E.V/D.VIII wing camo

[StephenLawson]

Dan San: Flat Earth Society...!!! LOL Humor and historical savy. You are the man!

[deljon]

"GO GET'M" Dan San


Del

[NeilE]

Hi All;

Before all this self congratulation goes any further, maybe it would be appropriate to actually look at what was said on the WW1 Modelling List. To paraphrase the main propositions, they basically said that the evidence for the streaked staining is not conclusive. Most posters said it was possible. Most posters said if there was streaking, it could have been either olive green or multi-colour. The evidence was not conclusive as to which it was.

Given the empirical limits of World War One aviation research, these are quite sound conclusions to arrive at, given the nature of the evidence at hand. Dan's findings may point to there being streaking on Fokker E-V wings but by the nature of the evidence presented it is not conclusive. The evidence is circumstantial and thus of a lower order than a direct piece of evidence - such as a wing fragment as the highest order, or a direct description from a reliable source for example.

The World War One Modelling List members have always had a healthy scepticism informed by the natural limitations of historical research in relation to World War One aviation research. It is certainly not a "Flat Earth Society". To characterise it that way is both unfair and dismissive. It should be also noted that most of the posters who contributed to the discussion on the List also acknowledged Dan's contributions to the field of World War One aviation research.

There is a tendency on The Aerodrome at times to ignore the tenets of historical and scientific research in order to "prove" this or that theory. Sometimes this is due to inexperience, sometimes its from people who should know better. All historical researchers who publish their research make truth claims for their material. The evidence they provide is the basis for these truth claims (as well as rhetorical presentation). Sensible scepticism informed by a careful examination of the nature of the evidence is how such truth claims are tested. This is quite normal in the process of historical research to do this. Dan might not like it when his research is tested in this way but it is quite legitimate to do so.

In areas of historical research where direct evidence is not always obtainable, no theory should be regarded as gospel and untouchable. The evidence just isn't there for it to be regarded as so.

The personal standing of the researcher in the field has nothing to do with 'proving' theory X or Y as being 100% correct. Its the strength - or otherwise - of the evidence that proves the theory - or not. It is up to the reader to determine what they think of the evidence on offer. It is always healthy to do this from a variety of positions rather than just accepting. To just accept a theory as 'proved' without questioning is ultimately stultifying and leads to stagnation in research - which can never be healthy or lead to progress in research. Dan questioned accepted knowledge regarding Fokker E-V wing colours and came up with a new theory - which is well and good. Now its his turn to accept open discussion on his theory. Let's see if Dan and his supporters can do this without resorting to immature dismissive cheap shots and playing (or supporting) the role of the 'sacred untouchable expert'.

Regards

Neil

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Neil_E:
It is not a theory, it is a fact! If I present an idea without any supporting data, I would call that a theory, a suppostion, something that might be so, something to mull over and discuss over a cup of coffee. this is not the case. I have no intention of trying to convince of this matter, however I will make a suggestion. Please contact Langdon Badger, and ask him if he thinks it is only a theory. You will find him on the aircraft section of the Forum.
Very Blue skies,
Dan-San

[RAGIII]

Originally Posted by Dan_San_Abbott

Neil_E:
It is not a theory, it is a fact! If I present an idea without any supporting data, I would call that a theory, a suppostion, something that might be so, something to mull over and discuss over a cup of coffee. this is not the case. I have no intention of trying to convince of this matter, however I will make a suggestion. Please contact Langdon Badger, and ask him if he thinks it is only a theory. You will find him on the aircraft section of the Forum.
Very Blue skies,
Dan-San

Dan,
With all due respect(and I mean this) the kind of statement you have made referring to "Fact" is the only thing anyone said even close to bashing on the WW1 site! Many who frequent this site are also WW1 list members. No one I have encountered is any where near a "Flat Earth" society member. A couple of Moderators on this site frequent the List Let me say at this time I WANT the Multi Color theory to be TRUE! I like it from a modeling point of view! I am happy to hear that your observations were from original photos in the Ferko collection. This was one of my concerns as most of us are looking at 3rd/4th/5th.... generation reprints.That being said, your original statements in the original thread specified 4 or 5 distinct patterns. Your last comments recanted those remarks and said the pattern was at the whim of the painters brush stroke.(Not an exact quote) I have the following questions for DSA, Deljon, and Langdon.
1. If we accept the multi color wing ,was there a description specifying the mixture of these pigments,or the distinction between upper and lower surface colors in the original factory drawing?
2. Other sources have suggested that the list of pigments "may" have been mixed to create the Fokker Green for the wings. Has anyone with the Pigments in Hand actually mixed equal weights of all four to see what color results? If this color comes out Black, Dark Purple, Blue or some other totally unacceptable color this would go a long way towards convincing me
3.Are we sure that the profile was the original source of the "Green" wing? That leaves about 35-40 years with NO OPINIONS?
Finally, I don't know why this had to become an us against them thing, maybe the way the first post read, but I hope to continue to use both sites to my advantage, and help others on both if I can!
RAGIII

[NeilE]

Originally Posted by Dan_San_Abbott

Neil_E:
It is not a theory, it is a fact! If I present an idea without any supporting data, I would call that a theory, a supposition, something that might be so, something to mull over and discuss over a cup of coffee. this is not the case. I have no intention of trying to convince of this matter, however I will make a suggestion. Please contact Langdon Badger, and ask him if he thinks it is only a theory. You will find him on the aircraft section of the Forum.
Very Blue skies,
Dan-San

Dan;

With respect, it is a theory. If you had a large piece of original Fokker E-V wing in your hand with the colours you contend, then it would be fact. If your were there and saw them painting it, that would be fact. Without first order data (Like those I just mentioned), it remains theory, albeit perhaps a strong one. This is just part of empirical historical research. Its not a personal attack. History is full of such examples in our knowledge base. For example we know that World War One started in August 1914. There is living memory of this, and direct written documentation to support this. Its a fact of history.

