And If I had left out the times what happens to your argument?
- If you left out the times, I would have asked you if you had more evidence.
-- Presuming, of course, that you knew I had the times.
And in the course of an action where there's enemy planes about, do you always expect someone to look down at his watch and take out a pencil and note the time?
- Actaually yes. All pilots were asked to give the best estimate of time of events as it happened. The pilots actually had clocks in the cockpit for them to look at from time to time. If the AAF could do it, the surface ships do it (when they were shooting at enemy planes and ships) then I think it would be resonable for the naval Air Arm to request the same things from their pilots.
-- Oh gee, I didn't know instrument panels had clocks! Who would have thought; what a clever idea. In you own words "best estimate of time of events as it happened" and maybe that's the best they could have done under some circumstances. Also we're not discussing pilots.
And the fact that some of these only gives a range of time in which an action occurs makes them "unbelievable"?
- Yes. to say "i shot down a plane sometime between the following 30 minutes in the air. I cant remember it though." would be a flag for anyone to question the validity of the claim.
-- Evidently the debriefers don't share your august opinion; especially since they rated 7 other gunners claims as only probables and another 13 as only damaged.
And the fact that several of the credits occurred in the same area makes the unbelievable?
- The fact several gunners made claims at the same time at the same location is most probably the result of them all shooting at the same plane
-- And you can make this determination without any knowledge of the engagement itself?
And how do you draw that conclusion?
- Logical conclusion as proven many times in tallying up the results at the end of the war. The gunners of the planes in formation did not all talk amongst themselves on who was going to shoot at which plane.
-- Ahh, I see, logic, but not based on any actual knowledge of the circumstances.
Do you know with what other aircraft these were operating?
- Irrelevent to this discussion
-- Ummm, well, I suppose I can see how the number of aircraft involved on both sides of an engagement would be irrelevant to how many were shot down; especially since it is equally obvious that it is apparently, in your world, impossible for than one plane to be shot down in any one engagement. Give me a break.
Do you know who may have witnessed the events?
- the ones that had precise times of their kill, or of shared kills I counted as valid. That is good evidence there were multiple witness's
-- And so anyone else who witnessed an action is dismissed out of hand, right?
Are you aware of the circumstances of the action?
- Irrelevent to this discussion '
-- The circumstances of an action would seem to drive the results. Certainly more relevant than your opinion.
Please describe the action so that we may share your insight.
- Irrelevent to this discussion
-- You don't mean you have no idea what occurred? And you presume to pass judgment?
What makes you think a credit is shared when it is not so noted, were you there?
- When the times matched at the same location, that was a shared kill, with all gunners shooting at the same plane. By the way, were you there too?
-- See above regarding circumstances surrounding the action. Here you sit in front of your PC 60 years later with apparently no knowledge of the events and pontificate and pass judgment on what has been recorded. Must be nice to be omniscient.
And when were you certified as an ACIO?
- Did you get yours over the internet? I have a CCNA and a white chevy. Do you?
-- Apparently you have no idea what is an ACIO, which probably explains a lot. Wouldn't drive a chevy if you paid me.
Facts, not opinion. Show me some evidence.
- Im questioning the evidence in that the kills claimed were exagerated. It's perfectly valid to interject personal opinion into an argument, as long as you dont declare it fact. You seem to be attacking me for asking questions. Are you hiding something?
-- Hardly can be hiding if I can provide you with information you obviously do not have yourself in the first place. Glad to see that you aren't declaring anything as fact, merely your opinion to which you certainly entitled, regardless how uninformed.
Oh, you have none?
- Your evidence sounds mighty slim. Attack the questioneer, not discuss the facts as you see them.
-- If I can cite the instances of the claims and you cannot, that seems that I have evidence of the claims and you have naught but your self esteemed opinion.
Oh, that's right, I forgot, you don't need no stinkin' evidence do you?
- Im asking the questions. I dont need evidence. Im just pointing out some area's of the claims that need further clarification and study.
-- No actually, you do need the evidence. You are the one challenging the established record. In order for your challenge to stand you must offer something beyond your opinion which would effect a change to the record. You, since you are questioning their validity, must examine the claims "that need further clarification and study." Anything else is just BS.
Your considered opinion means nothing without something to back it up.
- I dont think youre helping your argument by continuing to attack me, and not expanding on your evidence. Ive already stated that some of those claims didnt sound "kosher". Others did make sense.
-- If challenging your opinion as having no basis in fact or research is attacking you, then so be it. I am questioning an obvious inability to offer any concrete refutation of the record beyond just your opinion. Opinions don't count.
Lawd, lawd, I've seen folks grasp at straws before, but this is prime.
- Ive seen some of the Luftwaffe experts in the other threads do a professionally good job backing up their claims. I dont think youre doing a good job at all. Its like youre not sure of the evidence.
-- If you are expecting me to do your research for your contention, you can guess again. If you're nice, I might consider citing the reports where you could find the info, but don't hold your breath and, somehow, I just don't think you'd bother to follow up.
-- You are certainly entitled to your opinion, as I've said, but you should take care to couch it as such, rather than as some vaguely disguised fact. Always helps to start out with "I don't know for certain because I wasn't there and haven't read the reports, but in my opinion . . ." That's a little easier to digest and then all you'd hear from me is "my, that is certainly interesting . . . I think, on the basis of the record, you are perhaps mistaken, but it's not my job to change your mind."
Regards,
Rich
