Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Douglas Bader Mystery

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I find it highly ironic that Ken expects everyone to accept his word on his identification of Bader but will not accept the word of others on their own identity. Such hypocrisy does nothing to futher Ken's veracity. However the identity of people commenting on this far fetched tale is of little import, other than to muddy the waters and divert attention from the central questions.

Clarly Ken cannot answer simple questions such as how he can be certain that this was Bader and that he was not the victim of a leg pull, why a secret mession that still has papers locked up (apparently) would be open to public gaze and indeed why not one of Baders POW colleagues, many of whom had no love for the man have ever made the slightest hint of this and why the story has been re-editted time and time again to filter out the howlers that have undermine Ken's story.

As stated, this story has been comprehencsively debunked and is clearly a work of fiction.




posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:58 AM
link   
I can only guess at the answers but feel that none of the questions you pose cannot be reasoned out.




how he can be certain that this was Bader and that he was not the victim of a leg pull,


I find it impossible to believe that a group of high ranking officers, not least during wartime, would be involved in a 'leg pull' to make someone from the lower ranks think they are meeting a war hero. To what purpose?




why a secret mession that still has papers locked up (apparently) would be open to public gaze


This is making a presumtion that it was a top secret mission in the first place, it may not have been at the time and may be something that was later declared secret to avoid embarassment, yes that is a presumption in itself but then what do we know for certain? There is also an old saying that the best place to hide something is out in the open, maybe there is an element of this to the story?




Baders POW colleagues, many of whom had no love for the man have ever made the slightest hint of this


Why would they? If Bader was carted off to 'solitary' on some pretext they wouldn't have an inkling that something else was happening.




why the story has been re-editted time and time again to filter out the howlers that have undermine Ken's story.


Ken has already answered this point in a perfectly logical way, that re-edited is necessary when new facts come to light, without that process the quest becomes meaningless and is merely a statement.




As stated, this story has been comprehencsively debunked and is clearly a work of fiction.


I disagree, all of the above is supposition, but nonetheless plausible so therefore nothing has been proven at all except perhaps that you personally seem to be deeply entrenched in your own view, which is your right, and are offended by the mereset suggestion that there may be something mysterious and interesting still to discover about this episode.

I prefer to keep an open mind.



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I can only guess at the answers but feel that none of the questions you pose cannot be reasoned out.


I disagree. While the strangest things can and do happen in war, there is a lot of evidence available and reason still prevails. As they say, remove the impossible and what remains, however improbable, must be the truth.




I find it impossible to believe that a group of high ranking officers, not least during wartime, would be involved in a 'leg pull' to make someone from the lower ranks think they are meeting a war hero. To what purpose?


Ah no, you misunderstand me - if there was a leg pull here (and I suspect this is the real answer to the whole thing) I mean by the hotel staff on the young Ken. It's an old thing to try to fool the youngsters - go for a long weight, left handed screwdrivers etc.





This is making a presumtion that it was a top secret mission in the first place, it may not have been at the time and may be something that was later declared secret to avoid embarassment, yes that is a presumption in itself but then what do we know for certain? There is also an old saying that the best place to hide something is out in the open, maybe there is an element of this to the story?


Fair point. But if this was not secret, why is it not known and why are (allegedly) papers still under lock and key? What other reason could there be - not his legs as they were made in Southern England and in any case the Germans were quite capable of maintaining hi



Why would they? If Bader was carted off to 'solitary' on some pretext they wouldn't have an inkling that something else was happening.


I'm not so sure. The "grapevine" was very well established in the POW camps.




Ken has already answered this point in a perfectly logical way, that re-edited is necessary when new facts come to light, without that process the quest becomes meaningless and is merely a statement.


Again, fair point. However much of what Ken relied on for dating evidence to put Bader in Liverpool when he should have been in Germany was shown to be wrong. Taking these howlers out but refusing to question that the basic premise was also wrong shows a closed mind that ends up with the sort of attitude that we have seen. Ken's story now is just one man's conviction without any corroboration and that in any court of law would have the case dismissed.



I disagree, all of the above is supposition, but nonetheless plausible so therefore nothing has been proven at all except perhaps that you personally seem to be deeply entrenched in your own view, which is your right, and are offended by the mereset suggestion that there may be something mysterious and interesting still to discover about this episode.

I prefer to keep an open mind.


