23.07.2010, 00:07
'Actual combat footage' is historical. But only in context: its authenticity needs to be verified. And if it is is filmed in monochrome, adding colour afterwards isn't exactly adding authenticity.
By definition, YouTube cannot be a primary source for WW II historical research. The internet didn't exist then. This isn't 'one source', it is no source. Historical research can only be based on evidence available from the period in question. Some, possibly all, of the clips used to create this montage may be of historical significance, but this piece of junk isn't. Adding bogus colour to monochrome stock images isn't making it 'authentic', it is a marketing exercise.
Sadly, this forum seems to attract people who have difficulty distinguishing what actually occurred during WW II from what Hollywood said happened (or in some cases, what some crackpot UFO site said happened :roll: ). A little more discrimination regarding sources might discourage this.
By definition, YouTube cannot be a primary source for WW II historical research. The internet didn't exist then. This isn't 'one source', it is no source. Historical research can only be based on evidence available from the period in question. Some, possibly all, of the clips used to create this montage may be of historical significance, but this piece of junk isn't. Adding bogus colour to monochrome stock images isn't making it 'authentic', it is a marketing exercise.
Sadly, this forum seems to attract people who have difficulty distinguishing what actually occurred during WW II from what Hollywood said happened (or in some cases, what some crackpot UFO site said happened :roll: ). A little more discrimination regarding sources might discourage this.