Conspiracy theorists

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.
Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Conspiracy theorists

Post by Cag » Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:20 pm

Hi All

Hi Antonio, please let me start by saying I respect you and your work. This is in no way meant as an attack, it is I hope a plea for calm, if I may can I try to explain my feelings on this matter as I have no right to explain anyone else's.

I'm afraid I also have faced abuse, I have been told I'm unintelligent or cannot grasp the truth or naive, I've been described as being disrespectful or trying to be funny or ironic etc etc etc etc the list goes on. I was accused of this because I asked fundemental questions that were not answered but dismissed, or because at a point where a consensus was possible the thread was closed.

Yet I had not accused anyone of anything, I had not disrespected anyone at all? No one should experience any kind of personal attack I agree, but we are all "grown ups" and I like others have had to take it on the chin, I do not respond in kind plus adding a little bit because my ego is damaged, I ask is this kind of response really helpful to the discussion? Or even in the past I have withdrawn from the thread (which was probably the desired result).

Perhaps Antonio the thread title is a response to people putting forward equally valid evidence and opinion only to be told it's wrong and accused of being a denier at all costs.? You must admit that this accusation has been going on, in various threads, for quite a while without retaliation. To post an opinion and not to expect both agreement and opposition is perhaps an error, especially when one uses the words cowards?

If someone puts forward a question or actually posts a serious opinion against serious asserted opinion only to have it ignored and instead face being accused of something is that not also wrong?

I have read quite a lot of opinions on this forum that were valid, that have been denounced as they did not fit the accepted wisdom, but I heard no complaint from their authors.

I have tried to defuse this argument, to suggest that no one is a conspiracy theorist or denier because it helps no one and does no good.

As others I have put forward my own personal ideas, listened to critisism of them, and have been grateful and listened to those experts who freely give advice and opinion. I have gone away and modified my idea or sometimes I've stuck with it. But the one thing that struck me, and has always struck me, is that on a forum dedicated to Bismarck the only discussion that ever takes place is Leach, Wake-Walker, Tovey and cover up.

You must agree that there is a very big difference between finding evidence that 2 men were "threatened" with a CM for a specific charge and attempting to link this to every other action they took in the operation and stating this was a part of the CM charge and its investigation but required complicity by everyone and a cover up. You will face opposition surely? Let's go through the suggested charges,

It has been suggested that Churchill having bad news of Hood, being given good news of Bismarck decided to destroy it and then require his senior officers to cover up his self inflicted bad news to create more good news.

It has been suggested that Tovey was an architect of a cover up of implied critisism of actions that we honestly have no evidence were critisised. But it was not only Tovey that was involved, but he was assisted by Pound Phillips, Alexander, the 2nd Hood Board, Churchill, Wake-Walker, Leach, Ellis etc.

It has been suggested that Wake-Walker was threatened with CM for not re engaging Bismarck after Hood was sunk, which it would also include his shadowing before the DS battle, his actions during the battle, his actions in the moments during the loss of contact and that to stop this an incorrect 1st board distance to Hood was intentionally altered in a despatch and in a 2nd board plot to an equally incorrect distance.

It has been suggested that despite the available evidences of Wake-Walker, Captain Leach, the Hood board witness testimony, the Rowell map, the PoW gunnery report and salvo map the board decided to accept the two points in Toveys despatch to exonerate Leach.

It has been suggested that Wake-Walker was inept and he gave a BBC reporter the actual truth of his timid actions in a broadcast interview to the world but then mistakenly gave the board of the Admiralty the lie and expected them to believe it at face value or they were complicit in its lies.

It has been suggested that Ellis lied when he stated that the cruisers tactical function was to follow and flank mark and that his firing would have only confused BC1 spotting of fall of shot and he tried to contact Hood on the gunnery channel to flank mark.

It has been suggested that despite the availability of all the official reports in Toveys Despatch, the board only used the intentionally altered sections (and ignored the unintentional mistakes) to cover up for officers, meaning the whole board were complicit.

It has been suggested that Roskill etc were in agreement with a cover up, despite his known position written in his book calling the whole post mortem examination as being a regrettable aftermath and showing those who tried to conduct it in a bad light.

It has been suggested that Roskill is in agreement with the findings of a cover up even though he does not say the CM charge is connected with Wake-Walker not engaging in the morning action which required an estimated distance in two separate documents to be falsified and covered up, nor does he seem to imply it.

It has been suggested that he gives the references used for the CM threat, (ie Kennedy) and he gives the files in which material connected to the post mortem are held to connect them to both Leach and Wake-Walker despite Wake-Walker not being mentioned in 205/10 and despite him not saying here is a cover up and the CM was for all of Leach and Wake-Walkers actions. (Im afraid that despite my attempts I have not found in the Roskill papers any part where he questions Wake-Walker or Leach's actions, he questions why Holland did not signal his intentions or attempt to concentrate on the cruisers).

