Incidentally I listen to phone in programmes on the radio, and these can be very revealing. 🙂
_____________________________________

Yes, the level of ignorance, prejudice and fear of just about everything outside their own front door is quite revealing of the state of mind of the average phoner-inner.

To be fair I didnt think he was that abusive !

I have looked at his webpage and read his story, I dont think though with his story has a leg to stand on…………………………..boom boom…

Really? >

Jonathon, my father told me that I would one day have to endure trying to communicate with a certain class of people that you so admirably represent that can simply be described as those that will never make it to the dizzying heights of anything really.
In a few words, people without any sense of humour, understanding or the ability to comprehend anything other than your own tiny little blinkered world, a world cluttered with plastic models of Spitfires and dare I say it Me 109’s?

May I suggest that before you ever again write such pathetic drivel to an honourable veteran of World War II and postulate what you think happened and what you think did not happen without the slighest bit of knowledge of what actually did happen, other than what you have read in your collection of “Boy’s Own Annuals” please have the decency not only to read my story and in doing so consider what a dismal little individual you are.

It was people such as you that disgraced the intelligent members of this very troubled Forum and caused me to stay away for two years. You sir, have the honour of being the catalyst that causes me to once again depart your little club.

Please don’t bother to respond as I really do not wish to be involved with you any further.

Have a nice day and try to investigate rather than denigrate.

How come Johnathan?

Hi Peter,

As I understand the situation, it’s IWM policy. Access has been granted on a case-by-case basis in the past (usually requiring a legitimate research reason, or a connection with that airframe), but AFAIK none of their airframes have been “open to the public” in the same way as the DAS ones. Staff time, H&S, potential damage/cumulative damage, the usual reasons.

Thanks Mark,

In a lighter vein. You say you have to run, kids are awake – I very much doubt that you have any kids. I have never seen them and there is no way known to man that you can provide conclusive evidence that will satisfy me! You can fabricate photos, birth certificates, other peoples assurances, but it will be no use – I don’t have to believe you and for the purpose of the excercise do not believe you! BUT you know you that have kids just as positively as I know that I met the “Great Man.”

See what I mean?

Cheers

Hardly the same thing. For one thing it would be a simple matter for Mark to prove that he had kids, should he feel obliged to do so. Photos, birth certificates, whatever.

For another, claiming to have children is hardly an extraordinary claim with major historical implications if it were proven. It does not differ from the accepted story as supported by the available evidence. Unlike your own claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; evidence which you have yet to produce for your “Bader Enigma” crusade.

From your recent posts, you seem to have some sort of respect for academic rigour. Do not therefore, expect anyone to believe your claims without hard evidence. Of course, almost anything is possible, but it’s just not reasonable to expect people to take your own anecdotal account/sighting over all of the other history that says Bader was not where you say he was. You ask us to consider the “possibility”; cannot you consider the possibility that you were somehow mistaken?

This said, thank you for supplying the newspaper article; most interesting. I’m not sure that it proves anything about either the topic of this thjread, or your supposed “enigma”.

Not going to happen.

Evidence? For any of these “hauntings”? And no, “I thought something moved” or “I felt weird” do not count as evidence. Unless you had a dodgy curry the night before, in which case it’s evidence you should get to the nearest khazi.

Essentially the only common parts to both engines,were the cyl banks the crankshaft,the con rods and pistons; it was unsupercharged, with a different crankcase, camshafts- rocker assy,even the inlet manifolds were different as were the “rocker covers”

When I think about something”made from wood” I think in terms of its structure; the Hurricane had a tubular steel internal structure, with wooden formers/stringers at the rear of the fuselage, but not load bearing.

Fair enough, and I’d always point this sort of thing out to people myself (when I happen to know). But it’s not on the same order of magnitude on the ignorance scale as “this one time a guy woke up in a bathtub of ice and he had NO KIDNEYS!!!!1111”. There’s more than a grain of truth in both statements, even if they are gross oversimplifications – laymen will always do this to aid understanding, whether we like it or not (and I don’t!). They will rationalise it as:

Compared to the Spitfire, the Hurricane had a lot of wood>it was “made of” wood.
The RR Meteor tank engine was developed from the Merlin>they put Merlins in tanks.

To them it’s “same difference” because they have no frame of reference (and possibly naff-all real interest), aren’t as invested in the subject like we are, and wouldn’t remember the intricacies as we would. Could you relate such details about, say, powerboats from the 1930s? We can each retain only so much knowledge and depth of interest in different fields.

Not that I approve of this stuff being perpetuated you understand!