You are of course right that Phillips spoke as a witness on the 12th August, however his estimate of distance to Hood at this time is merely inferred by you from his statement above and your estimate of what part of the hull could be seen, whilst conveniently ignoring the effects of cold water mirage refractions commented on by several witnesses. You are even blind to his words in the first half of a sentence, the second half of which you are very keen on.154. Will you tell us where you were and what you saw of the HOOD's action.
I was handling my ship on the compass platform and saw the approach of the HOOD and PRINCE OF WALES towards the BISMARCK and PRINZ EUGEN and the commencement of the action. NORFOLK was fine on the starboard quarter of our heavy ships, both of which were plainly visible from near the waterline upwards. HOOD opened fire first - probably from all turrets - followed shortly by BISMARCK. Shooting on both sides appeared accurate and HOOD was very quickly straddled; straddles were also observed on the BISMARCK. After a few minutes of action I observed what appeared to me to be a hit, which I should estimate to be on or near the starboard above water torpedo tubes. This hit, which was quite separate in time from the firing of HOOD's salvoes, had the appearance of a brilliant splash of flame, as I have tried to indicate in rough sketch Phase I. I remarked on this to Admiral Wake-Walker and suggested that she had been hit near the torpedo tubes.
ie Norfolk was close to being directly astern of Holland's ships.NORFOLK was fine on the starboard quarter of our heavy ships
Much more specific, Paymaster Balmer says “
You have identified him as one of WW’s staff, and therefore happy to perjure himself, and yet he gets no award of recognition of his loyalty to the Grand Conspiracy.I cannot remember the range but it was about 15 miles.”
Leading Writer Collard responds to a question:
He was looking through binoculars and his evidence directly contradicts Phillips’ making it clear that if the Captain ever saw Hood’s side it was as a result of a temporary refraction not seen by Collard. Phillips was busy conning his ship, Collard had time on his hands to observe, and as a writer, training to record accurately, I know which witness I would believe.76. Could you see if the armoured doors in the side, masking the torpedo tubes were open or shut?
It was quite impossible to see as the ship was too far down over the horizon, for me to see from my position.
Wake-Walker’s report K856/189 also included a map. On Wed Sep 03, 2014 6:37 am you reproduced the header for what you have always described as Norfolk’s “original” plot. However it is actually dated 5th June and drawn at a small scale which allows the whole pursuit to be displayed, the same as Admiralty chart 2060A covering the entire Eastern Atlantic. As Marc observed at the time this is obviously not “original” at all, but a strategic simplification and rationalization produced after return to port, and incapable of recording at this scale, the detail the real large scale tactical plot which Pinchin “tirelessly” produced over four days and for which he actually received his citation. Where is that document? Don't tell me, destroyed to hide the evidence.
I believe you have reproduced postage stamp samples of this small scale map to justify various points in your arguments, including positions for Suffolk which cannot really be justified, since D/F, even if used by Kelburn (see citation) gives only bearings, not ranges.You have now confirmed the citation is dated June 5th, i.e. 2 months before Pinchin created “the Plot” for the Second Enquiry, the so-called “shameful”act for which you have always maintained he was recommended for an award.
Pinchin recommended for award long before he actually produces the goods, Balmer refused an award even though he faithfully delivers his lines. And when we be told of the part Able Seaman Disborough played in the Great Lie which Wake-Walker had him commended for?
The case for the Great Conspiracy cannot be said to be collapsing, because it had no substance in the first place.
Mr Raven, I would be honoured if you were to quote some of my observations when you get your opportunity to refute Antonio's assertions should they (heaven forfend!) ever make it to print. Doubly-honoured, were you to plough through my humble article at http://www.hmshood.com/history/denmarks ... olland.htm to reach my true name at the bottom.
All the best
wadinga
... basically confirming his own Hood First Board declaration of 20.000 yards ( 10 sea miles ) being correct and reinforcing everything with a direct reference with his Flag Officer, ... that 16 days before had changed completely his own previous board signed declarations adding 10.000 yards ( or 5 sea miles ). 
, confirmed that Hood hull was clearly visible.