Billy Bishop: 'Liar and Cheat'

Ron_F · 7 May 2002, 05:36 PM

WARNFORD?

means nothing to me, please explain for those of us who dont understand, and use reputable sources.

7 May 2002, 06:15 PM

Dear Ronbo,
Sorry, I won't make it any easier for you. My above post still stands:

WarnEford.

VBR,
Capt. Lewis

PS Okay, Ronbo, I've reconsidered, so here are some hints: R.A.J. Warneford was the second RFC recipient of the Victoria Cross, in 1915. He was the first aviator to down a Zep; you can read a wonderful account of his exploit in Arch Whitehouse's THE ZEPPELIN FIGHTERS...

That's all I'm going to tell you, Ronbo; as I used to love telling my passengers when I was an airline ticket agent and they started asking too many questions, LOOK, I CAN'T LIVE YOUR LIFE FOR YOU!... I guess I really am a New Yorker at heart...

Ron_F · 7 May 2002, 06:48 PM

oh,i see,now we are qouting whitehouse, when everyone was saying he is not reliable?

just jabbin at ya...

anyway, i got some info that he landed and repaired it and took back off from the web, but not much.

i dont have the book, so i dont know what he wrote.

still dont believe BB did it that way, plus it isnt mentioned by him at a time when his book was put into print, and there was no controversy....

8 May 2002, 01:24 AM

Dear Conspiracy Theorists:

I am new to the idea that Bishop could have faked damage to his own airplane to lend credibility to a false tale of heroism. As a newcomer to the argument, may I ask a question that deserves to be put to all conspiracy theorists? How can the plotter be simultaneously so smart and so stupid?

How clever the plot must have been! To carefully choose a morning when no witnesses were about to contradict the tale; to calculate just how much evidence was needed to convince higher authority of the tale's credibility; to know in advance that an exception to the rules would be made, and a medal awarded with no supporting witnesses.

At the same time how stupid the execution of the plot! Faked physical damage that was so obvious that any maintenance man could spot it; the inability to describe a verifiable location for the supposed attack; the embarrassing failure to return with his critical equipment.

Any attempt to articulate the manner of planning of this plot shows how completely implausible it must be. Only a lunatic would have assumed that there was anything to be gained by making up this story. Only by imputing foreknowledge that it would result in the award of a VC would there be any purpose to the plot at all. The risk of being caught in the lie by a witness was huge. The risk of being branded an obvious liar for lack of proof was just as great.
Anyone who was so blinded by ambition to conceive this sort of plot would have been a candidate for a straight jacket.

Let me pose a more plausible theory: Bishop had a girlfriend, whom he visited while pretending to be out on solo patrol. While Bishop was enjoying her companionship and imbibing alcohol, some vandal stole his Lewis gun. In a panic to explain its loss, he used a pistol to shoot some holes in his airplane, and made up a thoroughly implausible tale of heroic combat. The lady friend assisted him to take off again, as usual, by removing the wheel chocks she kept under her bed for just this purpose, after he had restarted his own engine. He then explained his unsteadiness and alcoholic nausea by claiming that the stress of the epic combat made him woozy.

This theory is more believable than the conspiracy outlined previously in this thread. A visit to a lady friend would give him a plausible motive, a needed assistant, and a reason for telling an incoherent and unverifiable tale. And it is, of course, no less imaginary than the plot previously described.

Billy_Bishop · 8 May 2002, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Gentlemen,
*A few quick points, if I may?
*
*Paintballs? Oh, gentlemen, PLEASE... I thought we were, at least, grown men here. Might I suggest pellets? As in, PELLETS? We could wear goggles to protect the eyes... then again, if you do lose an eye, too ____ing bad, I always say...

*Now for Bishop...

*I'm planning a new thread, concerning BB and his Lewis [no relation-C.L.] gun; I'll post it later this week, after consulting HANGING A LEGEND...

* Now about this nonsense concerning the re-starting of a rotary engine single-handedly... I want to use that word again -- NONSENSE. Because that's exactly what it is -- when you claim that a pilot on the ground CANNOT single-handedly restart his engine, for whatever reason. Again, NONSENSE.
*

First, it is not ME who says it can't be done. I'm simply repeating what Bob Bradford said. As far as I'm concerned, HE is the expert. I suggest you read http://www.billybishop.net/bishopF.html to find out.

