Billy Bishop: 'Liar and Cheat'

Billy_Bishop · 5 May 2002, 02:34 PM

Quote:

* Obviosly, Al, the only way this controversy will ever be settled is for you and whomever to meet at the Winnipeg conference and duke it out with boxing gloves behind one of the hangars (I wouldn't be surprised if one of the hangars was already relegated for this purpose). I'd be more than happy to engage in said fisticuffs, but ONLY if Halliday would be the referee...

VBR,
Capt. "Battler" Lewis

*

Personally, I'd be more inclined for a paintball gun fight. A lot more fun, and not nearly as painful.

VBR,

Al "Deadeye" Lowe

5 May 2002, 03:20 PM

"I'd be more than happy to engage in said fisticuffs, but ONLY if Halliday would be the referee..."

Has anyone noticed that I do not engage in arguing either side of the debate ? That is because I never discuss religion.

5 May 2002, 06:13 PM

Dear Hugh,
*So, what you are saying, in effect, is that we have to take Bishop on faith, and that his exploits were nothing short of miraculous?

VBR,
Captain Lewis

Billy_Bishop · 5 May 2002, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Dear Hugh,
*So, what you are saying, in effect, is that we have to take Bishop on faith, and that his exploits were nothing short of miraculous?

VBR,
Captain Lewis

Some may call it faith, that is THEIR opinion. I have mine own opinion.

1. *Regardless whether or not his victories match up to German losses,

Billy Bishop did NOT confirm his own claims. *That was done at higher echelons. *They confirmed 72 of almost 100 claims he put in. (According to some sources)

2. *The same goes for his VC. *He had been recommended for it secretly earlier and it was denied. *This time, from the date of his action, it was over 2 months before the award was announced. *It seems obvious to me that whatever proof he had, and whatever proof they obtained in the meantime was enough to convince them that he deserved the VC.

3. *You can NEVER discount jealousy under any circumstances. *

VBR,

Al Lowe
(Drat, where did that OTHER Lewis drum get to?)

MilesC · 6 May 2002, 10:22 AM

I don't suppose in all of the reconn squadron's histories there is a mention of a reconn flight over the Cambrai area on that day or the day after? In his biography

Horses Don't Fly

Frederick Libby stated that he often flew over those aerodromes and took photos (he also mentioned there weren't any trees at Estourmel). So, I was just wondering if any flights had been sent out to check on the:
1. presence of an extra Jasta in the area
2. presence of a damaged aircraft in a tree
3. signs of other damage.

Anyone? ???

Miles

pspiranha · 6 May 2002, 10:36 AM

Al, Al, Al....................

Can't you see it? Nicod was indeed expressing his disbelief . You have to read between the lines. He states that there were a dozen bullet holes within a circle of only a few inches. His use of the word "Miraculous" is significant.

In order for those bullets to hit "just behind his head", yet not strike Bishop, they would have had to be fired at nearly a full 90 degree angle from the aircraft. This means a full deflection shot at a moving aircraft! Stop and think about that for a bit. I seriously doubt such a grouping is possible, with a weapon of that era, from a distance of 100 ft, even if both gun and target are stationary!!!! It makes not a wit if the firing weapon was airborne or not, both instances have their own problems to overcome to hit a target. Given the problems of leading the target, traversing the gun, the amount of time the target would be hitable, the rate of fire, wind and any and all other factors involved in hitting a moving target, Nicod's use of the word "Miraculous" gives a whole new meaning to the word understatement!

I don't know what experience you have with firearms. During my 21 years in the military I got to "play" with a number of automatic weapons. And to be able to produce a grouping like that on full auto, against a moving target is nigh well impossible.

And that is indeed what I think he was saying. It would have done him no good ( and quite possibly a good bit of grief) to come out and say that Bishop lied about the areodrome raid. He was a lowly enlisted man and Bishop was a officer and a national hero. When it was known that Fry seriously doubted the aerodrome raid he was posted away. "If they'll do that to an officer, what might they do to me?"

Jealousy? You stated in an earlier post that you doubted that Fry was motivated by jealously. Fry recalled looking at the bullet holes in the tail and seeing what appeared, to him at least, to be cordite burns. There is no way on God's green earth that could be unless the shooter were standing almost right on top of the target.

As stated in an earlier post Caldwell didn't need to come out and say it was a lie, at the time. By reiterating that the only evidence was presented by Bishop he believed the the VC wouldn't be awarded thereby saving him the hassles he would have had to endure by coming straight out and telling WING what he thought.

Now for something nearly differant..............

Bishop was credited with the destruction of two balloons. Out of curiosity, have these ever been matched up to German loses or found to be corraborated by allied witnesses? Surely the destruction of an enemy balloon would have been witnessed by someone. By their nature they were stationed near the front and a large flash of burning hydrogen and the resulting smoke would have been visible for miles. Again, just curious.

again almost differant.....

One more thing, and then I'll duck back into that cloud........ I noticed that in his 72 "confirmed" victories, only two are shared. One was with Willie Fry, who says he didn't see any aircraft destroyed, and the other was with his CO, Jack Scott.

