Balloonist/Billy Bishop

[DEM]

Has anyone ever seen anything Louis Weirter wrote about witnessing Billy Bishop's VC raid?
Was there an actual report he filed, or an official document of some kind? Or is there an interview in which he was quoted by the press?

It seems to me his testimony, discounted for so long, is worth looking at a little more closely.

We have been told for a long time that there were no witnesses, but there was this balloonist, who at least claimed to have seen the action. Some have told us he had little credibility but I'd be interested in knowing exactly what he said or wrote about the subject.

[Vin]

A little over a month too late, DEM. Have a look at
Source for Bishop's claim?

[Billy_Bishop]

The problem of course is, it has been so long, and so much testimony in favor of Bishop has been so quickly discounted, whether it has any real value or not. Other than the occasional book that comes out on either side of the debate, little new has been written. Most is simply the same stuff re-hashed. Other than showing that it was not likely that Bishop dumped his Lewis gun, there wasn't really that much new in the last Bishop book published by the Late Ben Greenhous.

[DEM]

It has been established that Weirter COULD have seen the action on 2 June, but I'd still like to know if he wrote anything down that has survived. An official report, a letter home, a diary entry, an interview with a reporter, anything at all.

It might help us establish how credible he was if we could see just what it was that he said.

Does anyone out there have anything more about this fellow?

[Billy_Bishop]

It is mentioned in the digest compiled by the War Amputations of Canada, "Hanging a Legend" that

Originally Posted by Hanging A Legend

Information was given that balloonists saw the raid. The NFB Response dismisses the possibility of a balloonist seeing the raid because "heavy clouds hung at 500 feet..."

On a quick perusal of the book, I can not find anymore details on the balloon reports. Perhaps when I get time later, I'll look and see what else is in there on that subject.

I recall that the Late Phil Markham looked into this claim. I seem to recall he refuted it. I don't recall why. One has to wonder what did happen to the reports, if we assume anything was filed.

[DEM]

What was this Markham fellow's theory? Was it that Weirter was too far away to see the raid? That has certainly been discredited by people on this forum.

A lot of people have been making very pushy statements over the years, claiming that there were no witnesses to Bishop's raid. But it's beginning to look like that claim was an out-and-out lie. We have a witness and we have his name. Still, I'd feel better if I saw his actual testimony. This seems like a very important piece of information and I'm frankly surprised that more attention has't been paid to it. Someone out there must know exactly what this balloonist said.

[castiglione]

Originally Posted by Billy_Bishop

Other than showing that it was not likely that Bishop dumped his Lewis gun, there wasn't really that much new in the last Bishop book published by the Late Ben Greenhous.

I think I recall reading something about this - that Bishop claimed to have ditched his Lewis gun to reduce weight and hasten his escape. If this is true, this is something a bit more than "not really that much new".

[Billy_Bishop]

Originally Posted by DEM

What was this Markham fellow's theory? Was it that Weirter was too far away to see the raid? That has certainly been discredited by people on this forum.

A lot of people have been making very pushy statements over the years, claiming that there were no witnesses to Bishop's raid. But it's beginning to look like that claim was an out-and-out lie. We have a witness and we have his name. Still, I'd feel better if I saw his actual testimony. This seems like a very important piece of information and I'm frankly surprised that more attention has't been paid to it. Someone out there must know exactly what this balloonist said.

I don't have the story he published in front of me, but IIRC, his claim was that with the weather, and the time of day, that it was unlikely that it could have been seen by a balloon observer.

The problem with witnesses and any reports they might have made comes down to the fact that most of the paperwork that was involved in his VC award was destroyed, reportedly, most likely as a result of a space saving measure in the years between WWI and WWII. This phenomonon has been documented. In fact, Barrett Tillman has commented on it here, and I agree with him, 100%. Whoever was responsible for this, should be resurrected and strung up.

[Billy_Bishop]

Originally Posted by castiglione

I think I recall reading something about this - that Bishop claimed to have ditched his Lewis gun to reduce weight and hasten his escape. If this is true, this is something a bit more than "not really that much new".

