A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

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

Moderator: Bill Jurens

Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Bill Jurens »

Northcape's reply "on my behalf" summarizes my position(s) so well that I can do little or nothing to improve it.

Bill Jurens
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Bill Jurens wrote: "Northcape's reply "on my behalf" summarizes my position(s) so well that I can do little or nothing to improve it."
unfortunately, "Northcape's reply" has already been "replied" (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756&start=30#p85199)...


Wadinga wrote: "One again I am misquoted by truncating a sentence"
Poor...my "truncation" was to avoid to post the provocations of Mr.Wadinga. Next time I will post all his insinuations in full, like the ones about the "financial" purposes, the "hiding" intents etc.
Please note that these insinuations come from someone who was aware of the ADM 205/10 papers and hid them, daring to say they were not relevant to the "regrettable aftermath" of the Bismarck operation and the "Court Martial" threat... :shock:

The very unfortunate aspect is that the "moderator" has already read these low insinuations (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8756&start=30#p85203) and will leave them in the forum (not even admonishing Mr.Wadinga for his behaviour.... while I would have been banned for one month...).
A pity, but a very clear situation.


&: "Mr Bonomi realised in March this year that he had overlooked or conveniently forgot evidence in the published photographs and this rendered his conjectural track plot invalid and started redrawing it.( thanks for the reference Mr Virtuani)."
Mr.Wadinga should have left the "reference" link to allow everybody to see who left the discussion, leaving Antonio alone....
Here it is (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8335&start=375#p82424). Judge yourself who is competent and who is just abandoning any discussion, not allowing to come to any conclusion.


&: "Once again since the conjectural track plan and its timings are invalid, it is impossible to say precisely when any of these pictures were taken"
The "conjectural" tracks are (very inconveniently for Mr.Wadinga) the only ones accepted and presented in all the recent publications (eg. download/file.php?id=3593), because they are the only ones that explain the battle taking into account all evidences.
Are they perfect ? Surely not.
Can they be made better ? Yes, and the new ones that Antonio will publish in 2022 (second Bismarck book), will be much better.
Will they change dramatically in their "better" verison ? No, just minor refinements may be made.
Is Mr.Wadinga able to present his alternative ? Not at all.

Based on these "conjectural" tracks, it is easy to determine the timing of the "flash effect photo" but still the refusal to answer speaks for itself.

Annoying enough, ships cannot fly and a real battle was fought that day: a solution is not only exisiting (and well determined) but it can be drawn, through study and refinements. Surely not by denying anything and proposing nothing.
Apparently everybody thinks that Antonio's 2005 solution is still the best available one, adopting it when asked to publish a credible battlemap, while the ones that just speak here, without publishing anything, of course are hand-free in order to present their sterile criticism...


Bye, Alberto
"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: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by wadinga »

Fellow contributors,
Apparently everybody thinks that Antonio's 2005 solution is still the best available one,
Since Mr Bonomi started changing it in March this year "apparently" even he doesn't consider it viable anymore, vainly seeking in his sketch to adjust Bismarck's course to achieve the 90 degree crossing shown in the photographs.

The thread was abandoned after Mr Bonomi's rhetorical question:
Now my question to everybody is : 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 ?
Which was his way of emphasising that he had withheld photographs which he then went on to gloat over
Having many more photos at hand, ... compared to the general availability, ... makes the job more easy and accurate.
There was little point in further discussion. The objective of the thread had been achieved and Mr Bonomi had accepted his conjectural tracks needed changing because they did not fit even the published photo evidence, which he supposedly used to create them in 2005. However without general access to the withheld photos he refuses to make available, no-one can tell whether further distortions/errors would be perpetrated in any new version.

I'd be very happy to find out why people who post here want 80 year old photos kept secret. I'm fed up with guessing since it is so pointless. Fritz Dungert, Paul Schmalenbach, the Bundesarchiv and the US Naval History and Heritage Command don't think they are secret.

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: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "90 degree crossing shown in the photographs"
unproven, just a speculation (or, at best, a very remote option among others).... with no tracks presented to support such a statement.....

