I beg to differ … I’m struggling with this. Yes perhaps these are holes created by 20mm calibre (how big are they), they certainly look like bullet holes.

But Schrage Musik? Everything I’ve ever read about it (and that’s a decent amount) says …
(a) The belt load was typically a repeating mix of armour piercing, HE and incendiary. That’s 1 of each, repeating (to penetrate fuel tanks and set them alight). Surely that would give rise to an inconsistent looking series of strikes if you could see more than one after the fact?
(b) Into a fuel tank cover? That’s certainly where the crews were trained to aim … but that many hits? Surely that’s bye, bye, Lanc? It only took one or two hits in the right spot (namely the fuel tanks!) to bring a dikke auto down.

So I’m more inclined to think this was someone taking a few shots at a removed panel.

That or this panel has astonishing story to tell!

Wow, I am amazed at their bravery. This was a society in which conformity was demanded at the pain of death.

There may well have been, and you read about, dissenting views. But in the circumstances the holders of those views took great care what they said and to whom.

You have to allow for the ruthlessness of the regime in questioning the degree of civil resistance.

The Original Multi-Role Combat Aircraft!

Original meaning first? I doubt it. Ju88 comes to mind straight away and I’ll wager there were others before that.

Well, that’s good enough for me. Thanks, Mike.

There are other forums I go to to find out what the gossip is, but I come to this one when I need facts.

What facts? The statement by Historic Aircraft Collection that “The Fieseler Storch was the last dogfight victim of the western front in the Second World War to be shot down by an American aircraft.

I don’t that necessarily proves the point one way or the other.

Great series of images … thank you for pointing them out to us

Topspeed … there is extensive explanation on the Tighar website about why they believe Gardiner Island is credible.

If you’re wondering about this, you really should read it, then form your own conclusions as many have. Some believe, others don’t. I simply don’t know.

TIGHAR argues it is using scientific method, i.e. gather and analyse everything known, develop a hypothesis that explains all that you have (and is internally consistent), then test the hypothesis. This is what they’re doing (and in that regard their actions are consistent). The debate is the credibility of the evidence … and therefore an allegation that fund raising for this purpose is a misuse of people’s funds and faith in the organisation.

Hard thread to follow at times LOL … anyway, 10 years on, how is it now?