It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Douglas Bader Mystery

page: 17
17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by RNmedic1942
 


Another fact and a point to ponder. Bader made such a nuisance of himself at Sagan he was threatened with having his legs taken away. So why weeks later would the Germans allow bader back to Britain to get new legs? Another inconsistency to add to all the others




posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:39 AM
link   
No further comment other than to ask just what is that you are trying to do?

What are you trying to prove? And how do you propose to prove it? You all all hot air and zero substance.

Go back and read my last posts and learn about works in progress and frank admissions of NOT HAVING ANY PROOF. Are you mentally disabled or incapable of uderstanding what other people are saying and doing?

Stalker,you have some kind of agenda but not sure where you are hoping it will take you to...and it won't sadly for you, take you back in time to 1942.

I am sick to death of this endless stalking and ranting by you and suggest you go try stalking some nice old ladies, might do you the world of good.

And to SPACEDONK I hope you can now understand that it is not possible to have any kind of sensible discussion when there is a clown in full regalia in the wings constantly making a long term fool of himself.

So to you I say, what a pity that just us two could not go further into this mystery.as you seem to have a good grasp of the subject and have no crazed agenda driving you.

So cheers and bear in mind yet once more, Bader was there, I was there but the all knowing all almighty stalker had not yet been conceived!

Have a nice Easter, I love the Hot X buns and the chocolate eggs!



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by SPM.45
 


Was that before or after he had dinner with the local Luftwaffe squadron lads, got a bit drunk and did somersaults for them or was it after?

TIME MAGAZINE reported this incident and it can be found on the internet.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   
I see we are not going to engage on a civilised level. Facts are not hot air, as spacedonkhas already observed there are verified facts that speak to the real story. You have been given a set of facts and I would suggest of you wish anyone to take you seriously that you examine each of these in relation to your story. Do the analysis and either account for why such facts might be discounted. In each of your retorts you seek ad homonym rather than actually establishing why your story and the known facts do not agree.

I have also previously referred to the time reports and note the journalistic hubris within. Do you believe everything the press writes?

Spacedonk - I'd be interested in your comments on my last points. Despite lens allegations all these are real and material and can easily be verified
edit on 3-4-2012 by SPM.45 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
So here we go again, Bader in your view is a liar, his wife is a liar, the NANA journalists are liars and now to top it all off you say that the renowned TIME magazine is a liar too! Not of course forgetting me!!

What do you or did you think when you lost your favourite News of the World?

But its good to know that you believe Santa Claus, Loch Nessie and the Easter Bunny are not liars!

Cor blimey and crikey you, Stalker, are the absolute best clown I ever met.But not including Eric Morecambe.

Good luch with theo old ladies



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   
I see we are not going to engage on a civilised level. Facts are not hot air, as spacedonkhas already observed there are verified facts that speak to the real story. You have been given a set of facts and I would suggest of you wish anyone to take you seriously that you examine each of these in relation to your story. Do the analysis and either account for why such facts might be discounted. In each of your retorts you seek ad homonym rather than act aually establishing why your story and the known facts do not agree.

Fair is fair and now is your chance to make a name for yourself OK?

Please list all the Verfied facts you are constanlty speaking of. What are the facts and to what parts of my claims do they relate.?
How were the facts veriified and who,,where and when actually verified the facts and which Government department woudl be able to confirm that these facts are verifieds by them and by whom.as well as your sources.

For example what true facts relate to Baders alleged 10 days time in the Lamsdorf cooler, what IRC official actually saw himin the cooler and on what dates he was seen to be in the cooler. And ask the IRC why it was observed by an inmate that when Bader emerged on t1th day from the cooler how come he was wearing a brand RAF cap?



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   
I think spacedonk you can see what the position is from those last two splenetic posts

Walter Mitty- you say you are not going to engage but then rant on Either you do or you don't Make your mind up. Now these reports come from reputable sources. If you can find reason to question the veracity of tithe irc please do say how that would be. T



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   
I've really enjoyed reading your story Ken, thanks for sharing it. I spent several hours yesterday reading the whole thread and only joined today in order to post this as things have been looking a bit one-sided, which is a shame.

For what it is worth, I believe your story and know that in the fog of war many things are possible even although documentary evidence might state otherwise. I think even your detractors would agree that there can be reasons for having an 'official' story which bears no resemblance to the actual events which took place. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that your story could be the truth, however unlikely it might seem to some on the face of it.

It is also a shame that some people prefer to take pleasure in having a personal vendetta with you instead of channelling their energies into trying to uncover some evidence which might support a wonderful story. That would be far more constructive.