&: "There was little point in further discussion. "
There is no point in this very discussion, lacking any decent alternative to "THE" reconstruction (download/file.php?id=3593)

&: "I'd be very happy to find out why people who post here want 80 year old photos kept secret. I'm fed up with guessing since it is so pointless..."

I'm fed up with reading such words from the one who withheld the ADM 205/10 papers after 80 years to try to cover-up the "cover-up".... :lol:
(here his words at the time....viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=76512&hilit= ... F10#p76512)


Bye, Alberto
"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)
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Byron Angel »

Well ..... It has taken practically no time at all to return to what sadly appears to be the "regularly scheduled programming" of this forum.

Byron
User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

...and to the unsolicited and unwelcome comments (bringing no value whatsoever to the discussion of the topic) too....

Bye, Alberto
"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)
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Byron Angel »

Alberto Virtuani wrote: Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:42 pm ...and to the unsolicited and unwelcome comments (bringing no value whatsoever to the discussion of the topic) too....

Bye, Alberto
"Unsolicited" ? ..... Correct
"Unwelcome" ? ..... By you, certainly.
"No value" ? ..... Time will tell.

B
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Bill Jurens »

I think is fair to say that further disussion of this collection of topics is unlikely to result in any resolution, and will only -- and it appears quite rapidly -- deteriorate -- as it has before -- into collections of insults and name-calling.

I would ask that each member who is interested post one -- and only one -- final post on this topic, which would constitute what amount to 'closing arguments'. After that is complete, which I assume will take around 24 hours, and unless there is some strong opinion expressed to the contrary, my intention is to lock the thread.

I would suggest that further discussions around these topics concern themselves with the discussion and integration of NEW information regarding the Denmark Strait action, rather than endlessly rehashing material that has already been discussed, almost literally 'ad naseum', in the past.

Bill Jurens
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by wadinga »

Fellow Contributors,

And so yet another valuable investigative thread is about to be closed, not on the basis of "name-calling" but the potential for name-calling. Sadly there has been virtually no comment on the origin or even the content of these photos other than to say that without sworn affidavits etched into images they is no 100% guarantee they were exposed at Denmark Straits at all. And of course there can be no such 100% guarantee. We must proceed on the basis of likelihood.

Those who possess unpublished photos,(Herr Nilsson excluded), perhaps from the same source as the thread subject, will say nothing of the originator and provenance so we cannot tell whether Fritz Dungert was an unofficial recorder of events. . Even the number and content of these pictures is hidden from scrutiny for motives which make no sense 80 years on.

Attempts to discuss the content of the published photos, and the reminder that the promoter of a set of conjectural tracks started radically changing his rendition, earlier this year, based solely on the content of the photos, after he could no longer deny that what they depict was incompatible with what he had drawn, has generated the following illogical response:
unproven, just a speculation (or, at best, a very remote option among others).... with no tracks presented to support such a statement.....
Once again inverted faulty logic where the evidence clearly available in the photographs, and from which conjectural tracks might be deduced, is to be ignored. Instead the conjectural tracks are supposed to inform what one sees in the photos. A reversal of sensible investigation where the evidence informs the conclusion.

As for new evidence, until these unpublished photographs become available for general scrutiny, or a revised version of the Gefechtskizze (less useless or worthless) or a PG detailed gunnery report shows up, there is little likelihood of it happening. We know of other pieces of deliberately supressed material, eg Vickers gunnery report. Since these are actually available they may find their way here despite the determination of those who have them now to withhold them from general scrutiny.

Diverting slightly: As for new evidence I have brought Tovey's unpublished letter to this site and various pages from ADM documents when I gained the ability to reproduce them. In the latter there is no reference to Court Martials or cover-ups. Once again, inverted logic says since there is no extant evidence, that proves they existed. I reported the location of the documents ADM 205/10 and some consider my appreciations of them inadequate. Once again a pre-formed intuition, like those conjectural tracks, is used to inform an interpretation of what is in the documents rather what is actually there.

