DS reversed photo theory and battle maps comparison

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao George and all,

as you may have noticed I did not correlate any name with positive or negative sentences about Mr. Winklareth book.

All your post 's are up there to be read and judged by readers.

I do not think I wrote something uncorrect and I only agreed with your comments ( positive or negative as said ) generally speacking, so about what you wrote yourself.

More, I would agree with you on your comments about the credits Mr. Winklaterh still have ( and will never loose in my view and opinion ) as I have written several times already.

So there are positives and negatives as you can see.

I do think that Mr. Winklareth owns the responsibility of his acts and writings just like any other person here in and in real life.

Despite his age ( congratulations by the way Bob ) he is still very actively posting and expressing himself, so I think I am fully respecting him as an human been.

No beating, No bashing, No guns on mouth, this is just a fair comparison on a 60 year old battle among fair persons, somebody is right and somebody is very clearly wrong.

I do not think is such a big deal to admit a failure, there are surely more serious things in life to be worried about.

So No victims here and no Jackels, No beating of anybody and the humanity is still with us.

I hope as said that the fairness and education will show up on the same way as that is what it is missed here since way too long time and now everybody is sick and tyred about this game as you may have read on many other post's.

Ciao Antonio

[Randy Stone]

Hi Antonio and George:

No one has flamed Mr. Winklareth -- it is his own text, as has been clearly laid out, which is at issue. You, George completely mischaracterise -- or misunderstand -- what has been written.

Again, it is the work which is under review and has been found -- again, sadly -- lacking. No amount of mischaracterization can change that fact.

If you feel, George, that Mr. Winklareth's book is being 'ripped to shreds,' take a look a what has transpired lately over on the HMS Hood Site Forum. Nothing of the sort has occurred on this thread, nothing of the sort.

However, there is no denying we have discussed specific passages and text brought up by Mr. Winklareth himself, which is the course a proper review should take. If his text can not stand up to the scrutiny, the chips fall where they will. The same conditions would apply to any of us and that is all well and good.

I'd like to see a response to Antonio's 3 questions; of course, and let's be frank here, there is no answer to Antonio's questions because attempting to fit these established facts into Mr. Winklareth's theory would pull it apart. It is self evident why Mr. Winklareth refuses the challenge of answering these questions.

This is not an issue of Mr. Winklareth's age, this is not an issue of the torpedo hit aft which, by the way, even Mr. Winklareth admitted his only source was Sir Ludovic's account of the attack itself -- secondary sourcing, by the way.

It is not about the assertion that his text "...stimulated more research on the subject than anything else I've seen in the last 20 years..." something with which I sincerely disagree if only in considering the 'minor' fact that Jose and John have established two fine sites concerning Bismarck.

What this is about is whether Mr. Winklareth's account of the battle of the Denmark Strait has anything to commend it. And given the fact that Mr. Winklareth continues to propound his 'Theory,' he, in fact, does owe a justification for his position given that his book provides no sourcing or reference for his claims. After all, he advanced the notion; now let's allow him the opportunity to justify it.

Randy

[George Elder]

... why not accept what is obvious and move on? You've read the "Merchant of Venice" and you have won your pound of flesh -- if that is what we call victory in this test of scenerios. That's quite enough, unless you prefer flesh dripping with blood. As for the cheerleader, it is a sad irony when a man who is infamous for lying, withholding info, threatening, etc., etc., calls upon others to admit the truth or to justify a position. Would that such a one could justify his own deeds. Once again, Jose asked that we not engage in this nonsense, and I have already noted that it is a big world. Enough said. Antonio, I think we've taken the exercise as far as it can go. When your work is in print, I will offer my comments. Untill then, I wish you all the best. You have done well in articulating your case, and these comments are my final word on the matter.

George

[Randy Stone]

...Antonio.

As was posted on another forum -- the Hood forum, as I recall -- no serious researcher or enthusiast takes the reversed photography theory seriously. And for good reason, as you have amply demonstrated.

And, as you well know, I have long encouraged you to ignore the repeated attempts to earn credence to this theory by sheer repetition of postings. Quantity does not make for quality. We can only regret there are those who attempt to paint truth with the brush of inaccuracy.

May I suggest that you merely refer curious folks to your current postings by way of links and leave it at that ? Your time is so much better spent pursuing your research than by being sidetracked time after time, at least that's my opinion.

Yours is a fine reconstruction of events -- as they happened in the Denmark Strait. Do not be fooled by false characterizations or sour grapes; those who seek to orchestrate and oversee your work will be on constant guard to lead you astray. Such is the way of the charlatan; as the good Book points out.

Pay this 'man' no mind; I have watched your work mature over the years from the slimmest outline to a full throated account of one of the most dramatic moments in naval history. And I am quite confident that your work regarding the destroyer attacks and the final action will prove just as well documented and illuminating.

For instance, who has brought us the debriefings of the survivors who made it back to Germany just after the action ? I am certain that is the depth to which your research will reach.

I would consider it a priviledge to review your project. You rate it.

Keep up the good work, Antonio.

Randy

[George Elder]

Ulrich did the translations and I did the editing. It seems a few people were involved in making this material accessible -- to Antonio and everyone else. It's very common knowledge, and the German text is also available -- to those who can actually read the language.

[Randy Stone]

...but given the editing I would definitely prefer to review the original German documents myself.

You do appear to be catching on to the point, however, that "The Bismarck Chase" fell down badly without the benefit of primary documentation. But then, that's very common knowledge too.

The main point is my personal experience that Antonio is the one to put primary documentation to work and is capable of bringing us a coherent and factual work regarding Bismarck's first and only sortie.

I'd be willing to tackle matters but I happen to believe that Antonio has earned the rights to first crack at the topic.

Randy

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao All,

thanks for all your inputs on this guys, they are all really well taken.

I close here this exercise with no more comments.

I have nothing more to add as the results of it is very evidently under the eyes of everybody.

We have taken this exercise as far as it could go, not very far.

Closing this we can summarize that the reversed photo theory and Bismarck surpassing Prinz Eugen on the port side during Denmark Strait battle is a theory with no foundation and totally wrong.

I really hope I will never had the need to come back on this subject ever again.


Ciao Antonio

[Patrick McWilliams]

Ciao All,
Closing this we can summarize that the reversed photo theory and Bismarck surpassing Prinz Eugen on the port side during Denmark Strait battle is a theory with no foundation and totally wrong.

Antonio, your choice of words is symptomatic of the undercurrent that has dogged this particular thread.

As a summary of your final position, wouldn't it have been better or more polite to have said that a body of opinion on this forum regards the theory of Bismarck having passed Prinz Eugen on the port side as being without foundation?

Thanks,

Patrick

[Randy Stone]

...Patrick, but I always try to keep in mind that Antonio's English is better than my Italian.

Randy

[George Elder]

Hi Patrick:

Yes, things could have gone better here. The problems are manifold. In some cases, we have loud, obsequeous sots pretending to have knowledge and abilities that they very obviously do not -- empty drums as we call them. Then we have the main combatents, who do not cut each other any slack at all. There are also recognized experts, although some of these have not always been correct in their own interpretations nor gentle in their observations. Add a healthy mixture of pride and resentment, and the end result was predictable.
But untill the flaming came -- I felt a reconciliation or advancement to a new position was possible. Well, perhaps if Rob and Antonio had worked this out in private it would have not devolved into ashes. That folks were willing to put light to the efforts is a sad thing, but rather typical. I still remain hopeful, but progress will not be made in this environment. You know, if the thread could have been limited to just Rob and Antonio, a resolution may have come about. 'Tis a sad thing any other paries became involved, including myself. And we certainly do not need anyone telling us who is right or wrong. That implies that people cannot make up their own minds or see the obvious.
As for me, this debate has put me off naval issues altogether. There is simply too much BS in the "general" field, and the level of debate and expertise isn't very impressive by most standards. Granted, we see great expertise in naval-related specialty fields -- such as hydrodynamics, etc., but precious little of that filters into most of these debates. So it's back to academy for me, and to neurons, dendrites, etc.. There is controversey in any scientific endevour, but scientists are usually less catagorical and a damn sight more kind to one another than what we see here. Most people who examine anthing in great detail come to know that they do not know. So one must search and search and search -- and it can be joyous to find any new connection. It is certainly more fun that these endless peeing contests that get nothing at all accomplished.

George

[Bgile]

George, I understand your feelings w.r.t. the mud slinging. However, some information came to light that I was not aware of during the process, and for that I am thankful. I think there were many individuals who DID butt out, such as myself.

You yourself are acerbic at times, but are an interesting read. I don't have your academic credentials and I respect your opinion. The presence of individuals such as you is what makes this forum special.

I will miss you if you decide not to post here any more.

Steve Crandell

[George Elder]

Hi Steve:

Yes, I can be a pain in the butt, which is the sure sign of immaturity, too much pride, and a certain lack of grace. It is odd. Part of me knows it is best to be polite and "nice," but years of coaching, being a competitive lifter, etc., seem to have activated a damn attack button. My wife says I am "very very bitchy," and that's probably true enough. Changing is never easy, but I know it is needed. Ulrich has a style I much admire, and I wish I could be more like him in temperment.
With regards to my future work on the Bismarck, my problem is all about time. I have dropped the ball on a lot of academic work that I was once doing. It was mind-numbingly complex and demanding, and I walked away from it for nearly 7 years. Recently, I began reading some new texts -- and they became compelling. I now find myself back on the hunt -- and that is a good thing.
As for my academic credentials, they don't matter much. An advanced degree only alows one enough insight to grasp the fact that he/she doesn't know a whole lot about a lot. Moreover, I don't consider myself very bright, although I know what bright is. I have had the opportunity to work with people who are beyound just genious range -- such as my wife. These are folks who peg out the standardized tests. I once spent a lot of time with them on various projects, and it's time to get back into the game for a while. But I'll be hovering.

