[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: revising air war kill tallies
Jose,
Your 2nd and following paragraphs below are slightly bonkers! Actually,
they're doctrinaire and arbitrary. I once got a text book thrown at me in
grade school for being so subjective during a debate! However, you have
something here that is awesomely generalized!!! The following para's
should have been started with, "In my opinion..." as they are your opinions
though you clearly write them as facts! Tat's generally the area of a
politician. You do, however, seem to have difficulty with "begging the
question" or statements that only produce circular arguments. Like: "Did
you stop beating your wife?" Any answer is wrong to that question ,
according to Chief Justice Byron White of the US Supreme Court, except:
"That question is totally irrelevant to the case at hand, therefore, I
reject it as fallacious posturing since I never beat my wife." I know
you'll do well once you get started on your research, Jose. I'm looking and
waiting for that factual and documented sourcing on your "kills" story.
Indeed, a great story idea. I know you will be sure and give attribution.
Take care.
Blake
rbmooney@bellsouth.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "jose castillo" <felizguajiro@yahoo.com>
To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: revising air war kill tallies
> dan-- i would love to communicate with cookie! i also
> intend to educate myself personally on this
> interesting subject! i'm new to the game, so give me
> some time to get up to speed.
>
> as for relying too heavily on any one interpretation,
> it is good advice to stay away from that mindset. i
> don't believe in "silver bullet" histories that
> explain everything...or even in "correct" answers.
> history is contested terrain, and i think that is
> healthy for the discourse.
>
> since you ask, here are jose's motives for
> "revisionism." i have no hubris about us, or anyone,
> "settling" historical questions; all history is
> provisional. each generation does the best job they
> can with the information available, then passes the
> project on to the next generation. i think you & i are
> reading off the same page regarding this.
>
> if we put out revisionist information, we should do it
> in a modest & humble way, like to say, "hey, here's
> another way of looking at it," rather than arrogantly
> saying "look, we got it all figured out."
> (by the way, is revisionism a dirty word among
> military historians? i like the idea, as long as it is
> done evenhandedly, and like you say, in a quest for
> knowledge rather than to invoke an agenda...)
>
> ok, somebody else's turn...
>
> --- Love Shack <Home@DanSources.com> wrote:
> > Blake ...
> > You make good points as this NG has had extensive
> > discussion with Harold and Diego
> > on this topic in the past. They have their opinion
> > and facts others have theirs, most notably Cookie.
> >
> > Jose needs to do his own research outside of the
> > three NG references.
> > He can then come back and discuss the findings.
> >
> > If his intention is to be a revisionist instead of
> > putting facts together then he will not learn
> > anything.
> > Nothing wrong with revising and updating history.
> > There is if you are defending an ideology.
> >
> > Dan Fahey
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: rbmooney
> > To: KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu
> > Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 12:24 PM
> > Subject: Re: revising air war kill tallies
> >
> >
> > 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
>