Warbird Information Exchange

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.

dik, the historical significance of mr seigler's b-25 is the fact that it is an ultra rare "C" model with the lower turret gear present. their are none others known to exist, even doolittle's planes didn't have the lower turret gear. this b-25 is the preverbial missing link to the lineage of the type. as to aviation archeology / archeology, or even paleontology, in my opinion it is all a science, as it is about piecing together the object at hand. as to aviation archeology a good deal of the piece gathering process is accurately reconstructing the crash. on a personal note i feel you owe robb an apology too, it is not in the spirit of this sight to bash some one for anything, let alone for something so trivial as spelling. pick your battles a little more as a gentleman. have you ever had a typographical error while typing??? maybe robb is a fast typist?? robb's credentials speak for them self bottom line. i feel while you are knowledgeable & articulate, but your replies to robb are some what pompous & rude. i'm sure all members of this sight would love to interact with you in the future, but not with the tone of your replies. fyi..... nobody here is looking for an adversary, we are looking for a fellow friend & comrade in aviation history. regards, tom friedman

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

Well said Tom.
Robbie

_________________
Fly Fast Make Noise!

To all:

I didn't realize the Kidd Hofer P-51B thread I started has spawned so much interest that it's now cited in other forum threads. While I'll excuse myself from the ongoing archaeology versus research debate in this thread, I will say that recovering a unique piece of aviation history is our prime motivation.

Unquestionably, money often plays a role in such an endeavor. To that end, you'd be stunned at the unsolicited offers we've received to get in on a piece of the Bunte/Hofer P-51B action.

P.S. Thanks, too, for your kind words.

Shade Ruff

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.

Clearly there is disagreement. I'll restate my view concisely. You must:

1. Be seeking important knowledge about the past that is otherwise unavailable.

2. Pursue that knowledge using accepted archaeological methods. We agree that documentary research and appropriate kinds of digging are both accepted archaeological methods. There are also others.

3. Publish your findings to the archaeological community.



Yes. They meet criterion #2 above. Possibly those instances also meet criterion #1. However, many Egyptian tombs and other significant sites around the world were located by research and digging, but NOT by archaeologists -- by tomb raiders. These thieves took what they wanted and left what they didn't want, often smashed and in disarray, for the archaeologists to study later. They cared about loot, not knowledge. Tomb raiders meet your research-and-digging criterion (#2) but they do not meet my #1 and #3 criteria above and are not archaeologists. Aviation wreck chasers also do not meet #1 or #3. (They may be forced to write a historical paper to placate governmental authorities but that is done against their will and I just have to believe the papers are crap.) They are treasure hunters. (Note that I am NOT equating airplane wreck chasers with Egyptian tomb robbers on a moral level, although we all know of unfortunate situations involving human remains where they have been as bad or worse.)



Not necessarily. Depends on why you're doing it. #1 above. And, further: So-called aviation archaeologists CANNOT meet criterion #1 because they are digging where there is nothing of archaeological or historical significance. Refer to my messy office example in my earlier post. The idea that a B-25C with a ventral turret is a "missing link" in B-25 evolution is way overstated. A "missing link" is something we think must have existed, but have no idea what it was like. Even if the details of B-25 armament were of interest to more than a handful of buffs (which it isn't), we know plenty about B-25C ventral turrets already. We have written accounts, photos, drawings, eyewitnesses. The recovered B-25C will not solve any "Mysterious Legend Of The B-25 Ventral Turret That Has Vexed Historians For Decades." It'll be nice to have an actual specimen but it will not contribute materially to our knowledge. Therefore there is no important information to be learned from the recovery, it fails criterion #1, and it is not archaeology. (In this it appears I disagree with the research team involved with the B-25 -- which is okay, there's room for disagreement, and although I'd just as soon see the bird restored I support what they're doing -- and I'd be interested in reading their appraisal.)



I agree with you. Preserving and restoring artifacts is not inconsistent with archaeology. But it doesn't go to my point. None of my 3 criteria above have to do with preservation and restoration. Whether artifacts are preserved and restored, per se, is irrelevant to whether archaeology has been done.



People who try to find the Loch Ness Monster follow the exact same methods. That's my point. Archaeology is not just about method. You have to have some way to distinguish between archaeologists on the one hand, and tomb robbers and Loch Ness Monster searchers on the other. As long as you are concerned only with method, you cannot make the distinction.

Interesting discussion. I haven't thought about this topic for about 15 years, when Budd Davisson wrote a piece about aviation archaeology in Air Progress and the magazine was kind enough to devote a full page to my unsolicited response.

August

What question were you trying to answer when you started the dig? "Where's Troy?" is a good archaeological question. "What's in the NAS South Weymouth dump?" is not -- it's a treasure hunting question.

An archaeologist would not choose to dig the NAS South Weymouth dump because there is no conceivable historical information of any significance that you could learn from such a dig. You learned a fact -- that a few B-25/PBJs were at a stateside naval base where they were not normally stationed -- which is so trivial that it would not be worth any time or effort to discover. No doubt you learned many other things like that. The reason no records show these things is they were NOT WORTH RECORDING!

