Canadian Senate investigation re: Billy Bishop

[Billy_Bishop]

Droops, I've read that in some books. Including books that came out loooooong ago, before the controversy EVER existed. (Except in some peoples minds), and yes, I think they were destroyed too, if not by accident, then most likely on purpose.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Kind sir: You give up too easily. Of course you can prove you went to the store. You left all kinds of fingerprints and DNA samples on the shopping cart and things you touched.
The main grievance in these controversies is that all of the threads are lost and we are doomed to repeat the pros and cons all over again, as new forumites reinvent the controversy.

[Droops]

If this site can put up some discussion of Frank Luke, then surely it can also do that for Billy Bishop. An unbiased (as best as possible) accumulation of the facts, with speculation attached, could go a long ways towards eliminating the constant harangues that occur here on the subject.

I cannot give an opinion yet, as I haven't examined the facts closely enough. However, I believe that something is emerging here over the past few days that goes beyond mere speculation. Wouldn't it be nice to put something together for this site that captures progress?

Regards,

John

[Michael]

Steven,

Actually Harris's book was Canadian. It was part of "The Great Stories of Canada" series, and helped get me interested in First War aviation forty years ago.

The Author's Note is interesting. Harris based his book on George Drew's "Canada's Fighting Airmen", with his permission. He states "Mr. Drew had talked with many of the Canadian aces, some of whom have since died, and he had access to documents which are no longer in existence." He goes on to state that wherver possible he went back to sources (whether written or alive is not stated).

Michael

[Michael]

I've been a medal collector for 25 years, and one of the things that makes me a Bishop believer is that it would be ABSOLUTELY beyond credibility that the British would award the VC to ANYONE without confirmation. It has always been a hard-won award (compare the numbers of Medal of Honour winners 1917-18 to the VC winners 1914-18, and you'll see what I mean). There were a good many British and Commonwealth soldiers who performed VC deeds and were killed, and received only a mention in despatches (all other British gallantry awards could not be awarded posthumously). I have regularly seen medal recommendations that were downgraded. I think that the intelligence report theory is the best one.

Michael

[wings]

Since officials gave Bishop credit for victories without witnesses, how can you trust anything they said about him?

If Bishop had been the only RFC pilot credited with unwitnessed victories, perhaps the previous post would constitute an acceptable argument. However, Bishop was merely one in a series of pilots, including such notables as Albert Ball (Bishop's main inspiration, if I recall correctly), who flew solo patrols.

[Michael]

No witnesses that we have records of - yet.

Michael

[Billy_Bishop]

AND, we at least have 2nd/3rd person confirmation of his June 2, 1917 raid from several INDEPENDANT sources. Granted, these sources were reported by one man, Dan McCaffery, but as yet, I've not got any reason to suspect him of lying either.

AND, as Dave Bashow points out in his book, "Knights of the Air" while one of McCaffery's sources does "back pedal" in a follow up interview with Philip Markham, he doesn't back up all the way. He simply points out that HE didn't talk to the French civilians, but that he talked to other pilots/aircrew(British) who talked to them. In other words, he never denied the story, simply stated that HE didn't talk to the source.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Yech, Al, it's INDEPENDENT! If you ARE going to capitalize a word, at least spell it correctly!