Thank you, although I was not just making reference to the issue raised by the aforementioned Andy Long when it came to airing, inappropriately, what are essentially private issues on a public forum. I think that is also a point a lot of people have made, including a few moments ago by Stuart Gowans I think? Andy Saunders

We are again agreed! Good job, because I just don’t have time to keep this up – I MUST do some work!!!

Gosh…. put me foot in it know haven’t I? Andy and Dilip all grumpy.

Memo to self – never ask serious archaeological questions again, just go with flow.

And “sarcasm being the lowest form of wit” – actually, dear boy, using cliches is.

So, the greatly qualified archaeologist is reduced to being insulting – nuff said. End of.

Well ummmm…… Let me offer my sincere apologies for “sticking my oar in”. If I had realised that this was simply a thread for mutual backslapping rather than actually analysing the subject at hand I wouldn’t have introduced dreary old real archaeological concerns into it.

Dilip and Andy you are obviously true gentlemen for having put up with my immature unqualified ramblings.

Having apologised for my temerity in actually becoming involved may I simply summarise what I have learnt –

You didn’t find Bader’s Spitfire but seem to have got a lot of publicity about this. Gosh !!!!

BTW where are the artefacts you did recover, and what has been put in place for their proper conservation? After all by your own admission these must be preserved for future study.

I have already told you, repeatedly, what happened to the Spitfire we recovered.

Andy – I think you have over-reacted, and to be honest my issue with the wannabe doesn’t concern you in any way.

Whilst I do agree with you on that point, it is also sadly the fact that issues were opened up by a third party much earlier on in this thread that were not appropriate for a public forum debate. Andy Saunders

We are again agreed, see my prev post!

Dilip – just have to say that I seem to have touched a raw nerve but I didnt intend to. For clarification, I didnt suggest that David Ross did get the letter from Elizabeth Barwell. He could have got it from me or 603 Squadron. Equally, I have never said that you have suggested that two researchers could not arrive at the same conclusion but others HAVE in effect said that, (your friend Andy Long included) and even suggested that my research was not original when you and I know that it was! I was trying to make a polite and valid point in my last posting, so I dont think there is any need for anyone to get tetchy. However, you cant blame me for getting tetchy when all this kicked off. That said, I think we are past all that. Been there. Done that. No point in revisiting it or opening up old arguments, and that most certainly was not what I was trying to do. My point was just illustrative, not confrontational. Andy Saunders

Andy – Again I agree, and see my previous post on the subject of other folks sticking their oars in. In fairness To Andy, however and as I understand it, he had come back from the pub having had a few and let rip – and not only regrets having done so but has, I understand, apologised. End of, as you say we have moved on considerably since then.

There is no raw nerve between you and me over Rafter, no reason whatsoever why there should be, but yes, there is a raw nerve about a certain wannabe, but on that subject I will not dwell.

Back to work… honest!!

I agree! This agreeing with each other is getting a habit, Dilip! However, one intersesting point in this last post of yours illustrates perfectly how two researchers can both go down the same route and reach the same conclusions without either knowing or realising that the other has done the same. In the case of Rafter, I was in touch with his sister (Elizabeth Barwell as I recall?) and she sent me that very same letter, photos etc that you have. In fact, not long after she had sent them to me she asked if I could return them once I was finished with them because another researcher (you!) was making the same enquiries. Amongst others I think I probably shared the same letter with Peter Cornwell and David Ross (603 Squadron historian) and so you can see how it is possible to make the same journey and reach the same destination without the other knowing! In the case of Bader, I have now heard from another well known aviation historian and writer saying “well done for making the story public and saying what I and a number of other historians have thought for a long while”.

As the saying goes, “We are not alone!”. Best wishes Dilip. I too must do some work. Andy Saunders

Read with interest. Re Elizabeth Barwell, sadly now deceased, the reason she wanted her brothers bits and bobs back was because they were not actually on display at Tangmere, as I recall. Before her death, Mrs Barwell confirmed in writing that she wanted me to keep the artefacts, in recognition of my work in publishing her brother’s story and keeping the memory alive. She did not, in fact, share the letter with Ross, he had access because Lady Rafter provided a copy in her lifetime to 603 Squadron. As a matter of interest, Mrs Barwell was, I have only recently found out, very involved with Enigma and Bletchley Park – she never mentioned it once!

There is no question that researchers can arrive at the same conclusion independently, and I have never suggested otherwise. Please be clear that my grievance is purely the timing of publication and what I consider to be a lack of ethics pertaining. Don’t want to rake over these old coals, but that, purely and simply, is my point. That having been said, there was a book released recently about a particular one of the Few that was just too similar to my ‘Through Peril to the Stars’ (1993) in a certain respect as to be coincidence (doesn’t involve Andy, by the way!); fortunately the published record proves the point.

As a matter of interest, I am not so sure that it takes ‘huge’ G forces to produce bloodshot eyes (although there can be no doubt that DB was certainly subjected to same). Having dived a wreck off Plymouth a couple of years ago I got back on the boat to find that I had burst a blood vessel in my left eye, which was a bit of a mess. The dive, however, was not overley deep at about 34 metres if I recall correctly, and I did not notice any udue discomfort from water pressure during the dive. Although water pressure and G force might be slightly different, the effect of such forces upon the body must be the same – this anecdote merely serves to illustrate how fragile the eyes can be…