[lit-ideas] Re: Saint Exupery
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:45:36 -0700
David,
I don?t know? What do you make of this statement: ?It remains unclear why
the fragments that were recovered of Saint Exupery?s P-38 showed no trace of
combat.?
If anthropologists find fragments of a skeleton, they could say ?there was
no evidence of murder,? but they wouldn?t be that unscientific. If they
found fragments of a Bison?s skeleton, they could say, ?there was no
evidence that this bison was killed by a saber toothed tiger, but why would
they?
Combat ace Rippert, who is credited with 28 kills knew for years (if I
understood what I read) he shot a P-38 down on the day St Exupery turned up
missing. He knew where he did it but he didn?t know if it was St. Exupery.
The articles were poorly written but this would make sense of them. They
say Rippert just discovered that he had shot down St. Exupery. Something
of St. Exupery?s was found where Rippert knew he shot down a plane.
What I read strikes me more as a confession than some guy trying to get 15
minutes of fame at age 88. Seems like a war ace with 28 kills has already
had his 15 minutes of fame. Shooting down St. Exupery is a bad thing not a
good thing and Rippert treats it that way. The people who say it is
unverifiable want to see bullet holes in the fragments that have been
discovered. How many fragments were there? Were they the sort of
fragments that would have been pierced by Rippert at the angle Rippert was
at when he shot down the P-38 that may or may not have been St. Exupery?
Why try to cast doubt on Rippert? What would be his motive for lying? I
have encountered no theory as to why this 88 year old war ace would lie
about killing someone he admired.
Lawrence Helm
San Jacinto
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of David Ritchie
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 9:13 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Saint Exupery
On Apr 28, 2008, at 7:53 PM, Robert Paul wrote:
I think Lawrence has given the argument to the best hypothesis.
I find the suggestion that Saint Exupery was inattentive a plausible
explanation. Accounts of air warfare make clear that a moment's inattention
was enough to get a pilot killed. But what do you (plural) make of this,
from Wikipedia's piece on Saint Exupery?
Rippert's story is unverifiable, and has met with criticism from some German
and French investigators.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_de_Saint-Exup%C3%A9ry#cite_note-15>
[16]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_de_Saint-Exup%C3%A9ry#cite_note-16>
[17] It remains unclear why the fragments that were recovered of Saint
Exupéry's P-38 showed no traces of combat.
Low flying plane, avoiding attack, ploughs into the sea?
David Ritchie,
Portland, Oregon
Other related posts:
