DON'T QUOTE ME ON THIS . . . REALLY
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:52 pm
Being bored sometimes, I'll go scan the PC-WIX site to see if anyone has written anything of interest. Mostly there isn't. However, on occasion, I come across someone's comments that force a response from me.
In a topic titled . .
"The CAF 'Martlet' scheme & random thoughts..."
the discussion revolves around the very poorly done paint job on the (PC)AF's FM-2 "Wildcat".
The topic appears to have two basic sides, don't they always. One side says that, basically, it needs to be redone, and done correctly. The other side says the owner can have it painted anyway he chooses, which is absolutely right. However, as I have seen in so many cases, the owner seldom knows squat about how their aircraft should look for a particular example, nor do they really care. After all, the aircraft is usually an investment to be sold off later for a profit, or a tax deduction. And, a lot of the time the owners aren't even qualified to fly their aircraft, and need to have someone else do it.
As far as the FM-2's paint scheme is concerned, it sucks big time. If you're going to own a "Warbird" have it in the correct paint scheme, or paint it some gaudy civilian scheme. If you want to show it as an example of some other country's aircraft do it as correct as possible, it's called RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH. It's either that or be thought of as a MORON, MORON, MORON.
Now, as to why I'm posting this. During this topic's discussion, an individual that uses the tag "airnutz" decided to use my name, and a quote attributed to me. But, as is the case most of the time with these PC-WIXer dimwits, in an attempt to belittle me they seem to always get it wrong.
First of all, they never can get my name spelled correctly. This airnutz individual, just plain NUTZ would be better, spells it "Dik Sheppard", when it is actually spelled DIK SHEPHERD.
Then he makes up the following and claims that I said it, more or less.
"...Dik Sheppard was wrong in his statement awhile back, when he stated, and I'm paraphrasing here.."There is no such thing as Aviation Archeology, those people can't tell us anything we already don't know"...or something to that effect."
I did say.."There is no such thing as Aviation Archeology", because there isn't. But I did not say.."those people can't tell us anything we already don't know". Because, if there is no such thing as Aviation Archeology, then there are NONE of "those people".
The following is what I did say, on a topic titled "Do you think Wreck Huntings is a form of Archaeology?", and the time was Sat., Apr 29, 2006, 7:05 pm.
"I've looked and looked at many institutes of higher learning and I have yet to find a course on anything called "Aviation Archaeology". So, I can only conclude that there's no such thing, and so there's no one qualified to call themselves an Aviation Archaeologist.
In my opinion, it's just a term that some "Wreck Chasers" (I believe over in the UK) started giving themselves in order to make what they did sound more important, more regal if you must.
When Al Redick, Jim Maloney, John Muszala and myself went to Canada to bring back the Martin B-26s for Dave Tallichet, we didn't call ourselves anything (other than REDICK'S RAIDERS). We just looked at ourselves as an aircraft recovery operation.
Okay, so we took pictures to sort of document the whole affair (after all it was the first big recovery of its kind) and I wrote the story about the operation, we sure as hell didn't lay out grids to show where each and every piece was in relation to the main part of each aircraft. No one cared then, cares now or will ever care.
If an aircraft flew into a mountain (it did and still does happen you know) fifty or sixty years ago, and most of the wreckage was removed after a few years, who's to say what remains on the surface is all that's left. You might have to dig to find anything. And after that many years of erosion, what you find and where you find it won't necessarily tell you anything about the accident.
So, because archaeology (itself) is a science of recovery, and wreck chasing, wreck hunting or wreck recovery is not, I would vote NO."
I also said this, on Sun., Apr 30, 2006, 10:36 pm, in responce to someone's comments.
"EXCUSE ME?
Just where is this treasure in old aircraft wrecks you're talking about? Other than some old stories of some crashed aircraft carrying a lot of gold, I've never seen anything that could be classified as treasure.
I know for a fact that if, as you say, a crew clearing a forest comes across a pile of metal (aircraft) they sure as heck don't call in any archaeologist. The first thing they do is to check it out themselves, mostly to see if any remains are in it. If they find any, they then call in the local authorities who, if necessary, call in the military.
After that, if the metal isn't interferring with their job they'll ignore it, or even worse, call the Sierra Club to come and remove it for the scrap value. This has happened many times in Southern California, especially during the sixties and seventies. The Sierra Club loves to clean up the forests. The worse case I can remember was an old crashed Martin B-10, from March Field, that was scrapped out of the mountains near San Bernardino. And there have been countless others.
And don't say that that was a long time ago, because they still do it. Although I am surprized that the B-17C wreckage wasn't cleaned out long before now. Maybe they thought it was just to inexcessable to bother with, but now the USFS looks at it as a money maker. That's because people now have to pay (adventure pass) to walk in the woods.
And, as far as using your car anthology, the only way a car becomes rare is if very few are made or, if mass produced, most are destroyed. So, you helped make all the other 1962 Buicks more valuable by crushing the one you did.
So, once again, there is NO such thing as Aviation Archaeology. Just because you dig a hole doesn't make you an archaeologist."
And then on Mon., May 01, 2006, 12:10 pm, responding to a certain individual.
"To the Col.
If you're talking about the B-25 in the lake, that was set up as a big production for the press.
And, what monumental pieces of information did these State and Federal archaeologists provide.
They probably sat on shore and, when the aircraft broke the surface, said "Yes, that's a B-25, I think."
As far as how many wreck sites have I visited - I'm afraid that's classified.
And, as for the B-17C, it didn't become important to the USFS until articles starting appearing in some aviation magazines, and people started showing up wanting to know where it was. Thus, it makes money."
And another thing, please learn how to spell. Thanks.
Then, in response to the same individual, I must admit that I was having some fun with him (as Bugs Bunny used to say "He's such a marroon"), I posted the following.
"Let us review this message:
Ok(Okay) DIK,
As for treasures(,) how come (did - word not needed) the guys (went) (go - word not needed) up and recover(ed) the( )B-17 in Cananda(Canada?) (Was)was it because it was there(,) no(?) (It was) because it(')s worht(worth) $$$(,) which means it (is) a treasure correct.(?)
The answer is NO. It was/is just a recovered aircraft. A treasure will be spent on restoring it though.
As for the Arch(aeology) guys invovled(involved) with the B-25(,) they actually did a( )lot of on site work(.) (They)they mape(mapped) the wreck before it was raised (and) took plenty of photos after it was raised.
So now we know how the bottom of the lake looked before and after the aircraft was removed. And I guess that all of the people that took pictures of the aircraft can now call themselves archaeologists.
The B-17C has been protected for close to 35 years(.) I should know(,) I try(tried) to get permission to recover a( )lot of stuff out of the calf. (Calif.) State and Federal Lands and was told that most of the stuff fall(fell) under the 1966 HPH and the 1993 WWII admenment (amendment). Question DIK(,) have you ever read the HPA? I have(,) and have a working knowledge of the 1970 UNESCO Heritage Act.
Can't really say that I ever read any of these items, and can't say that I really care what they have to say. If I choose to visit a wreck site and I find something of interest, I dare say that I'll pick it up and take it, as 99% of any site visiters would do.
K5083,
So all the work that my little group as(has) ben(been) doing on the search for "The White Bird" doesn't count for(as) Archaealogy(,) and(as too) the stuff that TIGHAR has done on Amelia (Earhart)(grant(ed,) (it - word not needed) they or(are) idiots)(.) (And) isn't the very nature of these two searchs (are - word not needed) based on the most basic of Archaeological searchs.
The answer is NO. Both searches are simply looking for something to prove their points of view. So far neither has.
So(,) if a plane is missing and we start looking for (it by,) IE(i.e.) The(the) P-51 Thread(,) (and) using all the know(known) resource (data,) then its(it's) not Arch(aeology)? The answer is NO, it's called RESEARCH. (And) so(,) what Robert Ballard did when he was looking for the Titanic/Lustania/Bismark and the Midway Carriers(,) and what The Naval History Center did with there(their) search for The CSS Hundley and USS Monitor isn't a form of modern Archaealogy.
Ballard would have everything rot on the sea floor, to be seen by only the rich, but he screwed up with the Titanic and now everyone can see artifacts from that tragedy. It makes it a lot more personal. As for the others, what do they have to do with aircraft wrecks?
Last time I was in a classroom that is how it(')s taught(,) but then again my degree doesn't mean squat then(,) right.
You said it, not me.
Yes(,) there are folks who go out and(to) find a wreck and don't follow any Arch(aeology) stuff(,) but they take photos of the recovery and use documintaion(documentation) on the aircraft(.) (Isn't)isn't that a form of Arch(aeology)? (Oh)oh wait(,) I'm sorry(,) that(')s not how they do stuff on some indian burial site or is it.
