To Whom it may concern:

[Billy_Bishop]

I think it would be best if I not post here for a while. Since some have decided to start attacking me more directly.

That will depend on my mood at the time, which at the moment has turned quite surly, so to keep from
violating the "no forum dogfight" rules I will simply not reply, except in personal email.

Scott: Please don't let this close the forum. It was bound to happen sooner or later anyway. I decided it would work better if I stopped it here and now.

To the Legion of Lowe, ;), Keep the faith, I'm not gone forever. "I shall return."

To those with whom I've disagreed in a friendly way, thanks for all the discussion, I hope to continue it sometime in the near future, and I am more than willing to continue it through email. I think most of you have my email address, if not it is alowe@enteract.com .

To those who decided to get a bit more personal: And you know who you are, I'll be back.

VBR to all,

Al Lowe
4-bit amateur Aviation Historian, and/or enthusiast
Unofficial Captain of the Billy Bishop Booster Bloc



VBR to all,

Al Lowe

[FokkDR1]

Dear Al,

I seem to have offended your delicate sensibilities! The same guy you've charged with libel, slander, and defamation of character responds with a good natured barb, and you take your ball and go home. Quite frankly I'm not suprised. I thought you were man enough to take as good as you give but as you've so eloquently stated on the Forum previously, I've been wrong before.

I for one am overcome by grief at the thought of not seeing yor threads on the Forum for any extended length of time. Please don't punish the
LOL for my transgressions. They need you!

As for your return, there can be no doubt. Some morning you'll take off on you high horse and strafe some unsuspecting WWI forum, claim three scouts and a 2-seater down, hedgehop home, and submit your report to the LOL. You'll receive the
the LOL Cross with Oak Leaves and Clusters and the rest of us will be chharged with the responsibilty of proving it never happened.

Scott, I know I'm the new kid on the block and that I'll take the flak, I've got broad shoulders.
You've got a great web-site and it SHOULD be friendly. I'm done with Bishop threads.

VBR,

DEnnis Macklin

[Michael Dailey]

FokkDrI,

Sorry but I missed the post where Al charged you with libel, slander and defamation of character.
I do recall him saying that if Cowan had made his
movie while Bishop was alive he would have most likely been sued for libel. Regardless of whether Cowan is right or not I also think it is likely he would have been sued had Bishop been alive. I think it is quite a stretch taking that statement as some sort of personal attack. I, like you, personally consider Bishops record suspect, especially when compared to that of someone like McCudden, but I see no need to attack the individual defending Bishop. Perhaps your jibes are good natured but they just do not come across as good natured when I read them. Forgive me if I misinterpret them but they impress me as personal attacks rather than good natured jests. I do not see Al responding to you in the same manner, unless of course, I missed the post where he charged you with libel, slander, and defamation of character.

Regards,

MDD

[Leo Sweeney]

I am a newcomer to this website. I do not know the manner of the personal attacks you have been subjected to, but would hope that you would reconsider suspending your participation on the Forum. I have enjoyed the discussions about Bishop and presume others did as well. Some excellent points have been made by a number of contributors. It is exactly because there is a scarcity of evidence that the argument can run on so. I sincerely beg you to reconsider and ask those who may have attacked you personally to do the same.

Best wishes

leo

[Vickers]

Don't go Al. Stay in the ring. Just both you and FOKK DR1. No hitting below the belt.

[john g]

As a newcomer to the forum I'd like to second Leo's comments. I have enjoyed reading the debates from people who passionately care about history. I've been following for some weeks and don't see anything too personal - though there are things said that could easily be taken the wrong way. This is a rare sight - learning occurs, we newcomers benefit from the wisdom and debate of many of you experts and can occasionally throw our two cents in when applicable - or when our expanding areas of expertise come into play. Both Al and FokDRI I have enjoyed thoroughly and it has encouraged me to go do a bunch of research on this question and others. Please keep it up - don't quit and try to remember despite the differences it is a rare thing indeed today to share this passion for the men and machines of a rapidly ending age !

John G.
In short - keep fighting - don't get toooo polite, but remember what we all share.

[rudder]

I for one have felt that Al was personally attacked for his defense (a good one I might add) and that he should not have to tolorate them. I too feel that Bishop was slandered and that he made no claims that he didn't feel justified to doing. If he saw a plane go down even if it landed he should make the claim. Most of his claims were behind enemy lines so a downed damaged plane could very possibly been repaired and flown again and I feel people have a right to their oppinion but don't speak badly of a Nat'l Hero that can't defend his honour. Al, I respect the work you have done and keep it up so let me know when you have more proof to put these Doubting Thomas' in their place!

[Billy_Bishop]

First, I WILL be back. I just have to take a short break before I do something really rash.

As for my supposed accusing anyone here of Libel, I was simply commenting on what the Canadian Senate said regarding libel, Paul Cowan, The Kid Who Couldn't Miss, and that as Bishop was dead, his family couldn't sue. Personally, I think that's too bad, they most likely would have won.

And finally, the above example is NOT the first time that people have put words in my mouth, or totally ignored things that I've said. Fine, so be it. I simply refuse to be driven to personal attacks in my defence.

Besides, I have to go see a man about some combat reports. ;)

Later,

Al Lowe

[Rittm]

Al,
Please don't go away. I know what it's like to be attacked personally. I'm no longer allowed to be me! I think you have shown lots of courage in defending your Billy Bishop. As for the contents of the arguments in the past threads, I don't follow them too closely because I don't know enough about Bishop to have an intelligent comment to add to the threads. Though I have noticed that some of them have been rather harsh. Some may think that they have defeated me, but I have been working on my own webpage! And if you want to see what kind of person I was....Heheh. I think if anyone who argues with you and takes the time to see the page that you have dedicated to Bishop, they would realize that your heart is in your defense of the man, and making harsh statements will only prove to be hurtful. Making bold statements over the Internet is quite easy. About 99% of the stuff that was written to me would have not been said to my face. That's probably true for you too. Al, don't go away.

Rittm
Manfred von Richthofen whether you like it or not.

[JimR]

Wow, this is bad. I had hinted prev.,(I thought , with a humorous touch),that "cant we put this to sleep"regarding the Bishop threads...I had noticed a 'bad turn' in discussion character, and that was my weak attempt to ward off something like this..... OK TROOPS, LETS REVIEW, SHALL WE?=this forum is for rational discussion and interchange of ideas regarding a subject we all love, WW1 aviation. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR PERSONAL ATTACKS. I could have sworn we covered this recently. Really, it just galls me to see a quality, entertaining, rational contributor to this site think he has to leave it due to such rancor. This aint the House of Representatives,guys. If you have well thought out input, (like Al always does....BTW, I dont agree with some of his stuff,BUT I RESPECT IT BECAUSE ITS COHERENT AND LOGICAL!!!), put it in: if you are strafing , strafe elsewhere. Al- I beg you to stay on.

[FokkDR1]

Why Al I do believe you're upset! But something RASH! C'mon big fella! Take a deep breath.
Extend your arms, palms up, extend your thumb to the index finger and hhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmm
It helps dicipate negative energy.

VBR,

FokkDR1

[Mike Adams]

Man! I hope these are just growing pains. Once again Scott: Hang in there!

[FokkDR1]

I was hurt and dismayed that you of all people would be throwing stones.

Not that it matters, but if you'd go back to the original Bishop thread of Dec 9th and follow until current, you'd probably change your mind as to who the mean spirited one is.

I've never once denied Al Lowe his right to voice his opinion or his right to have one. I've even gone so far as to compliment Al on his website. Everyone on the Forum has a contribution to make, which is why I defend mine!

In the last three weeks I've been told I have no
life, that I'm a corpse kicker, and have been rung up for slander, libel, and defamation. On at least three occasions Al Lowe has proclaimed
for all the Forum to see "Your wrong, I'm right, I Win!" If you were in my shoes, wouldn't you respond?

Where were all the LOL freedom fighters and first ammendment advocates when I was being
attacked? Did I miss something or can't I have an opinion?

If defending my God given right to my own views
has caused you to be against me, I'm GLAD. I'd much rather that than for you to not respect me
because I laid down like a big dog under the baseless pontifications of Al Lowe. That goes for all of you!

Did you ever once hear me whine to the Forum
and cry that I'm never coming back. Now he's threatening to do something rash. Please.

And for you to take sides and beg him to come back. You of all people. The guy who's mental health has been questioned at least three times in the last month! It wasn't very nice was it. If I remember correctly it didn't take you long to go scurrying off to Scott Hamilton. You and Al are birds of a feather. (no offence intended Scott)

If after reading this reply, theres even one ounce of doubt in your mind that I wouldn't say something to your face, start a thread and get the ball rolling.

Forgive me Forum if I'm a little gruff, this whole matter has me feeling kind of surly! I even thought about doing something rash but thought better of it.