I too have a very open mind, and I'm not "offended". Odd things do happen but without more than "I know I'm right" which is what Ken relies on, I cannot accept this story. The debunking has shown that Ken has made a lot of errors in his recollections and to be honest a lot of the rest of his story smacks of line shooting - there was a story about being a passenger in a Fairey Barracuda that crash landed, however the technical details are wrong and the story could _not_ have happened as Ken recounts. It sounds more like the recounting of incidents that Ken heard about ocurring to others which he has then made an Old Soldiers Tale of. The Bader Tale would seem to be more of the same. My attitude is not that of offence but a wish to see this part of the Bader story settled, as a serious historian with an interest in Bader. If he was in Liverpool then let it be shown but if it cannot be - and despite all Ken's searching he has never found one hint that his story is correct, then it should be retracted.



[edit on 22-12-2007 by SPM.45]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   



Ken has already answered this point in a perfectly logical way, that re-edited is necessary when new facts come to light, without that process the quest becomes meaningless and is merely a statement.




Sorry but just to make another point on this above. No "new" facts have _ever_ come to light on this case and the reason given for rewriting is thus rather disingenuous. In fact, there are no facts at all. All we have is an uncorroborated tale, allegedly verified in a brief and also uncorroborated phone call 30 years later.

Ken rewrote the story as key events that he used to place Bader in Liverpool in mid-1942 were shown to have occurred at much earlier dates. This holed the story below the waterline and so had to be rewritten.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by SPM.45]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 04:06 AM
link   
I see, so would you say it might not have been a leg pull or a fictional account, but that maybe ken did meet Bader but, due to the timing of these other events, then it would be at an earlier time, before he became a PoW, when such a meeting was easily possible? I may have missed it but I don't recall seeing this possibility being mentioned.



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
I see, so would you say it might not have been a leg pull or a fictional account, but that maybe ken did meet Bader but, due to the timing of these other events, then it would be at an earlier time, before he became a PoW, when such a meeting was easily possible? I may have missed it but I don't recall seeing this possibility being mentioned.


That is a possibility although Ken has never suggested this could be the solution. However some of Ken's recollections of the man that he helped don't fit with known facts about Bader - the use of a stick, the need for help fitting the harness for the legs. Bader did not use a stick and was frequently abusive to people who sought to help him, those that would lend a hand to lean on, that sort of thing. The fact that Ken says the man in the hotel used a stick and needed assistance to dress would tend to suggest that the man in the hotel was _not_ Bader. Bader, let's remember, was then some 10 years into his life with artificial legs and was capable of climbing unaided into the cockpit of a Spitfire. He did not need a stick to negotiate normal stairs!

One of the problems I have with Ken's story is that he has never (as far as I can see from what he has published) sought to question the central issue of Bader actually being in Liverpool after he had been captured. He has taken that as a given and then sought to find reasons _why_ Bader might have been there. Given that Ken's recollection of contemporaneous events in Liverpool that led him to assume that this event was in mid-1942 have been shown to be unreliable and you will understand why I find the story unbelievable.

I think the probable truth is either that Bader was in Liverpool at some time before his capture and Ken has simply got his timeline mixed up - or -(to my mind the more likely) the staff in the hotel were simply playing a joke on a gullible junior member of staff.


[edit on 23-12-2007 by SPM.45]



posted on Dec, 23 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   
See, this is where you run into the same problems you're accusing Ken of.


Originally posted by SPM.45
Sorry but just to make another point on this above. No "new" facts have _ever_ come to light on this case and the reason given for rewriting is thus rather disingenuous.


How do you know? Are you Ken's former research assistant? Why the inability to turn that microscope on yourself? Ken _must_ be wrong because you _must_ be correct?


In fact, there are no facts at all.


If you substitute the words "seem to be" for "are" and add "verifiable" before facts, that would be much closer to the "truth".


All we have is an uncorroborated tale, allegedly verified in a brief and also uncorroborated phone call 30 years later.


On the face of it, yes.


Ken rewrote the story as key events that he used to place Bader in Liverpool in mid-1942 were shown to have occurred at much earlier dates.


Those would seem to be new facts to me.


This holed the story below the waterline and so had to be rewritten.


