note
A
new volume is planned for release in 2012 to update SAAFC, and correct
small bits of research presented therein.
my added emphasis.
check
http://www.redbanner.co.uk/History/il2guide/basic_vvs-colouration.htmlstill the same old EP, brown/green Il-2's, acid green, lurid blue....
still no mention of silver paint in markings, unless this counts
A tiny number of rare examples have been seen with quite unusual field applied colours.
Certainly not on star borders...
A very few examples of star borders may have been painted in other colours (e.g. yellow), but so far no such examples have been located in the archaeological record and remain unproven. Some rather fanciful colours for borders have been suggested (silver, blue, etc) but there is currently no evidence whatever to substantiate such ideas.
In his repudiation of the 1948 Albom, here
http://vvs.hobbyvista.com/Research/1948/1948_Albom_Nakrasok.html he writes
disproved twenty-five years of dedicated scientific work! That sentence requires reading for a second time, and even then it is scarcely believable! And thereby, once more, it is seen that my work must be defended against... in fact, absolutely nothing.
OK,
scientific work well,
scientific is a term much abused these days, I presume he means "Scientic method" it does have a meaning, specifically
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Introduction_to_scientific_methodScientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
Which has not happened with his work. The point here, I ran across a reference to the below in a book "Bad Science" I was going to post this before, but changed my mind, and I hope this does not offend, but bearing the above in mind, I think this sums it all up rather well.
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_BullshitOn Bullshit is an essay by philosopher Harry Frankfurt. Originally published in the journal Raritan in 1986, the essay was republished as a separate volume in 2005 and became a nonfiction bestseller, spending twenty-seven weeks on the New York Times Best Seller list.[1]
In the essay, Frankfurt defines a theory of bullshit, defining the concept and analyzing its applications. Both lies and bullshit can either be true or false but bullshitters aim primarily to impress and persuade their audiences, and in general are unconcerned with the truth or falsehood of their statements (it is because of this that Frankfurt concedes that "the bullshitter is faking things", but that "this does not necessarily mean he gets them wrong"). While liars need to know the truth to better conceal it, bullshitters, interested solely in advancing their own agendas, have no use for the truth. Thus, Frankfurt claims, "...bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are" (Frankfurt 61).
my added emphasis. A succint summary I feel.
Now in case anyone feels I'm being harsh, remember EP said
twenty-five years of dedicated scientific work!
well, no, it's not until you
document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists
Not an unreasonable request is it.
T