[Richard T. Eger]

Dear Nick and Ed,

The one beneficial use I have found from a knowledge of an aircraft's camouflage and markings is to have a pretty good idea as to what unit and possibly what particular factory the aircraft came from. David E. Brown has made a specialty of this.

As for writing a history, it can be done casually with meaningless results or with much research, meaning something far more useful and trustworthy. Still, as you say, missing knowledge can result in conjectures which may or may not be presented as such. False interpretations, like good ones, are subject to the game of telephone, one author quoting (or lifting from) another until the falsehood seems firmly implanted by sheer repetition.

Even in original documents, as you point out, there are errors, meaning that corroboration and a hopefully better understanding of the situation allows for the best possible history. Also, when relying on recollections of veterans of events from long ago, those recollections are fraught with potential errors of memory, or worse, intentional fibbing.

I've seen claims over and over that, when run to ground, were false. It may take back tracking of references through several books and/or articles to get to the prime source before a true assessment can be made of the history presented. Like many, I fell victim to the claim by Joseph Mark Scalia in his U-234 book that there was an Me 262, albeit in pieces, aboard the submarine. Martin Pegg approached me on the subject about a year and a half ago and, being prodded on, I actually purchased a copy of the cargo manifest from the U.S. Navy. Then Martin really wrung it out. No mention of an Me 262 aboard. But, Martin didn't stop there. He dug up the subs' plans and the modifications that were made to the mine shafts to carry more cargo. There simply was no way for an Me 262 to be broken up and stored on the sub. There just wasn't enough space.

So, why was I so fooled? Scalia has probably the best reference book I've ever seen. I was truly impressed. But, apparently, he must have either had an agenda or depended on second hand information, as neatly included in the book were multiple claims that an Me 262 was, indeed, on board. Without Martin's prodding, I'd probably still believe that there had been one on board. Certainly, the claim could titilate sales.

There are other examples I could cite.

Then there is the proclivity of the author, himself. In other words, does he really dig out the facts or has he an agenda and use only what supports his own specific interpretation? Or worse, is he just a hack?

When do you publish? When do you really have sufficient information? Do you publish early, then republish as you learn more?

Regards,
Richard