Yes, but, also, no. It's not like I haven't had to edit my own memory of childhood events after I learned that I had compressed time and added separate events to the story as I remembered it. Prime example: mixing two separate annual holidays into a single narrative about a single family christmas.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 02:12 AM
link   



How do you know? Are you Ken's former research assistant? Why the inability to turn that microscope on yourself? Ken _must_ be wrong because you _must_ be correct?
Ultimately, yes. If Bader wasn't released on some sort of parole then he was in captivity. If the story can be shown to be impossible (or at best, improbable), as it _has_ been, then Ken is wrong, like it or not.
QED.







Those would seem to be new facts to me.


No, these were known facts that were used in the wrong context. This Bader story has suffered a removal of facts as they came to be seen to be working against the theory. No facts relating to Bader allegedly being in Liverpool have ever come to light. Even Ken admits this.




Yes, but, also, no. It's not like I haven't had to edit my own memory of childhood events after I learned that I had compressed time and added separate events to the story as I remembered it. Prime example: mixing two separate annual holidays into a single narrative about a single family christmas.


Which everybody does. And as you'll therefore be aware this makes uncorroborated single testimony very shaky ground to base certainty on.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SPM.45
 


And yet, when Ken does edit his narrative to take into account these things, you don't quietly applaud him for slowly grinding closer to the "truth" (whatever that can be taken to mean), you use it as ammo to prove he's lying...

Has it really become so personal with you? Your asnwer to my who's right/who's wrong assertion certainly makes it seem so. Why has it become so life-threateningly important for you to not only prove him wrong but also, into the bargain, prove yourself to be by-God 100% correct and bury Ken along with his argument and then stand triumphantly over his grave?

Why have you gone from "probable" to "impossible" and not gone back?

I ask what follows out of genuine interest:

What is your connection to Douglas Bader? Is it just genuine hero worship? Or is there another connection?

I ask this because when I was a kid I was fanatically anti-British because of Gallipoli and also fanatically pro-Thomas Blamey as being a real Aussie hero. I've since (through growing up) learned that there was far more to the Dardanelles disaster than the Brits sitting on the beach drinking cups of tea and that real Aussie Heroes don't order other Real Aussie Heroes to stand to attention and then call them, to their faces, cowards ("rabbits who run get shot").

(I've observed a "debate" in print in which Henry Kissinger's former assistant attacked an author. One genuine mistake was pointed out. The author corrcted it, but Rodman continued to hammer on this previous error without ever bringing up new factual inaccuracies, following Kissinger's line perfectly)

Bader was one of my childhood heroes, but as I got older (and learned something of the complexity of human nature) and read more about him, my opinion began to change. I salute the man's courage, ability to fly and confront the enemy without legs, all of that, but I find his anti-Dowding campaign to have been particularly contemptible and the post-war papering over of this (or outright lies about it, as in the Reach film) to be servile and vaguely "conspiracy-like" in their continued existence.

But, Bader was a man for his moment, and thank God the UK had a bunch of them in 1940, 'cause it didn't seem anybody else did.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Howlrunner,

You seem determined to inflate this as a personal vendetta against Ken, however as I have pointed out it is nothing of the sort. I am an historian and so the "truth" is important to me, and as I have said previously, I have an historical interest in Bader. I've no other connection with Bader and as a serious historian there is little "hero worship". He was a legend, but at the same time a difficult, arrogant and headstrong man. For me this tale is debunked beyond doubt, so I regard this as fact, however I recognise that not everyone here is yet convinced. I've no real problem with rewriting a theory as new facts come into view, but as a concomitant of that if your initial theory is compromised by new facts, this means that one should re-examine the whole basis of it, rather than just reworking it to remove the landmines.

So with that finally established, let's bring this back to the matter at hand; leaving aside all the guesses on the why, could the alleged man in the hotel have been Bader?

As shown, the decription does not match - walked with a stick, needed help dressing. Bader is stated to have said he would never walk with a stick, but whether he actuially said this or never did is unknown, however there are _no_ photos of him using a stick and as stated as he could get into a Spitfire cockpit unaided, so it is clear that he did not need a stick in 1942.

He is known to have rejected any offers of the most innocent help very bruesquely; also he was extremly class and status conscious and somewhat arrogant towards those he considered his social inferior. Therefore the likelihood that he would have accepted help in something so personal as putting on the legs and dressing from a stranger, particularly a young Scouse lad, is highly unlikely.

This does not prove it was not Bader but it certainly makes the identification unlikely.

