|
Whenever the subject of Bishop’s claims is reopened, those who support him invariably immediately descend to the level of personal attack against those who do not share their view or,even more ludicrously, take it as a personal attack upon themselves. Over the years their main – indeed their only - defence of Bishop has always been to denigrate those who disagree with them - from the disgraceful accusations of cowardice against a very gallant pilot of the old RFC, to sneering remarks about ‘amateur historians’, showing, if nothing else their ignorance of the meaning of the word amateur.
This denigration seems to be the mainspring of their case as I have never seen them quote any documentary evidence in support of their views and they certainly do not seem to undertake any primary research themselves. They seem to hold the irrational view that those who do not share their belief in the validity of B’s claims have some hidden agenda, or wish to destroy Bishop’s reputation because of a personal dislike of Bishop. I am rather tired of reiterating this, but I’ll try one more time. There is no hidden agenda, and no personal dislike - how could there be dislike of a man they never knew. The researchers involved have taken an objective view of the evidence and have come to their own conclusions. The only reason they looked at the evidence in the first place was because of the doubts expressed by those researchers into the history of the Luftstreitkräfte regarding the validity of the aerodrome raid and the opinions expressed by many ex-RFC/RAF pilots who either knew Bishop, served with him or knew of his general reputation through the RFC at the time.
Mr Dieter took me to task for not understanding that his quote regarding Caldwell’s report to Wing’s request for information about the events of June 2nd, was taken from a book. My point was that it was put forward as evidence that Caldwell’s report had confirmed Wing’s view that a VC should be awarded. To someone reading the book, or the quote from it, who has not seen the original report, this would be the implication. I have not read the book in question, but I would – rightly or wrongly – treat with suspicion any book with a title such as Knights of The Air. It smacks too much of a journalistic venture, cobbled together at the request of a publisher, rather than a work of serious research.
Some years ago now I suggested to Mr Chadderton(?) that an independent researcher of repute be commissioned to look into the whole Bishop affair. He replied that this had already been actioned and that an Australian researcher had been so commissioned. Nothing has been seen of this research. Does anyone know what, if any, was the result.
Regards
Alex
|