Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Who knows, Max, I certainly don't. Conspiracy theorists only I expect.

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

I've read this ongoing discussion with interest, and feel it is time to add my views, in order to put you straight on a few things.

But first, a little paragraph on my background in research. I started in 1980, hoping to be able to find a lot more out about the 'well known but little known' Lw unit, Erprobungsgruppe 210. I knew absolutely nobody, apart from seeing names on/in books. So I started by writing to various authors via their publishers, and began to slowly garner information. Writing to Jagerblatt in 1983, I made contact with the first former member of the unit. It's then that I operated the 'GOYA' principle. GOYA = Get Off Your Arse. I attended a reunion in Germany in 1984, gathered more contacts, and things moved on from there. I trekked the length and breadth of Germany and Austria for years in pursuit of information and first-hand accounts, as did others. From the UK side of things, authors/researchers did get back in touch with me, and an ongoing exchange of information took place. It wasn't a case of 'all take and no give' from either side. Things progressed, and I was eventually able to write my book about that unit. Research continued with another researcher, which most people know about. Further books eventually followed.

Now, as for those who have carried out excavations over the years, what do you expect that they will find? I'll tell you. Lots of artifacts like bits of fuselage, wings, engines guns, etc.. The occasional W. Nr. from a Lw aircraft might come to light to confirm a particular loss and location. But do not run away with the idea that those who did/do excavations get all their information from those digs. They did their research as well, delving into archives here and abroad at undoubtedly great cost. The dig was only one part of the overall work they did in connection with their research.

I find it particularly insulting that you allude to a 'brotherhood' when in fact no such thing exists.

I find it disgusting that you see fit to call into questions the things that Peter Cornwell has pointed out to you. As for this paragraph: "...Lets say I was trying to write such a book, without the help & support afforded to other publications from such groups, without Internet forums, how otherwise would I get anywhere near the Scientific accuracy & factualness Peter is aluding to without any privileges that might be possibly have been afforded him in 'BoB then & Now' (of access to such data)?..." What privileges? Peter had no privileges. He worked his arse off over a long period of time gathering information from a host of sources, networking with other researchers regarding information. Investing an incredible amount of time and finance into his research (as all researchers do, without exception). There were no internet forums when Peter did most of his research, no e-bay from which to gather photos, either individually or collectively. Privileges? Don't make me, and others, angry with your facile, throwaway comments which do both you, and this forum, a disservice.


And to answer your question, yes, your paranoia is clouding your view.

Regarding that book, what Peter was pointing out was that the information was out there, if only the authors had bothered to undertake sufficient research to get to it (see GOYA principle, above). To not bother, and produce factually incorrect information lends itself to people pointing out the errors in the work. Nothing more, nothing less.

And to round this off, let's demolish your idea about a brotherhood once and for all. There is a major project going on at the moment (look at one of the 'sticky's at the head of the forum). This project involves people, literally, from all around the world. There is one particular person, and I will not name him, who started off with very little knowledge of the subject, but entered into the swing of things on this and other forums. Over time, his knowledge has increased tremendously through his own endeavours. He is now a reputable and valued member of this forum, and the project, and in future years his stature will grow and grow. He took the right approach you see. He didn't go after people and demand information. He entered into discussions, asked questions, proffered ideas and suggestions, and garnered information. THAT'S the way to go about things. So this statement of yours is completely blown out of the water: "I defy any relative newcomer to break the ranks of those 'in the know'." He has done it, as have others.

Ditch your idea of 'brotherhood', ditch your paranoia, and get real to the actual situation that exists.

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Hi John,
Travelling up and down the Country in place of far simply using modern resources like this, frankly seems too old shool to be true.
Perhaps 'privileges' was too strong a word, to describe the dividends reaped from forged relationships. My apologies.
Peter's books are of great value, but I could not concur, that local Knowledge was of little use, which is possibly why I suggested 'factualness'. I would go so far too as to say that would constitute an indignity to the local elderlies of Kent.
I read what you say with interest, however I am a little put out by the suggestion that I get off my arse.
30 years ago I did exactly that, by bicycle I explored the old Airfields, and visited Kew, with a friend, at the age of 14, when yes I agree, things were harder, what with no internet.
But just because my seniors had to do things the hard way doesn't in my mind mean that one should now unnecessarily endure the same degrees of difficulties in doing so.
All the best, to you both.
Dave

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

But that's usually what it takes when you're dealing with primary sources from 65-70 years ago.