I do agree with you that his attitude towards Dowding was poor, although Dowding had many other enemies and was badly treated by the establishment generally after his victory in 1940. I'd also agree on a lot of the coverage of Bader after the war. Reach for the Sky is something of a hagiography so has to be treated with a certain degree of caution, but that doesn't mean it should be dismissed wholesale. Bader was wrong on the Big Wing theory and his collusion with Leigh Mallory did him no honour, but as you say, thank god for Bader and his like.



[edit on 24-12-2007 by SPM.45]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
By pure chance I checked out the current state of the discusssion on my Douglas Bader Enigma saga, and despite vowing not to make any further comment, feel I must respond to the cowardly attacks by an individual who calls himself SPM45.

As he cannot disprove my account of meeting Bader in 1942, a meeting later confirmed during a conversation with DB himself, he now attempts to put down other parts of my memoir.

Perhaps I should point out to SPM45 and any other interested parties that I am in receipt of a 60% War disability pension paid into my bank account every 4 weeks by the BRITISH GOVERNMENT and, among the eleven ACCEPTED conditions is an allownace for injuries brought about by two incidents involving wartime aircraft. The first due to an emergeny landing of the Dakota (DC3) that was transporting the Royal Navy POW Liaison Team from Sydney to Subic Bay in the Phillipines and the second, a crash landing in Shanghai of a Barracuda torpedo bomber caused by fracture of a hydraulic fluid line of the aircraft's port side wheel retracting/lowering and brake assembly. This has left me with a legacy of 4 lower back vertrebrae irreparable damage among many other conditions.

To have some loud mouthed wannabe self styled historian go into print and say that my Barracuda story is cock and bull, is arrogance and ingnorance of the first order and I wonder if this pathetic individual has read a very comprehensive history of the Royal Navy's involvement in the Pacific war?

I would say he probably is unaware of the Pacific war as were so many others but now inivite him to beg borrow or steal a copy of "THE FORGOTTEN FLEET" by John Winton wherein he tells of the transfer of MY medical team by aircraft from the carrier HMS "COLOSSUS" to Shanghai and of the acceptance of the surrender of Hong Kong from the carrier HMS "INDOMITABLE" and, I am proud to say I was there on both occasions - where indeed where you at that time SP45/WEBPILOT?

This man who steadfastly hides behind his cloak of anonimity is now challenged to disprove my account of the crash landing in Shanghai by what ever means he has at his disposal - His inevitable failure to do so warrants a full public apology for his ignorant outpourings... I await this FULL apology.

AGAIN I offer myself for any form of lie detection testing, hypnosis or whatever else can be used to attempt to prove that any or all of my memoir is a fiction - I am ready and waiting and AGAIN, I challenge The British Government to produce evidence that my story is untrue - They will not do this and know, as I say over and over again, that the mystery of DB will eventually be told.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 02:08 AM
link   
You claimed to have flown in a Fairey Barracuda that crashed on landing due to a hydraulic leak that caused the brakes to bind (wouldn't a loss of hydraulic pressure cause the opposite?). You relate how the "pungent" smelling fluid leaked over your boots. Now, Barracudas did in fact suffer from hydraulic system leaks. However the commonest point for the leak was at the point of entry to the pilot's pressure gauge and was situated such that the resulting spray went straight to the pilot's face. The chosen hydraulic fluid contained ether and as the aircraft rarely were equipped with oxygen masks (and few aircrew wore them below 10,000 ft anyway) the pilot quickly became unconscious leading to a crash. This is documented fact. An Admiralty order issued at the end of May 1945 required all examples of the type to be oxygen fitted as soon as possible, and for pilots to use the system at all times. Yet, you apparently remained conscious throughout the ordeal as you tried to alert to the pilot to the problem before the landing. Again, things don't quite add up.

I suspect, like your Bader story, that this is an exaggerated "old soldiers tale". Whether I was there or not is neither here nor there really, facts are facts and it is clear from your tales that fact and fiction are mixed up.

I do not "attack" you as you like to think, but simply point out the inconsistencies in your stories that go to make them unbelievable. You have my sympathies for your injuries, but they do not make your story any more authentic.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Crickey... The Fairey Barracuda!

Off topic, but were'nt they also used in the attemps to sink the Tirpitz?

Were they good to fly? I mean, after the fiasco with the Fairey Battle in the early part of the war, were they a marked improvement?

Obviously they must have been. But you know, you're POV's would be good.

