Romantic Technofreak
29th October 2008, 18:32
We have a new member, he calls himself "Geheimprojekte" (= "secret projects", if you didn't know that already), let's take the chance and say hello to him.
Our new friend himself took the chance to answer to a couple of old threads and did not get an appropriate amount of answers (at least this is my humble opinion). Speaking for myself, I have to admit being virtually unable to answer in a way that might satisfy him, that's why I didn't answer at all. I ask for excuse for this unpoliteness.
The trouble with Geheimprojekte's argumentation is, he tells claims after claims in a piecemeal way like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that don't match. This is not only difficult to follow up, as he answered to more than one thread at nearly the same time. The hardest thing is, every claim should be pursued until to the very source, what is virtually impossible. We are only semi-historians here. I have a well-filled book cabinet, I can ask others, also in a German forum, but that's it. I have no chance to visit archives and do studies of primary sources.
But even if you ask somebody else or evaluate old documents, the troubles remain. A forum member also only tells claims, if he gives a proper source or not. And if you see the documents yourself, they are also only paper, and might be falsifications.
For example, Mr. Simon Gunson, here he calls himself *Kiwimac*, produced a a couple of claims about the Junkers Ju 390 V2, laid down, also piecemeal, in several forums. I tried my best to produce a comprehensive story from that (in the moment only available in German) and tried to discuss these thoughts on luftwaffe-bullet-board.com, the German forum, only for the reason of checking if Mr. Gunsons claims might be thinkable in a logical way at all. I virtually got slapped by a member there calling me a clown and claiming himself being in possession of documents refuting the Ju 390 V2 ever being completed. So what to do? Is this person right because he has old papers? Or is this part of a conspiracy trying to blur the traces of this particlar aircraft?
It's always the question what you WANT to believe. The best is if you have several different sources, not relying on each other, which say the same. In this case, the chance of this being the truth is comparedly high. Otherwise, you have to decide for one possibility or leave the whole thing open.
I do have an affinity to speculative themes, and I would like to discuss Geheimprojekte's claims. But the first thing for that is to produce a clean structure of questions. The second thing is to pursue them to a point where no further progress is possible (which might come early...) . Sorry to say that in the moment I am completely bound with other projects. But you know my persistence, time will come!
Regards, RT
Our new friend himself took the chance to answer to a couple of old threads and did not get an appropriate amount of answers (at least this is my humble opinion). Speaking for myself, I have to admit being virtually unable to answer in a way that might satisfy him, that's why I didn't answer at all. I ask for excuse for this unpoliteness.
The trouble with Geheimprojekte's argumentation is, he tells claims after claims in a piecemeal way like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that don't match. This is not only difficult to follow up, as he answered to more than one thread at nearly the same time. The hardest thing is, every claim should be pursued until to the very source, what is virtually impossible. We are only semi-historians here. I have a well-filled book cabinet, I can ask others, also in a German forum, but that's it. I have no chance to visit archives and do studies of primary sources.
But even if you ask somebody else or evaluate old documents, the troubles remain. A forum member also only tells claims, if he gives a proper source or not. And if you see the documents yourself, they are also only paper, and might be falsifications.
For example, Mr. Simon Gunson, here he calls himself *Kiwimac*, produced a a couple of claims about the Junkers Ju 390 V2, laid down, also piecemeal, in several forums. I tried my best to produce a comprehensive story from that (in the moment only available in German) and tried to discuss these thoughts on luftwaffe-bullet-board.com, the German forum, only for the reason of checking if Mr. Gunsons claims might be thinkable in a logical way at all. I virtually got slapped by a member there calling me a clown and claiming himself being in possession of documents refuting the Ju 390 V2 ever being completed. So what to do? Is this person right because he has old papers? Or is this part of a conspiracy trying to blur the traces of this particlar aircraft?
It's always the question what you WANT to believe. The best is if you have several different sources, not relying on each other, which say the same. In this case, the chance of this being the truth is comparedly high. Otherwise, you have to decide for one possibility or leave the whole thing open.
I do have an affinity to speculative themes, and I would like to discuss Geheimprojekte's claims. But the first thing for that is to produce a clean structure of questions. The second thing is to pursue them to a point where no further progress is possible (which might come early...) . Sorry to say that in the moment I am completely bound with other projects. But you know my persistence, time will come!
Regards, RT