Billy Bishop: 'Liar and Cheat'

This may be a duplicate message, I'm not sure if I deleted the last one or actually posted it. ???
I was just browsing through the Forum and read about the Billy Bishop the liar and cheat. It remindes me of the times when I was a child visiting my grandfather, Joseph Stewart Temple Fall. Grandad was never one to brag about his war times, but I do remember him mentioning abot how Billy Bishop did boast a little too much about the victories he never did actually get. How many? Ido not know, but it did sound like quite a few.
Also in the write up of Grandad, it mentions of the 3 DSC's he was credited for; Is there any way to get the other medals he was awarded recognized there as well?

Dear Alex,
Go get 'im, TIGER!

NOW, would someone PLEASE cite Willy Fry, before I explode? Or am I the only one here who reads C & C?

VBR,
Capt. "OTF" Lewis

Mr. Revell,

Perhaps next time you might choose to read my entire message rather than attack me for something which I quoted.

Re-read my message regarding Caldwell. That passage was a direct quote from a book by a colleague and friend. At no point did I say anything about reading the primary material, nor do I quote directly from Caldwell.

It might also be beneficial to quote the source, rather than your memory.

[Billy_Bishop]

Dear Alex,
*Go get 'im, TIGER!

*NOW, would someone PLEASE cite Willy Fry, before I explode? Or am I the only one here who reads C & C?
*
VBR,
Capt. "OTF" Lewis

Yes, you apparently are the only one who reads C & C.

VBR,

Al Lowe

[alex_revell]

Dear Mr Dieter,
I didn't attack you, although I find it a common reaction from the people who have blind faith in B to anyone who disagrees with them. If you only read it in a book, then say so, don't quote it as if you have seen the original report. It tends to mislead people into thinking that you have. I quoted my memory of the report by Grid Caldwell because I can't remember exactly where in all my papers - mostly in the loft - the actual report is, but at least I have seen a copy of it.
Alex Revell

[alex_revell]

Al,
No, Willie Fry did not write his posthumous article because he was not ‘pissed off’ by his treatment in the Canadian Senate. But I was very angry by the stupid individual – I think his name was Moulson – who made such disparaging remarks about Willie in public without knowing a thing about him or his record of service in the war. I wrote to him, in very strong terms, detailing Willie’s service record – from a PBI in 1914, then the RFC/RAF until the end of the war, with most of that time on active service in France. He sent a letter of apology. Not good enough. If he had had the courage and the decency that he accused Willie of not having he would have gone public. I wanted him to, but was advised by an American friend to let it go at that. Advice which I bitterly regretted taking at the time and still do.
Willie’s main feeling regarding the bringing of the Bishop thing into the open was one of annoyance at Joe Warne for telling the Canadian film crew, breaking what had been told to him by Willie in confidence, and naming him as the source. Willie always refused to be interviewed by anyone on the subject, especially someone (Wise) who came over from Canada because, as he said many times to me, ‘how can I answer the questions I know they will ask me about Bishop without telling the truth’. He had no wish to give offence to members of the Bishop family and was unhappy that his name had been linked with the matter. I knew him for some years before he confided in me his feelings about Bishop. You must remember that he had no personal dislike of Bishop, both he and Grid Caldwell told me how B was popular in the mess and with his squadron mates. But they all thought he was a ‘bullshitter and a medal chaser’. (Grid’s words) Don’t forget B’s claims etc were unimportant to them, they didn’t hold it against him, they all expected to be dead within the coming days or weeks, what did it matter?. Later in life, of course, Willie thought it unjust that B’s post war reputation – undeserved in Willie’s view – unfairly overshadowed men that Willie admired and thought were far more worthy of recognition – people like Duke Meintjes, Grid Caldwell, Horn, Foot etc. They were the real heroes to Willie. In his mind B didn’t even come close to them, especially in leading men. The only way the Senate hearings influenced him to write his side of the story was a natural wish defend his name, to tell his side of the story and to justify his view, a view which had been made public through no fault of his own
Regards
Alex

Mr Revell,

As I indicated in my original post, the passage is a direct quote. You chose to ignore, or at best did not connect, the annotation at the top of the passage to the full quote. I did not indicate in any way, shape or form that I had seen the original report.

And yes, Sir, your comments were worded in a hostile way. I never misrepresented myself or the quote which I made. You instead chose to ignore what was said in order to form an opinion based on non-fact.

