Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Billy_Bishop
So if I had an anonymous source who claimed to have seen the attack of 2 June, 1917, that would be believed too?
I didn't think so.
|
Neither do I, as long as it remained anonymous. Alex’s disinclination to name the unknown lessens its impact. But even if he was named, it is only the opinion of someone who was not there, reports the disbelief of Bishop’s contemporaries, without naming them, reveals that he was in a unique position of being able to carefully scrutinise 60RFC records and expresses an opinion. It is not clear whether he looked at German archives himself but he refers to them. I don’t think anyone contributing to this thread relies upon the extract one way or the other.
Your hypothetical anonymous’ account would, or should, be judged on its merits and the quality of the record. If there was a contemporaneous or near contemporaneous record of a witness to the raid it would be subjected to the same scrutiny as the unknown’s account.
Mind you, it would cause a sensation.