So farewell to this thread.

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: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Wadinga wrote: "Once again inverted faulty logic where the evidence clearly available in the photographs, and from which conjectural tracks might be deduced, is to be ignored."
No, just (once again) absolutely unfounded conclusions: Mr. Wadinga assumes the photos show a 90° interception of the BS course with the PG wake, while NH69729 only shows BS bow seen from PG. No conclusion can be taken from this re. the interception angle and the railings themselves say nothing, as Mr. Wadinga (unlike Antonio) has not studied and understood yet where was the photographer at the exact time when each photo was taken...
The NH69729 possibly needs to be correctly re-positioned, or just re-timed (Antonio started this discussion himself...) but surely not based on speculations like the barrels or railing inclination vs the horizon, when the barrels orientation and the railing angle vs PG beam are unknown (but to Antonio, possibly....)

However, we will patiently wait for Mr. Wadinga reconstruction, to compare it with Antonio's one and to enjoy his work, that will surely result a much better one.

&: "...I reported the location of the documents ADM 205/10..."
...not posting however the relevant papers, just trying to hide them, even commenting that "this is what is actually in 205/10 and there is no indication there ever was detailed correspondence between WSC, Alexander and Pound about the CMDS threat." (please read here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&p=76512&hilit= ... F10#p76512)
This is literally correct but substantially and intentionally misleading, because Roskill mention of ADM 205/10 is of course correct: e.g. precisely among the correspondence between the same WSC, Alexander and Pound there is "just" mention to "...a thorough investigation...made regarding the action of the Commanding Officer of the Prince of Wales in breaking-off action..." and to the Prime Minister "own discussions with the CiC and Capt. Leach about the conduct of the action". Of course, in the interpretation of Mr. Wadinga, the investigation was done to congratulate both officers for the retreat of a British Captain in front of a dangerous enemy that was posing a clear threat to the British interests....




Byron Angel wrote (my numbering): "1)"Unsolicited" ? ..... Correct 2)"Unwelcome" ? ..... By you, certainly. 3)"No value" ? ..... Time will tell. "
1) quite fair :clap:
2) certainly !
3) Here, instead, an authentic masterpiece of "misquotation", truncating a sentence and intentionally changing its meaning: my sentence was "bringing no value whatsoever to the discussion of the topic" . We don't need any time to state that Mr.Angel comment brought no value to the discussion about the "correct attribution of the "flash effect photo". It's a fact.
It may bring to the lock of the thread, but this is a different hidden scope, obtained by provoking, not a value add for this debate about the "correct attribution" of photo(s)...





and Q.E.D.:
Bill Jurens wrote: "...my intention is to lock the thread... "
I totally disagree with this decision.
To silence a discussion because hot (or inconvenient for someone...) is an easy way to escape one's own responsibility for explaining aspect related to the topic itself.
The "moderator" has already locked too many threads, including even "THE" thread about the Court Martial for the officers at Denmark Strait (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728), the longest, most visited and most interesting that I remember (at least in the last 6 years)). A great loss for the forum and the naval community.

Nobody has explicitly insulted anyone here, except some off topic unsolicited commentary and the insinuations of a certain "fellow contributor" who doesn't miss a single opportunity to accuse others to withhold material, when he had previously tried to hide the ADM 205/10 papers (that he had seen already...).
As a consequence, he forced Antonio to fly to Kew (at his own expenses...) to get copies of the whole ADM 205/10 papers himself.
Of course, these papers demonstrated to everybody (together with the Tovey's letters to Roskill) that the threat against these officers was a well established historical fact and that Roskill was simply and quite obviously (in view of his "rank" as official historian of the RN) right.(viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&hilit=ADM+205% ... 660#p76646).
This unsuccessful attempt to "hide" the papers unveiled his intention to cover-up the "Denmark Strait cover-up".

Possibly "THE" thread (now very unfortunately locked) was the most interesting historical discussion ever held in this forum, revealing new, never published material. Unfortunately, when an "embarrassing" question (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&hilit=ADM+205% ... 250#p84811) was asked to the "moderator" himself, he preferred to lock the thread to avoid to provide an answer, facing criticism.

