This is a very interesting story that is (at least claimed to be) part of my family history.
My family stems from a group of travelling motorbike stunt riders back to the 20's. They did the wall of death and later the globe of death, and had to solve this problem in their bikes.
The family story is that we helped win the battle of Britain, as Miss Shilling read the about the idea in a motorcycle magazine that covered my families show. There is a lot of evidence on what Miss Shilling did, and that my family did the same modification to their bikes prior, but the lack of a link between the two leaves this as a half truth / half myth story
I'm sure there are challenges in a wall of death / globe of death situation, but I'd think that negative-g would not be one of them? Quite the reverse, I'd have thought...
The “orifice” was not for making fuel flow at negative gs, but for limiting the fuel after (once normal forces returned? The article is not clear) so there wasn’t too much fuel causing a rich-cut.
So possibly motorcycles could have the rich cut from bottoming out in the sphere of death?
For anyone else who was curious what the fix was, but not curious enough to read the whole long-form piece:
> Shilling worked out the precise volume and pressure of fuel being pumped into the chamber by the Merlin engine and designed a brass restrictor with a hole precisely the diameter needed to allow maximum flow of fuel, and therefore maximum power, without flooding the engine. Crucially, Shilling’s solution could be fitted without the removal of the carburettor, so the fix could be made in situ at operational airfields. Though it didn’t eliminate engine cut-outs altogether, it did minimize it to an acceptable degree.
This consistently antagonistic relationship between writer and reader, where the former is stringing along the latter as much as possible, is such a weird aspect of this time period.
Harper's and the Atlantic have been doing long-form journalism since the 1850s. I think the form clashes with modern attention spans and ability to focus, but I still enjoy it. Since it persists, I don't think I'm alone.
Recipe web sites, however... padding, padding and more. Though Dickens was paid by the word, too, and it shows.
The problem is not long-form journalism. The problem is shitty long-form journalism that randomly jumps between the events actually being described and the biography of the people involved.
"It was a long cold night in November 2016, Tuesday, which was Taco day in the cafeteria. The suns ray appeared yellow, and trees were unable to photosynthesize ... "
This is the natural consequence of every college prep high school teaching the dreaded 5 paragraph essay, and in turn students learning on how to load it with as much fluff as possible. Instead we should have focused on clear and concise writing. I didn't learn how to write properly until college. Quality over quantity.
This article is different from a great long Harper’s or Atlantic piece. I’m not good enough of a writer to know what needs to be fixed with this one but definitely something is “off” about its pacing.
It's not a problem with attention spam of focus ability: internet gave us a HUGE choice of information, and we literally like the time to enjoy it all. Thus prioritising is fundamental.
Long read are perfectly fine and can be wonderful, provided I know fast enough whether it will be worth my time.
There are readers who like to read and there are readers who read primarily to get to the information that interests them. The former like long pieces because they give them the opportunity to do more of the thing theylike, reading. So if there is an antagonistic relation, it is between readers who like to read and readers who want to find the information quickly.
However, I don't think there's such an antagonism. For every long, literary-style piece that conveys some kind of technical or historical etc information that may be interesting in the latter kind of reader, who just wants the facts, there are another 10 sources that give just the facts.
For example, when it comes to Ms Shilling's Orifice, you can find the same information on wikipedia in much shorter form:
Beatrice Shilling OBE PhD MSc CEng (8 March 1909 – 18 November 1990)[1] was a British aeronautical engineer and amateur racing driver. During the Second World War, she designed and developed "Miss Shilling's orifice" to restrict fuel flow to the carburettor of the Rolls-Royce Merlin engines in the Hawker Hurricane and Supermarine Spitfire fighters. Previously the pilots had experienced a loss of power or even complete engine cut-out during combat manoeuvres, posing a potentially lethal disadvantage in the Battle of Britain.
Note also that the damniniteresting.com piece is sub-titled with:
Long-Form/Podcast: How a female engineer defied all norms to save England in the Second World War.
Written by James Holloway • 09 October 2020
Long-form should give a hint about what is to come. I believe such descriptors in articles (which I've seen many times, as e.g. in The Guardian's "The Long Read" etc) are there exactly to match the right readers to the right pieces.
Thank you. The clickbaity title was driving my BS instinct crazy, so I kept skimming it up and down to figure out if it would answer the question and then gave up when I couldn't find it where it would normally explain the term.
