Billy Bishop: 'Liar and Cheat'

[Billy_Bishop]

Al, your sunrise time looks pretty accurate. An online almanac gives sunrise in Brussels in June to be 5:35AM, and in Paris as 5:51 AM. So, as Cambrai is between the two 5:41 would be in the ballpark. Basically he landed just after sunrise.

Bishop also reported very low cloud, mist and rain when he took off and crossed the lines, which didn't help his navigation. He stated that he circled and found an aerodrome that was vacant, in frustration he wandered about until coming upon another. It is no wonder that he didn't recognise it, I doubt that any of us (who are pilots) would do better considering the poor quality compasses of the day and the conditions (darkness to half-light at best; low cloud, ground mist and rain).

In his biography (Horses Don't Fly) Frederick Libby thought that Bishop was full of it (he didn't give a name, but it was apparent who he was writing about). In particular, he mentioned that if Bishop had been at the aerodrome that they thought (Estourmel) then he was certainly lying for Libby had photographed it many times and there wasn't a tree in the area. Can anybody check this with WWI air photos of Cambrai and it's brace of aerodromes?

Miles

Hi Miles!!

I'd think, given the weather and other conditions, it would not be surprising if Bishop got lost. I know people like to THINK that "veterans" don't get lost. But the OFTEN do.

Aircraft ID is another sore spot for me. So many "experts" think that Identifying enemy aircraft is simple. Sure it is, when you're sitting on your couch, looking at a book of WWI machines. Most people don't realize that today's common knowledge about WWI was top-secret info then.

If any of the "experts" don't believe me, go find a FOR-REAL combat pilot and ask him. They'll tell you.

Regarding Libby, as I understand it, he wildly exaggerated the number of claims that Bishop put in for in his combat report. But as I also understand it, in his book, the myth that he shot down 20+, some as observer and some as a pilot, is continued in his book. When in reality, he had 10 confirmed as an observer and 4 confirmed as a pilot.

I remember when someone, probably from the company that published the book came here, and tried to convince us that he had 20+ victories.

Too bad Ben Greenhous won't frequent this place. I'd have a field day!

VBR,

Al Lowe

[Billy_Bishop]

What is the specific source for the Jasta 20 information? Can we see it or get a copy of it?

Stewart K. Taylor, I believe had the bulk of this information. He presented it at the Senate hearings that investigated the NFB movie, "The Kid Who Couldn't Miss." I believe, (but I could be wrong) it was the same copy of Jasta 20's KTB that Ferko, Cowan and others tried to use to discredit Bishop.

Weird ain't it.

VBR,

Al Lowe

Al Lowe: "Too bad Ben Greenhous won't frequent this place. I'd have a field day!"

The 8th Annual Air Force Historical Conference (Canadian Armed Forces) will be held at the NAVCANADA Training Centre, Cornwall, Ontario, 18-21 June. On the program for the 20th will be a debate between Ben Greenhous and David Bashow.

Further details about the conference may be obtained via Captain Ben Bond, 1 Canadian Air Division Headquarters, PO Box 17000 Station Forces, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3J 3Y5 (telephone 204-833-2500 extension 6532, FAX 204-833-2512, email Bond.BB@forces.ca.

Dear Albert,
*I've read Libby's book twice, and I'm not aware of any "myth" of his shooting down 20+ in the text (although it probably appears on the dustjacket; hmmm... a new source to settle our controversies?). Further, if you should read the book, and I do recommend it (as it is a damn good read), and do an accounting of his victories, Libby only makes claim for 13 - thirteen - and not fourteen. It is possible that he does mention that he may have had other, 'unconfirmed' or, for that matter, DD and DDOOC; I honestly don't remember. But what is worth noting, NOWHERE is his memoir does Libby write, "and yes, I shot down this or that many, for a total of whatever". This is what stood out in reading his book - he's telling a story, not giving an accounting; and while recounting his victories, I thought it unusual and noteworthy that Libby would not mention his score...

*As for Libby's "Bishop" account, you are quite right, it IS an exaggeration: if I remember correctly, Libby gives the final 'kill' tally at 8 (yes, EIGHT !). I would like to point out - and rather smugly, I might add - that it was EYE who first posted Libby's account on The Forum (from March of 2001, "Captain Libby Chimes In"). And, understandably, you did dismiss this account as inaccurate and the result of recalling memories forty years after the fact; and, for whatever it's worth, I agree with you.