But before both of you answer that question, carry on with your arguments.

DB was a childhood hero of mine. And when 11 years old I won the class prize for best essay on him.

So...Ahem... Carry on.



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Gunter
Crickey... The Fairey Barracuda!

Off topic, but were'nt they also used in the attemps to sink the Tirpitz?

Were they good to fly? I mean, after the fiasco with the Fairey Battle in the early part of the war, were they a marked improvement



Yes, used in the Tirpitz attack. A better dive bomber than a torpedo bomber, but early versions of the Barracuda were under powered, slow, thought by many to be dangerously illhandling and unable to carry a really useful payload. Getting the type into series production saw a number of problems and by the time it was in service the supply of superior US built naval types meant that it only served in relatively small numbers.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by SPM.45
 


Lieut. Commander G.R.Clarke R.N, Commander of 827 squadron H.M.S Colossus on the morning of 12th August 1945 took off from HMS Colossus carrying 2 members of the Royal Navy POW Rescue team, LSBA's Luckhurst and Williams and whilst landing at the badly bomb damaged Kiangwan airfield at Shangahai sustained a fracture or fractures to landing gear hydraualics system causing the aircraft, a Fairey Barracuda to crash land and sustain damage to the Port side undercarriage.

I have some really great photos taken from one of the aircraft of the other planes over the airfield and Shanghai as well as some rare and priceless photos of a Barrcuda on the ground in Formosa with Japanese officers looking at it. I also have copies of another of the pilots involved log book and some CLASSIFIED flight information for the Shanghai area.

I am so sorry for you SPM45/WEBPILOT that you could not have been there for such exciting times and that your current life is so deadly dull that you can only get satisfaction by attempting to discredit someone who served his country and was pround to do so.

Now please just go and find yourself a mate of what ever gender turns you on as you need a lot of help - Oh! and watch out for Spooks if you know what I mean!

I WAS THERE!



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by RNM1945
reply to post by SPM.45
 


Lieut. Commander G.R.Clarke R.N, Commander of 827 squadron H.M.S Colossus on the morning of 12th August 1945 took off from HMS Colossus carrying 2 members of the Royal Navy POW Rescue team, LSBA's Luckhurst and Williams and whilst landing at the badly bomb damaged Kiangwan airfield at Shangahai sustained a fracture or fractures to landing gear hydraualics system causing the aircraft, a Fairey Barracuda to crash land and sustain damage to the Port side undercarriage.

I have some really great photos taken from one of the aircraft of the other planes over the airfield and Shanghai as well as some rare and priceless photos of a Barrcuda on the ground in Formosa with Japanese officers looking at it. I also have copies of another of the pilots involved log book and some CLASSIFIED flight information for the Shanghai area.

I am so sorry for you SPM45/WEBPILOT that you could not have been there for such exciting times and that your current life is so deadly dull that you can only get satisfaction by attempting to discredit someone who served his country and was pround to do so.

Now please just go and find yourself a mate of what ever gender turns you on as you need a lot of help - Oh! and watch out for Spooks if you know what I mean!

I WAS THERE!



So in other words, your story has been exaggerated and embroidered with this fantasy about the fluid leaking over you as you tried to alert the pilot. The name of your team also appears to have changed from POW Liasion Team to POW Rescue Team.

Ken, my military service took me into situations in more recent times just as "exciting" if not more so than yours, so fear not, my life has been quite fulfilled. Now in later life I have put my experiences to good use, and as a military historian I am used to getting past the puff and embroidary to get to the truth. Not being "there" is no hindrance to the committed researcher - clearly so or no detective or court would ever be able to do their work!

It's very clear you have embroidered your experiences. This is commonplace amongst old soldiers, and nothing to be ashamed of, but when you put these tall tales into the public domain you need to be able to either put up or shut up. Sadly it seems that all you can do is to repeat "I was there!" and to think that abusing people simply looking for the truth behind the fabrications will camoflage the lack of substance to your stories. Indeed, the only person discrediting you is yourself.

Bader was not in Liverpool in 1942, this is absolutely clear.



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Why not just put your money where your mouth is and use all your resources to put to the acid test ALL my accounts of my wartime VERY full experience?

I am prepared to bet ALL my worldy goods, house, car and cash in hand against all yours that NO LIES WILL BE FOUND IF I AM TESTED - Now the BIG test for your chum is to take up the challenge!