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

uckwash,

You want to read my post properly before replying to it. Then you would not garner the following criticism.
You say: "...I am a little put out by the suggestion that I get off my arse..."
I said: "...It's then that I operated the 'GOYA' principle. GOYA = Get Off Your Arse...",
and: "...if only the authors had bothered to undertake sufficient research to get to it (see GOYA principle, above)..."
So, I reiterate, read what is written first, digest it, THEN make reply. Don't mis-quote me, because I will always come back at you. Pure and simple. I did not say YOU should get off your arse.

As for this: "...Travelling up and down the Country in place of far simply using modern resources like this, frankly seems too old shool to be true..."
Well you sit on your arse and see how much first-hand research information comes to you. You'll get it second-hand in books...

And you finish off with this: "...But just because my seniors had to do things the hard way doesn't in my mind mean that one should now unnecessarily endure the same degrees of difficulties in doing so..."
To me, that comment smacks of being the refuge of the lazy. I have a completely open policy that anyone wishing to see all my research papers lodged in a certain archive can do so, but in the words of Groucho Marx (when commenting that he never forgets a lady's face) 'in your case I'll make an exception'.

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

I made no such statement. Local knowledge has its place but always needs to be weighed most carefully against all other evidence. Contributors to this thread have already commented on the fallibility of memory. Also, at this distance in time from the actual events, it becomes increasingly unlikely that any local knowledge is even first-hand.

Not at all - only if you want to achieve similar results. There is no dispute that the advent of technology has made research infinitely more convenient and abundant information easily accessible. But I'm afraid that this makes my earlier comments to you on sources (Post #13) all the more relevant. There is no material difference in dubious information culled from internet sources and that gathered from unreliable books – which is where we came in, I believe.

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Hi Steve.

You may not have said as much (that I was lazy), but there's an inference, reinforced in your 2nd point:

'that (my) comment smacks of being the refuge of the lazy'

Peter, I was refering to:

'I accept that you will only be as good as your sources but the trick is to identify those you can rely upon and those that are best ignored. In order to make that choice you may well need to access surviving contemporary primary sources to satisfy yourself of the actual facts. It has been my experience that these sterile reports are often infinitely preferable to previously published accounts or even eye-witness accounts'.

The fact that were all now jumping in to shoot me down, reinforces my notion that (I am told is wrong headed) I am facing a bit of a 'closed shop' here.

Hopefully Groucho Marx will have relaxed his new world order sufficiently for me to get some sort of response, by the time I post my next enquiry on here.

Dave

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Hi Arthur,

For fuck's sake, READ what people write. You are not being shot down, you are being corrected in the erroneous things that you post. Read this again, slowly:
You say: "...I am a little put out by the suggestion that I get off my arse..."
I said: "...It's then that I operated the 'GOYA' principle. GOYA = Get Off Your Arse...",
and: "...if only the authors had bothered to undertake sufficient research to get to it (see GOYA principle, above)..."
Now, if you read this, I said in the first quote that I am the one who got off his arse!
I suggested in the second quote that the authors should have got out and about to get everything that was available at the time (as Peter C has pointed out) in order for their published work to be as accurate as possible.

There's no 'closed shop' here. You've got people with decades and decades of research experience trying to point you in the right direction on certain matters, and you do not appear to be interested in taking on board anything they say. All you appear to want to do, in my opinion, is to continue disputing things. Well you carry on thinking that book is wonderful and factually correct.

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

John.
I never said 'A/c casualties in Kent' was factually correct.
I was refering to the style of writing applied to the Then & Now series.
I'm with you on the lack of analysis applied in its preparation. Totally.
I was simply trying to determine if it was fair to criticise its authors, on the basis that 'perhaps' they had not got full access to the Archaeologist's research.
It now appears they did, so I am grateful to have been able to reach that conclusion.
So there we are.
Dave

Re: 2 unidentified axis losses, Kent?
 

Thread closed for a number of reasons.

Too much argument, too little respect and not enough patience.

A gentle reminder, please keep in mind that it is still a privilege to be able to discuss and debate with a number of authors and researchers who happen to be a member of this community. They share their time and knowledge with us, in return it doesn't take much effort to show some appreciation.

This is not a strict forum with many rules, just a little respect, being civil and having common sense goes a long way.

:piliot: