" I do not agree at all that the page 211 map which I have only just seen, thanks to Mr Bonomi's unauthorised reproduction of copyright material and Round-Robin e-mail, is "fully adopting" his 2005 map."
" is really the last word that should have been used in such an embarrassing/delicate situation...
Can a certain "fellow contributor
" point out what are the most meaningful and significative changes
that the authors would have done to Antonio Bonomi's 2005 map before "proposing" (a very kind word instead of the proper one) it in their book (apart adding the sun position, the range/bearing plot, the geographic references, etc.) ?
Of course not because, in summary:
1) The Bismarck track in relation to Prinz Eugen (that is the great added value of Antonio's 2005 map, built using known documents and mostly correlating all photographic evidences
as someone was still refuting here) has been fully "adopted" (euphemistically) without any specific acknoledgement (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=30#p84686
2) The Norfolk track (that was almost randomly positioned in Antonio's 2005 map, not respecting the bearing to Germans, but that was corrected later on this forum and in our 2017 publication) has been "blindly adopted" (once again using a very kind but inappropriate expression) in page 211 map, as the yellow bearings in Antonio's "Round-Robin
" e-mail are fully demonstrating (also see here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8258&start=45#p84708
). The identical intersection points to PoW track are the final proof (Pinchin's Plot mention is simply absurde in this case, as both maps do not respect the Pinchin's bearings to Germans and in "the Plot" the NF track cross Hood one at.. 06:23...).
The fact that the authors themselves have not yet answered here to the above observations is demonstarting that they are unable/unwilling
to answer, while leaving alone their poor "supporters", who desperately try to deny even what is evident to a little boy
at very first glance.
I would have expected a couple of people here to be more wise and to carefully avoid any comment to such a shamefull situation
, but apparently they are (once again) unable to admit the evidence (at any cost...). How difficult is to simply shut-up, when having no argument...
"...Mr Bonomi's 2005 effort before he decided that a grand conspiracy had taken place and he took the liberty of rearranging positions..."
Possibly someone has not yet measured that Antonio's 2005 map (as well as the one published at page 211), had put the Norfolk at 21000 meters from Bismarck at 06:00, thus closer than in Antonio's last calculated position (23000 meters)...
Apparently the decision about a conspiracy has not prevented Antonio from fairly correcting his errors, even against his "agenda", one thing that someone here on the forum is very reluctant to do....
It's funny to see all these incorrect (and biased) statements in a single post...
"The worst error on the 211 map as far as I can see is that it fails to point out in the scale bar that it is "thousands" of yards. (kiloyards)"
Very Good !
Finally an admission that a certain theory about a turn to 270° of Bismarck at 5:55 (imagined by the same "fellow contributor
") is rubbished (hopefully once forever) also
by this map, thus that the Prinz Eugen film can be timed precisely between 06:04 and 06:06
, as Antonio had already understood in 2005.
An important step forward !
Let's hope everybody will give up any impossible theory now that someone much more authoritative than Antonio has just confirmed his 2005 work...