“At that moment (I must have been down to about a hundred yards), I hit his slipstream and my engine cut —stone dead.”
He didn't need to describe his lower legs suddenly becoming strangely warm.
What isn't mentioned is that before the band aid was discovered thanks to Ms Shilling and her ... (it was often called 'er c**) a Spitfire would have to invert before diving to turn a neg. into a posi. So, when your enemy pushes forwards on the stick whilst frantically wriggling left and right, you would have to spin 180 on your longitudinal axis to follow. I'm sure many of the enemy would then fake to get you to spin and whilst you are fiddling around, slow down and get in behind you.
I can imagine: ME109 finds Spitfire on his tail. He has two great options - better rate of climb and a pressurized fuel system which doesn't cut out in neg. g. The Spitfire has a better turning circle, so don't go there. I suspect that they would go for the fake dive - the Spit will have to invert to follow. Now, I don't know how long the early Spits can manage a dive before having to decide to invert or pull out, so that is a factor here. When the 109 sees the Spit inverting in the rear view, pull back fairly hard, slow down a bit, probably with a left to right jiggle with the rudder to "skid" rather than messing with revs and propellor pitch (takes to long to play with the controls). If done right the Spit will pass underneath your 109 and most importantly, be blind because he's inverted. Now you are behind him and you have a cannon plus a handful of pea shooters to deploy.
If the Spit is canny, he should see the fake dip and probably try to turn horizontally and turn the scrap into a turning game. The Spit should win that because it has a better turning circle, in general.
Have an off day at the office in one of these things and you end up dead. I can barely conceive of what it must have been like to operate like that, operation after operation, day after day, week on week, months turn to years. There is no let up.
“When an enemy fighter dived from behind, fired and carried on diving past, one could not immediately dive in pursuit without the engine temporarily cutting and causing one to be left far behind. This could be avoided by rolling upside down, pulling back on the stick into a dive (positive g) then rolling level in the dive. […] Similarly, on sighting a target below, one suffered momentarily if one pushed the nose down to attack, a grave disadvantage.”
I am curious about the scenario you raised as to how an ME109 pilot would behave. Did they know about this flaw in the Spitfire?
I'm speculating somewhat about how it would play out but I'm sure that the Luftwaffe would have worked out the problem pretty quickly and developed tactics accordingly.
I'm not a pilot but I have flown several aircraft. Being an RAF cadet at school, back in the day, you were allowed to do quite a lot of things that might make a civvy flight instructor's hair prematurely go white when doing your "flight experience." Obviously we'd start quite a long way up with ATC keeping the area clear. I was memorably told "you have control" when the bloody thing was upside down and I thought my eyeballs were trying to dive through my feet and I was hanging off the straps. "I have control" (barely a waver) and I finished the loop off to straight and level. I think the pedals did some corrections for me. The rudder ie left/right yaw is done by the pedals and aircraft with more than one seat are automatically dual control.
Anyway.
Imagine you are a WWII fighter pilot - this is as close to dualling as you can get. If you get back home after a sortie, then you are debriefed (did you do what you were supposed to) and you might make some comments. A Luftwaffe pilot on return might note that the enemy pilot seemed inclined to invert. That might have looked a bit showy and odd. Eventually, someone would have decided that Spitfires can't dive properly - who cares exactly why. Tactics follow.
Our chaps would have been doing the same. We knew that the Spitfire was generally better in tight horizontal turns than the ME109 and perhaps the Focke Wulf 190 (I can't remember.) So our tactics would have favoured getting into a turning scrap.
Having read a lot about the air campaign over Europe over the last couple of years, I would gamble this weakness was known at least informally among Luftwaffe pilots, if not stated explicitly in training materials. This is exactly the kind of information that was passed around both informally and formally in the Allied air forces. Bomber commands on both sides used this kind of information to develop high-level tactics (for example, the evolution of the Allied box formation, and the responsive evolution of German attacks of Allied bomber formations).
For one interesting example, take a look at how the Luftwaffe responded to the placement of machine guns on the B-17 and adapted to the number of crew members available to man the guns.
Britain mostly was on the lookout for fighters and fighter/bombers with novel antennas, since they could be used to understand new radio navigation and radar electronics. (One of the most advanced landed near shore, but the Navy guarded it in salt water instead of handing it over for timely study.)