Some people do take pictures, I know I did when we recovered the Martin B-26s in Canada. But that was for the story I wrote, more than anything else, and did nothing to aid in the restorations. I would also think that the recovery of the A-25 was photographed, but I doubt that the pictures will be of much help in that restoration. And, Native American burial sites have nothing to do with aircraft wrecks, unless, of course, the aircraft crashes into one.
"So, once again, there is NO such thing as Aviation Archaeology. Just because you dig a hole doesn't make you an archaeologist."
This statement still holds true.
Actually(,) yes it does(,) how do you explain all the sites that have been found like Troy/Hanging Gardens/Valley of the Kings ect.(,) ect.(,) ect.(?) (They)they were all holes dug in the ground(,) but(,) oh wait(,) you say that there(they're) not Archaeology right.
I say that they too have nothing to do with aircraft crash sites. But if digging a hole makes you an archaeologist, than I'm an archaeologist, because I've dug a lot of holes in my time. And I guess digging a hole for a cellar makes the digger an archaeologist, digging fence post holes makes the digger an archaelogist, and I guess that digging a hole for a swimming pool makes the diggers archaeologists too.
Oh well."
Then this individual started making false accusations about a trip I went on, as he still does to this day. So, I responded with . . .
"Well Col. Rohr, or whoever you are. I've never heard of you, until this forum.
However, if you'd care to dig up (and I don't mean as an archaeologist) a copy of AIR CLASSICS QUARTERLY REVIEW, Vol. 3, Nr. 1, SPRING 1976, you can read the story on the B-26 recovery. And, by the way, you can also see who wrote it. This was the first time the story was published, but it wasn't the only time, there were at least two others.
And, by the way, I never said I worked for Tallichet, I just said I was part of the crew. I was responsible to my friend, Al Redick. However, whenever I see Dave, which isn't very often, he does remember me.
And I need no breaks from you or anyone else. You put the question on the forum site, and if you just wanted people who agreed with your way of thinking to respond you should've said so. So, if you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions.
As for correcting your spelling, and trust me I don't feel like an ass for doing it, if you can't spell correctly (by the way, in your last message future is spelled f-u-t-u-r-e, not f-u-r-t-u-r-e, and there are other corrections needed) how can you be expected to be taken seriously? After all, you do claim to be a college graduate, don't you? I believe you said you went to school and you were an A-R-C-H-A-E-O-L-O-G-I-S-T. I, on the other hand, never went to college, because I couldn't find a course on AVIATION ARCHAEOLOGY.
Also, as far as the National Historical Preservation Act and United Nation(s) Cultural Heritage Act, I still don't care about them and I doubt if I ever will.
And to Mr. Friedman:
Your Mr. Seigler got a 100% wreck recovery, with or without the archaeologists. And I agree that it should be displayed in situ, however, I think that the only historical significance it represents is to the local area."
Then I responded to some other accusations by another PC-WIXer dimwit with . .
"Hi guys, it's me again.
To begin, forums like this are used by people to express an opinion and there's an old saying that goes . . .
"Opinions are like a** holes, everyone's got one and they usually all stink."
I've always felt that if you have an opinion that you feel strongly about, you should be willing to defend it. And not kow tow to anyone just because they think of themselves as better than you.
To Mr. Friedman:
So far I don't recall calling anyone an ASS or an IDIOT, although someone else has. So, as far as being "pompous & rude", I think those terms should be applied to the individual that does the name calling.
As far as the B-25 is concerned, if it is to be displayed as it was on the lake bottom, who's going to see the belly turret? Are they going to remove it and make a seperate display? If so, is it going to be restored? From my understanding of that particular turret, and the remote belly turret in the early B-17E, they were pretty much nothing but junk. The gunners didn't like them because after using it awhile, they tended to get sick.
If they aren't going to display it seperately, perhaps they would consider giving it to AeroTrader to put into their B-25B when it gets restored.
And, where was the archaeology in this recovery? Was it in taking pictures on the lake bed? Anyone could've done that, particularly if the intent, from the beginning, was to NOT restore the aircraft.
And no one I've heard of recovers a wreck with the intent of displaying it as a wreck, other than this B-25 and the Halifax that was recovered from the fjord in Norway. If they want to spend the time, effort and, above all, the money, they want to restore it to how it was before the crash.
As far as the spelling thing is concerned, bad spelling is a sign of laziness, of not caring, of not paying attention to details. If a person wants to present themselves that way, that's their business. But don't deride me just because I pointed it out.
I have nothing against this Colonel Rohr, by the way is his rank official or a Confederate Air Force rank? I've never heard of him, so I don't know what the credentials, of which you apply to him, are, but I owe him no apologies.
And, if you, or anyone, feel that my defending what I believe in as being adversarial, then you must not believe very strongly in the things you like and are easily swayed to someone else's opinion.
So, interact with me, or not. We never stop learning and I never stop teaching.
If you think that the B-26 recovery story is the only thing I've done, well . . .
Find a copy of AIR CLASSICS magazine (Vol. 35, Nr. 9 - October, 1999) and you can read the story of what happened to the first "official" B-17 to be destroyed in a crash.
Also, if you're interested, you can read the story on the real reason for the crash of the prototype Model 299 (there never was an XB-17). That's in AIR CLASSICS (Vol. 33, Nr. 4 - April, 1997).
And, if you ever believed that stupid story about an early B-17 being tossed around inside a thunderstorm, read the story in AIR CLASSICS (Vol. 34, Nr. 6 - June, 1998) and find out the truth.
And there are others that I've done."
And then, finally, I added . . .
"I've come to the conclusion that this conversation will never be settled with logic or common sense.
There is no such thing as Aviation Archaeology, but the people that want to call themselves Aviation Archaeologists will continue doing it.
Those of us that know that there is no Aviation Archaeology will continue to be wreck hunters or wreck chasers, and will always be amused by those that have such an exaggerated idea of their importance.
People that dig in dumps are nothing more the dump-divers and there's NO archaeology involved, just hard work.
And comparing the search for ancient ruins and civilizations to looking for a 20th century aircraft wreck is just so far beyond simply being ludicrous.
So, call yourselves whatever you want, those in the know will ignore you and those who don't know will either not care, think you're gods, or eventually figure out you're just a joke.
Be proud to be a wreck hunter, just don't claim to be something that doesn't exist."
So, if you choose to quote me on something, that's fine, but be correct and don't just make up things. And, spell my name correctly. Thanks.
PC-WIXers need not respond.
In a topic titled . .
"The CAF 'Martlet' scheme & random thoughts..."
the discussion revolves around the very poorly done paint job on the (PC)AF's FM-2 "Wildcat".
The topic appears to have two basic sides, don't they always. One side says that, basically, it needs to be redone, and done correctly. The other side says the owner can have it painted anyway he chooses, which is absolutely right. However, as I have seen in so many cases, the owner seldom knows squat about how their aircraft should look for a particular example, nor do they really care. After all, the aircraft is usually an investment to be sold off later for a profit, or a tax deduction. And, a lot of the time the owners aren't even qualified to fly their aircraft, and need to have someone else do it.
As far as the FM-2's paint scheme is concerned, it sucks big time. If you're going to own a "Warbird" have it in the correct paint scheme, or paint it some gaudy civilian scheme. If you want to show it as an example of some other country's aircraft do it as correct as possible, it's called RESEARCH, RESEARCH, RESEARCH. It's either that or be thought of as a MORON, MORON, MORON.
Now, as to why I'm posting this. During this topic's discussion, an individual that uses the tag "airnutz" decided to use my name, and a quote attributed to me. But, as is the case most of the time with these PC-WIXer dimwits, in an attempt to belittle me they seem to always get it wrong.
First of all, they never can get my name spelled correctly. This airnutz individual, just plain NUTZ would be better, spells it "Dik Sheppard", when it is actually spelled DIK SHEPHERD.
Then he makes up the following and claims that I said it, more or less.
"...Dik Sheppard was wrong in his statement awhile back, when he stated, and I'm paraphrasing here.."There is no such thing as Aviation Archeology, those people can't tell us anything we already don't know"...or something to that effect."
I did say.."There is no such thing as Aviation Archeology", because there isn't. But I did not say.."those people can't tell us anything we already don't know". Because, if there is no such thing as Aviation Archeology, then there are NONE of "those people".
The following is what I did say, on a topic titled "Do you think Wreck Huntings is a form of Archaeology?", and the time was Sat., Apr 29, 2006, 7:05 pm.