To SPM.45 - can I make an appeal to you? Over the course of the 17 pages of this thread it is very clear to everyone that you don't believe Ken's story and never will. We all get that now. Of course it is a free forum and you are entitled to voice your opinion on any subject but I don't think it is helpful any longer to constantly keep coming back to make the same points over and over. You've made your point now. Why continue this? Can I suggest you back off and refrain from posting the same stuff and keeping this argument going round in circles? I fear that anyone who perhaps did have something constructive to add or who had a tiny piece of evidence, would be put off from posting it by all the sniping and tit-for-tat arguments going on.

I hope you take this in the spirit it is intended. I'm not telling you what to do, only making a suggestion and saying that we all now fully understand your point of view over this and your counter-arguments again Ken's claims, so there is no need to keep repeating them. Going over old ground doesn't move things forward. Hounding an old man who may have an incredible story to tell doesn't reflect very well on you.

It is far more dignified to put your point of view across, have a bit of healthy debate about it and if both sides are still opposed, agree to disagree and move on.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
May I say thank you from the bottom of my ailing old heart for your studied and unbiased response to my long standing quest for answers to an incredible set of events.

I have had to bear the slings and arrows of a very small group of people for many years, one of whom you are aware of and, whilst I am aware that with every year that passes, my chances of another genuine witness coming to the fore are rapidly diminishing and my cries for help unlikely to be answered.

Nevertheless it is most pleasing when someone like you comes into the picture and has the decency to view my strory from a neutral corner and then decide that what I am saying is not only true but just one of so many WWII stories that for whatever reason, the powers nthat be want swept under the carpet.

Thank you again and what a shame we are worlds apart geographically as I wold just love to meet you and discuss the ways of the world at large.

Yours most sincerely

Kenneth Williams



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Hi sd. I admit to bring puzzled . Yesterday you said you were 97% certain ken had met someone other than Nader. What made you change your mind? I note your comments on the ongoing debate but you should note ken restarted this current spat with more of his usual verbiage and I do not take such nonsense lightly

I would value your comments on the identification issues. I know ken has tried to poke holes but it is a tendency of conspiracy theories to look for unprovable detail like the allegation of baders new hat rather than to go to the heart. clearly the IRC is a reputable organisation and the presumption must be to attribute due gravity to their reports in contrast to anecdotal stpries

Anyway whatever view you do hold I thank you for your civilised contribution and hope you might find any continuance of interest



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Hi Ken,

I would love to chat with you more - I'm sure you have some amazing stories. I tried to U2U message you but I don't have enough posts.
Perhaps you could send me a message through 'My Favourite Website' on my profile?

I really can't believe that some people don't keep an open mind to what you are saying. Many strange things happen during and after a war. I know the following examples are not strictly related to your Bader story but they demonstrate that seemingly impossible things can and do happen, and if that is the case why can't it be possible that you met Bader when you say you did?

Who would have thought it possible that high ranking Nazis like Eichmann and Mengele could have escaped to South America and lived undetected for years? I'm reading a book now, 'Grey Wolf', which alleges that Hitler escaped there too and they have uncovered lots of evidence that it actually happened.

On the Allied side there is the well known Monty's double, the amazing story of the double agent Eddie Chapman and Operation Mincemeat with the fake 'Major William Martin of the Royal Marines' dead body deception.

OK these things are not the same as your story but it show that some really weird and unusal things can take place during a war. If some or all of these strange things can happen, then why not you meeting Douglas Bader when you say you did?

Regards,
Alan.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
I'm confused - is the reply to 'sd' intended for me? Are you suggesting I am sd?

If you wonder why my position is different to 'sd' then there is a very easy answer - I am not 'sd'.

I've used my real name on here for transparency as I thought there might be some of these allegations. I'm not in the business of creating fake profiles and identities to continue petty arguments with anyone.

I read these forums from time to time and Ken's story interested me because amongst other things I am a history student.

You can easily see who I am - google my name, I have a website which will come up on the first page. On that website are many links to various social media profiles. You'll be able to see I'm real and verify the fact that I am a history student. That's who I am, not 'sd'. I have no connection to 'sd' and so can hold any opinion I care to have.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Just to address your other points -

the ongoing debate - isn't it a bit childish to say 'he started it'? Why can't you just be a bit more mature and drop it. Surely you have other things in your life? You've made your point - you don't believe Ken and you think you have some evidence to back that up. We get that. We read your 'evidence' and you don't need to keep repeating it.

identification issues, new hat, IRC - I don't care much for having a debate about all that. To me it is just 'fluff'. You can put forward theories on both sides of the argument for why these things appear to be what they are/were. I don't think it would achieve much - you'll only keep going round in circles again. You'll say you're right, Ken will say he's right. Nothing will be achieved.