I do feel this thread should be kept open as interesting theories are being discussed and even the ones who deny the "agreed" reconstruction (download/file.php?id=3593) should be given at least an opportunity to finally present their own reconstruction (if able) or to take responsibility once again for their failure to do so.







Coming to my closing statement re. this topic:

The timing of the "flash photo effect" is quite easily understandable just looking at the available battlemaps: I will not annoy everybody listing all the existing battlemaps, almost all proven wrong because they don't respect too many evidences (official documents, bearings, distances, accounts, etc.) but only the two that are "precise" enough (with a minute by minute attempt to reconstruct the tracks) and that still today can be considered worth of a discussion as they have made an effort to put together all evidences:

1) R.Winklareth's battlemap times the NH69730 at around 06:02 when BS is overcoming PG. His reversed photo theory has however been proven wrong already (I guess).

2) The most widely adopted battlemap (download/file.php?id=3583 , drawn first by A.Bonomi in 2005 and subsequently "independently confirmed" by P.Toussaint (download/file.php?id=3193) and B.Jurens (download/file.php?id=3593) in their recent publications) times it at 06:08:20 exactly and with no doubts (except the ones expressed only recently here by a "CO-author", about the reliability of what has been written on his book...).
This very forum Webmaster times it between 06:07 and 06:09 (http://www.kbismarck.com/denmark-strait-battle.html), despite his map is not a detailed (minute by minute) one.

If someone wants to "revitalise" one of the many other battlemaps (Brinkmann, Pinchin, Schmalenbach, Baron, etc) keeping into account and explaining the facts that are known (e.g. the range closure rate from 05:53 and 06:01, the photographic evidences including the PG film, the speed of the ships, the known available bearings, the official documents, etc.) he will be just welcome to present his conclusion about the timing of these photos based on the adopted battlemap.

Finally, if anybody will be so good to draw a new original battlemap able to accommodate his speculations about the shortcomings of Antonio's 2005 one, he will be very, very welcome indeed. Antonio himself has addressed most of them already (mainly the ones related to the British heavy cruisers tracks) in 2017 (download/file.php?id=2313) and he will "shortly" (2022) publish a new version, addressing all of them, including the NH69729. I can anticipate that the changes, however, will just be minor ones, while the detail of the map will be much higher.


Any other discussion, missing an alternative proposal, is just a waste of time and a sterile criticism without any added value for the reconstruction of this battle.


Bye, Alberto
"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)
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Byron Angel »

My closing remark for this thread, for the sake of good order -

Byron Angel wrote (my numbering): "1)"Unsolicited" ? ..... Correct 2)"Unwelcome" ? ..... By you, certainly. 3)"No value" ? ..... Time will tell. "
1) quite fair :clap:
2) certainly !
3) Here, instead, an authentic masterpiece of "misquotation", truncating a sentence and intentionally changing its meaning: my sentence was "bringing no value whatsoever to the discussion of the topic" . We don't need any time to state that Mr.Angel comment brought no value to the discussion about the "correct attribution of the "flash effect photo". It's a fact.
It may bring to the lock of the thread, but this is a different hidden scope, obtained by provoking, not a value add for this debate about the "correct attribution" of photo(s)...

- - -

The flaw in the respondent's above argument regarding point three is that he assumes my comment was related to the nominal topic of this thread. He is in error.

Happy holidays and best wishes to one and all, wherever you dwell and whatever you celebrate.

