Source for Bishop's claim?

Michael · 10 November 2005, 01:39 PM

While doing some browsing in the Archives Medal Index, following a post at www.gmic.co.uk I found that 3,436 British War Medals were issued to "Belgian Agents" and another 264 "French Agents".

Anyone else think that this may be the source for verifying Bishop's raid?

11 November 2005, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael

Anyone else think that this may be the source for verifying Bishop's raid?

If a document was found from one of these agents lending credence to Bishop's raid, it would be like finding the Holy Grail......

regards,

Darren

Breguet · 12 November 2005, 01:25 PM

So they sent 3,436 "Belgian Agents" and another 264 "French Agents" and still wern't able to verify the raid!!!!

DEM · 13 November 2005, 02:14 PM

Gaston Meuniers said in a 1985 interview with Group Captain Arnie Bauer that he had seen Bishop's raid as a 12-year-old living on a farm adjacent to Esnes airfield. He still had in his possession a copy of the Oct. 4, 1917 magazine La Guerre Aerinne Ilustre, which included an article about the raid. He was so proud of having witnesed it that he kept the magazine all those years. He saw a Nieuport shot down 2 planes, one within the aerodrome boundary and one just outside it.

Pilot Phil Townsend said in 1985 that when his RE8 squadron was stationed in the area of the raid in Sept. 1918, they heard from French civilians that they had witnessed it too. Townsend did not hear it directly from the civilians, but said other 12 Squadron pilots had.

British balloonist Louis Weirter also said he saw it. Others have claimed he was too far away but historian David Bashow says he was only 10 mile away. At 4,000 feet he would have been able to see for 40 miles on a clear day.

Breguet · 13 November 2005, 02:32 PM

With all due respect to their sources, reports nearly 70yrs after the event are "difficult". Much enters in to the memory of time, actual events fade - sometimes to be replaced (with the best will in the world) with ones that are in accord with events that an interviewer relates. Having interviewed a number of vets I'm not just being cynical merely realistic!

Graeme · 13 November 2005, 03:48 PM

The calculation of the distance to the horizon is 1.23 times the square of the height of the viewer. So, ignoring refraction (which puts the apparent horizon some distance further away) the geodetic horizon for an observer at 4,000 feet is 77.8 miles.

The weather on 2 June 1917 seems to have been good - the RFC Communique for the week incorporating this date mentions almost 200 targets per day being handled by balloon observation. Given apparently ideal conditions, there must have been more than one British balloon observer in a position to have seen such frantic activity.

Graeme

Billy_Bishop · 18 December 2005, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Breguet

With all due respect to their sources, reports nearly 70yrs after the event are "difficult". Much enters in to the memory of time, actual events fade - sometimes to be replaced (with the best will in the world) with ones that are in accord with events that an interviewer relates. Having interviewed a number of vets I'm not just being cynical merely realistic!

So, what about the memories 70+ years later of those who would deny the claims of Bishop? It seems to me, if we are to discount those who support him, those who oppose him with their "memories" deserve the same level of acceptance, don't you think?

Breguet · 18 December 2005, 01:26 PM

Hi Al - haven't seen you around for a while. I couldn't agree more with your statement it definitely goes both ways! But I'm not saying discount them completely only use a good deal of salt and caution when dealing with "memories".

Billy_Bishop · 18 December 2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Breguet

Hi Al - haven't seen you around for a while. I couldn't agree more with your statement it definitely goes both ways! But I'm not saying discount them completely only use a good deal of salt and caution when dealing with "memories".

I can agree with that too. It's just that it seems that when those who support Bishop come forward, they get dismissed as probably alzheimer's patients who don't know what they're talking about, yet the anti-old vets are honorable sorts who's memories are obviously flawless.

I was in New Orleans for a while working security for FEMA, until I got injured.

Roadhog · 18 December 2005, 04:14 PM

Dear Mr. Bishop, It is not that we don't respect

Billy Bishop for his contributions it is that most of his supporters quickly rise to the bait when us anarchists chum the water.

Ninety eight percent of all ribbing is done in good nature. The other two percent deal directly with me and my arch enemy Craig.

When I first got out of the Army, I worked as a reporter near a huge military base and covered the "military beat." While I had to pry information out of my father about WWII and being in Chesty Puller's regiment, I couldn't shut some of these guys up concerning their "war" exploits. And I do honestly believe that things get worse with age. For example when I concentrate real hard I can almost remember sex.

That's why I love this forum, personally I couldn't fly an old French whore and everything I know about flying an Albatros D-III I learned from Ernest K. Gann's "In the Company of Eagles."

Being part of this has been a real learning experience for me. Merry Christmas. VR, Roadhog "Memento mori."