Frank Luke memorial

[stephen]

1) He had gone 50 yards when seeing the Germans come toward him still had the strength to draw his revolver to defend himself. A moment after he fell dead following a serious wound he received in the chest.
Perton-René Colon-Auguste Cuny-Henry Gustave- Eugene Coline-Odile Patouche-Richard Victor- Valentine Garre-Gustave Carre-Leon Henry-
Cortine Delbart-Gabriel Didier-Camille Phillips
Voliner Nicholas. 15 Jan, 1919.

2) As the German soldiers came down the slope and approached the creek while following the trail of blood, the pilot raised himself from the ground where he had lain wounded, drew his gun and fired it at the German soldiers... His last act was one of defiance.
Leon Henry-Didier Gabriel-Auguste Cuny-Charles Hervieux. 27 July, 1962.

Vin, I'm afraid your arguement is not with me. Your arguement is with the only two known groups of witnesses ever identified. When your research digs up new eyewitnesses with a new story, please let me know.

[Barrett]

Ref. the French gentleman who visited the Champlin Fighter Museum. His "earwitness" heard pistol shots (plural) followed by what sounded like automatic fire but which undoubtedly was a volley of Mauser 98s from the German soldiers closing on Luke. The closing comment was "It did not last very long."

[Barrett]

Ref. the French gentleman who visited the Champlin Fighter Museum. His "earwitness" heard pistol shots (plural) followed by what sounded like automatic fire but which undoubtedly was a volley of Mauser 98s from the German soldiers closing on Luke. The closing comment was "It did not last very long."

[stephen]

A litte insight as to precisely what the witnesses claim to have seen. WARNING: Those of you who think the whole story is too much like Hollywood should stop here; an actual interpretation of what the witnesses claim makes Luke sound even more heroic.

All reports state the FL's SPAD stopped about 50-75 yards north of the creek and from that point he crawled to the stream in the fading light after sunset. Apparently wounded from a large caliber shell that passed over the heart from right to left and out under the shoulder blade, Luke was likely invisible to the Germans (hidden in the bushes lining the stream near dark, though the Germans had closed to less than 75 yards range as they walked south toward the stream). The Frey report revealed that Luke was actually in the bushes that lined the stream, and showed a photo of a witness standing at the exact spot. The 1919 affidavit states "seeing the Germans come toward him..." In other words, they couldn't see him, but he could see and hear them. The Germans only knew his rough whereabouts by following the trail of blood from the airplane. Now we pick up the 1919 narrative: "(Luke) still had the strength to draw his revolver..." But why did he draw his revolver? (more likely a 1911 Colt). In the next phrase the witnesses say "to defend himself." How did he intend to defend himself with his revolver? By using it as a club? By throwing it at them? The only logical conclusion is that he intended to use the gun, well... as a gun. He was going to fire it. To do so required all his remaining strength. For more, we now look at the more detailed 1962 affidavit: "the pilot raised himself from the ground where he had lain wounded..." Luke was not sitting or propped up, he was fully laying down in the bushes along the stream. Recent authors have claimed that Luke propped himself up on an elbow in order to fire a signal for help, but witnesses disagree. Witnesses say that Luke "raised himself from the ground." He did not raise himself "on" the ground (the French word being "sur"), he raised himself "from" or seperate of, the ground (the French word being "de"). If the bullet went in the right shoulder/breast and came out underneath the left shoulder blade, its impossible for Luke to have raised himself up on either elbow, since his body weight would have fallen on his right or left shoulder structure, both of which had sustained severe entry/exit wounds. If he used his gun to "defend himself" and "fired it at the German soldiers," then he could not have rested on the elbow of his shooting hand, either, since that would make drawing and firing impossible. Witnesses say Luke "still had the strength" to raise himself, indicating a tremendous effort on the part of a weak, wounded man... hardly a description of someone rolling over or resting on an elbow. So Luke was not resting on his elbow, nor was he signalling for help according to eyewitness accounts. Luke "raised himself from the ground" after being in a flat, prone position... in other words, he used his remaining strength to struggle to his feet. Combining the narratives for a complete picture...

"He had gone 50 yards when seeing the Germans come toward him still had the strength to draw his revolver to defend himself. As the German soldiers came down the slope and approached the creek while following the trail of blood, the pilot raised himself from the ground where he had lain wounded, drew his gun and fired it at the German soldiers... A moment after he fell dead following a serious wound he received in the chest. His last act was one of defiance."

Frank Luke was hidden in the bushes, but he saw the approaching Germans and chose not to be taken alive. He may have believed that his wound was survivable and had every idea of living through the ordeal, or he may have known he was dying and chose to go down fighting. Either way, when he realized that the Germans were only yards away and would soon find him, he made his decision. With the last of his strength, he rose to his feet, drew his pistol and opened fire. Seconds later he fell dead from a chest wound. Whether or not the Germans returned fire is not known and may never be known, but we do know what Luke chose to do... and yes, it was rather heroic. That's why they give out medals.

[stephen]

A litte insight as to precisely what the witnesses claim to have seen. WARNING: Those of you who think the whole story is too much like Hollywood should stop here; an actual interpretation of what the witnesses claim makes Luke sound even more heroic.