Now, paint balls versus pellets; the idea is to have fun, not put out someone's eye. And in paint ball, you wear goggles whether it's pellets or balls, either one can damage an eyeball.

VBR,

Al Lowe

pspiranha · 8 May 2002, 07:03 AM

>>>oh,i see,now we are qouting whitehouse, when everyone was saying he is not reliable? *<<<

Arch Whitehouse aside,

*In Victoria Cross, WWI Airmen and Their Aircraft by Alex Revell,( Flying Machine Press, *ISBN 1-891268-00-7) it tells of the action for which Flight sub-Lt Reginald Warneford received the Victoria Cross.

Apparently, the destruction of Zeppelin LZ.37 damaged his aircraft. *With a dead engine he was forced to land behind enemy lines ( it's interesting to note that there were no "witnesses" around. *Warneford didn't have the luxury of being able to fly around *looking for a suitably smooth spot where there was no one nearby). *A frantic inspection revealed the damage and after about a quarter hour he had managed to perform a quick repair. He then SINGLEHANDEDLY restarted the ROTARY engine, hopped back into the aircraft and limped it back across the lines.

So, if according to an earlier post this was IMPOSSIBLE to do then I suppose one has to put Warneford on a list of liars along with Fry.

V/R,

David Johnson

alex_revell · 8 May 2002, 09:01 AM

Al,
A little logic is called for here. Do you really think that Willie Fry would have said that B landed and then took off again if it was impossible to do in a Nieuport. As for Caldwell's doubts about B not being aired until 1977 - well, you're almost exactly 60 years out
Alex

Ron_F · 8 May 2002, 09:11 AM

pirhana,

u have me there, i still cant see 1 person doing it themselves, after watching the torque of the engine on runup on TV with a replica... IMOHO

yes, amazing no witnesses.... *

he must have been able to get some good chalks then to hold it....

pspiranha · 8 May 2002, 10:29 AM

On a differant tack,

I was wondering if anyone can enlighten me on some specific dates.

1. The dates of Scott's tenure as CO of 60 squadron.
2. Whom did he replace?
3. Whom was his replacement?

All I can find in Above the Lines is that Scott assumed command in 1917 and was wounded on 10 July, *going to 11 Wing Headquarters.

Perhaps it's just a small oversight on the part of the authors, but I noticed the the Alb C downed on April 8, 1917 is shown as shared in Bishop's bio but not shown as shared in Scott's. *I'm not trying to make anything out of this.. rather just another little bit of nit-picking.

I recall someone here saying that Bishop served briefly with another squadron before assuming command of 85 squadron. *Is this correct? *If so which one?

V/R

David Johnson

8 May 2002, 11:13 AM

Quote:

On a differant tack,

I was wondering if anyone can enlighten me on some specific dates.

1. The dates of Scott's tenure as CO of 60 squadron.
2. Whom did he replace?
3. Whom was his replacement?

All I can find in Above the Lines is that Scott assumed command in 1917 and was wounded on 10 July, going to 11 Wing Headquarters.

Perhaps it's just a small oversight on the part of the authors, but I noticed the the Alb C downed on April 8, 1917 is shown as shared in Bishop's bio but not shown as shared in Scott's. I'm not trying to make anything out of this.. rather just another little bit of nit-picking.

I recall someone here saying that Bishop served briefly with another squadron before assuming command of 85 squadron. Is this correct? If so which one?

V/R

David Johnson

According to Joe Warne's article in Cross and Cockade, Jack scott became CO sometime roughly after 6 March 1917, when the previous CO, Major Evelyn Graves, was killed in combat. Graves was the third CO of 60 Sqn.

Scott finished his tenure as CO of 60 Sqn on 10 July, when Scott was wounded that evening. Scott, after recovering (and receiving his MC), would go on to become commander of 11th (Army) Wing.

His replacement was Captain W.J.C. "Pat" Cochrane-Patrick MC. According to Joe Warne's "60 Squadron: A Detailed History" from Cross and Cockade, Trenchard considered Cochrane-Patrick "to be the most brilliant pilot at the Front."

Interestingly, Greenhous in his new book refers to the "new" of 60 Sqn as Major W.J.C. Kennedy-Cochran-Patrick MC. The sourcing for this quote? The same material I've just used.

By the best of my recollection, Bishop was to command a flying school(possibly air gunnery) in the UK in 1918. When plans for the school were scuttled, he ended up with 85 Sqn, returning to the front in May 1918.