"I've looked and looked at many institutes of higher learning and I have yet to find a course on anything called "Aviation Archaeology". So, I can only conclude that there's no such thing, and so there's no one qualified to call themselves an Aviation Archaeologist.
In my opinion, it's just a term that some "Wreck Chasers" (I believe over in the UK) started giving themselves in order to make what they did sound more important, more regal if you must.
When Al Redick, Jim Maloney, John Muszala and myself went to Canada to bring back the Martin B-26s for Dave Tallichet, we didn't call ourselves anything (other than REDICK'S RAIDERS). We just looked at ourselves as an aircraft recovery operation.
Okay, so we took pictures to sort of document the whole affair (after all it was the first big recovery of its kind) and I wrote the story about the operation, we sure as hell didn't lay out grids to show where each and every piece was in relation to the main part of each aircraft. No one cared then, cares now or will ever care.
If an aircraft flew into a mountain (it did and still does happen you know) fifty or sixty years ago, and most of the wreckage was removed after a few years, who's to say what remains on the surface is all that's left. You might have to dig to find anything. And after that many years of erosion, what you find and where you find it won't necessarily tell you anything about the accident.
So, because archaeology (itself) is a science of recovery, and wreck chasing, wreck hunting or wreck recovery is not, I would vote NO."
I also said this, on Sun., Apr 30, 2006, 10:36 pm, in responce to someone's comments.
"EXCUSE ME?
Just where is this treasure in old aircraft wrecks you're talking about? Other than some old stories of some crashed aircraft carrying a lot of gold, I've never seen anything that could be classified as treasure.
I know for a fact that if, as you say, a crew clearing a forest comes across a pile of metal (aircraft) they sure as heck don't call in any archaeologist. The first thing they do is to check it out themselves, mostly to see if any remains are in it. If they find any, they then call in the local authorities who, if necessary, call in the military.
After that, if the metal isn't interferring with their job they'll ignore it, or even worse, call the Sierra Club to come and remove it for the scrap value. This has happened many times in Southern California, especially during the sixties and seventies. The Sierra Club loves to clean up the forests. The worse case I can remember was an old crashed Martin B-10, from March Field, that was scrapped out of the mountains near San Bernardino. And there have been countless others.
And don't say that that was a long time ago, because they still do it. Although I am surprized that the B-17C wreckage wasn't cleaned out long before now. Maybe they thought it was just to inexcessable to bother with, but now the USFS looks at it as a money maker. That's because people now have to pay (adventure pass) to walk in the woods.
And, as far as using your car anthology, the only way a car becomes rare is if very few are made or, if mass produced, most are destroyed. So, you helped make all the other 1962 Buicks more valuable by crushing the one you did.
So, once again, there is NO such thing as Aviation Archaeology. Just because you dig a hole doesn't make you an archaeologist."
And then on Mon., May 01, 2006, 12:10 pm, responding to a certain individual.
"To the Col.
If you're talking about the B-25 in the lake, that was set up as a big production for the press.
And, what monumental pieces of information did these State and Federal archaeologists provide.
They probably sat on shore and, when the aircraft broke the surface, said "Yes, that's a B-25, I think."
As far as how many wreck sites have I visited - I'm afraid that's classified.
And, as for the B-17C, it didn't become important to the USFS until articles starting appearing in some aviation magazines, and people started showing up wanting to know where it was. Thus, it makes money."
And another thing, please learn how to spell. Thanks.
Then, in response to the same individual, I must admit that I was having some fun with him (as Bugs Bunny used to say "He's such a marroon"), I posted the following.
"Let us review this message:
Ok(Okay) DIK,
As for treasures(,) how come (did - word not needed) the guys (went) (go - word not needed) up and recover(ed) the( )B-17 in Cananda(Canada?) (Was)was it because it was there(,) no(?) (It was) because it(')s worht(worth) $$$(,) which means it (is) a treasure correct.(?)
The answer is NO. It was/is just a recovered aircraft. A treasure will be spent on restoring it though.
As for the Arch(aeology) guys invovled(involved) with the B-25(,) they actually did a( )lot of on site work(.) (They)they mape(mapped) the wreck before it was raised (and) took plenty of photos after it was raised.
So now we know how the bottom of the lake looked before and after the aircraft was removed. And I guess that all of the people that took pictures of the aircraft can now call themselves archaeologists.