Now look at the existence of Homer's Troy. Schliemann, the famed archaeologist, claimed he discovered the ruins of Troy. He found the ruins of a city for sure, but no-one can be sure that it was Troy he discovered (though recent evidence may be strengthening his case). Therefore without direct evidence (Like a sign in four ancient languages saying "Priam Welcomes You To Troy" Schliemann's contention remains a theory because it has never been fully proved. It may be a plausible and even strong theory but without that high level of proof, it remains a theory.

This is basically how historians and archaeologists evaluate their data and its truth claims. They ask questions like 'how far does the evidence support the conclusions?' 'Are there other possible explanations?' 'Is the research replicable' and such like. This is part of what is known in the trade as historiography. A significant part of historiography relates to the relative importance of various levels of evidence - ranging from first hand to hearsay, and how it impacts on the propositions historians put forward.

I understand that you are very enthusiastic about your research and are keen to find out as much as you can about this fascinating field of history and to share your findings with others. All that has happened here is that others with an interest in the field have looked at your data and evaluated it using well established methodologies. Do not take this amiss. It is actually a sign of your standing that they do this. If I published something like that, likely it would be mostly ignored.

On your suggestion, I shall talk to Langdon about this, it is only fair to do so. It will be interesting to see what he says.

All the Best

Neil

[Dan_San_Abbott]

Niel_E:
I would suggest you check photographs and decide for yourself. Then it is a matter of what color stains go where? IOt was Peter Grosz who suggested the stains were mixed to obtain the olive green that Peter Endsleigh Castle used on his illustration. Those four stains will not make olive green. everyone including myself have accepted what Castle had offered in 1961. It was never challenged. It also took awhile for the three color German camouflage to catch, I suggested that to Greg Van Wyngarden maybe ten years ago, fortunately, I had a copy of a British intelligence document with the suggestion. Go study the photographs of the Fok.E.V.
Steve Lawson, would you please find that photo of the Fok.E.V shot that was in the Replica section posted on the staining of the wings on the E.V. That I hope will prove to Neil_E and RagIII.
blue skies,
Dan-San

[RAGIII]

Originally Posted by Dan_San_Abbott

Niel_E:
I would suggest you check photographs and decide for yourself. Then it is a matter of what color stains go where? IOt was Peter Grosz who suggested the stains were mixed to obtain the olive green that Peter Endsleigh Castle used on his illustration. Those four stains will not make olive green. everyone including myself have accepted what Castle had offered in 1961. It was never challenged. It also took awhile for the three color German camouflage to catch, I suggested that to Greg Van Wyngarden maybe ten years ago, fortunately, I had a copy of a British intelligence document with the suggestion. Go study the photographs of the Fok.E.V.
Steve Lawson, would you please find that photo of the Fok.E.V shot that was in the Replica section posted on the staining of the wings on the E.V. That I hope will prove to Neil_E and RagIII.
blue skies,
Dan-San

Is the picture you are referring to post war? Captured( turned over by treaty) or in the war period? Just as a clarification by 35 to 40 years without an opinion I was referring to the time frame from 1918 to 1961. Are there NO records or speculation on color of any type between those dates? Just curious
RAGIII
PS: At least one photo posted on one of the threads regarding this subject was very convincing for a segmented scheme. This was the EV in the hands of the French AF, in an E Bay album. IIRC it was mislabelled as a Rumpler or something similar. I find your evidence Very Strong but unfortunantly I can't say it is absolute fact.

[Ross_Moorhouse]

By some of the replys in this thread I can see that it might start to become a brawl.

If this happens this thread will be closed down. I suggest that this debate is done in a civil manner by all parties.

Also the sidelines wanting people to "go get them" does nothing but add to the fire. So lets keep it cool in here.

Any personal attacks and the thread will be closed.

I hope this is clear to all!

[StephenLawson]

Mr.Moorhouse; Yes lets be civil "here." You see I attend the Modeling Page and have read the threads there. "Dan's Cronies" and other comments come from the shallow end and I object to it. But here is what we are concerned with. So I agree lets be civil. Nothing aimed at you here, Mr. Wright has enough to deal with. I will not add to his burden by demanding satisfaction.

Dan San; you are the author of literally thousands of verified and authoritative research documents. What has the "opinion" of one person got to do with research? He has nothing. No references. no database, nothing of historical value. That is what we are here for isn't it? Let him rail. It means nothing. When he authors a book, treatise, or an article and presents his research in total then we will see if it holds water.

Til then chalk it up to a personal attack and at least the bridges are safe tonight. Cause its in our neck of the woods. http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

RAGIII; Respects to you sir, I have mixed those colours in equal proportions the colour you get is close to clotted bile. try it right after a big breakfast of fatty bacon and greasy eggs.