During the Korean War after a MiG-15 was "donated", the issue was how to verify it wasn't booby-trapped before entering it, since test pilots are valuable (Chuck Yeager was one of them.)
At the end of the Vietnam War, the north captured an entire fleet of US aircraft (87 F-5s, plus more types) that were used successfully against air battles with China.
Thank you for the interview link. It was rather surreal reading an interview from the non-allied side. Even more surreal, the amount of respect he had and has for his enemies. Very interesting.
It's easy to forget about the human element what with all the interesting technical aspects.
But you're right, when it came down to it, they were up in the sky, putting their lives in the hands of their machines, with someone else in a very similar machine armed with machine guns and cannons trying to essentially murder them.
I suppose you might get somewhat used to it after a while, but I can't imagine the fear ever really truly went away completely.
Those chasing the fastest lap times would race near the steepest, highest edge of the bank —circumstances under which staying in contact with the ground is, according to conventional wisdom, a good idea.
I love the understated humor of this article. And for different reasons, this is another wonderful bit from the piece:
This left only the logistical problem of how to get the restrictors to Fighter Command airfields in good time. Shilling organized a small band of engineers to assist, though inevitably she travelled up and down the country solo, and by her preferred mode of travel: her trusty Norton motorcycle. By then she’d made the small concession, perhaps under duress, to detune the Norton somewhat to make it more suitable for public roads.
“Her appearance at airfields with a bag of tools and a brisk manner became something of a legend,”
I'm also really happy to see these bits:
It was due to these ongoing narrow margins in battle that we can be sure Shilling’s innovation saved lives.
“Beatrice Shilling helped us to win World War II —of that there is no doubt,” he told the BBC in 2017. Her war efforts weren’t limited to improvements to the Merlin engine. She also contributed to a range of engines to improve starting in freezing conditions, and operation at higher altitudes.
Negative gravity is a confusing term because the problem wasn’t one of gravity, or even force, but rather of acceleration and inertia.
Negative gravity sounds confusing because the author is using the wrong word–what’s being described here is negative gravity equivalent (g-force). The aircraft is experiencing plenty of gravity, just in a different direction than it normally would. The problem is very much one of force.
Negative gravity is related to the concept of negative mass, which is a proposed form of exotic matter.
"At 15, she decided engineering was the career for her. The problem was that it was 1924. “The average woman does not possess the same engineering instinct as the average man,” was one opinion recorded in the Daily News at around that time. It belonged to the manager of the Education Research Department at British Westinghouse. “For a woman in the 1920s a career in lion-taming would have been more realistic,” observes Shilling’s biographer, Matthew Freudenberg."
Aptly put. Good thing about reading up on history is to gain an appreciation on the enormous changes in perception in the last 100 years or so, in this case about women in STEM fields. Even when her contribution was acknowledged and applied, it was coined a horribly sexist nickname.
It's surprising that human society has survived, given that half the population was artificially excluded from many intellectual pursuits - or many pursuits full stop really - and the other half perhaps underperformed as they wallowed in feeling of superiority form their position of privilege.
What a fantastic way to dismissively say "Raising children is work that is of zero benefit to the human species and a complete waste of time. Women only have any value if they are doing something other than traditional women's work."
It is possible to mourn the fact that women have historically been excluded from pursuits in which they might have excelled, while not demeaning the worth of the pursuits that they were forced into.
Childcare and home-making are invaluable and important. Many other pursuits are also valuable and important. It's not unreasonable to suspect that _some_ women have historically been forced into being home-makers when they would have been happier and/or more productive in other pursuits, _even while acknowledging_ that other women have lived their best-possible-lives in the (I say this earnestly and unsarcastically) noble pursuit of home-making.
One of the problems I have with such sentiments is that while probably most women were homemakers, most men had jobs like subsistence farmers.
My father could remember when his mother had no choice but to cook from scratch because they had no fridge and there were no prepackaged convenience foods and microwaves had not yet been invented.
"Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold" described a typical diet for a poor person of the time when that was written: A hot vegetarian meal with legumes, not meat, providing the protein for lunch and cold leftovers of the same for dinner.
It was critical to the survival of the species for someone to cook regularly and it made sense for myriad reasons for it to be the mother, not the father, for most families.
