Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dan_San_Abbott
Gentlemen:
Probably the least accurate thing in books are the photo captions. Less time is spent on the captions. Some guess at what they think it might be, and in some cases, they guessed wrong. Miss-identification of aircraft, location and dates are the most common. In some cases the same photo is placed two places in the book with different captions.
No one, and I mean no one is perfect. Too often, it is opinion and not established fact, stated. I do my damnedest to stick to facts, and when I wonder into the grey area of less thean facts, I'll state it so, so the reader is not misled into believing it is fact.
Blue skies,
Dan-San
|
Dan, Although I have to agree on the Broad side of your statement, I find it somewhat misleading reference this thread. I believe a LOT of research went into Alex Imries Fokker Triplane Book, as well as Leamanns( I sure wish I could remember how to spell his name)even in the captions of photos! These authors believed they interpreted the number under the wing as 2103 and 2112 respectively. What I find difficult to believe is that if acer donated and conversed with Imrie reference the controversial 477/17 picture, that Imrie would Identify the photo as he did? As I stated earlier I have some problems accepting anonymous "FACTS" . You do try to present what you consider as facts, and you at least provide more backup than I have seen re acer! Again I care not who is correct, I just ask for more than someones word after this has appeared in print, in threads, and God knows how many articles and models on the net! IMHO this does not alter 425/17 either way. Although you signed off acknowledging Langdons last post, you didn't answer my question reference the crosses on 425/17. I did answer your last question before I gave in to the dead thread theory. By the way Dan, how do you feel about acers statement that Greim picked up the photos when he picked up the triplane 521/17. Weren't these aircraft usually sent to AFP VII then distributed? Does it make sense to you? If so I guess I am WAY OFF on my mistrust :-)
Thanks,
RAGIII