Bishop maligned in Electronic World Book Encyclopedia

[Billy_Bishop]

My guess is, in the case of Todd, it probably had more to do with the way he worded his report. If he had said something on the order of "EA seen falling down out of control" then he would have probably been credited with an OOC.

But he didn't say that. It happens. Even Bishop had some claims that were not confirmed, contrary to popular belief, not all of his claims were confirmed out of hand. Some were even denied by Jack Scott. Then again, it may have been something in Bishop's wording of those reports that led Scott to deny the claims.

Who knows!!

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Craig]

Al
Gotta love it - "EVEN Bishop had some claims that were not confirmed . . . "
More later; at work now.

[Billy_Bishop]

Hi Craig,

What can I say, I felt I HAD to. So many are quick to condemn Bishop, and like to claim that ALL of his claims were confirmed by Scott and others on just his say so alone.

IF that was the case, how do these detractors explain his UNCONFIRMED claims????

They can't.

VBR,

Al Lowe

With regard to my comments regarding records, and describing them as "paperwork;" I still think it's an important caveat. I do believe that the pilots were aware of the importance of their reports as official documents and treated them seriously (with individual variation, even so). However, like any other kind of document, I'm sure they were often in error--whether simply because of poor recollection, the confusion of the moment (this can actually be compounded by taking it seriously--you feel the need to fill in details that you don't really know for sure); errors in dictation; delays in filling in documents (is that pilot actually missing or just sitting at another aerodrome?); and so on. Consider times and locations. Did the pilot really note his location immediately after the event, or try to remember when it was time to fill out the report? Did he put down the location based on what was actually underneath his aeroplane, or the closest landmark he could see from the cockpit while flying level? Did he really note down the time right after the event, or was he more interested in making sure he was safe and think about it later?

Plus, they were young men with more important things than a combat report on their minds, like still being alive.

Now factor in eighty years of storing those ppaer records with the history in between, including a world war and god knows what all else; floods, shuffled and mis-filed papers and so on.

Lastly, consider that all we have left now are those pieces of paper. The men are gone. So I worry that those records take on an importance to us that they may not--probably do not--merit.

Yes, the records are important. Just don't treat them as the truth simply because they are all that remains.

Craig's comment about "multiple pilots getting credit for a single claim" seems aimed at the British & Commonwealth flyers alone. Some time back I posted a thread on this website in which it was mentioned that ALL the participants in WW1 with the exception of the German single seat pilots (but including two-seater crews) were awarded full credits for shared victories. We discussed the American bomber crews for example who combined to shoot down one attacking German aircraft, but had 12 or 14 or 16 flyers each awarded full credits. We may debate RAF OOCs but it appears to have been standard practice for everyone to count shares as full victories. Many US and other aces came nowhere near actually scoring five full victories as we think of them in WW2 context, so I wish some contributors would be a bit more fair with their comments (and I don't just mean Jasta who believes firmly that the RAF/RFC/RNAS never did actually shoot down a German aircraft in WW1!)(Just kidding!)

tell you what. give me your name, phone number, and address. next time (and this includes the rest of my life), i feel a need to think rationally, i'll get in touch with you, and you can do it for me. that way, whenever i need to know something, i'll not bother anyone here by responding to, or (could it be?) posting my own thread. i'll just ask you and be done with it. thanks for opening my eyes to my problem.

is there a disease with a name attached to irrational thinking?

anyway, thank you for sharing this with me and the others on this site.

please respond with the aforementioned personal information, so i might put it to good use.

leon

in response to the objection to the idea that history is a personal interpretation, i have this to say:

once an event occurs, it can never be proven to have happened. the only way to prove anything is to put it in a controlled environment and repeat it over and over again as in the scientific method. we see this in the testing of drugs, cosmetics, etc.

history, since it obviously cannot be "proven", by definition, has only evidence. evidence of what has happened can include personal accounts of events as well as many other types of records. personal accounts are always tainted somewhat by the views of the author.

in the news these past few years there has been attention given to a national movement toward the revising of our own american history. there are groups organized to stop this re-writing of history, but it could really happen and has happened in the writing of some of our history books.

also, it is a fact that the historical accounts of the same events are recorded differently according to what country you are raised in.

what i mean is, if you're english, your school studies primarily england's role in the war and most likely portrays england as the victor. it is the same here in the states as well as in canada.

before the advent of photography and especially of motion picture, the only records were written and even videos can be very convincing hoaxes.

how do we know that alexander the great really accomplished all that he was credited for? someone wrote it down. we do not know the historians which have recorded the events of the past for us to know whether or not they are credible. furthermore, most books are not firsthand accounts, but, rather, mere reports of reports of reports.....each one tainted just a little by the preferences of the author. even the firsthand accounts are subject to being tainted by the participant's perspective, but these are rare in the first place.

given that, bishop's first-hand reports must be considered as accurate, just as we all consider first-hand accounts of other events to be accurate. i just don't get (even if you don't think he did get the 72 kills) why he had to be pinpointed. there are probably exaggerations in all or almost all accounts of truly great historical figures. these men (and women) have earned their places in history, so why is it so important to pick at them? they deserve our gratitude and our respect, not our scrutiny.

leon

[wings]

I would like to hear more about Bishop's Unconfirmed victories.

[mike_baram]

"is there a disease with a name attached to irrational thinking?"
I think it's called "liberalism".

Quinn's First Law:

"Liberalism always achieves the exact opposite if its stated intent."