Regards to All,

Dennis

[Jim 'ACE']

Dennis,
Excuse me for jumping in here but go read my thread on a Ditty for Allied Pilot Fans. Change any of the words you like but the flavor will still remain the same. Right on the money about some things though! As for Al... do what you gotta do my man. I've entertained those same feelings before. For all IGAF supporters out there, stop with the double standards, it's ok to slam Allied Pilots but not ok to slam IGAF Pilots?
For all the whiners bring some cheese with that whine and we'll all have a big New Years Party!
Well dudes, my ship just pulled into Hong Kong and I gotta go see the sights again for the 5th time.
Later,
Jim

[rudder]

Long live the memory of Billy Bishop and all the aviators who fought and died for their beliefs! I personally think Al Lowe's finding the enroute records of Jasta 20 more than supports the record of Bishops raid because how else could he have gotten the numbers of 6 Alb. scouts and 1 two seater correct. Thanx Al for your efforts to formally "prove" what the government as already accepted.

Dwight

[Billy_Bishop]

I wasn't gonna respond, but I think you wanted me to on this one.
--------------------
"As far as proof, yes, Bishop's combat report went unchallenged for OVER fifty years. At this point in time, it's really a moot subject. What's the point in challenging the record of a dead man?

That's what Cowan did. And I can't say I blame him. If he had challenged the record of a living man, he most likely would have been sued for libel.

Lucky thing for him that Bishop died early."
------------------------------
The above is what I said. Where in there did I say YOU are attacking a dead man? What I said was "what's the point..." Ok, maybe that might be seen as intimating that you were attacking a dead man, but have you made a movie recently??? Have you written a book about Bishop saying he's a liar and a fraud?? THAT is what I was commenting on.

You can lambast Bishop here all you want. It's not going to make any news headlines. I doubt very much whether any of his relatives even know this place exists! (Unfortunately. I'd love for Arthur Bishop to get on here. I really would.)

Dead men get kicked around in here constantly, what's the harm? I'm not after YOU, you didn't make a mockery of a docu-drama and try to pass it off as truth, yet you seem to take everything I say as personal when it's not EVEN directed at you. I can't seem to make one tiny little comment without you assuming I mean YOU, when I don't.

As for my comments of "I WIN", the very first one was NEVER directed at you individually. AND, as I said before somewhere else, I probably should have put more smily faces around it, or JK-for "Just Kidding" all over the place. I figured that most everyone would know a joke when they saw one.

I was wrong.

NONE of us can win at this argument as there just isn't enough TRUSTFUL evidence left. This has been shown by comparing The Jasta Pilots to the records Ferko copied to Cowan for his testimony at the Canadian Senate hearings.

Ok, so there is no one who lives in the area, who remembers the raid, or was told about the raid that particular day. BIG DEAL!!! How many times was that area bombed, shelled, over-ran, or had other catastrophes occur to it? I'll bet that better and worse things happened there to the point that one little raid by one little plane probably doesn't merit remembering.

You see, for every point you or any other Bishop-detractor...(can I say that??) can come up with, I can most likely counter with just as good a counter point. Until we get a preponderance of GOOD evidence, one way or the other, neither one of us will win. The best we can hope for is a draw.

But be warned, anyone who calls Bishop a liar, cheat and fraud, better have 100% proof positive, cause I'm gonna challenge them every step of the way.

VBR to all,

Al Lowe

p.s. By rash, I meant resorting to more personal attacks. Which, regardless what You may think, I don't generally do. Except when someone reads something into a message that really isn't there.

[wings]

What is the source for the information on 6 Albatros scouts of Jasta 20? I would like to know more about this.

[Billy_Bishop]

There are two sources. Bishop's combat report specifies that he spotted 6 Albatross fighters and one 2-seater.

Records gleaned from the Reich archives in the middle 1930's show that Jasta 20 was moving North about this time, and specifies a flight of 6 Albatross fighters and one LVG 2-seater. This was reported to the Canadian Senate by Stewart K. Taylor, Official Historian of WWI flyers in Canada.

[wings]

What is the source for the information on 6 Albatros scouts of Jasta 20? I would like to know more about this.

[Billy_Bishop]

Reich Archives were the general source.

[wings]

What is the source for the information on
6 Albatros scouts of Jasta 20? I would
like to know more about this.

[Billy_Bishop]

What happened, did your system burp?

[Michael Dailey]

FokkDr1:

On what specific post were you rung up for slander, libel, and defamation?

I have seen one post stating that Cowan may have been sued for libel had Bishop been alive at the time Cowans movie came out.

Is this the post that you are referring to?
Perhaps it is another post that I have missed.

I agree that it is unfair for anyone to refer to you as a corpse kicker, although I do not think such strong words were actually used towards you.

