Bishop is a cheat

i'm sorry for saying this, but you all act like a bunch of kids at times. "my pilot got more kills than your pilot". "your pilot cheated".
history has shown, will always show, bishop has 72 kills. it will forever show he shot down six planes in one day. no amount of research is ever going to change that. history books will not be rewritten. you don't have to agree with it, you just have to live with it. that goes for any pilot who's records are disputed. YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT. and you sure can't change someone's opinion.
this site is supposed to be a learning tool, not a forum for debate.

leon hale

[leo]

It is possible to learn from debate if one listens to what the other guy has to say. It is also possible for third parties to the debate to learn from those debating. What is sometimes sad and a little frustrating is the feeling that there is a lot of talking and very little listening.

Leo,

You are absolutely right! I have been having a little trouble pinpointing the "problem" I have with the forum. Now I realize, thanks to your comment, that we're often behaving like a room full of people, fingers stuffed in our ears, shouting at each other. Much too much talking and not nearly enough listening. I, for one, will try to change.

Thank you,
Graham

[Vin]

Tobias

Other elements, such as reliable, preferably disinterested, confirmation come into it. For example, as to Bishops raid

1. Bishop says, "I shot up an airport and creamed a half dozen German 'planes" to
(a) a wealthy philanthropist who rewards successful pilots;
(B) a beautiful young woman her meets at night in a bar;
© his C O

2. Bishop writes a report of his adventure in his log

3. Bishop's best mate tells you he was flying near the aerodrome and saw it

4. A report of the raid is written in the airfield log book

5. You see requisitions in writing for replacement aircraft / parts.

6. A Chinese tourist tells you that he witnessed it.

7. He/She produces a copy of a letter he/she wrote that day to his/her family in China (very politically correct)

8. A GOGS writer records all the above and footnotes his sources, describing where any evidence may be examined.

The evidence becomes more believable as you work from 1 to 7. With 8, built into the formula is the integrity of the writer.

You might argue that the gap between 2 and 4, which seem to me to be the extremes of the evidence advanced by Al and by Jasta (Thanks for the kind words), is not great. Thus the controversy. Compare it with the difference in probative value between 1 (a) and 7. Before you form an opinion, you must first have evidence and second be critical of the quality of evidence upon which you rely.


Vin

[Michael]

"Debate" assumes that the parties set out their positions logically and impersonally, and try to meet the points raised by the other side. It also presupposes rules that both sides agree to follow.

Failing this you have (in degenerating order):

1. Argument (in the bad sense)
2. Invective
3. A fight

"I'm right because I'm right because I'm right because you're wrong" ISN'T debate.

Sometimes I wonder whether the object is just to rattle someone else's chain, rather than any objective search for truth.

If you can't keep it professional don't bother posting it.

All,
On this subject of debate, I know that I have expressed things in the past about a few topics, that were very unpopular and for some odd reason people took offense at. For my recent posts to a certain individual, I'm sorry that you all had to witness that, I REALLY am. But then I was under fire from the first few times I posted on here a year ago, and I've been on the defensive/offensive ever since. I have really enjoyed coming here and lately have been trying to keep silent until this recent round of character assassination. I have stated some things about a large IGAF faction being present on here, the fact of which is being borne out by the recent poll. At anyrate, I do agree that members should have the right to come here and post freely without fear of being subject to their character being disparaged. I also think that all that come here should agree to disagree and get on with their lives, not engaging in this petty squabbling about ..."he/she is a moron because he/she states this about one ace/country/army/aircraft or another." But character assassination of Forum participants really is going a bit far, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR OPINION! I, once again formally apologize to all here for my part in the recent unpleasantness, it was wrong and I should have been a little more objective about it. However, if attacked, I WILL strike back!
VBR,
Jim

[Billy_Bishop]

I like to debate as much as anyone. But I HEAVILY resent it when certain people start attacking me personally, either by questioning my manhood, or by accusing me of lording over the forum like a despot.

I don't hold court here. Compared to some, I rarely even post messages. But I do defend myself and my stance on Billy Bishop. If some of the people who frequent this forum can't see that I'm simply expressing MY opinion, then they should just ignore my posts completely, and not even bother commenting.

I know that not everyone here agrees with me. For the most part, most of us have agreed to disagree. But that doesn't mean I have to sit back when some pip-squeak starts telling me I'm wrong, and that I must be an idiot of I don't see it. (That works both ways you know.)

I don't ask everyone to take my side. I just present the facts and theories that I've uncovered, and ask you to make up your own mind. By the same token, if you should choose the opposite side, at least pay me the honour of respecting my choice, and don't tell me that I'm wrong. I looked at the same info you did, I just came to a different conclusion. (By the way, if you think I'm wrong, I probably think you're wrong. But I won't badger you about it, unless you badger me!)

VBR,

Al Lowe

Greetings Ron: Sometime after 1990, Hugh Wynne, a member of The League of WWI Aviation Historians, published a series of maps, in the OTF journal, showing all of the confirmed and assumed locations of Allied aerodromes along the 400 miles Western Front. In the article accompanying the maps was a statement that the Gs had the habit of slipping small emergency fields immediately behind the front, so that distressed A/Cs could land, refuel, and rreturn to combat. I brought this fact to the attention of Billy Bs son, Arthur because it was entirely possible that his attack was on one of these emergency fields, and that the flight commander who let himself get trounced by one plane wouldn't be that eager to report five or six A/Cs out of action, to anyone... Wynne nnoted that there were over 1K fields in his count, and he indexes them. You could e-mail J.Streckfus at jstreckfus@aol.com to get a copy of that map edition, or write to Hugh Wynne c/o J.Streckfus, 3127 Peenrose Place, Cincinatti, OH 45211. If you are not a member of the League, you are missing a bet, because the OTF journal is loaded with WWI articles that answer all of the questions that come up. I think there was an article on the Bishop controversy in one of them, an unfavorable one at that. See my information thread. VBR, Billy H/11/20/99.

[Ron_F]

Billy,
Thanks, i just sent an email to him. Cant hurt , i guess. Just recieved your book on Luke. Looks good. I might write a review on it sometime in the future.

salute,
Ron F.

[Billy_Bishop]

There was an article on Billy Bishop, written by the late Phillip Markham. In it, he details his search for proof of Bishop's raid, and comes away wanting.

My point of view, I think he stuck to the idea of Bishop attacking Estourmel, and couldn't see other possibilities. Also, he took a fixed number as the maximum flight duration of the Nieuport 17, when we have been shown that hardly any two WWI aircraft of the same model, preformed exactly the same. There are many loopholes in the assumption of place and distance of the aerodrome that Bishop attacked.

IF, as some have suggested, this is made all the worse by the lack of a fearful German Jasta commander, deciding NOT to report such an attack, probably for fear of loss of his command.

Unfortunately, many people are of the opinion that German military men are above such human failures as ego, and fear. So, obviously, this couldn't have happened. In spite of numerous reports that Bishop's attack was verified by captured German flyers during the following days and weeks.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again, from my research, Bishop's VC investigation took longer than any other VC awarded to an airman of the British Empire during all of WWI. It's a fact, that anyone can find.

From the date of his raid, until the date of the annoucement of his award of the VC, more time passed than for any other Air VC awarded during WWI.

What that says to me is that someone did some checking before they decided to award the VC to Billy Bishop. Based on their decision, it is my opinion that they found enough evidence in his favor to award the medal to him.

But, that's simply my opinion.

VBR,

Al Lowe