That's fine Graham, but I prefer using primary sources to come to my own conclusions instead of relying on other researchers interpretations of what we are seeing in black and white photos. We all have eyes don't we? This ethic has born fruit that would have otherwise led me to make the wrong decisions in the past had I blindly put my trust in what had been previously published on the subject.
I have a valid reason to cast doubts as I have rigorously researched the scheme on the Hs123 and found that there are serious doubts concerning the case for multiple colour combinations of the same scheme. I have also discussed the subject in detail with a respected researcher currently working on the a forthcoming volume for the type and he was of the same opinion. So what do we do? Ignore our own observations just because other researchers have come to a different conclusion? That's not research in my book.
You mention a third scheme on the He111, what photo are you referring to? Regardless, you have one photo that you can offer and you feel that you can claim that there was an entirely different official splinter scheme in use with the LW? Do you know the full background story of the He111 seen in the photo? It's assumptions like that that have led to many erroneous conclusions in the past regarding camouflage.
Look, we are all free to make our own conclusions based on what we have personally researched whether that be from old books or perhaps taking it further into other sources of investigation. I'm open to other views and research backed up with evidence. You can accept my findings into the subject or not. Having your consent as to whether my opinions are valid is not something that particularly interests or drives me to continue what I do.
