Maybe there is some mention of it in this book? Surely others would have noticed this 6 engined phantom flying low over the convoy?
WWII MISTERIES: What happened with the JU390?
- Thread starter Pepe Sanchez
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Maybe there is some mention of it in this book? Surely others would have noticed this 6 engined phantom flying low over the convoy?
Propellorhead
Airman 1st Class
I responded in a forthright manner calling a spade a spade, whilst you as a moderator allowed A parade of jibes and insults whilst you said nothing?
That can only be described as a double standard.
This forum tolerates personal abuse which is why it lacks objective debate. Members here spend more time attacking posters than debating the topic. You allow a pack of schoolyard bullies and then scratch your head wondering why you can't have respectful debates. This person had a sense of entitlement attacking an 87 year old man and you tolerate it?
What does that say about you?
fubar57
General
Happy I got here before the banning hammer fell
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
What's worse, is using an 87 year old vet as an excuse to propagate falsehoods.
Shame on you.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The convoy was attacked several times, mostly by He111s and Ju88s of KG26, losing several ships, one being sunk by torpedoes dropped by an He111.View attachment 647103
Maybe there is some mention of it in this book? Surely others would have noticed this 6 engined phantom flying low over the convoy?
Excuse me? Who do you think you are?
I don't tolerate childish behavior by anyone. When I made my post, it was the first time I had recently been in this thread. I have a life outside of this forum, and cannot read every post made, every minute of the day.
My post was meant for all parties involved. Hence why I did not call you out. I said for E V E R Y O N E. Everyone.
You cry about supposed abuse, yet you think you have the right to insult and abuse me, after I tell everyone to cool off and act civil.
What does that say about you?
Last edited:
In fact if you don't like it here, don't come here.
Debate would involve the discussion of facts, not fantasy.
If you can't accept that the provenance of your posted image is provably incorrect, that's not really the forum's problem. You, of course, can take offence, nothing happens as a result...except that you take umbrage.
You are making extraordinary claims, which go against the accepted and documented evidence and for which it is a burden upon you to provide extraordinary proof. The word of an elderly veteran, so many years after the fact, is not proof. I can post a video of Bob Stanford Tuck holding a model of a Bf 109 E and explaining how it had a cannon firing through the spinner, but it does not make it so.
Who insulted you? Did I miss something?
Anyway, back to the matter at hand. Your claim is that a year before the first version of this aircraft took its first flight it flew over convoy KMF-5, where Merchant seaman Ron Whylie of Mosman, NSW snapped the picture in question. Now on the face of it, one must admit that this story, at the very least, buck's what is considered the accepted knowledge about the Ju 390.
Ok, fair enough, now let's consider that history is a self correcting discipline, thought admittedly to a lesser degree than science. Claims are made, evidence is provided, theories are tested. Sometimes these new theories (no matter how radical they may have initially seemed) then become accepted fact over time, as more and more evidence and research is shown to support the initial claim. Unfortunately the further we go back in time the lens of clarity becomes distorted, and some thinks we will only have a best guess at....again supported by the evidence.
Another aspect of this weeding out the preposterous can be summed up like this:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evident"
Put simply, if you are kidnapped by aliens, probed and returned safely, a picture and the claim that it happened won't do. You better bring back a piece of the alien technology to prove it happened.
OK, so back to the claim you have made, the evidence you say you have to support it is a photograph and the recollections of an elderly veteran. Slim evidence to buck the tide, but we will go with it. Barring the belief that the photo looks (to my admittedly untrained eyes) like it has been retouched at some point and that my recollection is that this photo has been bouncing around for years before you claimed provenance. What evidence do you have that he took this photo? Certainly more than the word of someone right? If I understand you correctly the photo was in his possession, though he didn't know its significance, yes? Well can we get a picture of the picture? In say his scrapbook or photo pile in an old shoebox? Or was this photo taken with government equipment and the film surrendered after the convoy docked and only later claimed to to be taken by him after a long broken chain of custody? And another aspect of your claim is that we shouldn't dare question the gentleman...are you serious? You actually expect us to take at face value this extraordinary claim from a completed unknown, without question? This smacks of idolatry. History is ripe with cases of arguments from "authority" that turned out to be absolutely incorrect, and like a double edged sword it can cut both ways. There is your claim and then there is the question of did it happen in fact? Other than the information you gave us, we don't even know if this gentleman exists, and if he does, that he was on the convoy in question. Do you see what I am getting at? The burden of proof is on you, not me, as I initially claimed. Honestly I hope you are correct, that would be so cool. But I suspect it's bunk, and you seem to be way overly invested in it.
