About Billy Bishop

[Billy_Bishop]

Why, you ask? Simple. No one will ever be able to prove that Bishop DIDN'T do what he claimed in his combat report of 2 June, 1917. Oh, people will have all kinds of supposition, theory, and such, but nothing, NOTHING that will be able to successfully contradict his report, and the official acceptance of that report resulting in his being awarded the VC.

VBR to all,

Al Lowe
at least I'm consistant!

[Ira_Silverman]

Al:

It's not whether you win or lose, but how Bishop played the game!

Season's greetings, and a consistant New Year.

VBR,

Ira

[Billy_Bishop]

Ira, that is very true. However, in my own VERY humble opinion, I think he played the game as fairly as anyone else.

The sad part is that there are some who don't believe it due to lack of evidence. If they had overwhelming evidence proving he cheated, then I'd be among the first to admit it. But lack of evidence PROVING he did what he said he did, doesn't by the same token prove he didn't. All it proves is that the evidence has gone. Specially considering the amount of time that has gone by.

Merry Christmas and bah humbug.

VBR,

Al Lowe

I thought I could readilly put my hands on the article which stated that Billy Mitchell invited US pilots to submit victory claims after WW1 was over. I could not, but if my memory serves me correctly it was an interview with a US flyer conducted by Military History Magazine. I believe it was,in the last issue, not the present one. I will, in the future, line up my sources before I attempt to quote them.

Again, as I recall, the interviewee inferred doubts as to Rickenbackers victory score.

Thank goodness your very humble opinion and 50 cents wouldn't buy a cup of coffee.

Your claims of victory are as empty and groundless as a Bishop's combat report!

I can sleep comfortably knowing in my own mind that Billy Bishop was a liar, a cheat, and a fraud, and since you continue to offer no evidence to the contrary, I've become bored. You don't fool anyone with your excuses and smokescreens.

As for your sleep, I wonder? The man you seem to carry the torch for was a cheat in school, was disliked by his comrades, never distiguished
himself in combat in front of any living sole, perpetrated the biggest fraud of the Great War,
and tainted the sanctity of the highest award that could be given to a soldier by Great Britain.

The very site of Bishop in the VC honor role must make the families of Hawker, Mottershead, and the others who made legitimate documented sacrifices for their country, sick to their stomachs.

So go ahead and claim victory Al. Your cry falls on deaf ears. You're the boxer who gets knocked out and screams for a rematch, you're the guy who quits after he gets fired! Your own self doubts and lack of evidence to support anything that Bishop alledgedly did will gnaw at your insides for eternity. Sweet dreams!

I have my own uncertainties regarding Billy Bishops combat record as well, but I think that this forum is better used for a mature discussion of the merits of the case as opposed to calling out 'liar' 'cheat' 'fraud' and attempting to
lay analyze the motivations of other forumites.

Regards,

MDD

[Billy_Bishop]

You know, I have the definite feeling that FokkDR1 doesn't have ANY sense of humor.

And guess what.....I don't care! {BEG} (Big Evil Grin, for the un-initiated.)

VBR to all, EVEN FokkDR1, overly serious person that he is.

Al Lowe
4-bit amateur aviation historian and/or enthusiast

[Billy_Bishop]

Michael, you have a good point. And I guess I should have put something like "(JK)" (Just kidding)" next to my subject headers of "I win" and "I still win", but then I figured most people would see the joke. I especially figured people would see the joke with the emoticon. I guess I was wrong.

Still, for FokkDR1 to call Bishop a liar, cheat and fraud, without solid evidence, doesn't impress me. It doesn't impress a lot of people.

What I think he doesn't understand is there is NO EVIDENCE existing that we have access to. Therefore there can be no proof either way. However, as long as I stick to the "party" line, i.e. the Official record, technically speaking, I'm on better ground. And I'm not alone. There are a number of professional historians who agree with me. Stewart K. Taylor, Dr. S.F. Wise, Denis Winter author of "First of the Few", Robert Jackson author of "The RAF in Action:From Flanders to the Falklands", just to name a few. I know some also have their doubts, but they are at least kind enough not to say anything without hard evidence.

As for sleeping, the only thing that keeps me awake at night is my 17 month old son. He's decided he prefers the night shift.

VBR,

Al Lowe

p.s.
neener, neener, neener, I WIN!!!!! HA

[Billy_Bishop]

"yet the Nacht reports no triplane losses! Could you possibly tell me the serial numbers of the planes involved and let me know if there were any misplaced German pilots layed out in any Allied hangars at that time. I'd like to know just for my own personal records. Or could he have waved at Werner Voss once or twice?"

First, it's not "Nacht report" (night?) but Nachrichtenblat report.
Second, that report would not contain reports on German casualties, only German claims.
Third, your example, that you chose doesn't show that the English/Canadian/Austrailian/rest of the Empire cheat on their claims. All it shows is that people make mistakes.

But I guess YOU never made a mistake, did you?

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Billy_Bishop]

I guess I win by default, no one is even looking here now. So that means I WIN!!!!!

VBR,

Al Lowe

(made you look!!!