Just because YOU keep on endlessly stating that Bader was not in Liverpool in 1942 does not and will not make it so - You have to produce non existing gilt edged evidence that he was not there - Why not get MOD et al to make a public statement? They will not and they cannot do so as you must deep down really know.

I do not want to waste any more of my lttle time left messing around with someone who will eventually be proved to be a blithering idiot - so just go and annoy someone else.

It is now up to the members of this Forum to decided who is the villain here and kick the villain off this site for good - If I have to go I don't really care as time will prove me to be right without a shadow of doubt.

Can we have a vote please?



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by RNM1945
Why not just put your money where your mouth is and use all your resources to put to the acid test ALL my accounts of my wartime VERY full experience?

I am prepared to bet ALL my worldy goods, house, car and cash in hand against all yours that NO LIES WILL BE FOUND IF I AM TESTED - Now the BIG test for your chum is to take up the challenge!

Just because YOU keep on endlessly stating that Bader was not in Liverpool in 1942 does not and will not make it so - You have to produce non existing gilt edged evidence that he was not there - Why not get MOD et al to make a public statement? They will not and they cannot do so as you must deep down really know.

I do not want to waste any more of my lttle time left messing around with someone who will eventually be proved to be a blithering idiot - so just go and annoy someone else.

It is now up to the members of this Forum to decided who is the villain here and kick the villain off this site for good - If I have to go I don't really care as time will prove me to be right without a shadow of doubt.

Can we have a vote please?


Lie detectors are well known as bunkum, rather like your Bader story.

www.theregister.co.uk...

There is no "villain" here, simply a quest fo the truth beyond the constant repetion of "I am right, I was there" - rather than simply stating that Bader was not there (much as you do in your own posts!) plenty of evidence has been submitted to show this story is unreliable and your call for such a simple questioning to have someone "kicked off" a public message board is quite amazingly juvenile.

To summarise, this is the position as it stands:

For: Ken was told that a person in a hotel was Bader and that some 30 years later in an undocumented and unwitnessed conversation (except for his wife hearing one end of the conversation), allegedly Bader confirmed his presence, however no-one else has ever found any trace of this conversation.

Against: the person in the hotel walked with a stick, which Bader did not, Bader being able to gain the cockpit of a Spitfire unaided.
The person needed help dressing, Bader did not and is known to have rejcted "help".
The person used a full body harness for his legs. Bader did not.
The dating evidence for Bader's presence in Liverpool in 1942 proved to be incorrect.
The Germans were not cooperating with the Allies on repatriation in 1942.
Elsewhere the only witness to this "event" has been shown to have at least embroidered his account, this making his "word" rather hard to accept at face value.

Clearly there is no "smoking gun" to prove either supposition, and therefore the balance of probability must be taken and this is clearly heavily weighted against the theory.

[edit on 7-1-2008 by SPM.45]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SPM.45
 


Whilst most members of this Forum, if interested, are wondering what the point is of stupid "Yes he was!" "No he wasn't" exchanges between one who KNOWS what happened in Liverpool in 1942 and someone who has NO IDEA of what happened but relies on quoting what are the generally accepted accounts of history that are now more and more being found to be very often totally unreliable. Take the alleged WMD's in Iraq as an example. and the WWII TIME magazine reports of Bader performing somersaults for the German Lufwaffe at a party given for him when a POW.

If you like to think of yoursefl as a sleuth I am about to give you some information and questions that have all been published on the Net in my essay known as The Douglas Bader Enigma that many of my readers will have complete copies of but none of the edited parts over the years that became out of date or of no further interest.

So you are now in my shoes with a quest ahead of you that if it brings you great success will give you a place in the eventually to be changed history of the the activities of Douglas Bader during WWII.

(1) Search for and find (as I did) the ex-manager of the Stork Hotel post WWII who now owns his own resort hotel somewhere in the UK. Ask him how he knows that during WWII The Stork Hotel was a safe house and Mr.Giles my manager was in fact part of British Intelligence. Ask why the bulk of the guests at the hotel in those days were British army Intelligence Officers? Ask why NO ONE is able to give a satisfactory answer as to why Mr. Giles seems to have vanished into thin air?

(2) Research as I did the background of the hotel owner JOHN CLANCY and find out if you can, why he was awarded an O.B.E at the end of the war for "services"?

