Quote:
*I try to be fair, but I just can't buy Bishop's story. *There are too many holes in it for me, nothing about the raid sounds true! *The only reason I can think of for the British letting such a cock and bull story pass is;
*The RFC had just gone through a very bad time,  Bloody April, Muderous May etc. *It needed soething to raise the spirits of the badly shot up squadrons. Bishop's "raid" would show the rest of the RFC that the offensive missions that they hated were beating down the evil Hun.
*Bishop had show the other lads how it was done! *
As my father use to say. *"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull shit.' *Bishop was full of it.
* * * * * * * * * * *Richard
quote of Capt Lee in refernce to Bishop. *"How does he do it?"
|
EXCEPT, even Phil Markham admits the time and distance match for the area Bishop is thought to have raided.
While he points to a lot of circumstantial evidence, there is NOTHING definitive either way.
As many have pointed out, there is simply NO HOPE of proving either for or against Bishop.
And while the RFC may have had their reasons for wanting his story to be true, the RFC was not the final arbiter of whether or not Bishop would get the VC.
AND while there is no definitive proof that there were any witnesses, there is substantial anecdotal, as well as 2nd and 3rd hand testimony to that effect.
On the negative side, while we do have a denial by the Germans in one of their reports, it is for the wrong date. Typo? Coincedence? Or maybe they wanted to deny that it happened, knowing it did, but by using the wrong date, they can't be accused of directly denying it. I don't know. Seems strange to me, considering their reputation for keeping "impeccable" records.
What else do we have on the negative side?
Willy Fry for one. Grid Caldwell for another. Maybe one or two others who flew with Bishop.
Then, on the plus side, there's Bishop's CO, Maj. Scott. Some would say that maybe Scott thought he owed something to Bishop for saving his life. Perhaps he did. But I'm also lead to believe that men then held personal honour much higher than we do today.
I don't know about anyone else, but even if someone had saved my life, I would not risk my honour on a person I thought was telling a bunch of stories out of school. But, maybe that's just me.
Then there's the idea of "no witnesses." I know, nothing in the award citation says there were witnesses. But there's nothing that says there weren't any witnesses either. And with the normal paperwork missing/destroyed, we'll never know if there were any witnesses.
But I have to tell you, I think there were witnesses, and I believe they signed an affadavit that was with the now lost paperwork. Why? Simple, I just don't see the British government devaluing their highest award for valour in the manner some of you suggest.
The problem is, it's my opinion, my theory. And there's no proof either way.
So, I guess we're stuck at an impasse.
VBR,
Al Lowe