Quote:
There were many documents destroyed in allied bombings in WWII that could infact prove Bishop, or any other pilot, had many more kills. You cannot discount an event based on evidence that does not exist because it could go either way. Although Bishops raid is questionable, he was an excellent, honourablem, and heroic scout pilot (lone wolf style) who survived the war and did shoot down a number of aircraft.
Why discount his reputation based solely on surcumstantial evidence?
|
Circumstantial evidence goes both ways, sort of. Actually in this case, the issue of who owns the burden of proof seems kind of backwards, based on circumstances of course. A lot of the evidence supporting Bishop's claims seems to be circumstantial. To look at it another way, hypothetically speaking, if Bishop were to be accused of shooting down 70+ German airplanes during the war, and if he were accused of carrying out the raid on the aerodrome, if he would be forced to defend himself against such accusations, the likelyhood of acquittal from such charges would be very high based on the evidence, or lack thereof.
Count it or discount it, either side can draw strength from a lack of existing information.