Bishop. New evidence

[Vin]

The contents of the memoir are heresay but they are nevertheless damning because the unknown says that he had access to the squadron records after the war. He describes Bishop’s first combat report, describes the notation added by the squadron commander, says that Wing level similarly noted it but that Brigade confirmed the claims notwithstanding, implicating at least Brigade level personnel in any deception. He describes the prevailing mood of disbelief among 60RFC personnel. He then says that he was given full access to all squadron records and comments that they "were as I have stated". His most damning comment is "This.." (the disbelief in 60RFC) "..astounded me in view of the strict regulations governing the crediting of combat victories. I thought it was a case of claims being exaggerated. I was wide of the mark.". Can’t you feel the repressed anger ?

Assuming that he was given the access to records he claims, I can see why Alex headed this thread "New evidence". It doesn’t prove that Bishop deceived. It does assist with understanding how Bishop’s claims came to be credited when ordinarily they would not have been.

[alex_revell]

Sorry D but you are well wide of the mark. I'm not surprised. And I think if anyone would stick up for B it would have been Jack Scott.
Someone stated that they didn't think the opinions of people who were in 60 at the time carries any weight, that it's just hearsay. Maybe I'm a funny kind of a bloke but I think that the these people's opinions carry an awful lot of weight as evidence. The fact that these opinins were held during B's time with 60, and after, gives them credence in my eyes. And don't forget these opinions were held throughout the RFC. The views of B's contemporaries can't just be shrugged aside. As for the victories. Dear old Ed Ferko did a pretty extensive job on researching these and I'd bet my wife - yes, I said wife, not life - that he has more German records than Al Lowe, Graves or anyone else outside of Alex I. Ed tried very hard and I know he took a very unbiased view, but came up with not a single victory which could be even remotely credited. This is very unusual. When someone's victories are in doubt there are always - especially with such a large number as 75 - that there will be instances of 'this could have been, this probably was', type of thing. To my mind the sheer weight of evidence against B is simply overwhelming. And frankly my dear, I don't give a damn, either way.

[Ginger.]

Well I do give a damn, because the bloke fiddled a VC.
That his name is mentioned in the same company of men like Albert Ball and Mick Mannock is a travesty and insult to the Victoria Cross and all of it's noble recipitents.

[Alan]

Originally posted by Ginger.@Jul 2 2004, 10:35 AM
[b]Well I do give a damn, because the bloke fiddled a VC.
That his name is mentioned in the same company of men like Albert Ball and Mick Mannock is a travesty and insult to the Victoria Cross and all of it's noble recipitents.

I cannot agree any more strongly!


The fact that it is still hotly debated almost 90 years later should, in its root form, already cause one to take pause in the veracity of Bishop's claims.

Especially when one considers not one other great Hero of the RFC/RAF has these same issues.

I guess my point is thus: If it seemed that this was a common thing with all the British pilots and their claims, it would be easier to deduce that Bishop was the norm, and therefore credibility for the uncorroborated claims would be accepted. But since this is an aberration of the norm and we don't see this with claims from the likes of Mannock and Ball, and together with reticence by his own peers (that of Bishop) and that of researchers up to today, then regardless of hearsay, theresay, and thatsay, Bishop's claims have to be held somewhat suspect.

And, IIRC, we don't see it to this much degree with any of the other air services with the possible exception of the French and Fonck.

[DJ]

This has been a most amusing thread. Thank you for starting it Mr. Revell! As to those who don't like his VC, To quote Stephen King, "Done bun can't be undone". It is what it is, but the speculation is titillating.

[Vin]

Originally posted by alex_revell@Jul 2 2004, 01:33 PM
[b] Someone stated that they didn't think the opinions of people who were in 60 at the time carries any weight, that it's just hearsay. Maybe I'm a funny kind of a bloke but I think that the these people's opinions carry an awful lot of weight as evidence. The fact that these opinins were held during B's time with 60, and after, gives them credence in my eyes. And don't forget these opinions were held throughout the RFC. The views of B's contemporaries can't just be shrugged aside.

The opinions of Bishop’s contemporaries carry weight to prove that they had those opinions. A decision maker can draw conclusions from those opinions and the fact that the opinion was widely held. In that sense, those views are not shrugged aside. Life would be intolerable if the proof of facts was determined by the opinions of others, even it those others are contemporaries. Proof by popularity. So many of the stories about WW 1 aviation, particularly those about the aces, derive from the opinions of others and are now accepted as fact because they are repeated as if they were fact. How Bishop was able to have so many claims confirmed where others could not and how he came to be awarded the highest Empire award for valour, his claim apparently escaping being subjected to the rules and standards of proof applied to verification of the deeds of others is, in my mind, of greater significance than whether he exaggerated or outright lied. Your man’s unpublished autobiography will be even more facinating if he explored that issue.

[Vin]

Originally posted by alex_revell@Jul 2 2004, 01:33 PM
[b] Sorry D but you are well wide of the mark.

Ha, Ha, Ha,

Darryl got it wrong !

Nah Nah N' Nah Nah.

..same back to you
with knobs on the end and brass ones too
Don't forget to clean them.

Ha, Ha, Ha

[Darryl]

Hi Alex,

Timing didn't quite fit, so I am not all that surprised. An ex 80 squadron guy and an "adolecent" would be my next two guesses but for one of them the timing doesn't fit anyway. It matters little. The extract adds to the evidence but wouldn't determine the matter in my eyes. I have my opinions on BB, which are well known to those who know me and I don't generally "do" him on forum. The opinions of Fry et al, can not simply be discounted, as some seem to do, on the basis of some jealousy or similar. There are too many of those opinions (to which you have now added). Anyone who seeks to discount them would need to show a better argument than just sour grapes. There must be a better reason than that for "candle light parade to the other squadrons" to turn into "widespread doubts".

As to Jack Scott, if you read the 60 Squadron history which he apparently wrote (at least in a major part) I do find some of his comments ambiguous, as previously stated. Interesting that you say then that "if anyone would stick up for Bishop". Maybe I am just reading too much into the comments in the book.


Vincenso,

As always, you are at your most charming and erudite when being childish. Keep up the excellent work.

respectfully

Darryl

[Darryl]

All

BTW, didn't Timothy Graves have a massive amount of evidence which he had a bad habit of keeping under his coat on the way out of PRO...or do I have him confused with another T.A. Graves??

D

[Gregvan]

Darryl,

Yes, it was the same Timothy Graves.