I don't feel that the above post of Mr.Wadinga (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8491&start=75#p82335) goes exactly in the direction indicated by the moderator and the webmaster to restore reciprocal respect, but I leave to them the judgement of his tones. I will (for this last time) answer only to specific statements and not to provocations with provocations:
... but (as already said) one should be able to propose (even theoretically) a different track for the 6 ships involved on May 24 than the one of Antonio's reconstruction (matching the available evidences). If not, it means the ships simply cannot be moved (as Pinchin realized himself with his "Plot"), because this would counter other evidences.Wadinga wrote: "One should not have to prove the Earth is round to be allowed to dismiss the arguments of Flat Earthers."
If any alternative scenario could be decently proposed, only than we could speak about "indeterminateness", else there is only one solution.
Disregarding the provocations here (again to Mr.Jurens and Mr.Rico to judge), the reconstruction from Antonio shows clearly German side alterations to their records too in order to justify some officers, as done in any organization in the world since centuries... Obviously, due to the outcome of the battle, British had quite more urgent needs to embellish their records.Wadinga wrote: "This would be possible if the promoters (and sole adherents) of the radical alternative did not allege that the evidence from British sources, and only from British sources, and only those parts which specifically contradict their assertions, and which might have been used for any technical reconstruction, have been deliberately altered from reality as part of a sophisticated and organized plan to mislead and misinform."
Linking the reconstruction to the "regrettable aftermath" is simply logical, however my recommendation was just to keep the two arguments separated in different threads and not mixing everything together.
...much less than statements like "well-concocted ziggurat of suppositions", "conspiracy theory", "misleading excerpts" (when full text is available on public archives), or "poor mathematical" (when no alternative study is proposed, once again), etc. referred to someone else work, mostly based on official documents, original letters and published books.Wadinga wrote: "Also that statements like "it is well proven" and "complete, precise and (by now) unchallenged" will be disallowed...."
I had tried to list some examples but apparently there are many more behaviors that should be avoided for the future. Thanks to Mr.Wadinga for (very knowledgeably) adding new ones, once back from his absence...