Canadian didn't kill Red Baron, film finds

Status
Not open for further replies.

2dogs

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,865
Location
the city
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...le&cid=1035777457623&call_pageid=968332188492

Canadian didn't kill Red Baron, film finds
Laser technology used to re-enact WWI air battle


PAUL LEGALL
TORSTAR NEWS SERVICE

Another Canadian war hero's claim to fame has come under attack as a result of a high-tech investigation into the death of the Red Baron. A documentary on the Discovery Channel has concluded Capt. Roy Brown did not kill the legendary German aviator during a dogfight on April 21, 1918, as history books would have us believe.

The show has already drawn fire from a Canadian military historian and pilot, Alan Bennett. He accompanied the film's U.S. crew to the French village where the Baron went down and served as an unpaid consultant for the documentary, which is part of a series called Unsolved History.

Bennett still believes Brown could have killed the dashing 25-year-old German aristocrat who flew his bright red Fokker Triplane at the head of the Flying Circus and then terrorized the allies in the First World War by shooting down 80 planes.

But the filmmakers found it was probably an unheralded Australian machine gunner, Snowy Evans, who brought down Manfred von Richthofen near the French village of Vaux sur Somme.

They based their findings on a computer simulation of the brief engagement between Brown and the Baron, a re-enactment of the battle using lasers for machine guns, and the expertise of former Hamilton forensic pathologist Dr. David King.

Daniel A. Martinez, a historian quoted in the documentary Death of the Red Baron, said the case will never be nailed down conclusively. Much of the evidence was looted by souvenir hunters after the Baron's plane landed in a sugarbeet field.

"We don't have the gun. We don't have the bullet. We don't have the evidence to cement this case," he says in the show.

"All we know is it was not Capt. Roy Brown who shot down the Baron. It was the Australian infantryman."

A native of Carleton Place, Ont., who died in 1944, Brown was leading a Royal Air Force squadron the day of the battle. In his combat report, he wrote he fired a "long burst" at a German plane that went down "vertical."

He said the German was chasing his fellow aviator and friend, Wilfrid (Wop) May, who was zigzagging away in his Camel biplane.

Although the military never officially endorsed Brown's claim, school history books have credited him with the Baron's death and he personally dictated the wording of a plaque at the Royal Canadian Military Institute museum in Toronto that says he killed Richthofen.

Bennett, co-author of The Red Baron's Last Flight: A Mystery Investigated, believes the Discovery Channel missed a golden opportunity by resorting to slick computer graphics and other gimmicks rather than relying on the historical record of the Baron's death.

He still thinks Brown had a chance — along with a handful of other people on the battlefield — to fire the single shot that ripped through Richthofen's chest and killed the German aviator.

"It was a damned lucky shot," Bennett said from his office in Grimsby. "He was only hit once (although hundreds of shots were fired at him). If you're dealing with a lucky shot, how do you quantify chance?"

Frank McGuire, another military historian, says the filmmakers arrived at the right conclusion — that Brown didn't kill the Baron — for the wrong reasons.

He said they failed to address the fact that Brown was firing at the wrong side of the Baron's plane to inflict the fatal wound and that his description of the triplane was wrong. He believes Brown was actually firing at another German plane he honestly mistook for the Baron.

McGuire feels the documentary will offend some Canadians still reeling from a recent book challenging the war record of Billy Bishop. In The Making of Billy Bishop, Ben Greenhous portrayed Bishop as a liar who fabricated a combat report that earned him a Victoria Cross.
 
Who cares? [yawn]

Revisionist "historians" (I use the term loosely) who are selling a program to TV. :rolleyes: Do they think they have a better chance of selling it if they go with the book answer or cloud it over with controversy? You tell me. :scrutiny:

Even cable programs are getting more like network TV every day. :banghead:
 
All historians are revisionist historians. There is what actually happened and then everybody's perspective of what they think happened. These perspectives get further muddled through time - or so my history prof taught my class.

I do not like the Discovery Channels forensic testing of history and the Red Baron story is a classic example. They ruled out the possibility that the Baron was shot down by another pilot simply because in their simulator they gave a few attempts at doing the same task with no success. So they argued it probably was not by the other pilot that the Baron met his doom. As the show progressed, the probability of not being hit by another pilot is then sort of morphed into a finding that it could not happen.

In short, crucial points of their information to come up with new findings always involve some hypothetical aspect that really cannot be ascertained fully. It was that way with the Baron, the Alamo, and the whole thing between the colonists and British. In short, it is piss poor popular science.
 
I agree with you Doublenaughtspy, all history is revision because for the most part it depends on third party data. What I mean is what you said, "junk science" and jumping from hypothesis to certainty with incomplete data.
 
Legal and Political
Get informed on issues affecting the right to keep and bear arms and other civil rights. Coordinate activism, debate with allies and opponents. Discuss laws concerning firearm ownership, concealed carry and self-defense.

While fascinating, this doesn't really fit any of those categories.

Mike

PS I support the Snoopy hypothesis.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top