What are reliable YouTube sources?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Just came across this YouTube channel:

B-17 Flying Fortress

From the channel's 'About' section:

This is the YouTube Channel of my B-17 web site and database B-17 Bomber Flying Fortress – The Queen Of The Skies

I am researching the history of the Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress and sharing my results. My focus of research is to identify B-17s and crews lost in combat. Telling their untold stories. Source of the most of the pictures and footages is the US National Archive.


From watching several of its videos, it appears the channel does what it claims to do. Primary source documents (e.g. route maps, after-action reports, etc.) are shown onscreen. Most of the videos are about five minutes long, but some are longer.
 
It doesn't help that the incorrigible moron Malcom Gladwell wrote a crap book of the same name, which my son could better (my son is two years old and eats fruit he smeared over his own face and then dropped on his trousers).

The book by the way "The bomber mafia" is basically an extended magazine article. It has literally zero primary source archive research and only manages to be a book at all by using a x10 font size, it has about 20 words a page and is thinner than your little finger.
Well crap! I just bought that book, I haven't got around to reading it yet, but what's wrong with it? Being not that large doesn't immediately get rid of all credibility. What's wrong with it?
 
Well crap! I just bought that book, I haven't got around to reading it yet, but what's wrong with it? Being not that large doesn't immediately get rid of all credibility. What's wrong with it?
Seems like that the primary sources were not consulted. If that is true, books can be pretty much just the opinions of a writer, and not something that is factually correct. Nothing wrong with having the opinions, but it means that the work is pretty much worthless for someone that likes facts more than opinions.
 
Seems like that the primary sources were not consulted. If that is true, books can be pretty much just the opinions of a writer, and not something that is factually correct. Nothing wrong with having the opinions, but it means that the work is pretty much worthless for someone that likes facts more than opinions.
From what I've read it isn't just opinions, in LordHrdThrasher's video of the same name I think he's using the book as a source, and his video was very good.
 
From what I've read it isn't just opinions, in LordHrdThrasher's video of the same name I think he's using the book as a source, and his video was very good.

That the book is not based on primary sources was verbatim from the user you've quoted.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back