[Billy_Bishop]

Dear Mr. Revell
(I don't know whether to address you as Alex or not. In my mind, you are the professional, I am the amateur, so I try to show you the respect you deserve. You can still call me "Al")

I can understand Mr. Fry's feeling toward the Canadian Senate. I can understand his feeling toward Mr. Warne. I can understand his feeling toward Bishop. I can understand, he'd likely have a problem with me, if he had still been alive when I first published my web site.

I would guess that I have just been too absorbed into the Bishop mystique to let go very easily. When people present me with their point of view (some call it evidence), and such that looks strong on the face of it, I look to others with more knowledge in this area. They usually have (more than) enough to convince me other wise.

To say I don't have any doubts about Bishop, would be a lie. But, I've seen enough, read enough, and been told enough (reliably, I think) that while I can admit that he likely did not have 72 ACTUAL victories, it's difficult for me to be persuaded that he purposefully lied about his claims. For similar reasons, I can't buy the story that he shot up his own machine. Dave Bashow covers that pretty good in his book, "Knights of the Air." As well, Bob Bradford covered it pretty well in a letter to the Canadian Senate.

Am I wrong? I don't know. I hope I'm not. I may one day be presented with irrefutable evidence that says I'm wrong. I hope that never happens. But until it does, I feel an obligation to do my best at restoring some amount of diginity to Billy Bishop's memory. It may be a losing battle. But I don't intend to go down without a fight.

But, I will never refer to any of the men who flew in WWI as a coward. They proved that they were not, long ago.

My Very Best Regards to you Sir,

Albert Lowe

Has anybody ever looked into another potential explanation for the lack of German confirmation for Bishop's raid: the possibility that he was lost and mistakenly attacked some French SPAD VIIs on the Allied side of the lines? He reported attacking Albatros DI/DII types, whose wings are similar to the SPAD when viewed from above.

It would not be the first time somebody got lost, or the first time that somebody mistook a friendly plane with square wingtips for an enemy plane with square wingtips. Until I read the earlier posts about the timing of sunrise in the area of the attack, I had no idea just how poor the visibility must have been. If the whole mission was essentially flown while the ground was in darkness, this sort of mistake would be one hypothesis that I would check out before reaching any final conclusion.

I have spent many years investigating accidents and interrogating witnesses to stressful events. With very few exceptions plain old human error explains all but a tiny fraction of the discrepancies in eyewitness accounts, without the need to infer any intent to fabricate. Before you conclude that the man was a liar, be sure that he wasn't just mistaken.

[alex_revell]

Whenever the subject of Bishop’s claims is reopened, those who support him invariably immediately descend to the level of personal attack against those who do not share their view or,even more ludicrously, take it as a personal attack upon themselves. Over the years their main – indeed their only - defence of Bishop has always been to denigrate those who disagree with them - from the disgraceful accusations of cowardice against a very gallant pilot of the old RFC, to sneering remarks about ‘amateur historians’, showing, if nothing else their ignorance of the meaning of the word amateur.
This denigration seems to be the mainspring of their case as I have never seen them quote any documentary evidence in support of their views and they certainly do not seem to undertake any primary research themselves. They seem to hold the irrational view that those who do not share their belief in the validity of B’s claims have some hidden agenda, or wish to destroy Bishop’s reputation because of a personal dislike of Bishop. I am rather tired of reiterating this, but I’ll try one more time. There is no hidden agenda, and no personal dislike - how could there be dislike of a man they never knew. The researchers involved have taken an objective view of the evidence and have come to their own conclusions. The only reason they looked at the evidence in the first place was because of the doubts expressed by those researchers into the history of the Luftstreitkräfte regarding the validity of the aerodrome raid and the opinions expressed by many ex-RFC/RAF pilots who either knew Bishop, served with him or knew of his general reputation through the RFC at the time.
Mr Dieter took me to task for not understanding that his quote regarding Caldwell’s report to Wing’s request for information about the events of June 2nd, was taken from a book. My point was that it was put forward as evidence that Caldwell’s report had confirmed Wing’s view that a VC should be awarded. To someone reading the book, or the quote from it, who has not seen the original report, this would be the implication. I have not read the book in question, but I would – rightly or wrongly – treat with suspicion any book with a title such as Knights of The Air. It smacks too much of a journalistic venture, cobbled together at the request of a publisher, rather than a work of serious research.
Some years ago now I suggested to Mr Chadderton(?) that an independent researcher of repute be commissioned to look into the whole Bishop affair. He replied that this had already been actioned and that an Australian researcher had been so commissioned. Nothing has been seen of this research. Does anyone know what, if any, was the result.
Regards
Alex