF crew still able to see and describe the Hood explosion) ?
Has he noticed that (in the same false document) SF distance from Bismarck during the battle was 21 sm ? (but still she should have been at a distance good for flank-marking..... ) ?



Anyway, to both, please to discuss NF and SF position go to the appropriate thread (I'm sure that Antonio is waiting for you ). Your intentional attempt to divert discussion here from the threat to two timid officers is simply pathetic.


Bye, Alberto