Topic: Rumors - Part 10
started by: egar
Posted by egar on Jan. 13 2004,12:10I am finding much interest in the midget sub theory in the harbor and torpedoing the BB.
While reading Burlingames book Advance Force Pearl Harbor
I find on pgs 198-199 that he makes the statement .."what
may be a midget sub". He goes on in the same paragraph to
say "what may be the Ko-Hyoteki and he goes on to say that
more research is needed. Can it be said that he is dogmatic
on the mystery sub issue? If he is saying more research is
needed then he has an open mind.
Posted by Ken Hackler on Jan. 13 2004,9:40Mr Burlingame is the leading proponent of a very poor theory. His book is the cause of this problem.
Look at the photo in his book - you can see that the object is obviously heavily modified and is in no way what appears on the original photo.
Before you go believing something like this, read everything else about that particular theory in this site and others.
Also, be very wary about believing things in his book. Too many of his statements have been proven to be false not to question all of them now.
Posted by Tracy White on Jan. 13 2004,11:57Most of the time "More research is needed" means "I have a theory but I can't prove it." Consider too the dates of the book; first published in 1993 and revised and released in April of 2002, BEFORE Ward's midget was found.
Posted by herbw2 on Oct. 27 2004,7:51The December, 2004 issue of "Naval History" has another article on the midget sub photo. Would be interested in Tracy's and Kens comments. There are a few Pearl Harbor articles in this issue.
Posted by Tracy White on Oct. 27 2004,5:43Repsonses can be found < here >.