That may be true in terms of barometric pressure
No, there's no "maybe" about it CVW... it's a matter of public record.. the measurements are there and were recorded at several locations.
Andrew was a bit smaller than Camille at landfall
The size of Camille's intense "core" was at least as small as that of Andrew, and satellite pictures show this, IMO... please let's not go back over this immense size imbroglio again, as it accomplishes nothing. You look, not at the outer feeder bands; but that enormously intense core of Camille, and you're looking at a storm with an eye smaller, and a core tighter--even than Andrew. Andrew's eye was nearly TWICE as large as the 8 mile eye of Camille. The point about how wide the overall swath of winds was can be debated forever; but as to the intensity around the core--there's only a comparison inasmuch as they were--well, similar with Camille having much the smaller eye.
why not provide concrete evidence to support your opinion (besides the constant "not one anemometer measured sustained winds in Andrew close to the alleged 165MPH"). That is NOT concrete evidence, and it does not support your opinion
Why not practice what you preach, and provide "concrete" evidence that it was. This is more arguing in a vacuum, and propaganda-wise is known as an appeal to ignorance: "If you can't PROVE your point then I win the argument".... doesn't work that way CVW. The "concrete" evidence you so long to see is actually lacking in both storms... aside from a clearly lower barometric reading for Camille, which is decidedly "concrete."
I personally believe Andrew was a Category Five at landfall. If you read the report on Andrew's upgrade, the sustained Category Five winds occurred in an area where few, if any, lived,
Why am I not surprised that you find Andrew a 5, and Camille probably a 4? Okay... that was sarcasm... actually on the Andrew thing, I tend to agree.. and have stated so MANY times.. I equally feel the same could be said for Camille.... I fail to see the point?
My point is this: please support your opinion on Camille WITHOUT the nitpicking of other storms, please. It would support your logic better without getting into total nonsense why Andrew was less than Camille and so on and so forth.
Since you've chosen to take what I consider the "low road" on this tack, I will say that "nitpicking" is in the eyes of the beholder. The use of the term "nonsense" lends neither logic, nor any degree of credibility to anything you've stated. Were you truly capable of seeing the "logic" of much of what I'd been stating, you'd see the use of both hyperbole and sarcasm, as well as plausible doubt, none of which are "nonsense"... in trying to illustrate my points... they do seem to have evaded some, however--but it hasn't been for lack of effort.
By doing research myself on Camille and analyzing all the factors and information I already know, I believe Camille was likely a high-end Category Four (150MPH to 155MPH) or very low-end Category Five (160MPH is my best top sustained one-minute or so estimate) at landfall. Just my personal opinion, so PLEASE DON'T BASH IT! I
No need to SCREAM!!!! And simply because both I, and the overwhelming majority of meteorlogical/climatological experts who've been around much longer, and doubtless studied the storm moreso than you have, disagree with your assessment doesn't mean we'd be BASHING your "opinion"... it simply means that quite frankly, we view it as wrong.
I wish the professional mets and others could be shown some more respect. That's all.
Ya know... THIS

is the mantra I'm really getting sick and tired of hearing by the predictably same folks over and over. I don't believe now, nor will I EVER believe that because someone has a title like "pro-met" that I am duty-bound to become a sycophant expected to bow to their every utterance. I do NOT need YOU or anyone else to lecture me on "respect"... so spare me the effort. Had you done extensive research you'd find that quite a few "Pro-mets" disagree with the "pro-mets" who've voiced that Camille wasn't a 5, and even some who don't think Andrew was a 5.... this is NOT disrespect--it's called "having a different opinion" and even "respectful" dissent!... kindly learn the difference-- having your own opinion is NOT tantamount to disrespect! On the other hand... when an individual.. be they pro-met, mod, analyst, or just some Joe-blow off the street, preaches down their nose to me, or anyone else, or employs tactics such as dogmatic assertions implying they are right and anyone else is either wrong or foolish, well--it is obvious that the lack of proper "respect" is being channeled from THEIR end... and a response in kind is often the result. Perhaps you need to view things from every angle before passing judgment on just who might be showing a lack of respect.
I also find it hard to understand what is so hard to let go of Camille's alleged 190MPH intensity at landfall
Again... beating a dead horse... attacking a straw man... take your pick. I'm so sick of seeing this bandied about. Find me ONE place wherein >I< have made this wind speed a major point of contention. On the other hand, I can provide PLENTY wherein I made it patently obvious this was NOT my concern at all.
I understand why many northern Gulf members may be offended by those who disagree with Camille's alleged landfall intensity
You mean like how quick some Florida folks might be similarly offended by those who might disagree with Andrew or Charley's "alleged" windspeeds? Again.. cuts both ways... Although in this much I will agree with you... I canNOT understand why it is that some folks seem to think they are "entitled" to have the very worst hurricane by fiat of Divine Providence, and anyone daring to encroach upon that claim is summarily beaten down with post after incessant post. I've said it before and I'll say it again... whoever wants to have the worst ever is WELCOMED to it; frankly I wish I'd never heard of Katrina... or Camille or Betsy for that matter. But for whatever reason, I'm VERY sure that a statistical correlative study will show beyond any doubt that one's geographic location has a LOT to do with what storms they are "convinced" were the worst--and I do NOT exclude myself from that statistic--I find it quite universal.
but this is just puzzling (and rather annoying, to tell the truth).
Well, annoying is, as annoying does... frankly I don't mind a substantive discussion/debate, where real numbers and data are bandied about instead of condescending lectures. I will tender you the same advice you offered me.. in the future, please stick to data/info and eschew the ad-hominem innuendos. I definitely do not like being preached to; but I welcome substantive debate and discussion.
Respectfully
A2K