The B-17C has been protected for close to 35 years(.) I should know(,) I try(tried) to get permission to recover a( )lot of stuff out of the calf. (Calif.) State and Federal Lands and was told that most of the stuff fall(fell) under the 1966 HPH and the 1993 WWII admenment (amendment). Question DIK(,) have you ever read the HPA? I have(,) and have a working knowledge of the 1970 UNESCO Heritage Act.
Can't really say that I ever read any of these items, and can't say that I really care what they have to say. If I choose to visit a wreck site and I find something of interest, I dare say that I'll pick it up and take it, as 99% of any site visiters would do.
K5083,
So all the work that my little group as(has) ben(been) doing on the search for "The White Bird" doesn't count for(as) Archaealogy(,) and(as too) the stuff that TIGHAR has done on Amelia (Earhart)(grant(ed,) (it - word not needed) they or(are) idiots)(.) (And) isn't the very nature of these two searchs (are - word not needed) based on the most basic of Archaeological searchs.
The answer is NO. Both searches are simply looking for something to prove their points of view. So far neither has.
So(,) if a plane is missing and we start looking for (it by,) IE(i.e.) The(the) P-51 Thread(,) (and) using all the know(known) resource (data,) then its(it's) not Arch(aeology)? The answer is NO, it's called RESEARCH. (And) so(,) what Robert Ballard did when he was looking for the Titanic/Lustania/Bismark and the Midway Carriers(,) and what The Naval History Center did with there(their) search for The CSS Hundley and USS Monitor isn't a form of modern Archaealogy.
Ballard would have everything rot on the sea floor, to be seen by only the rich, but he screwed up with the Titanic and now everyone can see artifacts from that tragedy. It makes it a lot more personal. As for the others, what do they have to do with aircraft wrecks?
Last time I was in a classroom that is how it(')s taught(,) but then again my degree doesn't mean squat then(,) right.
You said it, not me.
Yes(,) there are folks who go out and(to) find a wreck and don't follow any Arch(aeology) stuff(,) but they take photos of the recovery and use documintaion(documentation) on the aircraft(.) (Isn't)isn't that a form of Arch(aeology)? (Oh)oh wait(,) I'm sorry(,) that(')s not how they do stuff on some indian burial site or is it.
Some people do take pictures, I know I did when we recovered the Martin B-26s in Canada. But that was for the story I wrote, more than anything else, and did nothing to aid in the restorations. I would also think that the recovery of the A-25 was photographed, but I doubt that the pictures will be of much help in that restoration. And, Native American burial sites have nothing to do with aircraft wrecks, unless, of course, the aircraft crashes into one.
"So, once again, there is NO such thing as Aviation Archaeology. Just because you dig a hole doesn't make you an archaeologist."
This statement still holds true.
Actually(,) yes it does(,) how do you explain all the sites that have been found like Troy/Hanging Gardens/Valley of the Kings ect.(,) ect.(,) ect.(?) (They)they were all holes dug in the ground(,) but(,) oh wait(,) you say that there(they're) not Archaeology right.
I say that they too have nothing to do with aircraft crash sites. But if digging a hole makes you an archaeologist, than I'm an archaeologist, because I've dug a lot of holes in my time. And I guess digging a hole for a cellar makes the digger an archaeologist, digging fence post holes makes the digger an archaelogist, and I guess that digging a hole for a swimming pool makes the diggers archaeologists too.
Oh well."
Then this individual started making false accusations about a trip I went on, as he still does to this day. So, I responded with . . .
"Well Col. Rohr, or whoever you are. I've never heard of you, until this forum.
However, if you'd care to dig up (and I don't mean as an archaeologist) a copy of AIR CLASSICS QUARTERLY REVIEW, Vol. 3, Nr. 1, SPRING 1976, you can read the story on the B-26 recovery. And, by the way, you can also see who wrote it. This was the first time the story was published, but it wasn't the only time, there were at least two others.
And, by the way, I never said I worked for Tallichet, I just said I was part of the crew. I was responsible to my friend, Al Redick. However, whenever I see Dave, which isn't very often, he does remember me.
And I need no breaks from you or anyone else. You put the question on the forum site, and if you just wanted people who agreed with your way of thinking to respond you should've said so. So, if you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions.