Would you agree that his research suggests that for Roskill the onus was on Holland to inform the cruisers to engage?

I'm sorry Antonio, as this is most definitely not yet another attack, but as you can see people have reservations to the assertions that are being made. It is to be expected, I can honestly say I cannot say your idea is totally wrong, but there are so many still unanswered really important questions and reasonable doubts that I cannot say you are correct.

I hope you see what I am trying to say, this is not a personal attack or an attack on your work, and sorry for the long post, I'm just trying to help us all see that argument is not the answer, discussion is, but with acceptance that no one can know for sure what we assert as opinion is a fact.

Best wishes
Cag.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Conspiracy theorists

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:49 pm

Hello everyboy,

@ CAG,

no CAG, I am sorry for you, it has not been only suggested.

It has been properly correlated with timings and occurrences and mostly it has been associated with available Official evidences on the Archives and the British historian book evidences previously published as well.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8240

So, to put it is easy words, the fact of the Court Martial attempt threat, which is a fact, in a very logic and timely accurate way has been correlated to another fact, which is the well demonstrated intentional alteration of the related documents into the records, thru the Adm Tovey dispatches and the Admiralty Official response to them, until the final King recognition on September 1941.

It has been a pragmatic, logic, well organized, structured, complete and comprehensive work, deeply done on it like never before.

This is what is clearly disturning some persons, that are afraid this level of work will be published one day.

Please do not even try to put all of us on the same level. It is simply unacceptable for me.

Someone started the " trolling " with the clear intention to try to avoid certain arguments to be discussed and later published, ... and even yesterday I have read some threats addressed to me and my work, ... which is simply ridicolous and tells the whole story about it, ... confirming once again what I am stating here now, ... someone else had to react to a very evident provocative and arrogant attitude I will never accept.

The evidence of what I am saying are all on this forum to be read.

I respect your and everybody else opinion and works, ... and consequently I pretend everybody to respect mine.

Bye Antonio :D
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 )

Cag
Senior Member
Posts: 577
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 9:53 am

Re: Conspiracy theorists

Post by Cag » Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:45 pm

Hi All

Hi Antonio, well one accusation you cannot throw at me is that I did not try. Again I respect yourself and your work.

I agree that those that read the forum will definitely see that although I did not disrespect anyone or am the person you accuse of trolling, I myself was accussed of and faced derogatory comments from you (that is why I include you in the list) . Again you feel sorry for me that I do not realise the truth, but do not address my previous posts questions.

I'm an adult and to be honest any silly comment is water off a ducks back, and I will continue not to succumb to using the same kind of tactics in life, it is better to conduct yourself as you hope you should rather than allow yourself to commit the same crime you accuse others of..

I'm afraid in reality it seems rather pointless to continue to discuss anything, for example despite the fact that we have direct evidence regarding which message Tovey referenced in his notes to Pitcairn-jones added to which we have Roskills findings it is still implied a message from Power on the 26th has been expunged. Despite Tovey suggesting the message included a towing reference not seen until the 27th.

To what end?

Well it tallies with Toveys phone call memory, which also recalls a threat made to CM Leach and Wake-Walker for not re engaging Bismarck (which is undisputed by myself as I was the one who found and posted it).

But if we can make that jump from an expunged message being true to a memory of a defeated CM event for one charge then the jump to it being connected to a 15nm reference needed to stop an expanded CM investigation into why WW did not engage on the morning of the 24th is easy.

When Davies, present in the same room as Pound Churchill Phillips etc, says that as far as everyone except Phillips was concerned WW never put a foot wrong and Phillips critisism of him was unjustified, what should we think? That it must be a lie or a cover up in an attempt to shield WW from a CM investigation that never took place?

Again I am not denying your work ethic, your research methods or your work, and when you write your book I wish you all the best.

For me this forum seems pointless, so gentlemen having personally experienced how fragile is the nature of existance, I see no point in wasting what time I have left on this planet attempting to help others see that suggestion, implied expungement or CM threat connection and opinion can be reinvented as fact and therefore wish you all well and bow out.

There was a very good comment by OpanaPointer, that not all opinions are equal, there are many explanations for the whole DS battle actions, some that involve cover up and some that do not, neither are proven beyond reasonable doubt but the onus is on those who promote cover up not just to imply or suggest but to prove beyond any doubt what they suggest is fact, not just expect people to accept it because they repeat it is.

Best wishes to everyone and I hope proper discussion prevails.

Cag.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Conspiracy theorists

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:24 pm

Hello everybody,

@ CAG,

keep on writing that facts are just opinions is what you are keep on trying to do, and I disagree with you.