(3) Search for and find as I did, the late John Clancy's youngest daughter married and living somewhere in the UK and ask her about the letter she wrote to me and what she told me about her father not wanting to discuss with the family any activities at the Stork Hotel and wishing me success in my quest.

(4) Ask yourselves if it was not rather strange that Mr.Giles a member of British Intelligence would approach me whilst working at the ADELPHI hotel in Liverpool and recruit me to go and work for him in a very much out of the way and smaller hotel?

(5) Search and find people who lived near to John Clancy and family in his large safe from the bombing home at Ormskirk and ponder why they were reluctant to talk about the Clancy's or the then nearby RAF airfield?

(6) Do a lot of research on a WWII RAF airfiele at Dyce in Scotland and the many coming and goings (both ways) of passenger and document carrying German Luftwaffe aircraft making regular trips there. THEN go to Hendon RAF museum and ask to see the state of the art (RADAR equipped) aircraft that flew there when the crew of three defected if you like. Try and find the recent whereabouts of the 3 Germans if you can - I know where they are and one of their wives!

(7) Next, find photos and history of the Stork Hotel and find just how out of the mainstream it was compared to the still existing ADELPHI hotel Then check out how close the Stork was to Churchill's Liverpool Bunker, the HQ of The Northern Approaches Command - hmmm! very convenient don't you think?

(8) And finally to show how blinkered SPM45 is, find reports and the obituary of the late and great Alex Ross his Batman whilst at Colditz and draw your own conclusions on a number of issues relating to the Late Douglas Bader and to SPM45's untrue statements about Bader's reluctance to accept help.

I hope someone from the Forum will have enough interest and tenacity to go digging and lifting up carpets and come up with the answers - BUT it will be a long and thankless job - I KNOW!

Thanks for reading this far but that is just the tip of the iceberg.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Good Ken, progress and the beginnings of a debate, well done. There's no need for unpleasentness over a simple exchange of views.

However you still have absolutely no certainty as to the postioning of Bader at Liverpool in 42, as you were told this person was Bader and accepted that at face value, Bader did not confirm his identity to you at the time if I remember your story correctly and your later phone call with him is largely useless as evidence as you have no idea whether Bader was just saying yes to get rid of you or whether he really understood what you were saying to him.

On the other points, in brief:
1: Supposition. Army officers - not unusual as many places were requisitioned or turned over to the military. Quite possibly a quiet anonymous hotel may have been used by MI, but this is supposition Where is he? People do vanish, therefore not proof.

2: Proves nothing.

3: Again, proves nothing.

4: But you have no proof of Giles activities and this proves nothing in relation to Bader.

5: Meaningless.

6: While there was contact, there was not large scale flying of Luftwaffe aircraft into Dyce. I do not exclude the possibity of isolated flights but there was _no_ major or regular contact Bear in mind the wartime conditions - even the Mosquito run to Stockholm was intercepted and they were in civvy marks. The Radar equipped JU88 at Hendon has nothing to do with any of the above, the crew defecting in 1944 and landing in the South of England at Woodbridge and again this has nothing to do with Bader.

7: Sure, close, but so what? So were many other buildings. Anyway - what possible connection could there be between the Western Approaches and a fighter pilot whose experience a year earlier had entirely been over Southern England and Northern France?

8: Ross has made many statements showing what sort of a man Bader was, and that he had to carry him down the tight stairs at Colditz - different from the stairs in a Liverpool hotel and also this is after several years captivity. Ross has never said anything about having to help Bader dress or put the legs on. In his obituary, Ross talked about helping Bader in and out of a bath at Colditz and then having to carry him back to his room but "Bader had often not dried himself properly thus Ross would be soaked by the time they were back in his room". Clear evidence of Bader not wanting or needing help to dress. Ross also mentions giving Bader a hand up the hill at Colditz - this tallies with an entry in Reach for the Sky where Brickhill mentions Bader accepting a hand up hills on the golf course - but it had to be done with the help offered with no comment!

So in totallity, we are at the same place. You have a few shadows that might relate to the Stork hotel but have nothing to do with Bader and no way of linking the place with the man and a bunch of other unrelated half truths and possibilities. Sorry Ken but that's not gilt edged. I find the case unproven. Your identification of Bader still leaves the variance between the known facts and what you saw of this unknown person, leaving the identification very unsafe.


[edit on 9-1-2008 by SPM.45]





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join