Mystery of the Alaska wanderings partly solved- grajekk had mentioned great circle earlier but all the thoughts below and others prevented me from connecting the absent dots

1) the ship did in fact leave Ensenada on a Southerly course according to the ship site maps until out of AIS range-which corralled me into a 2 dimensional mindset in dealing w a 3 dimensional problem-because I was merely thinking that Ningpo China (29.8*N) is slightly S of Ensenada (31* N and change)

and I was thinking 2 dimensionally that since both Ningpo and Ensenada near the same latitude that by following that same lat that would be the shortest distance-which of course it isnt

2) and a great circle route-misleading terminology for somebody who doesnt map long airplane or shipping courses -because the great circle route is not a circle as it is misleadingly represented on 2 dimensional maps, but a straight line instead-involving 2 misrepresentations -the misrep of a 3 dimensional sphere on a flat 2 dimensional map and the misrepresentation of a straight line on said map as a circle -contributing to the error of linear thinking-without which the universe could not exist

3) this "great circle route"- only goes to ca 51* N-the ship coordinates given only twice /day max went to at least 55*N and the pass near Unalaska the ship went thru is 54* N

4) the misleading curvature represented here is much more exaggerated than I would expect-the Boston 42*N goes to 48*N before descending only 1* to 47*N Seattle-ca 55% of the distance to Ningpo

5) I know how long a distance it is from LA to Alaska and from Ensenada to 55*N at least, is 24 * lat by 69 miles/degree or 1656 miles and to my mind would thus add ca 3300 miles to the trip  2 dimensionally-which is what we deal w in our everyday lives -those who hike from Mexico to Canada etc along the continental divide know how long it is also

6) the possibility of shipping fert for the 1st time-once the ship was initially found heading N-the direction fert would be shipped as per prevailing knowledge-added to the confusion-

7) as did the ship sites failure to follow conventionin adding E 'W or plus-minus designations to longitude etc and the well known error of ship sites not listing intervening ports visited

at least I put myself out there-if PR listed city destination and clarified whether cargo was all regular ore vs some fert that would help also since fert is also designated as iron ore for export purposes- bingos 9-8-12 post