I notice that I haven't seen Paul Cadogan or "Cag" for a long whilst, two thoroughly enjoyable posters of political manner
Should be "polite" not political!
Moderator: Bill Jurens
I notice that I haven't seen Paul Cadogan or "Cag" for a long whilst, two thoroughly enjoyable posters of political manner
You seem to think that if you tell a lie enough times that it will make it true. All it does is make you a serial liar.Alberto Virtuani wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 11:03 am 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
Neither link, above, seems germaine, but in any event, it is not incumbent upon anyone to present a comprehensive reconstruction of the battle in order to say the current fantasy by A&A is wrong.Alberto Virtuani wrote: ↑Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:36 am 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.
Now I am sure you remember who demolished Bob Winklareth incorrect reversed photo theory by producing an alternative re-construction that was considered ( and still is ) to be better and more precise by the most, including several websites ( like this one ) and even copied and published on a Bismarck book by a recognized " copycat " from Denmark without asking any permission.That’s a matter of opinion. I think Bob Winklareth believes pretty much the same in regard of his theory.
No you are not. Your reconstruction does not take any errors into account. It possibly is the most elaborate one, but that does not make it the most accurate (if you mean that by "best"). It is a misunderstanding that by using many data, you will also get a good result.Antonio Bonomi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 22, 2018 6:44 pm
Now, correct me if I am wrong but I do not recall having seen so far any better battle re-construction that at least can be considered an alternative to my one. Am I right ?
Your reconstruction was really a fine thing....as long as no-one wants to take it too "litterally". It's still a good (maybe even the best) "big picture" and better than Winklareth's map in any case.Antonio Bonomi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 22, 2018 6:44 pm Hello everybody,
@ Herr Nilsson,
you wrote :
Now I am sure you remember who demolished Bob Winklareth incorrect reversed photo theory by producing an alternative re-construction that was considered ( and still is ) to be better and more precise by the most, including several websites ( like this one ) and even copied and published on a Bismarck book by a recognized " copycat " from Denmark without asking any permission.That’s a matter of opinion. I think Bob Winklareth believes pretty much the same in regard of his theory.
Now, correct me if I am wrong but I do not recall having seen so far any better battle re-construction that at least can be considered an alternative to my one. Am I right ?
....
Poor Mr.Dunmunro, he seems to "forget" (possibly an "innocent error") that SF distance from Bismarck was calculated and discussed by Antonio BEFORE founding Ellis'autobiography, thanks to his DoD (cross bearings taken from both sides) and to course/speed of SF from 4:47 on....Dunmunro wrote: "Ellis's memoirs in no way supports Busch"
Hi HMSVF,HMSVF wrote: "I suspect that a lot of the anger is over the use of the word "coward"."
Even if this thread is intended to the trials for Court Martial story between Adm Pound and Adm Tovey regarding Wake-Walker and Leach, ... I will respond to this statement.There are more than enough very reasonable counter-arguments you are not willing to take into account, let alone to accept.
The bottom line is that you've refused any constructive criticism and you're sticking to your opinion like Winklareth.
If you're really interested, I suggest you to reread all threads related to your cover up theory.Antonio Bonomi wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 8:49 am
Even if this thread is intended to the trials for Court Martial story between Adm Pound and Adm Tovey regarding Wake-Walker and Leach, ... I will respond to this statement.
Where are the counter-arguments ? Please provide me your list so I can evaluate them with lot of pleasure.
What do I have refused as constructive criticism ? Asked by whom ? When ?
Alberto Virtuani wrote: ↑Mon Jul 16, 2018 9:21 pm .
..... (e.g. I have not seen yet posted from him the "misconduct in presence of the enemy" relevant chapters for Leach and Wake-Walker from his "King's Regs", while we have posted already all the relevant "Articles of War" from the "Naval Discipline Act".... ). ......
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.Alberto Virtuani wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 8:40 am Hello everybody,
Poor Mr.Dunmunro, he seems to "forget" (possibly an "innocent error") that SF distance from Bismarck was calculated and discussed by Antonio BEFORE founding Ellis'autobiography, thanks to his DoD (cross bearings taken from both sides) and to course/speed of SF from 4:47 on....Dunmunro wrote: "Ellis's memoirs in no way supports Busch"
Busch confirmed the distance calculated geometrically.
Ellis put just the "tombstone" over the "novel" accounted by Kennedy.
Waiting for Mr.Dunmunro (or any other forum member...) alternative and complete battle reconstruction(I guess we will wait forever....), needed to counter a complete scenario presented by Antonio, matching most evidences,
who is the sneaky "liar" here ?
His repeated insults show his anger for having been found "naked" in front of everybody, due to his stubborn denial attitude.
Hi HMSVF,HMSVF wrote: "I suspect that a lot of the anger is over the use of the word "coward"."
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.
By now I feel free (thanks to Mr.Dunmunro kind explanation http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopi ... iar#p79035) to use the terms that more are appropriate for an officer running away in presence of the enemy and another, worse one, refusing to engage the same enemy...
Bye, Alberto