As buffs and hobbyists, we very often get interested in tiny details like shades of paint, the circumstances of accidents on training missions, and other things that have no relevance to the big picture of human affairs. It's enjoyable, it's fun -- and it's a dead giveaway that we are not doing archaeology or any other serious inquiry. The first question that any real social scientist must answer about his research is: "So what?"



I would consider that a magnificent bit of treasure hunting.



There is no such thing as a Big Archaeological College. Archaeology is generally a graduate specialty. At most large universities, there is no undergraduate program in archaeology. The closest you will get is a degree in anthropology with some coursework in archaeology. There are some good archaeological graduate schools. Is that what you meant?

Anyway, I just ran several google searches and could not uncover a single syllabus on the web for an aviation archaeology course at any college or graduate program, let alone a good one. I would not be surprised if such a thing exists -- you can take college courses in many crazy, silly things these days -- but I would like to know what aviation archaeology courses you have heard of. I'm not challenging you, I'm genuinely interested.



That is just not true. 100 years ago maybe, but not 25.

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.

As far as the spelling thing is concerned, bad spelling is a sign of laziness, of not caring, of not paying attention to details. - Dik Shepherd

Ah, but you missed one, Mr. Shepherd: developmental dyslexia. It's been a funny thing with a number of students that it has been my privilege to teach over the years. For the most part these students scored at or above average levels of intelligence, but the way their brains were wired prevented them from assembling letters and words in a correct order--for both reading and spelling.

Instead of accusing poor spellers of laziness, apathy, or inattentiveness, perhaps in the future you could express your personal thankfulness for not being afflicted with such a disorder of your central nervous system. Even better, why not limit your comments to your apparent area of expertise: aviation treasure hunts.

Kind regards,
Dan

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

Dik, I agree, although again you're being a little bit harsh. The idea of aviation archaeology is a joke, but the people who dig for wrecks aren't. They're doing something good and important, they mean well, they're just honestly mistaken about what archaeology is. I'm not sure why they want to call themselves archaeologists; if they knew what an archaeologist is, they probably wouldn't want to be one, because there's not really much glamour or prestige attached to it.

And before we cast stones, let's remember that "aviation history" is only a bit less of a joke than aviation archaeology. Unlike aviation archaeology, the study of aviation history does exist, but by academic standards most of it is really terrible, if it qualifies at all. But that's a topic for another thread.

I think this has been a useful airing of views, whether anybody is convinced or not. I would like to continue learning from Col. Rohr and others about the extent to which the concept of "aviation archaeology" has gained currency in academe and government circles, because I have not looked into it in more than a decade.

August

This is an interesting debate, but the sad thing is that it's got a little out of hand. The more I have read, the clearer it has become to me that wreck chasing is not an archeological science to any relevant degree. You can argue all that you wish to in the other direction, but it is merely wishful thinking.

I would point out a couple of things though, and that is that dumps are often regarded as remarkably important archeological research tools, but only when there is little known about the people being researched. A modern dump, and a 20th century military dump has to qualify as such, does very little to answer any big questions about the people living/working around it that aren't already known. Whether something is archeology or not does depend somewhat upon the methods used, but to be scientifically classified as such it HAS to also be contributing to the science. This is the sort of definition that the "lay-scientist" often has trouble grasping. For them, archeology is what Indiana Jones does.... which is utter nonesense, as what is shown in the movies is treasure hunting pure and simple, and has very little to do with archeology.

One final point: While I find the recovery of the SC B-25C exciting and interesting, especially considering its connection to the training of the Doolittle Raiders, it is not the only B-25 still existing with the ventral "dustbin" style turret. The B-25 at Monino has one too.

K5083, I am curious that you use this moniker, as it is the same as the RAF serial for the prototype Hawker Hurricane. Was that intentional, and if so, what is the connection?

Cheers, Richard

Stay with it, Colonel! It's what you say that counts. Having you here is like hanging out with Earl Reinert again. (I'm a proofreader, by the way - and it's about as exciting as a bowl full of dust.)

_________________

All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)

Enough, once again we have two strongly opinionated individuals who cannot reach an agreement. This conversation is degenerating badly and so before it goes further I am locking this topic.

To those two individuals. You have a right to your opinion and are free to express it here. However, personal attacks aren't allowed and while mocking someones spelling ability to spell or denouncing someones credibilty because you never heard of them aren't necessarily personal attacks per se, they do not follow the spirit or intent of this forum. We will be civil to each other and to the community we have all made here.

In short, play nice.

_________________
Scott Rose
Editor-In-Chief/Webmaster
Warbirds Resource Group - Warbird Information Exchange - Warbird Registry

Be civil, be polite, be nice.... or be elsewhere.
-------------------------------------------------------
This site is brought to you with the support of members like you. If you find this site to be of value to you,
consider supporting this forum and the Warbirds Resource Group with a VOLUNTARY subscription
For as little as $2/month you can help ($2 x 12 = $24/year, less than most magazine subscriptions)
So If you like it here, and want to see it grow, consider helping out.



Thanks to everyone who has so generously supported the site. We really do appreciate it.

Follow us on Twitter! @WIXHQ