Byron
Bill Jurens
Moderator
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:21 am
Location: USA

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Bill Jurens »

Insofar as some have indeed suggested that this particular thread remain open, I will leave it unlocked provided:
a) participants post only once per day,
b) that postings not exceed one hundred and fifty words in length, and
c) that reasonable civility is maintained.
These restrictions are intended to force participants to concentrate more fully on the issues at hand and, by slowing things down a bit, helping to prevent, or at least retard, the breakout of real-time ‘flame-wars’.
There have been suggestions that much useful discussion has been prevented via the locking of threads. In that regard it is worth noting that threads once-locked are not locked forever and can be re-opened. They are, of course, subject to being locked again, for a variety of reasons, but a locked thread is not gone forever.
In perspective, readers will note that this particular posting is 150 words long.
Bill Jurens
User avatar
wadinga
Senior Member
Posts: 2471
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:49 pm
Location: Tonbridge England

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by wadinga »

Fellow Contributors,

I hope quotes don't count in the word count.

It has been said
No, just (once again) absolutely unfounded conclusions: Mr. Wadinga assumes the photos show a 90° interception of the BS course with the PG wake, while NH69729 only shows BS bow seen from PG. No conclusion can be taken from this re. the interception angle and the railings themselves say nothing, as Mr. Wadinga (unlike Antonio) has not studied and understood yet where was the photographer at the exact time when each photo was taken...
I said nothing about PG's wake only about the fore and aft railings.

Mr Bonomi confirmed the 90 degree crossing as early as 2006 as quoted , as already made clear, and it is tedious to have repeat his conclusions. He identified the location of the railings.
Now I think we all can say with a very high confidence level that Nh 69729 was surely taken midship as I said , between the catapult and the crane.

It shows Bismarck coming 90 degrees to Prinz Eugen beam on starboard side.
Prinz Eugen was sailing from right to left on course 270 degrees.

On same moment photos from the other side ( to port of Prinz Eugen ) will show same foldable railings midship ( confirmed by the film were we can see 2 level of foldable railings on both decks, in parallel ).

Nh 69730 comes close after this photo showing the wake of the previously made turns executed by Prinz Eugen.

The whole sequence is supported by the Prinz Eugen battle map as well as by the narrative of the battle witness.
Unfortunately the statement concludes with nonsense. If PG is were on 270T, Bismarck would have to be sailing 180T and cannot therefore be firing 90 degrees to port. The only sensible conclusion is that Bismarck is steering about 220T as expected and PG is steering 310T crossing her bows at 90 degrees as the flagship fires at PoW ie prior to about 06:09. This photo NH 69729 proves, as was known at the time, the Gefechtskizze was useless and worthless. Drawing conjectural plans based around it is useless and worthless.

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: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Alberto Virtuani »

Hello everybody,
Mr.Wadinga found an apparent Antonio's "contradiction" ... from... 2006 :clap: ....
No need to go back to 2006 to find his contradictions/errors (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8526#p82783, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6728&start=2250).

In 2006, Antonio was discussing with R.Winklareth (who timed the NH69729 early in the battle in his "theory") and demonstrated him that Bismarck was not on parallel course to PG.

From the same old thread (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=552&hilit=side+to+p ... t=15#p4026), Antonio clarified to "someone", who was jumping to conclusion that BS was on a course 90° to PG one:
"YES, I agree about the perpendicular angle of the camera lens to the railing itself."
In his conclusions, however, he summarised (over-simplifying, see viewtopic.php?f=1&t=552&hilit=side+to+p ... ship#p3884...) that BS was on 90° course vs PG beam, to counter the "parallel" course theory.


The usual Mr.Wadinga's attitude (unable to propose any recontruction), just repeating his "mantra": the Gefechtskizze is "useless and worthless" (where Schmund clearly referred to British tracks and distances, not to Brinkmann's own ship plot, being the only credible evidence we have: download/file.php?id=3593)....

Bye, Alberto
"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)
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: A correct attribution for the "Flash Effect" photo?

Post by Byron Angel »

It appears in the photo under discussion that, while Bismarck is engaging a target off her port bow with three of her main battery turrets, turret Anton remains trained fore and aft. Is it perhaps possible that turret Anton was being held silent to avoid shock of gunfire from stressing her forward transverse bulkhead? This bulkhead may well have already been under considerable stress from the flooding forward and the shoring necessary to restore some safe margin of structural integrity still in progress.

Thoughts? Comments?

Byron
Post Reply