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: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Bader never used the shoulder harnesses beyond his initial time at Uxbridge in the early 30s. He discarded them very quickly and and did not need them to "break in" new legs - once he had found his balance and walking methodology, they were useless to him. His legs at Stafford are complete without harness. It's a fair point that he might have needed them in some extreme circumstance but there is no evidence that he ever did, even at Colditz after 4 years of captivity or in old age. We do know that his stumps suffered shrinkage and wasting under the POW diet, but in 1942, less than 1 year after his shoot down, he was still capable of escape and was described by the Germans as walking well without sticks. His injuries during the shoot down were facial and possibly a cracked rib. The story of his escape from initial imprisonment in St Omer in 1941 is probably somewhat hyped up - I'm not sure I entirely beleive the rope from the window story in RFTS, but it is known that he _did_ escape and walked some distance which would indicate that there were no major leg injuries in 1941. So while I take your point that there could have been a temporary use of stick or harness, the evidence does not point to this being likely. You also say that Bader "had been suffering many problems with his injured stumps", but in your own words you did not converse with Bader, which leads to the suspicion that there seems to be some movement of your story to avoid those landmines that keep going off!

So now your story changes - again - now you say that he might not have used sticks, despite your earlier assertion that he undoubtedly did and that you saw him doing so. This constant twisting to avoid the landmines and smoking guns you have put into your own story conspires to make you less and less credible.

Even if we accept that he might have used sticks briefly, which doesn't appear likely, we still have the mismatch with Bader where you report that he needed help dressing, whereas Ross describes in Colditz this wasn't the case, and one can assume that if Bader was having problems with the legs by 44/45 this would have been at the worst. So while, your points are good, I can't accept them. Not blinkered, you see, Ken, simply they don't stand up to rational analysis.



[edit on 11-1-2008 by SPM.45]




posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Who, may the Forum ask, is right?

And more importantly, who will decide who is right and even more importantly who will decide if the referee is right? And so on and so on ad infinitum!

You are wasting my precious time WEBPILOT and I am wasting yours - You earnestly, but sadly for you, believe that you are right whilst I KNOW as only I can know that I am right therefore the twain shall never come together, so immediate conclusion, further discourse is useless and I have much more stimulating things to occupy my limited time.

I hope you are young enough to be around when the truth is finally told but would hate to be in your shoes. On that fateful day raise a glass to the departed victor!

Kenneth Wiiliams



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:30 AM
link   
There's nothing quite so dangerous as a zealot. You don't actually _know_ that you are right, you believe that you are right, though the evidence does not actually stack up and as we've seen you can't answer the majority of the points that question the basis of the story, let alone the bizarre extrrusions you have constructed.

You rely on blind faith, I rely on probability and evidence. Of those, I know which my money is on.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:30 AM
link   
I have found a direct witness to the "Bader episode" in Liverpool. She is a venerable old lady living in Birmingham in England UK.

I found her by using a contact from my previous line of work and I am not going to bandy around names other than hers:

Ruby Landsborough.

She was present in the same general area.

And no, I am not going to allow tom dick and harry to descend on her. It's cost time money and a favour to find her at TV current affairs speed and that is the level I am approaching this from.

When she has given a statement I will post it here, if we get initial footage shot over there I will post a snippet of that.

If it is a cold lead for some reason or she won't come forward for some insane reason after agreeing to be publicised I will let this thread know that, too, ASAP.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by DogHead
I have found a direct witness to the "Bader episode" in Liverpool. She is a venerable old lady living in Birmingham in England UK.

I found her by using a contact from my previous line of work and I am not going to bandy around names other than hers:

Ruby Landsborough.

She was present in the same general area.

And no, I am not going to allow tom dick and harry to descend on her. It's cost time money and a favour to find her at TV current affairs speed and that is the level I am approaching this from.

When she has given a statement I will post it here, if we get initial footage shot over there I will post a snippet of that.

If it is a cold lead for some reason or she won't come forward for some insane reason after agreeing to be publicised I will let this thread know that, too, ASAP.



