Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst
1) It's rather dishonest to constantly try to misrepresent other people's positions, for lack of proof on your own point.
2) You dismiss 2 by the arguement that you have not seen the papers yourself, called a researcher a liar and a fraud, yet I have asked perhaps a hundred times to see the meeting file in its completeness, and not the cropped version you deem fitting to share. You never answered that, and refused to show the whole file to anyone even if its not a problematic at all. You stick to showing only select papers from it. I think it speaks for itself.
3, Morgan and Shacklady. You dismiss them for god-knows-what reason.
5, Actual consumption figures of 87 and 100 octane fuel between May 1940 - November 1940 which all show that 87 octane was dominant fuel used until October 1940, and issues oddly increased when Fighter Command activies. You dismiss that claiming that it refers to fuel consumed by other commands, but supplied again no evidence.
So present your evidence or just don't expect me to be bothered by this ruckus.
|
1) Dr Gavin Bailey thinks the same. He has invited Kurfürst to email him
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/politics/staff/gavinbailey/ to discuss the matter.
2) Kurfürst has not seen the Pips papers, which were presented eight years ago as a summary in a members only forum, so the thread and the discussion surrounding Pips' "evidence" is not readily available. As Captain Doggles noted Pips himself admitted that they might have been misleading. For Kurfürst to pin 100% faith on papers he has not seen then demand 100% proof from others is a bit rich to say the least.
3) Morgan and Shacklady's claims about heavy tanker losses do not stack up. Cabinet papers show 1,157 tankers arriving in Britain September 1939 - November 1940. 78 tankers were sunk in the same time period.
5) And what exactly did other Commands use for fuel? An absurd claim to make in light of the fact that Bomber Command, for example, was engaged in intensive operations against invasion preparations - coincidentally, when Sealion was called off on September 17 and the invasion fleet began to disperse fuel consumption of Other Grades (not 87 Octane) tapered off as well. The fuel capacity of a Wellington, for example was 750 imp gallons; for Coastal Command a Sunderland needed 2,552 imp gal. Does this help explain why other grades of fuel were dominant?
Kurfürst has presented no evidence but continues to demand others present theirs then, when more than enough evidence is presented, continues to whine about small details or simply restates his original position as gospel.