Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Discussions about the history of the ship, technical details, etc.

Moderator: Bill Jurens

User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

someone incorrectly keeps on writing that it is my scenario.

Probably he still likes to forget that I have told him several times already that it is not my scenario, but it was realized starting from 1978 by the analysis of some battle eyewitnesses made after some careful analysis of the photos, plus the becoming available available battle maps ( PG + PoW ) and the PG film.

He is better read it again here in :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&start=240#p68475

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&start=240#p68482

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5752&start=240#p68500

this is what he, ... as well as anybody else, ... will be never able to counter in any way he will try to do it.

I just made it more precise with my 2005 reconstruction, ... and I will improve it on the future publications.

End of the story.

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 )
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2467
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

Reconstruction, scenario, imaginary fabrication, call it what you will.
Well, I have read the secret document that Jasper wrote to Raeder after the mission, have you ?
Since Alberto gets all his access to original material from you, or from what more generous and less partisan posters (like Cag, Herr Nilsson and ........myself) put on this site:

What's in it?
Who found it?
Why are you hiding it?

Once again you are exposed hiding information from the Forum in order to distort their conclusions in the hope somebody will accept your highly biased scenario. Do you, like Alberto, believe the material you are prepared to release is "all they need to know"?
My problem, ... our problem, ... is to have the acceptance and the agreement on what the data and evidence will demonstrate from the persons that do not like the reality and the historical truth to surface
That's because you hide the evidence you have in your hands from others in case it does not support your "intuitions" and your version of reality.
I am ready anytime, ... just tell me how you like to proceed on this effort
Publish the Jasper Letter. Reveal the Silver Bullet.

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

The answer to the above petulant beggar (unable to understand what I intended for another person, not for him) directly from Jasper :

Jasper.jpg
Jasper.jpg (6.31 KiB) Viewed 1953 times

This guy should start justifying his own "theory" in a decent way (as suggested by everybody) instead of begging for a help he doesn't deserve.....
"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
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2467
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga »

Hello Alberto,
unable to understand what I intended for another person
I understand you can't keep your mouth shut when you are supposed to be guarding Antonio's secret stache of information he has shared only with you, some of which must be highly embarrassing for your scenario.

He has quoted out of context from letters he pretended not to have, and been caught out. He has excised tiny fragments from maps and been exposed when the whole map is shown and now you have inadvertently blabbed over a secret letter no-one else is supposed to know about, whilst "rubbishing" Herr Nilsson.
Well, I have read the secret document that Jasper wrote to Raeder after the mission, have you ?

If you have something to say, please find the courage in yourself, be a man once in your life and tell us what you have in your little brain.
What's in it?
Who found it?
Why are you hiding it?

Can you recall what Bill wisely said about your behaviour diminishing your case?

All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

I can perfectly recall.

However, despite Mr.Jurens suggestion (that was not for me ONLY, I hope), Mr.Wadinga ignored it and came in again to provoke, therefore he doesn't deserve such a kind treatment !
He should try to understand what I meant, answering to another provocation, with "Jasper's secret document" , instead....using... the brain.

Jasper.jpg
Jasper.jpg (6.31 KiB) Viewed 1945 times
"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: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

@ Alberto Virtuani,

in your place I would not waste anymore time " jocking " someone that is not able to understand it, ... :wink:

Instead I will keep on asking him what does he have to try ( surely unsuccesfully as more than obvious ) to challenge Paul Schmalenbach 1978 reconstruction of the Bismarck track based on the photos, the PG map and the PG film analysis :

1978_Schmalenbach_Baron_Rohwer_map.jpg
1978_Schmalenbach_Baron_Rohwer_map.jpg (57.14 KiB) Viewed 1922 times
DS_battle_map_1978_%20header_translation_01.jpg
DS_battle_map_1978_%20header_translation_01.jpg (84.44 KiB) Viewed 1922 times


You are allowing him to keep on changing subject and waste our time with his useless ... bla, bla, bla, bla, ... showing incorrect photo captions and writing about imaginary statements written behind photos that he never had on his hands, ... desperately trying to hang on something to challenge what he cannot challenge in any other way, ... being unable to produce even an imaginary theory.

The refusal to produce a very simple track able to sustain what he woudl like to support with those incorrect captions and imaginary statements tells the whole story of a stubborn intention to try to refute the obvious at any possible cost.

Even at the cost to become progressively more and more ridicolous, ... here in.


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 )
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2467
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga »

Hello A & A,

Are you telling me this puerile repeated printing of a photograph of someone (presumably Jasper) sticking his tongue out has some significance for you?
to challenge Paul Schmalenbach 1978 reconstruction of the Bismarck track

Interestingly this map shows Bismarck steering east of 180T so it at least attempts to explain why her course and PG's cross at right angles in a sequence of photographs. Which yours doesn't. Also it distorts PG's course after 06:15 compared with the Gefechtsskizze, not turning her as far north as it shows. Of course your map doesn't show Bismarck turning through south either. It would seem even this effort didn't believe the useless and worthless Gefechtsskizze enough to actually use it precisely for PG's track. Or even PoW's relative position, which is moved NE relative to where shown on the Gefechtsskizze. Notably Reimann's map is not mentioned although we know it correctly shows PoW turning towards the enemy when avoiding Hood's wreck, something ignored in this crude representation. No wonder it was abandoned for later works.
writing about imaginary statements written behind photos that he never had on his hands

Thanks for reminding me about even more information you are withholding, (there's so much) since you have had the material in your hands and deny the Bundesarchiv original caption without explaining why.


All the best


wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
User avatar
Antonio Bonomi
Senior Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:44 am
Location: Vimercate ( Milano ) - Italy

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Antonio Bonomi »

Hello everybody,

it appears that someone has decided to stop with his imaginary non sense about Bismarck having turned on course 270° before 06:03 battle time and now looks at the Bismarck track traced on the Prinz Eugen original map by Paul Schmalenbach only after the 06:05 battle time.

We should be OK now from 05:55 until 06:05, … thanks God, … he did finally realize that my 2005 map and Paul Schmalenbach 1978 one are exactly the same on that time slot.

Very good, … it seems a miracle, … but probably is only because the whisky bottle now is empty.

Lets not waste any more time here in, …. while trying to convince stubborn deniers that do not like to cooperate, … nor compare anything they are trying to state, … and proceed with some value add activities, … finally.

We can continue with our Bismarck track analysis restarting from where we left it 6 days ago, so after the PG film end after 06:05 battle time as determined lately :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=30#p81227

and here :

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=30#p81231

I was asking this very simple question to everybody :

How many photos do you have on top of the 4 pics ( 17, 18, 19 and 20 here above ) I have attached to my article, ... to be associated to that Bismarck track 3rd period/section of the battle from 06:06 until 06:09 as said ?


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 )
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2467
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by wadinga »

Hello Antonio,

You asked, very reasonably:
Instead I will keep on asking him what does he have to try ( surely unsuccesfully as more than obvious ) to challenge Paul Schmalenbach 1978 reconstruction of the Bismarck track based on the photos, the PG map and the PG film analysis :
and I pointed out, as requested, several anomalies including Bismarck sailing east of south and differences in PG and PoW's track from the Gefechtsskizze, all pointing to the difficulties of reconciling the photographs with this officially useless and worthless map.
I was asking this very simple question to everybody
by which it seems you, as the Great Withholder of Information is hoping to get others to supply additional information to you.

But in return I will ask you a very simple question: what does the original annotations held in the Bundesarchiv with these four photographs say?


All the best

wadinga
"There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today!"
northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by northcape »

Antonio Bonomi wrote: Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:35 pm

Instead I will keep on asking him what does he have to try ( surely unsuccesfully as more than obvious ) to challenge Paul Schmalenbach 1978 reconstruction of the Bismarck track based on the photos, the PG map and the PG film analysis :
This challenge is a quite simple exercise: This map (as any other) is an interpretation/reconstruction of untimed photos and untimed film. As such, it is one possibility (out of many) how the events could have happened. But since the vast majority input data represent qualitative information, it is not possible to assign an error bar to the ship tracks. We also don't have any independent information to falsify or verify the reconstruction.

As a consequence, the statement that the map is "correct" or the statement that it is "the best map available" is nonsense. No verification possible = we don't know if it is correct or not. No accuracy estimation = we don't know if it is good or not.