This was rooted in part in a lack of reliable birth control. Virginity until marriage and insisting the parents were responsible for the welfare of the children was the best we could do in most places on earth for much of human history.
A lot of people lacked many things we think of as "basic" today, such as food security, hygiene and birth control. Such people probably mostly were not dreaming of intellectually interesting careers and having their name remembered by future generations.
I'm glad to see we currently have the means for people to worry about such things. But it's a mistake to project such hopes and dreams overly much on people who often were dreaming much more humble dreams, like not starving to death this winter.
We tend to romanticize the past, not least due to the huge volume of art that survives. But everyday life of a regular person sucked in ways that are hard to imagine for most Western people of 2021. Washing with cold water, shortages of food, exhausting physical work that damaged your body, infectious diseases, living in slums.
> What a fantastic way to dismissively say "Raising children is work that is of zero benefit to the human species and a complete waste of time.
I don’t know if there was an edit to the previous post, but “Excluded from many intellectual pursuits” does not mean anything like what you are saying. Isn’t it possible to lament a historic lack of choice without demeaning homemakers?
A. I'm reacting to It's surprising that human society has survived.
B. Also the part you quoted implicitly suggests raising children takes no brains.
I was one of the top three students of my graduating high school class, won a National Merit Scholarship, among other things, and was a full-time wife and mom for a lot of years.
I homeschooled my twice exceptional sons because no other school was really capable of adequately serving their needs. My oldest tested at senior in college level in science at age 11 and also below grade level in writing. Addressing his needs required me to present high level materials without watering them down while accommodating his weaknesses.
I take personal offense at the idea that full-time moms are not doing useful work and raising children is something any idiot can do well.
The world would be a better place if we worried more about raising our children well. Studies show that investing in preschoolers saves money down the line by lowering prison costs for society.
Edit in response to your edit:
Isn’t it possible to lament a historic lack of choice without demeaning homemakers?
Absolutely. But the comment in question doesn't manage to do so.
> I take personal offense at the idea that full-time moms are not doing useful work and raising children is something any idiot can do well.
Where was this even remotely implied? OP said:
> It's surprising that human society has survived, given that half the population was artificially excluded from many intellectual pursuits - or many pursuits full stop
Even if you disagree with the premise - how in any way does this demean homemakers? What a bizarre reaction.
I believe the idea here is that suggesting any degree of “surprise” that human society has survived implies that the work women were excluded from was more vital to human society’s survival than what most or all of those excluded women were actually doing at that time.
There was no edit to my original content, and I'm astonished that anyone could read into it that raising children is work of zero value - that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.
Right. (Other) Animals can be much worse in many ways and their species survive. That’s not to say we want to be like savages, but it just is not a necessary ingredient for survival.
It isn't surprising at all considering hundreds of surviving, geographically isolated cultures all shared this same characteristic. It seems rather natural and unsurprising when we know it was successfully used so many times.
“At that moment (I must have been down to about a hundred yards), I hit his slipstream and my engine cut —stone dead.” Dogfights are presumably made all the more memorable with the added frisson of engine trouble.
Heck, that would put some hairs on your chest… the solution is ingenious too. What a neat article.
I have read the story if Miss Shilling a couple of times now. What I cannot place in historical context is whether the name “Miss Shilling’s orifice” is supposed to be a dirty joke or not. I am certain that the innovation was taken very seriously, but was the name given to it because she was a woman/was there innuendo in it or was the language sufficiently different then that this was a purely technical term?
> whether the name “Miss Shilling’s orifice” is supposed to be a dirty joke or not.
You are clearly not British, otherwise you would recognise the rule that no entendre must be left un-doubled.
Amusingly, double entendres, common in Britain, would probably cause those in the West Coast US to panic for fear of being perceived sexist. In Britain (home of the panto [1]), we just smile childishly...... and maybe add a 'fnarr fnarr' for good measure.
The double entendre was probably not accidental. Another comment here indicates it was called the same thing with even stronger language on a regular basis.
And 50 years from now when I'm gone and the kids around here have grandkids, people will cherry pick shitty quotes from shitty people in 2021 about race or gender or whatever else suits their political aims and lots of people that remember 2021 will cowardly say "it was a different time" and yet there will be these problems of sexism and racism and whatever other isms. As if we didn't care about these problems in the 90s, or the 60s, or before. In fact, the Romans wrote about these very same problems. So then I think we are framing the problem in the wrong way.