I know very well how to differentiate facts from opinions.

When an event is written and recorded into an Official Documents is a fact, ... even if it is an incorrectly declared fact, ... it does remain a fact.

When the Royal Navy Historian for World War 2 receiving personal letters did correlate them with available Official documents on the archives and published them under his name on written books properly supported by notes and references is not only his personal opinion.

Book writers can express their opinions, ... but when they do it supported by proper Official references as many do, that is a very solid opinion, ... even if they are not the Royal Navy Official Historian for World War 2.

Bye Antonio :D
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 )

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Conspiracy theorists

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:00 pm

Hello everybody,

now that we have found the " double confirmation " ... this attempt to try to stop the proper history re-construction of those events by defining the researchers as part of a " Conspiracy Theory ", ... can be officially declared having failed.

The " deniers " have lost their stubborn and blind battle, ... miserably.

Waiting for the excuses ...

Bye Antonio :D
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 )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3626
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Conspiracy theorists

Post by dunmunro » Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:19 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

now that we have found the " double confirmation " ... this attempt to try to stop the proper history re-construction of those events by defining the researchers as part of a " Conspiracy Theory ", ... can be officially declared having failed.

The " deniers " have lost their stubborn and blind battle, ... miserably.

Waiting for the excuses ...

Bye Antonio :D

What double confirmation?

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 2754
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Conspiracy theorists

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:47 pm

@Dunmunro:
Hi Duncan,
as already said, YOU have to find it and to post it for everybody to demonstrate a minimum of fairness after your "denial show". :negative:


Bye, Alberto
Last edited by Alberto Virtuani on Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:52 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)

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Conspiracy theorists

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:50 pm

Hello everybody,

there are other evidences into the British Archives about the Adm Pound to Adm Tovey conversation regarding the attemnpt to trials for CM of Rear Adm Wake-Walker.

This confirms Adm Tovey letters and closes forever this useless debate that rested way too much time thankingh some stubborn and blind persons, ... only putting their efforts to deny the history researchers rather then being capable to do proper research by themselves into the proper available British Archives, ....

Now, we wait for the due excuses from those " deniers ".

Bye Antonio :D
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 )

dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 3626
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Conspiracy theorists

Post by dunmunro » Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:50 pm

Antonio Bonomi wrote:Hello everybody,

there are other evidences into the British Archives about the Adm Pound to Adm Tovey conversation regarding the attemnpt to trials for CM of Rear Adm Wake-Walker.

This confirms Adm Tovey letters and closes forever this useless debate that rested way too much time thankingh some stubborn and blind persons, ... only putting their efforts to deny the history researchers rather then being capable to do proper research by themselves into the proper available British Archives, ....

Now, we wait for the due excuses from those " deniers ".

Bye Antonio :D
As I stated in the first post in this topic CTs will seize on any apparent discrepancy in the official account as proof that their pet theory is correct. The problem with this logic is that there's no causal connection between an unexplained discrepancy and the conspiracy theory.

The CT being pushed here is that Tovey was at the centre of a widespread conspiracy that involved falsifying reports, redacting signals, and perjured testimony, all to cover up supposed incompetence/cowardice of W-W and Leach. I and others have allowed that Tovey's claim of a potential CM of Leach and W-W was possible but that no direct evidence of a CM threat exists from any source other than Tovey. This is the important part of the logic of causal connection: Even if there is other evidence that DP and the Admiralty was preparing to CM Leach and W-W, this is not proof that Tovey and his criminal gang engaged in a conspiracy to thwart justice.


The threat of a CMDS does not equal proof of a conspiracy led by Tovey; there's no casual connection between a CMDS threat and allegations of conspiracy.

To prove a CMDS threat, we need at least two independent primary sources along with corroborating documentation.

To prove a conspiracy led by Tovey, we need at least two primary sources that admit falsifying reports with the specific intent of subverting a pending CMDS.

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3685
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Conspiracy theorists

Post by Antonio Bonomi » Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:00 am

Hello everybody,

I understand that it is very hard to be a looser on this dicussion after so much fighting.

But that is life, ... sometimes you win, ... sometimes you loose.

The 2 different sources for the Court Martial attempt are there now.
Adm Tovey reliability is well proven and solid like never before.
The argument is closed.

Regarding the " Cover Up " they did after, to remove all evidences and proceed for the recognitions of the 2 involved Officers, namely Wake-Walker and Leach, it is enough the simple correlation with Adm Tovey dispatches and Sir Barnes Admiralty response, everything confirmed and certified by the Adm 205/10 documents by the Politicians up to the Prime Minister WSC.
This argument is closed as well.

Bye, bye, .... Antonio :D
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 )

Post Reply