No doubt 'sd' will have a their own opinion, but that's fine, everyone is entitled to that. That opinion might or might not be the same or similar to mine, who knows? We're different people so it is very possible that we won't agree. Why don't you ask him or her.

My opinion hasn't changed since I read page 1 of this yesterday - I tend to believe Ken's story and think it is entirely possible that it happened just like he said. If anyone was 97% certain about something else, that is fine by me - we can all have our own opinions. I'm not 'sd' so my opinion hasn't changed.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by AlanHands
 



Agreed i'm still sd but i was confused by the post in which you refer to sd (not alans post obviously!)

I haven't changed my position i am of the opinion that the guy seen in 1942 is 97% not the DB but certainly was someone Ken believed to be DB and that is part of the fun of the mystery. There are definitely scenarios where it could have been DB although the probability suggests it was someone else.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by AlanHands
 


Hello again Alan,

It is refreshing to be in touch with someone who unlike so many others,is not afraid to put their name to their thoughts and comments. I have in this project, always been totally transparent in that regard but often to my detriment. But I am stromg enough to withstand a lot of this type of abuse.

As I write this post it is bedtime in the antipodes at 11.21 pm so am off to bed. tomorrow I will see if I can work out how we can communicate and chat without othere being involved or eaves dropping.

I am delighted that you are a historian and will happy to give you as much of my writings that may be of interest.

Best Wishes

Ken



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Hi Ken and the real sd!

Well I thought if I used my own name there could be no way I could be accused of being anyone else in a shill profile - I guess I was wrong there! I have nothing to hide and no vested interest. I just find it a fascinating story and am open to the possibility that it is true. Like sd I can see scenarios where it could happen and I realise there is probably much more 'evidence' that it didn't, not least the fact that Bader was a POW and there would be a paper trail documenting his whereabouts. Even so, some of the strange goings on that happened in WWII as I pointed out above make me believe that it is entirely possible that the meeting took place even if it would seem very unlikely to some. I come down on the side where I believe Ken and sd comes down on the other side on the balance of probabilities. That is entirely fine and I have no problem with that at all and have no problem with people putting their point of view across and having a debate. It would be great if some of that resulted in some new evidence and confirmation of some of the details.

What I do have a problem with is a sustained campaign trying to discredit a person's story over a number of years for no real reason. I really can't understand why a person would wish to do that. I can understand an argument and healthy debate and disagreement but when there is a stalemate I can't understand why it needs to go on and on. Neither party will ever agree with the other's point of view so a continuing argument is futile. Better just to know you have said your piece, put your argument forward and let people make up their own minds. Continually going round in circles and arguing like this will at best just be seen as petty and at worst as bullying and to be honest it detracts from the argument as people just see the bickering and the 'facts' will be lost in the gunsmoke.

I'd love to know more Ken and it is fairly easy to get in touch with me. Just put dot com after my name in your browser and you can contact me through my site. My grandfather was captured by the Japanese in Singapore in 1942 and spent the rest of the war mainly in the Kinkaseki POW camp in Formosa (Taiwan). He never spoke about the war for the rest of his life and when I uncovered the details of what happened to him many years after he died, I can understand why. It would be a privilege to speak with someone who not only lived through that time but made a contribution to the effort. I know your stories will be very different to what his would have been but I would be very interested to hear some first-hand accounts of this time - and also some further details of the Bader story, of course.

Best wishes!



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by AlanHands
 


and that is what you call a distinctly reasonable response when debating something that at present is impossible to prove definitively.

Kudos Al for raising the level of interaction by 100%



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by AlanHands

My apologies. My mistake on the misattribution. I'mreading off a small screen and hadnt picked up the id sorry for the confusion! I agree there's little point in going over the same old ground again but as old arguments that had been discussed before are dragged out again it is part and parcel. i do agree with you that in an adult conversation we should be able to state our own conclusions without attracting a shower of juvenile name calling but that has not been possible. So it is not "he started it" but having the right of reply.

I'd point out that the IRC report and mi9 debrief are "new" and _have_ confirmed details. Now ken refuses to recognise these as he does with anything that does not fit his story but that does not detract from these items, in fact the reverse is true. I also disagree that the identification angd IRC are "fluff". These go right to the heart of the matter, whether you accept them as genuine or not.