Anyway, back to the matter at hand. Your claim is that a year before the first version of this aircraft took its first flight it flew over convoy KMF-5, where Merchant seaman Ron Whylie of Mosman, NSW snapped the picture in question. Now on the face of it, one must admit that this story, at the very least, buck's what is considered the accepted knowledge about the Ju 390.
Ok, fair enough, now let's consider that history is a self correcting discipline, thought admittedly to a lesser degree than science. Claims are made, evidence is provided, theories are tested. Sometimes these new theories (no matter how radical they may have initially seemed) then become accepted fact over time, as more and more evidence and research is shown to support the initial claim. Unfortunately the further we go back in time the lens of clarity becomes distorted, and some thinks we will only have a best guess at....again supported by the evidence.
Another aspect of this weeding out the preposterous can be summed up like this:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evident"
Put simply, if you are kidnapped by aliens, probed and returned safely, a picture and the claim that it happened won't do. You better bring back a piece of the alien technology to prove it happened.
OK, so back to the claim you have made, the evidence you say you have to support it is a photograph and the recollections of an elderly veteran. Slim evidence to buck the tide, but we will go with it. Barring the belief that the photo looks (to my admittedly untrained eyes) like it has been retouched at some point and that my recollection is that this photo has been bouncing around for years before you claimed provenance. What evidence do you have that he took this photo? Certainly more than the word of someone right? If I understand you correctly the photo was in his possession, though he didn't know its significance, yes? Well can we get a picture of the picture? In say his scrapbook or photo pile in an old shoebox? Or was this photo taken with government equipment and the film surrendered after the convoy docked and only later claimed to to be taken by him after a long broken chain of custody? And another aspect of your claim is that we shouldn't dare question the gentleman...are you serious? You actually expect us to take at face value this extraordinary claim from a completed unknown, without question? This smacks of idolatry. History is ripe with cases of arguments from "authority" that turned out to be absolutely incorrect, and like a double edged sword it can cut both ways. There is your claim and then there is the question of did it happen in fact? Other than the information you gave us, we don't even know if this gentleman exists, and if he does, that he was on the convoy in question. Do you see what I am getting at? The burden of proof is on you, not me, as I initially claimed. Honestly I hope you are correct, that would be so cool. But I suspect it's bunk, and you seem to be way overly invested in it.
Last edited:
Snautzer01
Honourably banned
- 42,970
- Mar 26, 2007
Google Sites: Sign-in
Access Google Sites with a personal Google account or Google Workspace account (for business use).
sites.google.com
Now it is clear why the anger of this poster. He has no grudge but hatred to anyone not believing.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I think it's pretty clear that the date of the photo taken by this "87 year old man" is wrong and it's YOU that can't accept "objective debate." No one was attacking you personally, just countering the claims made in your posts and I believe those members did a good and respectful job of it, so please spare us with the semantics "You allow a pack of schoolyard bullies," it's apparent you didn't get the answers you sought and you are very thin skinned in accept any type of criticism. So with that said, if can't find and hard and accurate evidence to support your argument (which I feel is now someone's fantasy ) and feel you're being bullied then pack your bags and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out! If you're going to throw insults at the moderators we'll expedite the journey for you!
His accusations regarding the moderators and the forum membership are rather ironic considering his own behavior.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
Perhaps I have missed it, but where is this alleged photo of the Ju 390 attacking a convoy?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I've seen this photo several times over the years, some say it was photoshopped. I find this whole subject matter rather ridiculous. If this aircraft did fly within a stones throw of NYC, the Nazi's would have used this as a propaganda windfall.
special ed
2nd Lieutenant
- 5,667
- May 13, 2018
I usually keep out of these discussions however, in this one, using logic, I find it illogical that the only one seeing the Ju 390 over the convoy just happened to have a camera during the attack and took a picture. Was that his normal battle/action station. Why weren't there many on the cargo ships and escorts yelling, "Hay, look at the six engine plane." Certainly, if this occurred in 1942 some survivor would have reported the incident and British intelligence would have noted the appearance of a new type.
Peter Gunn
Master Sergeant
Ye gods and little fishes... another one.
Let's all try and remain civil.
Hi
This image is marked as the Ju 390 V2 (RC + DA) however it appears to lack the fuselage extension aft of the wing of the V1 (as shown by the location of the under fuselage loading ramp) let alone the additional forward fuselage extension of the V2. So it is suspect.
Mike
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
We need an "insightful" emoji.
wuzak
Captain
The Ju 290 prototype flew on July 16, 1942. The Ju 290 entered service in August 1942.
The Ju 390 was a development of the Ju 290 with 6 engines and extended wings.
The Ju 390 was a development of the Ju 290 with 6 engines and extended wings.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