V/R

Dave Johnson

Chris_Tydlacka · 6 May 2002, 01:49 PM

Regarding

Billy Bishop's raid, I believe he did what he believed was in the best interest of the war effort. Bombing an air field alone was a daring exploit in itself. All evidence that points contrary to what he did or did not do is not entirely dissuasive in either direction. What this matter boils down to is a lack of evidence. Either way you look it this matter may for ever be as controversial as it was the day Bishop filed a report of his actions. To bad no one was curious enaugh to take a camera with him . . .

Billy_Bishop · 6 May 2002, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Al, Al, Al..
Can't you see it? *Nicod was indeed expressing his disbelief . *You have to read between the lines. *He states that there were a dozen bullet holes within a circle of only a few inches. *His use of the word "Miraculous" is significant.

In order for those bullets to hit "just behind his head", yet not strike Bishop, they would have had to be fired at nearly a full 90 degree angle from the aircraft. *This means a full deflection shot at a moving aircraft! *Stop and think about that for a bit. I seriously doubt such a grouping is possible, with a weapon of that era, from a distance of 100 ft, even if both gun and target are stationary!!!! It makes not a wit if the firing weapon was airborne or not, both instances have their own problems to overcome to hit a target. Given the problems of leading the target, traversing the gun, the amount of time the target would be hitable, the rate of fire, wind and any and all other factors involved in hitting a moving target, Nicod's use of the word "Miraculous" gives a whole new meaning to the word understatement!

Well, I guess I'll have to start looking at all the articles that use the word "Miraculous" again. Obviously, anyone or any event marked as such is not to be believed!!

And actually, there are any number of angles that the bullets could have come from and NOT have hit Bishop in the head. Anything from 45 to 150 degrees and more. The problem is, we don't REALLY know EXACTLY where those "bullet" holes were. We have a rough idea, and that is all. For that matter, the "bullet" holes, MIGHT have been caused by flak.

But since it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for Bishop to land his plane, take the gun off shoot his plane then take off again UNLESS he had assistance, we have to assume one of two things. Either he DID have assistance, or the damage caused was REAL battle damage caused by the enemy.

Quote:

*I don't know what experience you have with firearms. During my 21 years in the military I got to "play" with a number of automatic weapons. *And to be able to produce a grouping like that on full auto, against a moving target is nigh well impossible.

And that is indeed what I think he was saying. *It would have done him no good ( and quite possibly a good bit of grief) to come out and say that Bishop lied about the areodrome raid. *He was a lowly enlisted man and Bishop was a officer and a national hero. *When it was known that Fry seriously doubted the aerodrome raid he was posted away. *"If they'll do that to an officer, what might they do to me?"

Four years in the Army, 10 years in Law Enforcement. And I have seen some tight groupings on moving targets with full and semi-auto weapons. Just because there were "a dozen" or so holes in a certain position, does not mean they all got there at the same instant.

Quote:

Jealousy? You stated in an earlier post that you doubted that Fry was motivated by jealously. * Fry recalled looking at the bullet holes in the tail and seeing what appeared, to him at least, to be cordite burns. *There is no way on God's green earth that could be unless the shooter were standing almost right on top of the target.

Strange, no one else mentioned cordite burns. But again, if it did happen that way, who was helping Bishop? He HAD to have help to do anything approaching what Fry suggested.

(end part one)

Billy_Bishop · 6 May 2002, 07:17 PM

(Begin part two)

Quote:

As stated in an earlier post Caldwell didn't need to come out and say it was a lie, at the time. By reiterating that the only evidence was presented by Bishop he believed the the VC wouldn't be awarded thereby saving him the hassles he would have had to endure by coming straight out and telling WING what he thought.

And apparently Wing had different ideas. Otherwise Bishop would not have received the VC.

Quote:

Now for something nearly differant..............

Bishop was credited with the destruction of two balloons. Out of curiosity, have these ever been matched up to German loses or found to be corraborated by allied witnesses? Surely the destruction of an enemy balloon would have been witnessed by someone. By their nature they were stationed near the front and a large flash of burning hydrogen and the resulting smoke would have been visible for miles. Again, just curious.

Actually, according to the list in Dan McCaffery's book, Bishop received credit for 3 balloons. But knowing how Wing confirmed or denied claims, there must have been something in other reports that convinced them to confirm his claims.

Quote:

again almost differant.....

One more thing, and then I'll duck back into that cloud........ I noticed that in his 72 "confirmed" victories, only two are shared. One was with Willie Fry, who says he didn't see any aircraft destroyed, and the other was with his CO, Jack Scott.

V/R

Dave Johnson

And in addition to those two shared claims, Bishop had witnesses for 20-30 claims. These were confirmed by various sources, AA batteries, other pilots, both those from 60 Squadron and others from squadrons other than 60 Squadron. And at least one by confirmed by R.A.Little.

VBR,

Al Lowe
(I knew that drum was here!! )

gregoire · 7 May 2002, 01:15 AM

about Libby

I have finish re-reading horse don't fly (one of the best ww1 aviation memory book) and i haver nottice somethink strange regarding Lebby saying about Bishop in a few place he give bishop name and is quite nice with him describing him as a great pilot and a hard fighter but not as good as ball (Libby is not afrraid of being biased and keep repeating that Ball was is friend and the best of all) then he talk about this non british fighter pilot that is lying in his report describing action that look like bishop raid and a few other but do not give name. it seems for me that he may not like bishop but do not wish to put a dirrect blame on him