Remember, I said "OTHER THAN" showing it was unlikely that Bishop dumped his Lewis gun, I don't believe the rest was much of anything new. Mostly re-hashed stuff that Greenhous had already mentioned in other places and articles.

But he did do a good job of showing that other than anecdotal evidence, there was no other evidence to show that Bishop had dumped his Lewis gun. I found this amusing since, as it had been accepted for decades that Bishop HAD dumped his gun, it became a contest between the pro-Bishop side and the Anti-Bishop side to show how it was im/possible to dump the gun in flight.

And now it looks like that debate was an excersize in futility!

[pspiranha]

Below is a reprint of the ballon confirmation theory that Al and I hashed over a couple of years ago. The information is drawn from Phil Markham's published research.

By all acounts of his peers, Phil Markham was an excellant and unbiased researcher. Mr.Markham had originally set out to prove that Bishop did indeed attack the aerodrome ( which would have meant a good book deal) but eventually came up empty handed for proof.



********************************************

I was wondering if someone might try to float ( excuse the pun) the Balloon Confirmation theory. I see I wasn’t disappointed. First let’s review a few facts in this regard;

Occupied aerodromes on the date in question that were within Bishop’s range were:
Bohain..................................Jasta 26
Boistraincourt/ Estromel...........Jasta 5
Epinoy..................................Jasta 12
Eswars................................. Jasta 7
Premont................................Jasta 6
Proville..................................Jasta Boelcke



The nearest Royal Flying Corps Balloon Unit to any of these was No. 2 Section of No. 16 Company at map grid reference 57c W2b, 15 kilometers west-south-west of the nearest occupied German aerodrome, Proville. This places the nearest balloon some 13.5 miles from Estromel.

(A) Balloon observers were able to reliably spot things on or near the ground within only a few miles of their position. This is why reconnaissance aircraft were necessary to spot further on.

(B) Balloon Observers were equipped with either binoculars or a small spotting scope. Being in a balloon made long range observation extremely difficult since the observer’s platform was subject to the vagaries of the winds aloft. Ask any qualified pilot about the difference between surface winds and winds aloft.

(C) Contrary to an earlier post, the weather that day was NOT perfect. Bishop himself reported that it as slightly hazy which reduced the horizontal visibility to only a few miles.

(D) Although many confirmations of victories came from balloon observers, there was no report filed of an observed action in the area of Estromel by any of the observers.

(E) The last time I checked, the sun rises in the EAST!

To recap all of this…. For a balloon observer to have witnessed the alleged attack on Estromel he would have had to be able to spot a small Nieuport at a distance of some 13 miles, operating at very low altitudes while standing in an unsteady basket, through a ground haze , and all while gazing in the direction of the rising sun!

Surely, I am not the only one who has a problem with the “Balloon Confirmation” Theory.

Now then, before this one gets thrown at me, there was a balloon observer by the name of Louis Alexander Weirter who, in November 1917 claimed to have witnessed Bishop’s action, although he never filed a report of such.( I believe that reporting things observed was the JOB of observers). Unfortunately for Bishop and his followers this claim was made, not to the chain of command but to the heads of the British War Museum, who he was trying to get to commission a painting from him that he said would show Bishop engaging 6 enemy aircraft and for which he had been awarded the VC.

The painting was commissioned and delivered in 1919. One glance at the finished work is enough to totally discredit his claim. It depicts a British aeroplane (that resembles a Nieuport only in as much as it is a biplane and has the engine in front) engaging 4 German aeroplanes OVER the front lines at about 5000 feet.( according to Bishop there were never more than 2 aircraft in the air , besides him, at any one time)

As it turns out Mr.Weirter's section was located at least 17 miles from Estromel and he is even less likely to have seen anything . ( One interesting item to note; the artist named the painting “ Captain Bishop winning the Victoria Cross”. Someone at the museum later decided to rename it simply “ An Incident on the Western front.”)

*************************************

I'm not going to get drawn back into this debate again. Al has his opinion, I have mine. I believe that we have finally agreed that we will disagrre on this.

Al, why don't you write a book?

Salute,

David Johnson