Is it possible you have conditioned yourself through the years of needing to reflexively post these kinds of replies? I took a break from HN when I took a break from all the things associated with the industry over the last couple of years, and this place has changed (as have I, but of course that's a tautology, because the only constant is change).
Indeed it's possible. I ask myself the question every day. On the other hand, I spend more time observing this place than anyone else—at least I hope more than anyone else, since I'm the only one being paid to do so. That's got to count for something too.
What does that add up to? I don't know, and I don't suppose anyone else does. It's dwarfed by the margin of error.
> On the other hand, I spend more time observing this place than anyone else—at least I hope more than anyone else, since I'm the only one being paid to do so.
You may knowably be the only person being paid by YC to do so, but generalizing that further seems to be on shakier ground.
Just to be clear, reposts are explicitly ok on HN if a story hasn't had significant attention yet. We want good stories to get multiple cracks at the bat! https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
I understand the provocation, of course, but the problem with posts like this is that they duplicate what they denounce and end up creating what they're complaining about.
On HN it's important to not to react reflexively, but rather to pause long enough for one's reflective circuits to kick in [1]. Then one can assess what's actually going on instead of snapping to the grid of the nearest pattern-match. That lets one consider the options for making a valuable contribution.
In this case, a quick look makes clear that this is a serious article full of interesting historical material. It's true that there's (presumably) a crude double entendre in the title, but that's there for historical reasons. It's not gratuitous. Unless I missed something, the article doesn't exploit it, and indeed is entirely respectful of Miss Shilling.
Commenters here need to be reflective enough to handle that sort of distinction. It's not difficult, if you're playing in the key of curiosity, which is the intended spirit of this site [2, 3].
On HN, it's best to leave shallow provocations in place and respond to what's interesting. We generally edit shallow provocations out of titles to help with that. This case was an exception, because of the historical angle. We could have replaced that specific name with some euphemism that would be nicer for contemporary ears, but that would be anachronistic and, I think, anti-intellectual. We try not to be Bowdlers here [4].
What I did instead, with the help of a reader who emailed, was put the term in quotes and capitalize it—to try to convey that it's a name with a specific historical meaning—and rely on the intellectual maturity of the readers for the rest. The latter is not always the best bet, but it worked out pretty well in this thread.
As I said below.... double entendres, very common in Britain, appear to cause those in the West Coast US to panic for fear of being perceived sexist. In Britain (home of the panto [1]), we just smile childishly...... and maybe add a 'fnarr fnarr' for good measure.
Double-entendres are as English as Big Ben. Even in the most prudish of eras, it's just been a staple of their artistic production, all the way from Shakespeare's times. Occasionally I listen to '60s entertainment shows from BBC Radio and they are so full of them that the average American would probably consider it "blue" material today, let alone decades ago.
Its probably also worth pointing out to our American audience that the beauty of double entendres is that any "blue" meaning is clearly in the mind of those hearing them, nowhere else!
After all "Miss Shillings Orifice" is simply a carburettor part named after Miss Shilling. Any association with bodily orifices (and that one in particular) is in the mind of the listener who should hang their head in shame for having such a dirty mind :-) What *would* your mother think!
I would like to point out to the casual reader from elsewhere that the comments in this thread refer to a Britain of the past. A nation's sense of humour evolves rather quickly.
You got me looking for pantomime statistics in recent years :) Perhaps they're hard to find or perhaps I didn't try very hard, but the best I could come up with was this from 2013:
> Terri Paddock, Managing and Editorial Director of WhatsOnStage, commented: "In general, we're seeing fewer pantomimes mounted in recent years. As of today, we're listing 125 pantomimes in our nationwide database for this Christmas as compared with a peak in 1996 of 244.
My kid's primary school takes them every year (covid excepted) to a panto, and we as a family go to our local am-dram panto. Annecdotaly that village panto has half a dozen shows and is always packed.
The former is a professional show - although 125 just for professional seems low given that I know of at least 3 professional pantos within 10 miles of my house which covers a population of about 100k population
Professional UK panto income increased 30% from 2012 to 2016 with about 3 million people watching a professional one each year - about 1 in 20 people.