On your point that strange things happen in war you are of course correct and no doubt other oddities will surface over time. In stressed times decisions are made that might not make sense later and events can take on their own life. I fully accept that and have said so on many occasions. The flip side of that is that not every strange sounding thing is necessarily true, of course. I hope that helps answer some of your points. Obviously there is virtually no chance that this can ever be absolutely answered but find it amazing how much can be found out on bader in germany even now


edit on 3-4-2012 by SPM.45 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SPM.45
 


Hey, no problem, we all make mistakes.

Well since I first came across this yesterday I naturally googled looking for some further information and of course I discovered that there is a long history of this story being debated on various forums and saw lots of 'old arguments'. I'm not saying it is all one-sided and I've seen some of the name-calling you mention.

It would be nice if both sides could bury the hatchet, let bygones be bygones and agree to disagree (3 cliches in the one sentence!) although I don't hold much hope of that ever happening.

I can see a bit of me in both of you when I look from the outside. When I'm in an argument and I feel I am 100% in the right yet nobody else seems to think so I get incredibly frustrated and eventually I get to boiling point and explode - so I imagine that perhaps Ken gets like that too when nobody seems to believe his story and it results in some of the outbursts.
I think you are a bit like me too SPM - I never want to lose an argument, especially when I know I'm right and I'll always try to get the last word just to prove that I am in fact right. I have the tendency to go on and on and on....my OH would confirm this if she was reading this.
So when you get two people with these traits it is no wonder we end up with 17 pages of argument on this forum and god knows how many else all over the place.

There will never be a winner here so it would be great if you could both call a truce.

That's interesting about the new info. You have obviously been involved with this much longer than me so I accept what you say if you are saying this is new. Obviously then it would be useful to analyse these things in depth to see what they tell us.

In some ways though I can foresee a problem with any evidence other than someone coming forward to confirm a sighting of Bader in Liverpool in 1942 or documentary evidence of it.

If everyone can put aside their own opinions on this for a second and look at the problem objectively then we have the possible scenario of Bader being in Liverpool in 1942 at a time when he was supposed to be being held somewhere else as a POW. IF he was in Liverpool at this time we would all accept that this had to be for some unknown, secret reason. So if the nature of him being there was SECRET or undisclosed then of course any records would still have to show him as being in whichever camp he was SUPPOSED to be in otherwise the cat would be out the bag. For that reason we would EXPECT the IRC report to show him in the location he was supposed to be in, and not in Liverpool. I'm not suggesting that the IRC would have been a party to any cover up but is it possible that they were deceived? If you look at the case of Monty's double that I mentioned earlier then it is possible for one person to appear to be in two places at once in order to deceive someone else. I clearly have no idea if there was ever a double used in this Bader case, only suggesting that it is one possibility which could explain the scenario of Bader being in Liverpool at the same time as also featuring in an IRC report elsewhere.

You could probably come up with lots of other different scenarios, that was just a quick one to show that in all probability anyone who believes he was in Liverpool could just easily shrug off any evidence suggesting otherwise by saying 'well it would show that'.
On the other hand I can see that from your point of view you can also say that the IRC is impartial and so would not be complicit in any known deception therefore the document proves that if they say he was in a camp, he must have been in a camp.

If you look at the anatomy of a debate, the burden of proof is on the person asserting a claim so in this case Ken has no proof other than the fact that he was there. That's why you keep seeing him state this and the argument returning to this point. From your point of view I would imagine that you would point to all the circumstantial evidence that makes it likely that Bader was where he was supposed to be in 1942. Is it beyond all reasonable doubt that he was in a camp? You say yes, I say no and the debate continues.

I really can see where you're coming from - you have built a body of circumstantial evidence that suggests Bader couldn't possibly have been in Liverpool in 1942. I still think there is a doubt although there is no further evidence other than Ken's word. I don't think we'll ever get another independent witness or photographic or documentary evidence that he was in Liverpool so where do we go from here? Sorry for such a long post.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SPM.45
 


Just to clarify the 'fluff' was only personal to me. I'm not meaning to make light of the evidence you put forward, only saying that to me if was just extra bits that for my point of view wouldn't make a lot of difference to how I viewed the story. I hope my above post clarifies what I mean - in this argument almost any evidence except photographic or documentary evidence that Bader WAS in Liverpool can explained away and so to that extent I was referring to it as 'fluff'.

In hindsight that was a bad choice of words by me and I can see how it makes it look like I'm dismissing genuine evidence. I wasn't meaning to do that. I was only meaning that it wouldn't be enough for me to change my mind and I suspect that would be the case with Ken too.

Good work on finding something new after all this time!



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join