As for correcting your spelling, and trust me I don't feel like an ass for doing it, if you can't spell correctly (by the way, in your last message future is spelled f-u-t-u-r-e, not f-u-r-t-u-r-e, and there are other corrections needed) how can you be expected to be taken seriously? After all, you do claim to be a college graduate, don't you? I believe you said you went to school and you were an A-R-C-H-A-E-O-L-O-G-I-S-T. I, on the other hand, never went to college, because I couldn't find a course on AVIATION ARCHAEOLOGY.
Also, as far as the National Historical Preservation Act and United Nation(s) Cultural Heritage Act, I still don't care about them and I doubt if I ever will.
And to Mr. Friedman:
Your Mr. Seigler got a 100% wreck recovery, with or without the archaeologists. And I agree that it should be displayed in situ, however, I think that the only historical significance it represents is to the local area."
Then I responded to some other accusations by another PC-WIXer dimwit with . .
"Hi guys, it's me again.
To begin, forums like this are used by people to express an opinion and there's an old saying that goes . . .
"Opinions are like a** holes, everyone's got one and they usually all stink."
I've always felt that if you have an opinion that you feel strongly about, you should be willing to defend it. And not kow tow to anyone just because they think of themselves as better than you.
To Mr. Friedman:
So far I don't recall calling anyone an ASS or an IDIOT, although someone else has. So, as far as being "pompous & rude", I think those terms should be applied to the individual that does the name calling.
As far as the B-25 is concerned, if it is to be displayed as it was on the lake bottom, who's going to see the belly turret? Are they going to remove it and make a seperate display? If so, is it going to be restored? From my understanding of that particular turret, and the remote belly turret in the early B-17E, they were pretty much nothing but junk. The gunners didn't like them because after using it awhile, they tended to get sick.
If they aren't going to display it seperately, perhaps they would consider giving it to AeroTrader to put into their B-25B when it gets restored.
And, where was the archaeology in this recovery? Was it in taking pictures on the lake bed? Anyone could've done that, particularly if the intent, from the beginning, was to NOT restore the aircraft.
And no one I've heard of recovers a wreck with the intent of displaying it as a wreck, other than this B-25 and the Halifax that was recovered from the fjord in Norway. If they want to spend the time, effort and, above all, the money, they want to restore it to how it was before the crash.
As far as the spelling thing is concerned, bad spelling is a sign of laziness, of not caring, of not paying attention to details. If a person wants to present themselves that way, that's their business. But don't deride me just because I pointed it out.
I have nothing against this Colonel Rohr, by the way is his rank official or a Confederate Air Force rank? I've never heard of him, so I don't know what the credentials, of which you apply to him, are, but I owe him no apologies.
And, if you, or anyone, feel that my defending what I believe in as being adversarial, then you must not believe very strongly in the things you like and are easily swayed to someone else's opinion.
So, interact with me, or not. We never stop learning and I never stop teaching.
If you think that the B-26 recovery story is the only thing I've done, well . . .
Find a copy of AIR CLASSICS magazine (Vol. 35, Nr. 9 - October, 1999) and you can read the story of what happened to the first "official" B-17 to be destroyed in a crash.
Also, if you're interested, you can read the story on the real reason for the crash of the prototype Model 299 (there never was an XB-17). That's in AIR CLASSICS (Vol. 33, Nr. 4 - April, 1997).
And, if you ever believed that stupid story about an early B-17 being tossed around inside a thunderstorm, read the story in AIR CLASSICS (Vol. 34, Nr. 6 - June, 1998) and find out the truth.
And there are others that I've done."
And then, finally, I added . . .
"I've come to the conclusion that this conversation will never be settled with logic or common sense.
There is no such thing as Aviation Archaeology, but the people that want to call themselves Aviation Archaeologists will continue doing it.
Those of us that know that there is no Aviation Archaeology will continue to be wreck hunters or wreck chasers, and will always be amused by those that have such an exaggerated idea of their importance.
People that dig in dumps are nothing more the dump-divers and there's NO archaeology involved, just hard work.
And comparing the search for ancient ruins and civilizations to looking for a 20th century aircraft wreck is just so far beyond simply being ludicrous.
So, call yourselves whatever you want, those in the know will ignore you and those who don't know will either not care, think you're gods, or eventually figure out you're just a joke.
Be proud to be a wreck hunter, just don't claim to be something that doesn't exist."
So, if you choose to quote me on something, that's fine, but be correct and don't just make up things. And, spell my name correctly. Thanks.
PC-WIXers need not respond.
