[Kafka BC]

@Graf Paper

Originally Posted by Graf Paper

My own remarks and observations pertained to the general conversation and were not necessarily directed specifically at everything you had to say, Kafka.

Really, then you should have said so.

Context is at least as important as grammar.

From my perspective, you fail at understanding context, at least mine anyway.

Also, you say sky and land. I believe the discussion here concerns sky and sea.

And I believe my discussion involved the night sky, the light gathering properties of large objective lenses, the fact that you could see ships on or near the horizon at night with the Kriegsmarine Binoculars in use at the time, and that the horizon for a U-Boat was 8 kilometers.

As I said, it was a way to simplify. If you could not get the gist that it was part of a lead-in to discussing Night Vision Binoculars...then that is not my problem. I was providing facts for consideration, some of which were not considered in previous discussions where assumptions were being made.

Right from the get go in your first two paragraphs you went off on a tangent totally unrelated to the points I was making. You assumed I knew nothing about, had not seen an ocean, nor been to sea, and questioned my 'visual acuity' and then proceeded to 'teach' me on something irrelevant. Your whole tone sounded demeaning and that you knew better than me. I found it offensive.

Actually, it was you who failed to comprehend. I used the collective pronoun "them" in reference to the testimonies of crew serving aboard u-boats, which is plainly obvious by the active pronoun "they", as in "the persons who perfomed this action" in regards to the actual spotting of the mastheads in question.

If you were agreeing with me, I could not tell, perhaps if you had clearly said so. From the first sentence and the way you structured the paragraph it appeared that you were contending something I did not say. Maybe I did misunderstand, but you contributed to that misunderstanding.

Actually, one source for this figure comes from the direct statements of Lt. Robert Atkinson, DSC, RNR of K-137, H.M.S. Pink. I'd dare say that a commanding officer of a WWII Royal Navy corvette, serving as convoy escort, knows a few more things about ship's smoke and u-boat tactics. He ought to be ashamed of himself for misleading us all!

That is what it is - a statement, which it prone to misinterpretation and exaggeration. Did he say a single ship or a convoy of many ships? Did he have a long base range-finder that can accurately tell the distance out to 50 miles? A corvette didn't have them.

Actually the misleading misconception I was referring to is the belief that all coal-fired ships belch dense black smoke. My mistake there, I should have pointed that out, but I didn't want to start an argument about it.

You prove nothing by this statement. Being a such a mechanic does not qualify you for anything other than to work on marine power trains. Additionally, in studying to be a marine engineer, it in no way follows that you actually became one or served aboard any ocean-going vessels.

That statement was to refute your assumption that I was a total landlubber.

So you think my Diploma and Certificates from The Nautical Institute of Nova Scotia are meaningless, and everything they taught me about marine diesels, steam turbines, triple-expansion engines, ship buoyancy and loading, and coal and oil fuel are as well. I must go tell them to stop wasting taxpayer's money.

And to show how little you know on the matter, part of the training to become a Marine Engineer involves actually going to sea, and I did for a bit, as a 4th class engineer cadet (meaning unpaid) to get my required sea-time, on board an oil tanker that went between the ports of Halifax, Montreal and St. John's. I did not pursue the career, turned out I didn't like being in the "bowels of the ship", and I needed a job that paid more than the meager stipend I was getting from the Government.

You may belittle my reasoning by labeling it as "pseudoscience" yet you use your photography hobby as the basis for your "expertise" on visual properties as applied to u-boat tactics. Taking pictures of sunsets does not give your arguments any additional weight over what others here have said.

No. I was using it as the basis of my "expertise" in regarding the resolving power of the human eye, the size and distance of an object, and the fact that optical devices such as binoculars with long focal lengths are subject to something called "camera shake", which becomes more acute when viewing objects at longer ranges, especially if they are hand held or if there is the slightest vibration of any kind. Tell me that doesn't happen on a moving U-Boat. Tactics has nothing to do with it.

It wasn't just a hobby, I actually made a few bucks doing it, not enough to live on though.

And then you attempt to humiliate me further by calling my use of language "High-handed"?

I said your "high handed use of assumptions". Read what I said about your first two paragraphs and your assumptions.

If you feel intimidated by complete sentences and florid words, like "diffraction", that should not be my problem.

Childish. I believe my big words can match your big words any day.

I have been polite and even supported some of the points you made.

Again, you did not make that clear. The first sentence of your forth paragraph:

Also, this mod primarily deals with night vision using the unaided eye, a fact I think some have missed while attempting to prove some points.

That sounded to me like you were discounting the information I provided on the Kriegsmarine Binoculars, sticking with using "the unaided eye" as a basis, and a jab at the points I was making. The rest of the paragraph sounded patronizing...like I didn't know these things and that I was a newbie. This again I found offensive.

Now, your last paragraph you did agree with me...on a conclusion I never made.

EDIT: I take that back, I now realize you were talking about the 'fog being the big bugaboo for U-Boats'. I didn't interpret it that way.

As for the rest of your speech I say "No Comment". I will let you and others make of it as their will.