[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: revising air war kill tallies
whoops, i submitted this reply o second ago, but with
a different subject heading; did i lose the thread?
can i just do a "reply" on an email when it comes in?
sorry, it's my first day on this message board. i'll
figure it out...
blake;
your points are all well taken. whenever one submits
something different from the dominant interpretation,
people are going to say, "wha? you'd better have
evidence to back that up!"
that, of course, is exactly how we should react to
something that digresses from orthodoxy. but i think
you may have misinterpreted my short note to be some
kind of final draft. what i tossed out there on this
forum board for folks to look at was a shorthand look
at some provisional results; i tried to present it
that way, but maybe i wasn't clear enough.
i didn't think this forum was the right place for a
final presentation of evidence. that of course would
be a long document, with footnotes, etc. i'm a college
dropout, but i did stick around the academy long
enough to be exposed to that sort of thing.
anyhoo, i totally agree with your demand for more
evidence, and that is exactly what i am working on.
what i wanted from my posting was to put my research
idea out there, and get feedback from this
well-informed discussion y'all have going here.
thanks!! jose c.
--- rbmooney <rbmooney@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Jose,
> First thing that comes to mind is that your premise
> is not acceptable: who are these 2 sources you refer
> to and how do they know such accurate US Defense
> Dept. details; Chinese details; Soviet Union
> details? Where is the evidence that anything is
> different from what the US Defense Dept. says? You
> offer 2 names, but at Defense they offer thousands.
> Rather "begging the question" to submit 2 names of
> "aces" or researchers who offer nothing by way of US
> Defense Dept. statistics which base their stats on
> the ultimate premise: "we maintain and hold the
> official records." Prove those records wrong, or
> some aspect of them wrong, and write that up.
> Woodward & Bernstein did it with Deep Throat--a
> false alternative--in their book, but you'll need
> more than you have: you're appealing to our
> ignorance. The conclusion you've reached is
> interesting but wrong because the premise is an
> "assumed premise." How would anyone accept it?
> What you've produced is, I'm afraid, a non sequitur:
> a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
> Statements by "harold fisher" and "diego" are
> interesting, in themselves, but hardly the
> foundation of any premise as you've derived. We
> simply don't know what is completely true.
> Layout--side by side--3 columns, and include the
> actual stats of kills sourced from the leaders of
> the separate Defense Departments of China, Soviet
> Union, and the United States and let us draw our own
> conclusions. As it stands your premises are
> irrelevant to your conclusion. However, I hope you
> pursue the subject further. It could be an
> historical contribution!.
>
> Blake Mooney
> remooney@bellsouth.net
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Love Shack" <Home@DanSources.com>
> To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu>
> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 9:46 AM
> Subject: Re: revising air war kill tallies
>
>
> > My opinion:
> > It seems the US system was fairly accurate.
> > Jose:
> > My suggestion, identify the reasons each kill was
> over claimed.
> > At the same time some kills may have occcured and
> not counted.
> >
> > One of the issues was that I suspect more Migs
> were
> > shot down by Prop planes then recorded. What were
> these?
> >
> > Mustang pilots dogfighting the Migs stated they
> got excellent hits.
> > Cookie states that there were no Mustang claims,
> > though one Corsair and 3 Fury pilots managed to
> knock a few down.
> >
> > Dan Fahey
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "jose castillo" <felizguajiro@yahoo.com>
> > To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu>
> > Cc: <dzampini@hotmail.com>
> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:28 AM
> > Subject: revising air war kill tallies
> >
> >
> > > hello to the group, this is my first message
> here.
> > > korean war jet ace harold fisher once said, "it
> is
> > > interesting to compare our claims of victory
> with the
> > > numbers from the other side. we found many
> aerial
> > > victories that needed recounting." in this
> spirit, i
> > > am trying to come up with more accurate kill
> tallies
> > > for US korean war aces, based on the best data
> > > currently available. my friend diego from
> argentina, a
> > > contributor here, has provided the information.
> what
> > > we have is a provisional list of the top five
> american
> > > aces, giving them the benefit of the doubt for
> all
> > > their chinese kills, but modifying their soviet
> kills
> > > to come up with a new total for each. (the
> chinese
> > > records, diego tells me, provide only monthly
> kill
> > > totals, not day-to-day, making systematic
> correlation
> > > with US records difficult.)
> > >
> > > *joe mcconnell, 16 kills: 9 of his 16 claims
> were
> > > actually against soviet MiGs. 6 are fully
> admitted by
> > > the russians and 3 were overclaims. his score
> would be
> > > 13.
> > >
> > > *james jabara, 15 kills: he claimed 6 MiGs in
> his
> > > first tour, but only 4 actually happened. all
> his
> > > kills in his 2nd tour were against chinese, so
> his
> > > tally would be 13.
> > >
> > > *pete fernandez, 14.5 kills: 4 of his air
> battles were
> > > against soviets, and he scored in 3 of them. the
> march
> > > 9, 1953 kill was an overclaim, so pete's score
> is 13
> > > 1/2.
> > >
> > > *george davis, 14 kills: he was credited with 11
> MiGs
> > > and 3 tupolevs; he actually got 10 MiGs and 2
> > > tupolevs. his score is 12
> > >
> > > *royal baker, 13 kills: 5 of his claims were
> against
> > > soviet planes, and 3 actually happened. his
> score is
> > > 11.
> > >
> > > NEW TALLIES:
> > > fernandez 13.5
> > > mcconnell 13
> > > jabara 13
> > > davis 12
> > > baker 11
> > >
> > > what do folks think of this? as for the chinese
> data,
> > > any ideas for incorporating it into my
> revisionist
> > > history? thanks! jose c.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail
> AddressGuard
> > > http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
> > >
> >
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree