Yes, they certainly are persistent. Too bad they cannot study history before trying to write it.
Their insistence that a second midget submarine - they claim the I-16 midget - made it into Pearl is based on faulty research and logic.
For example, they claim that a mysterious "electric light barrier" indicated that a submarine entered the channel in the early morning hours of December 7, based on an interview that Daniel Martinez conducted with a man who claimed to have been on watch that night.
The problem is that the indicator net lights were not installed until Christmas, as a result of the attack, and not before. The unknown sailor's story is a war story, and nothing more.
What did happen on the night of 6-7 December 1941 at about the time they mention is that a tug towing a barge entered the channel. The "lights" they refer to are not sensors of any sort, but rather simply net status lights showing that the net was open or closed. If the net was closed a red light was shown. A green light meant the channel was open to outbound traffic, and a white light meant the channel was open to inbound traffic.
According to the logs of the net vessel YNG-17, the nets were fully opened from 0217 to 0225 to allow the tug Hercules to enter with her tow (white light shown for inbound traffic).
According to the Autometric theory, the I-16 midget used not more than 10 knots from her release point and time to make it to the nets, which were open for that 8 minutes. They base their calculations on 4-5 knots, which is in line with the documented Japanese plan. However, at 5 knots the I-16 midget would have arrived at the nets around 0235, after they were closed again following the tug's entry.
My questions for the Autometric Team would be:
How did the I-16 midget know she had to be there at that time? In other words, why would she have used more speed to arrive in time for the open nets instead of the planned 4-5 knots for the transit?
She was released first, and only 7 miles from the entrance buoys, so what reason would her skipper have had to believe he needed to hurry? No submarine skipper in his right mind would use more speed to hurry someplace when he didn't have to. That would deplete his battery too quickly.
If anything, he had ample time to make the transit at 4-5 knots (as far as he was concerned), although he would not have arrived when the nets were opened for the tug.
So much for their theory.
Also, since the nets are NOT shown on the charts used by the Japanese midget submarines, they would not have known where or when to dive to get under the nets in the event they were closed. The Autometric people make the claim in their December 2000 Proceedings article that the Japanese knew about the nets, by stating, "At this point it is irrelevant whether the nets were open, because each midget crew planned on them being closed. They anticipated that each boat would need to dive below the nets (intellignece had told them how far down the nets went and how deep the channel was at this point)." And yet the nets are not shown on the charts used by the midget submarines, and the Japanese spy at the consulate had documented previously that he did not know if there were nets or not.
Another major blow to their theory.
Something that the Autometric people don't seem to have thought of is that the nets were open at 0458 for Crossbill and Condor to enter, and not closed again until well into the air attack. Why do the Autometric people insist that the I-16 midget entered between 0200-0230 when she could easily have entered when the nets were open, arriving at a time which makes a lot more sense given the situation.
One midget made it into Pearl when the nets were opened for Crossbill and Condor, why not a second? The answer is that a second midget never made it into Pearl at all, since all five are accounted for.
Yes, I said all five, but more on that later.
Their logic is as flawed as their scholarship. They claim to be experts, yet they do not do basic research.
I look forward to meeting them in Hawaii for the 60th Anniversary events. I have a number of questions that I wish to have them answer.
(Edited by Ken Hackler at 11:30 am on Nov. 26, 2001)