
04-19-2012, 10:50 PM
|
Approved Member
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 441
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurfürst
Actually I like Gavin Bailey's paper.
Of course here I refer to real Gavin Bailey, not the forum nick registered 'gbailey' who turned up very shortly after NZTyphoon's arrival, who refused to confirm his identity upon request, refused to respond to direct questions, and claimed that the only 100 octane fuel the Germans had in the BoB was from captured British stocks  eventually went ape and behaved in such a childish fashion - much like for example as if he were a university student in his 20s and pretending to be someone else - that the thread had to be closed and his posts had to be moderated.
|
Re the Above I think its worth noting Gavins responce and I leave the reader to decide. For those who wish to check up I am confident that Gavin will respond to anyone contacting him at the University where he works using the details on his paper.
Dear 'Kurfurst'. In response to your claims that I am impersonating myself, I would like to point out that my contact details (including an email and postal address) have been publicly-available since the publication of the relevant article, e.g. on the EHR website, here -
The Narrow Margin of Criticality: The Question of the Supply of 100-Octane Fuel in the Battle of Britain -- Bailey CXXIII (501): 394 -- The English Historical Review
I note that, to this point, I have received no communication from you or anybody claiming to be you in regard to confirming my identity, despite having received several emails and letters from others in regard to my EHR article.
I also note that you post under a pseudonym without revealing your full identity.
It is clear that you disagree with the content and conclusions of my research, but I am afraid if you want to refute them, you will be required to engage with the sources which have been cited. Until you do so, and based on the evidence you have posted so far in this thread, your disagreement has no merit.
You go on to state the following -
I must also take note, in sake of historical accuracy, that your claims that the only 100 octane fuel found in German wrecks were of British origin, is decidedly false, or ill-informed.
I direct you to Document file number 043697, in the BP Archive at Warwick University, and specifically to 'Petroleum Board Enemy Oils & Fuels Committee. A Survey of the Results Obtained to Date in the Examination of Enemy Fuel Samples', by D. A. Howes, dated 4 November 1940. This used fuel samples taken from 29 crashed Luftwaffe aircraft between November 1939 and September 1940, and, exclusive of one sample of captured British 100-octane, revealed octane ratings which varied between 87.5 and 92.2 octane. The results were summarised by H. E. Snow to Sir William Fraser on 13 November 1940 as follows (and I quote from the original document):
'No general indication [of] iso-octane or other synthetics. The only 100 octane fuel identified was definitely captured British.'
I leave any remaining readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions about who has been posting 'false or ill-informed claims' at this point.
|