George

[Antonio Bonomi]

Ciao Patrick and all,

as you may have read above I have asked since the beginning of this post for fair, educated, pragmatic analysis of the events only.

The intention of my phrase ( and here I pay tribute to the language as Randy underlined, as in Italian I could have used a more diplomatic-lawyer type wordings not so familiar to my English which is mainly Technical-Business oriented ) was anyway not to be offensive or unpolite, neither sarcastic.

So please take the statement for what it is, the closing summary of a theory found not possible due to real evidences nobody can avoid to consider as primary source, on this forum like everywere else anytime from now on.

But I take your input and of course I agree with the intention in line of principle as the goal as said was not to be unpolite or sarcastic neither offensive to anybody.

Thanks for having undelined that giving me the chance to clarify and avoid misinterpretations.

Ciao Antonio

[Robert J. Winklareth]

Hi all,

In a posting of 5 May 2005 on the Bismarck-class Forum, Bill Jurens made the very unusual proposal that the moderators of this and related forums "discourage and perhaps even consider locking and/or deleting further discussions on this topic (Battle of the Denmark Strait) and to take prompt action to prevent 'restarts' in the future."

This proposal in effect recommends that the views of others who do not agree that Antonio's reconstruction is the "one and only official version of the battle" be censored from being posted on the forum. Coming from a member of the professional and scientific community, this proposal is truly beyond belief, but it also reveals a long-standing bias against almost everything that I have ever proposed or written, especially my book, "The Bismarck Chase."

In his posting, Bill Jurens mentions my book repeatedly as the basis for his proposal, even though he knows full well that I wrote the book over ten years ago when I did not have access to primary source materials. I revised and updated my "Battle Scenario" based upon more recently found documentation and posted it on both websites two years ago in April 2003, so Bills' premise for his proposal is not only totally false, but even worse, knowingly so.

Contrary to what Bill Jurens would have others believe, my current concept of the battle is fully consistent with all six first-hand accounts by eyewitnesses on the scene of the battle, including the Baron, Captain Brinkmann, Busch, Lt. Vaughn of the Sunderland flying boat that flew over the scene during the battle, and the two Prinz Eugen gunnery officers, Jasper and Schmalenbach, who had the Bismarck in their sights as the flagship moved up on the port side of the cruiser.

My current concept of the battle is also based on primary source documents, such as the Prinz Eugen War Diary, Battle Sketch, and Speed Chart, pertinent Admiralty reports, and the Prince of Wales Salvo Plot. It is consistent with battle charts prepared by Schmalenbach and noted German historians, Elfrath and Herzog and Koop & Schmolke that place the Bismarck on the port side of the Prinz Eugen. It has been endorsed by Prof. Dr. Jurgen Rohwer, internationally recognized as the foremost living authority on the history of the Bismarck.

It is true that I used "restarts" to present a fresh approach to the problem when discussion on a topic became bogged down with a host of irrelevant side issues, often deliberately intended to divert attention from the primary issues at hand. In one case, there were over 100 postings on a topic that had perhaps only a half dozen responses that were truly related to the original topic itself.

Bill Jurens proposal to prohibit "restarts" would have the effect of burying meaningful discussion on an issue under a mountain of trivia which no one who was not directly involved would even bother to look for. The philosophy of those in the cabal to promote Antonio's totally unsupported theory is to exclude all points of view to the contrary. Antonio has already embarked on this strategy by threatening the Bismarck-class webmaster in an effort to have my concept of the battle expunged from the forum.

My philosophy, on the other hand, has always been to involve the maximum participation by other members of the forum in open and honest discussions to ensure that every possible angle of the issue is thoroughly explored in our quest for the truth. I still don't have all of the answers, and I need the help of free-thinking individuals to tie up some of the loose ends.

Please let the webmaster know whether you are for inclusion or exclusion of different points of view on the Battle of the Denmark Strait and other issues presented on this forum.

Best regards to all.

Bob

[Bill Jurens]

A look at the last previous posting date to the Winklareth memo makes it perfectly clear that this represents yet another attempt at at 'restart', with the text lifted verbatim from another Bismarck forum where the thread was (wisely) locked by the moderator a few days ago.

Other than this brief reply, I intend to ignore this memo, and -- in the interests of avoiding yet another long and pointless discussion, hope that other readers will as well.

That's my vote, anyway.

Bill Jurens.