Yesterday, in my review, I referred back to "a single paragraph in a 2002 book of 368 pages called 'Radio Man: the remarkable rise and fall of C.O. Stanley (IEE History of Technology Series, 30): The Remarkable Rise and Fall of C.O.Stanley (History and Management of Technology)'."
Because of the never-ending negative comments that are constantly being hurled at the group of researchers that I am associating with (which falsely accuses them of never having written or published any work in newspapers; magazines; academia; radio or television - which of course is totally untrue and proven by evidence relating to much of that work which is still available on line), it is apparent that these critics do not perform any research themselves.
That is why the critics love Paul Rusling who is the epitome of lazy writing; plagiarism and total disinterest in time-consuming and expensive research. His methodology depends upon theft.
Because Paul Rusling made it known to the research group I am working with that he hates reading 'history books' and performing original research himself because he finds it "boring" - he takes the works of others and then claims it for himself. The trouble for Paul Rusling is that he has no way of knowing at what stage of research the original researchers are confident that they have documented the actual story; or whether they are still speculating and are using the police methodology of solving 'cold case' crimes by working off a hypothesis, to see if the pieces fit. When they don't fit you discard that hypothesis and begin anew. This is where the practice of 'mind-mapping' becomes a useful tool.
Consequently Paul Rusling has picked up both fact and hypotheses in his 'smash and grab' work of plagiarism. On page 54 of his 'bible', Rusling lifts material from 'Radio Man' without accrediting the source of his plagiarism. But in his accompanying commentary about the start of Radio Atlanta he writes that "part of the funding has now been confirmed by former Pye employees as Charles Orr Stanley, their Chairman."
The problem with Rusling's statement is that it is without foundation in fact. There is nothing to support it. Nothing. No "former Pye employees" have ever admitted to anything approaching that statement! Rusling's excuse is to turn around and blame the group I am associating with for not divulging to him their entire research - so he could steal it! What a nerve this man has.
What Rusling became aware of was an obscure statement in 'Radio Man' that began a long and expensive search for the reason why it appeared as a single paragraph in that book. Rusling was not a part of that research and he does not seem to understand what exactly was uncovered!
The totally confused mess that Rusling creates on pages 51 through 56 about the financing of both Radio Atlanta and Radio Caroline is also unbelievable: because it is not believable - since it is not true!
Beginning on page 51, Paul Rusling pretends to be educating his readers about the Ross Family and then Charles Orr Stanley. But in reality, Rusling hasn't the slightest clue what he is writing about. He has 'grabbed' various bits of information and hammered a lot of square pegs into a lot of round holes and done damage to a lot of 'pegs' in the process.
Those 'pegs' are the names of people he has tried to link together to create his totally bogus narrative. Rusling hasn't a clue about the subject matter he is attempting to write about based on stolen research - because he had not seen all of the research and because he did not know what the final results were of various working hypotheses.
For a plagiarist that is a disaster, and Rusling is the worst kind of plagiarist: he has no credibility whatsoever! So in his own defense, Rusling then turns around and accuses his accusers of the same thing! But neither reality nor truth are on Rusling's side - as this Review will prove.
I will comment more about both Stanley and Ross when this Review catches up with those pages. In the meantime, and in the interests of keeping all comments about the book 'Radio Man' in one place, and because Rusling refers to the contents of this book in his plagiarized, but censored work of theft, I am reproducing the review of that book at this point in my Review.
The following review of 'Radio Man' was originally published on December 5, 2013, and it is still available to read on line at: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Radio-Man-remarkable-Technology-Stanley-ebook/dp/B00CDNYF58
Please note that while the link above refers to an "ebook", the edition reviewed is a hardback edition. Here is that review as it appears on the Amazon.co.uk web page:
2.0 out of 5 stars A MISLEADING BOOK!
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 5 December 2013
Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase
I need to revise my review yet again, because I have now discovered that one very important part of this book that deals with the subject of the introduction of both commercial television and radio into the British Isles has been presented in such a way that it misleads the reader into accepting a false version of events.
It was not until my associate found the transcribed notes of a key interview produced for this book, that I realized that the writers (Frankland and Busey) had not done their own research, but had relied upon what they were presented with. As a result they produced a very misleading work.
In the instance of the section dealing with the Isle of Man and the creation of the offshore station Radio Caroline, information was redacted to remove the source of the original information, and then that information was further redacted to conceal both the name of an individual and the name of a company, while misleading the reader by changing the words of the interviewee.
I have discovered that this book cost over £92,000 using the funds of a British registered foundation and administered by the person conducting the core research about which I am complaining.. I am now wondering what the ulterior motive was in producing the book.
Did its promoter fear that the truth would one day emerge unless this particular book was produced first to mislead academic researchers?
This book has been cited by Adrian Johns in his equally misleading book called 'Death of a Pirate' which also contains bogus information that even casual research can immediately disprove.
We need a proper biography about Charles Orr Stanley and his son John, but this is not that book. I give it two stars for alerting me to the fact that there is a concealed and bogus widespread history about Radio Caroline that is in general circulation.
The story of PYE and the stories about radio broadcasting on the Isle of Man as well as the advent of British offshore radio in 1964 are all part of one story, but that story is not told in this book.
Finally, I must add that it was after a three year search for the original source material for this book under circumstances made intentionally difficult by the repository holding them, that by sheer luck and chance, or serendipity, my colleague found the 'smoking gun' that blew the lid off this deception.
After tracking down the family of the deceased source, we were informed by his daughter that he was never shown a copy of this book, and his loaned artifacts were never returned to him. As a result of these findings I have therefore downgraded my rating for this book.