Fascinating. I look forward to hearing more on this. As I've said all along, the truth is what is important. If there is something to come out of this then let's hope it is verifiable and authentic - more unprovable "Someone told me" stuff will not help!

[edit on 11-1-2008 by SPM.45]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 06:43 AM
link   
No mate it won't be that. I get on TV quite often and I am not going to burn that for some (no offence) relatively obscure story.

But fact checking and witnesses and stuff like that- both my old and new jobs involve muchos of that.

So one way or another by Monday or Tuesday- we'll see.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
DogHead,

It is my earnest hope that you are really on to that missing link that I have so diligently been searching for whilst fending off slings and arrows from those misguided people that regard me as a old and doddering crank.

This lady that you have found, if she worked at the Stork Hotel, would probably be one of the half dozen or so dining room staff or more likely a chambermaid who would have seen in Bader's room the things that I saw.

I will be more than happy to cooperate with YOU in whatever way possible
to hopefully enable this Enigma to be solved and put to rest in my lifetime.

I have a DVD of a 2 hour filmed interview I gave to an Australian film and documentary maker some time ago and there is a second filmed inteview somewhere in the system given to another stellar Australian film maker - You, I am sure, will know of them both.

Good luck and PLEASE let this be the pot at the end of the rainbow!

Kenneth Williams



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
Like I said, I am treating this as a TV current affairs item now, so it's off with a crew, a fact checker and a couple of interested volunteers.


Personally she strikes me as being totally honest in her recollections as described, but I want to see DIRECTLY what she says, with as few filters as possible.

She was a domestic, for pretty much her whole life, and has had the usual hodge podge of "near misses with history". She has NEVER revealed any confidences about what she has seen in her time, including at Osborne for example.

Based on her extreme age this is, one way or another, her very last chance to be heard.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Doghead,

Since my initial reaction to your what could be, sensational news, I have been thinking hard about the women at the Stork Hotel with whom I was regulary working.

I can now visualize 4 of the girls/women who served at table in the dining room for (in broken shifts) breakfast, lunch and dinner.

There was one girl that I was a little keen on who was around my age in 1942 and that was 19. She may have been a year older perhaps and she was blonde with either natural or dyed/peroxided hair.

I managed to make a date to take her to Southport for the day on a day off and went to her modest home
near the centre of Liverpool, a typical 2 up 2 down terraced house but sadly for me, was stood up.

I am almost sure, but would not swear on it that her name was Ruby but I couldn't tell you her then surname if my life depended upon it!

If this octogenarian lady is the same one I worked with it is probably just as well that I was stood up back in '42 as who knows, I could have ended up living in Birmingham too!

KW



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Ruby Landsborough has said the following. This is a direct non-verbatim summary and the reason why this won't be a news story for me / my people.

1. Ruby worked as a domestic at the hotel.
2. Ruby was aware of an amputee guest.
3. Ruby was aware he called himself (or was called) Douglas Bader in front of visitors, one of whom was some sort of black marketeer. Interestingly the black marketeer said he didn't believe the bloke was Bader.
4. Ruby checked with the guest records, which she describes as a book with a black silk ribbon and an ink pen.
5. in the guest records the man had signed as (illegible) Gough. "Gough" was hard to read for her, we suspect because her literacy was and is not of the highest order. Still, she seems sufficiently clear on other matters and she can actually read.
6. Ruby had no knowledge of the man's identity but she heard him being called Bader and believed this to be in an ironic way not as a literal name.
7. she never saw ration books or any other paperwork to do with him.
8. he didn't have a uniform of any kind with him but uniforms were hanging up near his room- we don't know because she can't remember exactly why that was. Most likely- cleaning.

So there you go.

Bader by name but not Bader since he was another amputee.

This totally leaves unexplained why Bader would confirm in a telephone conversation that he was somewhere where in fact he wasn't.

I have been drawn into other investigations so that's it for me. As soon as there is a transcript and possible pictures of Ruby I will post them somewhere but I am not going to spend more money on the interview because in nutshell this is it.

Also she was 22 in 1940.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Good Heavens Doghead,you sure moved fast from your base on THE PLANET OF THE APES to get to Birmingham and have a chat with what's-her-name?

Mate, you are such a comedian that you REALLY should be on the box!

There are so many holes in your persona and contrived account from a mysterious witness coming forward that I should really write 10 pages on it but just can't spare the time or be bovvered!

I cannot help but suspect that WEPILOT put you up to this JAPE or that you are in fact another manifestation of this wierdo.

I actually told my wife late last night that I thought you and your pathetic story was some childish attempt to have a larf - She now thinks that you are indeed more of a DickHead than a DogHead!

Bye now

Kenneth Williams



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   
That's all well and good but there's this little thing called a telephone, another thing called a car and this bizarre thing called a network of friends across the surface of the Earth.

Call from Australia to UK -> personal favour called in -> person works on weekend for free for me -> visits little old lady in Birmingham -> initial report.

Happened quicker than I asked for, which was originally Monday first thing. Big deal. The person lives in some close town called Evesham or similar and so it was no big deal to visit Ruby. Who has zero personal stake in this.

I also have zero personal stake in this.

I sometimes wonder how someone seeking evidence can win in some of these matters- if you prove it you're a hoaxer and if you disprove it you're some sort of hater or prankster. If the investigation had legs we would have done a segment up on it over there then used this other strange thing- the internet- to send footage to me as well as get it screened in the UK. It didn't rise to the level of newsworthiness.

You have also specifically trapped yourself twice factually in relation to my own investigation by the way. I am out of here- case closed as far as I am concerned.

Oh but one last thing- like other investigations this one will be the subject of affidavits filed with my bank and my lawyer. That's how much of a fake I and the BBC researcher and her freelance crew are. But I repeat: this is a closed file for me. There is a cogent, normal explanation which is basically that an amputee possible serviceman back in the day was having a lend and it has snowballed from there. Absent contrary proof that is where I am leaving this one.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 02:41 AM
link   
To close this matter to the satisfaction of all concerned please ask your "witness" to answer a few questions that you in your haste to close this file apparently forgot and in the event that you are who you think you are - indeed tell me, who are you?

Provide a stat declaration from witness with regard to the following:

(1) Where was the Stork Hotel actually situated in Liverpool?

(2) How many bedrooms did the Stork Hotel actually have?

(3) What were the names of the following people at the Stork Hotel, the manager, the owner, the receptionist and apart from me, how many waiters were there at the Hotel in 1942 when "she" claims to have been there.

(4) Describe the placement of the stairs to the upper floors, the reception office and the kitchen and dining room.

(5) How did she, as a behind the scenes cleaner who were totally barred from mixing with the guests, manage to look in the guestbook that was normally kept in a LOCKED DRAW - even I never saw it or had any need to. And are you suggesting that your witness was able to state with accuracy the names of guests in the guestbook and, do you really think Bader would have signed the guestbook in his own name?

(6) And please explain why you and a mythical team from the BBC went to the trouble of talking to this mythical person and, because she told you that the blackmarketeer thought that our man was not Bader that you have dropped the story

(7) How would she, a "domestic" know what ration books from guests were even asked for? Check my Adelphi Story on this matter.

(8) How come this wandering domestic was able to hear conversations between guests and determine that one was a blackmarketeer and deduce that he thought the amputee was not Bader?

(9) Your witness would have a job reference as I do from The Stork - ask for a copy of hers or an accurate description of the Stork Letterhead.

Finally mate, let me tell you that I have had more to do with the BBC, the ABC and the CBC than you can ever dream of. Also if you think I am some stupid gullible idiot from the back of the black stump, hear this, I spent over 8 years as an undercover agent for ASIO, you know, Australian Security Intelligence Organization - don't believe me? PIck up your phone mate and call ASIO in Canberra!

IF you have a witness and she can establish this without a shadow of doubt, I can raise finances for further investigations but don't think I will ever be required to use them for your non witness.

Now get wise to yourself, grow up and stop this stupid charade.

Kenneth Williams



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Well, the above confirms many things.

