Emmannuel's opinion of Martin Caidin as a historian does indeed pretty
much agree with mine, though perhaps expressed more elegantly


If Caidin was an embellisher of stories or a poor checker of facts or
corroboration, so be it.

But you haven't shown such, and neither has Mr. Gustin. It's all been
character assassination by innuendo.

Caidin seems to have hit most of the important points on the this story of the
B-17/FW-190 collision, and Mr. Gustin needs to apologise for doubting it.

But of course that was part and parcel of the attacks on everything American
over on the moderated WWII newsgroup.

Walt