Do you mean this by challenge? Or what exactly do you want to have challenged? That is a serious question.

Is it a useful map? Depends for which purpose. Did it help to locate the wreck of the Hood? If yes, then for sure it has a purpose. What other use would require a "correct" map (note that this is a hypothetical question, since as outlined above we will never be able to verify if the map is correct). Again, a serious question.

With regard to Bill Jurens' suggestion to work on a map with on which everybody can agree on: I think the only improvement would be if there is a serious attempt to estimate accuracies of the reconstruction. Otherwise there will just be another map, and even if all can agree on, it does not add anything of relevance. But maybe the suggestion aims at making everybody to realize that very soon in the process the error bar will grow very large, for sure exceeding several hundreds and thousands of meters.
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens »

I am sorry that my attempts to restore a more civil and productive discourse have not actually worked very well. In fact, I would say that we have, in some recent postings, explored new lows of civility and maturity. That being said, I am encouraged by the fact that some are still willing and capable of contributing reasonable and useful commentary. We should recognize both their patience and intelligence.

It is clear that in the absence of an actual record against which the reconstructions might be compared, it is -- at least in formal epistemological terms -- impossible to define with any confidence, exactly which map or depiction is the 'best'. In that regard, one is faced with a collection of essentially anecdotal observations, covering quite a spectrum of assessed reliability, from which one attempts to assemble what amounts to a 'most probable' reconstruction. But there is in the final analysis no way to determine, except within very broad limits, what particular assembly might most closely resemble past reality. In short, we have no actual template of reality upon which to superimpose our reconstruction in order to assess its validity. The often highly variant track charts of other naval actions demonstrate how divergent different reconstructions, all presumably done in good faith, can be. In most cases this situation is tolerated because a) it is recognized that perfect reconstruction after-the-fact is impossible, and b) because -- except in quite unusual cases (and, incidentally, I would not include the Denmark Strait action in this category) the discrepancies usually don't make much of a difference, historically.

As Northcape implied in his final paragraph, I was indeed trying to attempt -- Schweitzer-like -- to have the participants establish the content of some box containing the collection of 'facts' which can be taken to be either indisputable or so highly likely to be true that their certainty is virtually assured. In that box, I might place items such as "There were four ships engaged in the main action", "the action occurred on 24 May, 1941", "HMS Hood was sunk after a relatively brief exchange of gunfire." etc. Observation of exactly at what stage opinions began to diverge, might give useful insights regarding the detail beyond which further historical interpretation -- one might almost say extrapolation -- was significant, and at what points the arguments became intractable.

So my idea regarding historical methodology was to first try to seek out some common ground which we could use as a jumping off point and then try to expand slowly from there until further agreement could not be reached. As Northcape cogently pointed out, this by no means guarantees that the subsequent reconstruction is necessarily correct or much better than any other -- a lot of smart guys would have for a long time considered the geocentric solar system as literally 'gospel' for example -- but it IS probably better than nothing.

We enter here what is often called the realm of abductive reasoning...

I am not sure if further progress can be made. But if it is made, it will be made along dual parallel tracks, one containing the cart of facts and observations, and the other containing the engine of proper historical methodology.

Bill Jurens.
User avatar
José M. Rico
Administrator
Posts: 1008
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by José M. Rico »

Bill Jurens wrote: Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:14 pm As I am not a moderator, I have no capability to stop or otherwise control anything that might be posted on this board.
Bill, perhaps you would be interested in being a board moderator?
I have no problem at all with that. If fact, it would be an honor, and I believe everybody will welcome you as an authority capable of introducing the necessary common sense that sometimes is missing here. What do you think?
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 876
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Bill Jurens »

I'm flattered.

Glad to serve as a moderator if you and others will have me.

Bill Jurens
User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1578
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by Herr Nilsson »

:ok:
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)
northcape
Senior Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:31 am

Re: Bismarck at DS after the second turn

Post by northcape »

I would support having a moderated forum. It is a pity, but this seems to be needed to maintain a minimum level of maturity and seriousness. Constantly demonstrating the emotional maturity of a toddler and the intellectual / logical capability of a preschooler is not beneficial for a meaningful discussion, in particular if this behavior is further supplemented by ignorance and aggression.
Post Reply