All reports state the FL's SPAD stopped about 50-75 yards north of the creek and from that point he crawled to the stream in the fading light after sunset. Apparently wounded from a large caliber shell that passed over the heart from right to left and out under the shoulder blade, Luke was likely invisible to the Germans (hidden in the bushes lining the stream near dark, though the Germans had closed to less than 75 yards range as they walked south toward the stream). The Frey report revealed that Luke was actually in the bushes that lined the stream, and showed a photo of a witness standing at the exact spot. The 1919 affidavit states "seeing the Germans come toward him..." In other words, they couldn't see him, but he could see and hear them. The Germans only knew his rough whereabouts by following the trail of blood from the airplane. Now we pick up the 1919 narrative: "(Luke) still had the strength to draw his revolver..." But why did he draw his revolver? (more likely a 1911 Colt). In the next phrase the witnesses say "to defend himself." How did he intend to defend himself with his revolver? By using it as a club? By throwing it at them? The only logical conclusion is that he intended to use the gun, well... as a gun. He was going to fire it. To do so required all his remaining strength. For more, we now look at the more detailed 1962 affidavit: "the pilot raised himself from the ground where he had lain wounded..." Luke was not sitting or propped up, he was fully laying down in the bushes along the stream. Recent authors have claimed that Luke propped himself up on an elbow in order to fire a signal for help, but witnesses disagree. Witnesses say that Luke "raised himself from the ground." He did not raise himself "on" the ground (the French word being "sur"), he raised himself "from" or seperate of, the ground (the French word being "de"). If the bullet went in the right shoulder/breast and came out underneath the left shoulder blade, its impossible for Luke to have raised himself up on either elbow, since his body weight would have fallen on his right or left shoulder structure, both of which had sustained severe entry/exit wounds. If he used his gun to "defend himself" and "fired it at the German soldiers," then he could not have rested on the elbow of his shooting hand, either, since that would make drawing and firing impossible. Witnesses say Luke "still had the strength" to raise himself, indicating a tremendous effort on the part of a weak, wounded man... hardly a description of someone rolling over or resting on an elbow. So Luke was not resting on his elbow, nor was he signalling for help according to eyewitness accounts. Luke "raised himself from the ground" after being in a flat, prone position... in other words, he used his remaining strength to struggle to his feet. Combining the narratives for a complete picture...

"He had gone 50 yards when seeing the Germans come toward him still had the strength to draw his revolver to defend himself. As the German soldiers came down the slope and approached the creek while following the trail of blood, the pilot raised himself from the ground where he had lain wounded, drew his gun and fired it at the German soldiers... A moment after he fell dead following a serious wound he received in the chest. His last act was one of defiance."

Frank Luke was hidden in the bushes, but he saw the approaching Germans and chose not to be taken alive. He may have believed that his wound was survivable and had every idea of living through the ordeal, or he may have known he was dying and chose to go down fighting. The very fact that he was able to crawl 75 yards and live for ten minutes before the Germans reached him indicates that Luke wasn't quite as dead as some people have suggested. Either way, when he realized that the Germans were only yards away and would soon find him, he made his decision. With the last of his strength, he rose to his feet, drew his pistol and opened fire. Seconds later he fell dead from a chest wound. Whether or not the Germans returned fire is not known and may never be known, but we do know what Luke chose to do... and yes, it was rather heroic. That's why they give out medals.

[Vin]

Stephen,

I am not looking for evidence, I am looking at (what purports to be) evidence.

The second extract ? summary ? quotation? statement ? "Affidavit"? has all the forensic flaws that the Murvaux "Affidavit"has with the added problem of being 43 years after the event. If Frey (?) was fair dinkum about an investigation he must have taken detailed individuals statements from the witnesses.in 1962. There were only four. The individual statements are what you should be reading with a critical mind and, if satisfied, quoting from.

Don't know what to make of Barrett's"earwitness". Looks like some bloke visited a Museum and told someone there that he knew a bloke who reckoned he heard all these shots being fired. That is not even consistent with your material.

Now I know that this is a forum and not a historical society, but really !!


Vin

[stephen]

Vin:

I asked you to read the 1962 affidavit in its entirety before responding and you apparently haven't. If you had, you would know that Frey never released any individual statements at all, and it is very unlikely that any were ever made. His French was too poor (just like Capt. Staten's French, who's report you refuse to accept), so the report was unified into a single statement and signed accordingly before translation... a fact which you should already know. If any personal statements exist at all, they are in the Frey files which I am now in the process of accessing, which have never been published and are held in the Parks collection in Colorado, which you should also already know if you had done the slightest amount of homework. You also have questioned the integrity of the first affidavit based on the testimony of a four year old child, but supported the testimony of the second affidavit apparently unaware that the same child gave essentially the same report in it, only with his memory further dimmed by 42 years. You've referred to the "farmyard" when no farmyard was ever involved, apparently referring to a previous and erroneous reference of the shootout taking place in the church's graveyard... which is impossible to have happened, since the graveyard is on the slope on the southside of the church nearly a kilometre and a half from the crash site.

I don't mean to be insulting Vin, but you need to educate yourself on what happened at Murvaux on 29 Sept 1918 before you attempt to discuss it. Read everything you can find on it for the next four or five years. Interview some pilots who flew with Luke and knew him. Visit Murvaux and walk along the creek, study the Cote St. Germain for the German gun positions, and find his grave alongside the walkway behind the church. Lose the overeducated historical condecension and find out what you're talking about. Then come back and we'll talk. In the meantime, you're welcome to believe anything you like.

[Vin]

The reality is that the USAS performed badly during WW1 That is understandable as the inexperienced pilots were up against battle hardened veterens. Rickenbacker and Luke were the only 2 who could be made to look any good. So the propaganda lads got to work to appease the folks back home. You can understand that back then the American public might have wanted to believe that their boys were as good as anyone else etc. 80 years later, with the benefit of hindsight, knowing what we do about public relations and having the ability to look critically at evidence, the time for blind faith has long passed.


Vin