Dunno how english Big Ben is. It was built in a made-up architectural style because it was supposed to be 'english' but england didn't really have much of an architectural culture.
Also dunno about double-entendre. Seems a little bit depressing to me that a woman struggles through sexism to provide a life-saving invention then it ends up getting made into a vagina joke.
Unless you think of another country when you look at the clock hosted in a tower named after an English Queen that only exists in the English capital, or when you hear his distinctive gong that happens to introduce several broadcasts originating from such capital, I’d say Big Ben is pretty English, whether you appreciate it or not. But I’m sure opinions on this are divided. /s
It’s also sad that you cannot appreciate an intelligent form of art that is not, in itself, sexist. There are plenty of plays, films, and tv series, where the double-entendre is “pushed” by women (x) , and there are plenty of women who thoroughly enjoy the practice (x) (I’d argue most, but maybe I just move in working-class circles). I’m sure that, if you dig in the annals of engineering, sooner or later you’ll find something nicknamed after penis jokes. Is that sad? It’s just humans being humans.
There's nothing more german than oktoberfest, nothing more american than wearing a pair of star-spangled-banner trousers while shooting an assault rifle at a bald-headed eagle, and nothing more british than 'elisabeth tower'[1], named after a woman who's entire family tree consisted of french people that hanged a lot of english peasants.
That and the picture of Lord Kitchener, maybe with a cup of tea and a really shit cupcake.
[1] PS: I can see it's very authentically english that everybody corrected me on this. I can just imagine the conversation at a pub, with me trying to work out how to escape through methods short of suicide.
> a woman who's entire family tree consisted of french people
Actually, a woman whose family tree is almost entirely composed of German, Dutch, and Scandinavian people. No doubt they hanged quite a few English peasants too, after being literally invited to rule over the country; but, you know, pedantry and all that.
I understand the sentiment, but I would counter: there is nothing more British than turning something utterly non-British into a symbol of britishness (fancy some tea?), so trying to measure purity in this field is not very productive.
I'd say that Britain never really had a nationalist movement, because it had its anti-monarchist revolution before nations really existed, and basically became an empire at the same moment in time. So there was never really a great drive to invent a unifying British identity (compared to, say, 'Frenchness' or 'Germanness') - past the stuff that people sell to tourists, like red buses and policemen that let pregnant women piss in their helmets.
So since the empire collapsed after WW2, everybody has been casting around for some kind of identity, more and more frantically as more and more bits of the empire have sloughed off. Since Brexit, it's got a bit weird, with all politicians making all statements in front of massive union jacks, and I expect it will get weirder still when Scotland leaves.
Hopefully, the national conversation will arrive at the conclusion that heterogeneity is no bad thing, and we should simply devolve power (cultural as well as economic) to a local level rather than trying to enforce a kind of Disneyfied Boris-Johnson style 'Britishness' on everybody, but I'm not holding my breath.
I disagree. There used to be a very distinctive British identity, mostly associated with English upper-class ideals. The lower classes were periodically coopted into this identity, either after the industrial revolution that triggered mass-education or during periodic conflicts, and their aspirations were then pushed outward to colonize “inferior” people. This is how the British empire was built, and it definitely was nationalistic in outlook.
Of course, the mechanism eventually broke, because of the slaughter of WW1 put the lie to the dream and the rise of continent-sized superpowers put it materially out of reach. Since then, coopting lower classes into upper-class ideals has been unfeasible. A replacement emerged in the heyday of socialist movements (everyone eating the same food, working in the same factories), but then died off, as that way of life also disappeared. What followed is not homogeneous, I agree on that, but I think you’re discounting the strength of what was there before.
Not only could it not be more English, but it couldn't be more distinctively English. It's the only bell in the world that sounds quite like that, due to the fact that they hit it with too big a hammer in September 1859, and had to cut a hole around the resulting crack to stop it spreading.
My family stems from a group of travelling motorbike stunt riders back to the 20's. They did the wall of death and later the globe of death, and had to solve this problem in their bikes.
The family story is that we helped win the battle of Britain, as Miss Shilling read the about the idea in a motorcycle magazine that covered my families show. There is a lot of evidence on what Miss Shilling did, and that my family did the same modification to their bikes prior, but the lack of a link between the two leaves this as a half truth / half myth story