Oh no, Not Bishop again!!!!!????!!!! ;-)

Billy_Bishop · 13 April 2001, 08:54 PM

This is a reply to both an entry in my guestbook as well as Ken's last entry in his thread on

Billy Bishop, http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/thread.cgi?7002,127

Actually, it's not my site that paints the picture. It's the movie, "The Kid Who Couldn't Miss" that paints that picture. Not completely true, but not completely false either. Actually, the movie is MOSTLY false, and a little bit on the true side. They at least spelled his name right.

POST MADE TO BISHOP GUESTBOOK

Quote:

(AL thanks for posting your site on the Aerodrome forum It is facinating. I read many books about Billy Bishop about twenty years ago when they were more plentiful. I assumed the idea that he believed in the cause of the war and hated the Huns with a passion. As the war progressed it was natural for this hatred to accelerate due to the loss of his fellow pilots. The theme of your excellent site kind of paints a picture of him going for a high score in victories. I believe that you will agree that numbers were only the measure of his passion for destroying what he believed could take away the British principles he so strongly believed in. Its a slam dunk! He is the superior Ace of the first world war. His passion for what he did and his fight against superior authority to keep doing it puts him head and sholders above the rest. Dead hero's are just that, "dead". Who would want to use them for a role model.)

There appears to be an obvious problem with German losses when the claim is made over German territory Regardless how much the plane is damaged it is not a loss when it lands on home territory.

Ken McKenzie
www.starapex.com

By the way Jasta, don't feel you have to reply to this, I think most of us know what you'll say. But I'm giving odds it will somehow involve either McCudden or else that the German records are more complete than they really are.

VBR,

Al Lowe

rammjaeger · 13 April 2001, 11:49 PM

Are we speaking about 50+ "destroyed"-claims of Bishop or above damaged aircraft?

In the latter case he should have reported OOC or similar soft victories but he did not and I am calling that intentionally making wrong statements. 55 destroyed and no trace! If I would set my hat on the head with a steam-powered hammer - than I would believe his claims.

14 April 2001, 05:23 AM

Easter time too quiet for you, Albert?
And this posting in your guestbook (which I've written in myself, BTW) is proof of what? That you have a guestbook?
If you're interested, you can post photos of me visiting Rhinebeck when I was eight. I have no idea what they have to do with anything, but I'm sure they'll settle SOMETHING once and for all...
I will grant you one thing however-- and I apologize if my tone sounds condescending-- some part of your defense of Bishop is in reaction to the film. I remember seeing some of it years ago on PBS; it mixed documentary with playacting. It certainly didn't give or create an aura of accuracy, despite its interviews with WW1 pilots. It probably was scurrilous; I'll reserve "final" opinion until I've seen it again...

14 April 2001, 04:24 PM

Oh, yes,
The German records are soo complete! Even with witnesses, AA, pilots,

Billy Bishop's claims are still not worthy! I think they are just like the RFC communiques, they didn't include every victory scored or losses incured. Our system wasn't the best, but let's be real here! Witnesses DO account for something.

Cheerio'
RFC

Billy_Bishop · 14 April 2001, 09:37 PM

My Dear Captain:

Actually, the posting in the guestbook WAS repeated in ANOTHER thread here on The Aerodrome.

Quote:

This is a reply to both an entry in my guestbook as well as Ken's last entry in his thread on

Billy Bishop, http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/thread.cgi?7002,127

I was SIMPLY trying to acknowledge it. Since it had been posted in this forum too, I THOUGHT (perhaps, mistakenly) that I should respond to it here as well.

My Dear Hannes:

My remarks were directed ENTIRELY at the movie made by Paul Cowan, which did NOT address whether Bishop's claims were for Destroyed, OOC, FTL or FUBAR. The travesty, incorrectly called a "documentary" was almost entirely concerned with whether or not Cowan could dredge up enough innuendo to frame Bishop as a fraud. He could care less if the majority of BB's claims were for destroyed instead of OOC.

But that's just my opinion on HIM!

VBR,

Al Lowe

wings · 14 April 2001, 09:39 PM

There are many British pilots who had more of their victories confirmed by German records than Bishop. For example, Malone of Naval 3, Compston of Naval 8, Fry of 60 and 23, etc.
Regarding witnesses, sometimes they are wrong.

Billy_Bishop · 14 April 2001, 09:45 PM

Regarding records, sometimes they're wrong too.

VBR,

Al Lowe

15 April 2001, 05:07 AM

My remarks were directed ENTIRELY at the movie made by Paul Cowan, which did NOT address whether Bishop's claims were for Destroyed, OOC, FTL or FUBAR.

have you ever taken this case up with Paul Cowan, since he's apparently your sore spot ?

Billy_Bishop · 15 April 2001, 05:12 AM

I'd love to, but I don't know how to get in touch with him. I have a feeling though, given his response to the Canadian Senate, and all that's transpired since, he's unlikely to return my emails.

I keep hoping that considering the way I've denigrated him publicly that he'd at least respond to that. He hasn't, so far as I know. I guess he's not worried about the Internet public.

VBR,

Al Lowe

15 April 2001, 03:30 PM

You should check Malone again. His first 2 destroyed claims (flamed) dont exist for scouts, and his 23 April claim is among many claimed that day destroyed. 1 wounded (not destroyed), 1 12 hours AFTER his claim,1 out of his sector.

His last one destroyed could have been 41 SQDN or Ball, both in that area, the other 2 couldn't be due to out of area for claim.

Picking and choosing doesn't cut it to support your theory mate!