However, having referred to Bishop as a liar,
cheat, fraud, and phoney, and saying that 'Hanging
is too good for him' and also referring to Fonck and Collishaw in a derogatory manner, it may perhaps not be entirely surprising for someone to call you a corpse kicker. I'm not saying it is right, I just feel that if you can level so many names at Bishop, it is not surprising when a living person throws a name or two back at you.

I have not seen Markham's article myself but I understand it is well researched and effectively casts serious doubts on the occurrence of the raid. I also doubt Markham uses the words liar, cheat, fraud, and phoney to prove his points.

I think you have a splendid idea in making Markham's article available for forumites to read.
Perhaps it would be constructive to get with Scott and make this article available and we can all have done with this name calling and proliferation of futile cantankerous threads.

Regards,

MDD

[Shooter]

Dennis:

You are correct when you ask for equal time to express your views, and you are equally correct when you doubt the records of Bishop. Even Al admits that the facts are weak in support of BB's "mystery mission."

There is a point at which one leaves the objective and crosses over to the subjective attack (or is it vice versa? Geeeeze, I dunno!). In any case, I think you crossed it.

Don't get me wrong, I have done the same thing, and we all will sooner of later. The correct response is to tap your left breast with your right hand afew times and to utter a few well-placed "mea culpa's" before you move on. Sack-cloth and ashes are optional.

r/s

Bill

[Balkankreuz]

I believe the complete story of Bishops raid can be found in Grimms Fairy Tales.

[Mark]

For what its worth, it seems to me that the 2 June raid has better corroborating evidence than many of Bishop's CONFIRMED victories, which, assuming for the moment that they did occur, must have included a very large proportion of the OOC/DD type, given that they are not reported as losses by available German records. This aside, there does appear to be evidence that Jasta 20 was in the midst of a transfer between German Army commands at the time of the raid. Also Bishop's report concerning the number and types of planes he saw matches Göring's 1930 Air Ministry records concerning the on-the-move J20. Add to this the fact that the raid was investigated for over two months before the VC was awarded and you have to admit it is at least possible that Bishop did as he reported. Without question there is many an issue about BB that is open for debate, but I fail to see how one can state with CERTAINTY that Bishop's entire career was a farce.

[FokkDR1]

Hi Jim,

You raise a valid point! If you've seen my other replies you know of my admiration of Mannock and Mc Cudden. I'm certainly not Allied bashing.
My problem is with one man, one incident. (Career actually)

I tried to find a German pilot to use an analogy to Bishop to even things up but there's nothing remotely close.

Fredrich Noltenius has come under some scrutiny not for submitting unverifyable claims but for horning in on the victories of others.
Frommerz sent him packing from Jasta 27, Neckel got rid of him in Jasta 11. Still in all, in 13 of his 21 victories theres a corresponding Allied
casualty, either plane, pilot, unit, or balloon unit.
Show me 13 Bishop victories with corresponding
losses and I'll fly into the sunset (maybe).

Enjoy Hong Kong,

Dennis

[Barrett]

As a professional aviation historian, if I were writing the Bishop story today I'd have to conclude that the evidence currently is insufficient to support the VC. BUT, considering the newly-cited report of J.20's move, I'd also have to say that further investigation is called for. This info represents significant progress.
It's easy to assume that because so very few of Bishop's other claims can be substantiated that his VC raid also should be dismissed. But that wouldn't be ethical or fair. The history muse is a hard-hearted wench, and she demands OBJECTIVITY above all else.
Al and I have sparred over Bishop for just about a year now, and we've enjoyed it. In fact, we've even helped one another on a couple of other topics off-line. If he left the lists, we other cyberjousters would miss a persistent opponent!

[Billy_Bishop]

You know what, forget the damn hiatus, I'm getting sick and tired of this crap.

It's the GERMAN casualty reports that came out of Grimm's fairy tales. They likely lost at least TWICE what they admitted to, trying to make the Allies feel like they paid more for their victory than the losers did.

[JimR]

FOKKDR1...so you werent getting personal? Ive just reviewed.."read it slowly, or have someone explain it to you" sound familiar? Listen, Im not defending Al because hes Al, you can attack him, the Kaiser, or the Pope for all I care. Just do it elsewhere. And I resent your inference that defending Al is some sort of kowtow, liberalistic behavior. OK, my point? YOU ARE CLEARLY WRONG TO PERSONALLY ATTACK PEOPLE. I will only respect you if you can express your views rationally...which you have in the past(I have reviewed the threads, as Ive said.)...so try to do that again,and lets leave the petty crap behind.