For the record: Doghead is not SPM.45, and I have never in fact had any contact with him, other than via the posts recorded in this forum. Ken, no doubt, will not believe this statement, nevertheless it is the truth and if anyone cares to look at page 5 of this thread, Doghead was in fact disasgreeing with my stance. SPM.45 is also not "Webpilot", either but that's neither here nor there.

Well done, DH - I had thought this was a jape and so it seems. As I hoped you would, you have obtained a witness that can corroborate her statement with more than just hearsay which is all important. As you say, KW has trapped himself with a number of his assertions and as such this makes his account and testimony highly unreliable and more importantly provable to be so. But, as as you say, if you prove it you're a hoaxer and if you disprove it you're some sort of hater or prankster. I hope that my response to your post announcing Ruby earlier shows that I am sincere in my attitude - truth will out and if sometimes that truth is something that is a little unpalatable or unwelcome, well then too bad, one just has to take it on the chin.

I suspect the truth of the Bader "confirmation" is that either as I said earlier, Bader was just saying yes to get rid of an unwelcome caller, or didn't understand exactly what was said to him or that the call just didn't happen at all.

Ken, you have now clearly been shown that your Bader Mystery is a chimera - the issues with your story that I had pointed out, the incorrect timelines pointed out by others and now this.

I would suggest, Ken, that you take your own advice: Get wise to yourself, grow up and stop this stupid charade.





[edit on 13-1-2008 by SPM.45]



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 07:00 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 07:03 AM
link   
You're absolutely right, I am right out of your league as your unceasing abuse of anyone that you can't hoodwink shows.



[edit on 13-1-2008 by SPM.45]



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Of all the things to invoke, with me in particular, ASIO and the BBC would be two of the least wise.

And as for the request for more information you asked for Ken, what makes you think that such information isn't part of what was already obtained? In about 70 some minutes she pretty comprehensively -and courageously given her age condition and unfamiliarity with the lady chatting with her- covered the ground as best she could. Her friend / companion was present throughout so the interview is more or less independently witnessed.

Also- as I said- this will be going on affidavit, not mere stat decs.

Said all I can here, stalk someone else Ken.

Oh and the ad hominems- beneath contempt. And presumably warnable or some such although the warnings here seem somewhat irregularly applied.

Be that as it may, killing the messenger is often the last refuge of the ... well let's just say evidence speaks louder than abuse.

If I were to choose, as a TV producer, between you and Ruby as two unadorned witnesses I would pick her every time.

Adios.

And as for the memory of Bader- may he rest in peace. Even a man with no legs it seems can have feet of clay, but be that as it may I doubt many would feel he deserved this snark hunt.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by DogHead

And as for the memory of Bader- may he rest in peace. Even a man with no legs it seems can have feet of clay, but be that as it may I doubt many would feel he deserved this snark hunt.


Spot on.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by RNM1945
 


To all fair and open minded members of this Forum, who I observe, have the least to say on this topic. I now find the actions of your Moderators to be so utterly biased and in favour of those who take delight in mercilessly insulting and denigrating one who served his country and, who now also, will go down in history as bigots when the truth is out in due course.

Unbelievable.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by RNM1945
reply to post by RNM1945
 


To all fair and open minded members of this Forum, who I observe, have the least to say on this topic. I now find the actions of your Moderators to be so utterly biased and in favour of those who take delight in mercilessly insulting and denigrating one who served his country and, who now also, will go down in history as bigots when the truth is out in due course.

Unbelievable.





The only thing unbelievable is the thickness of your skin, Ken. Not one insult at you has passed through this portal, which is more then can be said for your contributions. You got what you asked for. Questioning your recollections where there is clearly inconsistency is not insulting or bigoted, whatever you might think. The fighting men of World War 2 fought for freedom of speech - and god thank them for that, but freedom is a 2 way street and the truth sometimes hurts.

For you to now drag up your veteran status as some sort of defence, well, to quote one of your own earlier abusive postings in relation to one who served his country - SO WHAT.

"History" will show just one thing in relation to all this - there is no "Bader Mystery".

[edit on 13-1-2008 by SPM.45]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join