*However, at the time of my posting, there was a Libby website, "Horsesdontfly.com" (please don't ask me where they came up with that title), run by Libby's granddaughter (who also edited the book); sadly, I believe that this site is no longer available. In email correspondance with her, she did not confirm or deny that Libby's "Bishop" account was actually about Bishop. But she did tell me this, that her grandfather had disdain for only one WW1 aviator, and that was Bishop; which proves NOTHING in settling any controversy surrounding him...

*On another topic, concerning aircraft identification - if anyone thinks that this would be a good way to disprove Bishop's veracity, I'm afraid that they have another thing coming. LvR, if you read his combat reports, was not very good at aircraft i.d. (perhaps because he was never an observer?). His fortieth confirmed victory was against a Camel; he identified it as a Dolphin. Now THERE'S a stretch! But it doesn't make him a liar; for that matter, LvR was shot down by a Camel, but he was unable to make any i.d. as to the aircraft type of his victor (perfectly understandable, under the circumstances). Further, if you read the NdL, specifically for May of 1917 (when LvR was credited with downing Ball), you'll discover that aircraft MIS-identification was rife...

*I want to thank Halliday for the information of the debate and for keeping this particular thread on-track. If you read the links that he cites, I think that you'll come to the conclusion that we Forumites know a great deal more than most concerning the controversy...

Truth will out;
VBR,
Captain Lewis

[Richard_Schrader]

Al;
Okay, Billy Bishop was a great marksman.

Richard

Yes, thank you Mr. Halliday for the update on the Air Force Historical Conference.

Just as a heads-up, I know that the Globe and Mail will have a column on this issue. As well, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record asked me to write an Op-Ed which will be in tomorrow's paper.

[Richard_Schrader]

All;
I meant that last entry for another thread.
I am going to wait until I read the up coming book before I get too vocal. I have always felt that Bishop did not attack the aerodrome in question. It does make sense that he may have urged to lie about the raid and his score at that time period in the War. The British had just gone through "Bloody April" and morale was low. The RFC needed something to get it's pecker back up(as Lee put it) and Bishop was chosen as the golden boy to do it. He may have been following orders!
Just a thought!
Richard

[Wayne Ralph]

Forum correspondents might want to visit the National Post Online <nationalpost.com>, 19 April, Friday, and read letters to the editor.

In addition to my own letter, a Janet Forsyeth adds fuel to the story by relating her memories of what her grandfather and great uncle, both RFC flyers, had to say about Bishop.

Tomorrow, in the Globe and Mail <globeandmail.com>, playwright John Gray (" Billy Bishop Goes To War") has an op-ed piece defending Bishop as a Canadian hero.

The discussions on the Aerodrome Forum are considerably more sophisticated than those in the newspapers - I am picking up good background information from knowledgeable informants. Thanks to all of you.

Wayne Ralph

[Billy_Bishop]

Capt. Lewis, Yes, you're right, it wasn't Libby himself, but rather either his "editor" or the publisher of his book that overstated his claims.

Personally, I hold nothing against Libby, or ANY combat aircrewman. From my point of view, they ALL did something I, and many in this forum are incapable of.

I do think that just like us, they have their own personal bias, for whatever reason. I have heard from some others who's relative flew in WWI, but not with Bishop, that for whatever reason, disliked Bishop. Yet, I have also heard from others who's relatives KNEW Bishop, and liked him without question.

We all pickup bias one way or the other about people we don't know, or haven't met. This is generally very true of our own politicians. As well as actors and others in the "spotlight."

Why? Who knows. It just happens that way sometimes.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[alex_revell]

Why oh why are people flogging this dead horse yet again. Both sides are in entrenched positions and neither will ever convince the other of their error. As always with this kind of question the watters become more and more muddied by minutia until the fundimental points are lost. For instance, no one has ever explained or even attempted to explain why B is the only person to be awarded the VC for an act which was not witnessed. For your consideration I enclose the following extract.
Meanwhile, may I suggest that you all get out more!
Alex R
Extract from review of
Instructions regarding the Recommendations for Honours and Awards (1918)
Military Secretary’s Branch-General HQ


For the VC it is stipulated that eye witness accounts are not only necessary but must also be in the handwriting of the witness, unless the man cannot write or is unable to write because of wounds, in which case the account must be taken down by an officer and certified correct.