CLICK TO SUPPORT
PEARL HARBOR ATTACKED

 


Search Members Help

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

1 members are viewing this topic
>Guest

Page 2 of 2<<12

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: Rumors - Part 9, Autometric yet again< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 11
Ken Hackler Search for posts by this member.
Moderator-Historian
Avatar

TeamIcon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 421
Joined: Mar. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 10 2003,10:51  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I had something of a problem with that over the years also Joan.  I've written several articles about that and posted a few things on this board over the years asking how.  Look at the "Rumors - Part 4" topic for just a few of those questions.

Also, I did ask John Rodgaard those questions several years ago, but he failed to answer with anything remotely direct. I wish he, Burlingame, Martinez, or any of their other proponents would have the courage to come on this board and discuss it openly.

--------------
Ken Hackler
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
Tracy White Search for posts by this member.

Avatar

TeamIcon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 772
Joined: Aug. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 10 2003,5:44 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Ken; why risk the cash cow when they can just ignore the critics and keep selling to Discovery or the History Channel?

"Historical discover" is sexy, even if it's false.

--------------
Let's see what this does...

Tracy White
http://www.ResearcherAtLarge.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 13
Mike Wenger Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: Apr. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2003,8:01 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

ALL... I POSTED THE FOLLOWING ON J-AIRCRAFT.COM REGARDING THE "2ND SUB IN THE HARBOR".  RISKING REDUNDANCY, I WILL SHARE IT HERE.

My take on the midgets is this:

1. I really don’t regard myself as one of the experts on this matter.
2. However, with the knowledge I do have, and with what is available in certain American documents, it seems to me that there was NOT a second midget in the harbor.
3. The basis for my conclusion (shaped in great measure by Divirgilio’s thinking) is this… forget the subs- count the torpedoes.

2 – Sakamaki’s sub, unfired.
2 – Honolulu harbor sub, unfired.
2 – Ward’s sub, unfired.
2 – Monaghan’s sub – fired.

That leaves us with the final two torpedoes. St.Louis recorded zigzagging right and left and ringing up 24 knots to evade two torpedoes JUST as she passed the entrance bouys at 1004 – 2 FIRED, both of which exploded ashore.

Now, that total would be ten. This presupposes, of course, that 1. what St.Louis saw were actually torpedoes, and 2. that an “I” boat did NOT fire them. Personally, I think the I boats were further off shore.

I would also have to say that I feel it would be very difficult (thought not absolutely impossible) for the midget to exit the harbor. I have some net-tender records that I need to consult further (and my work in this area is FAR from comprehensive or complete), but I think that the tender had the gates closed for various periods of time, which certainly would have made escape difficult. The caveat to that would be that there was a large number of vessels exiting the harbor during and after the attack. I’ve compiled a time-line of those occurrences from the destroyer deck logs, and there were indeed some times that the nets might have stayed opened.

Think on this though... with the heavy traffic in the channel, wouldn’t the midget have blundered into the paths of some of the outbound ships, particularly if the attempted exit had been later rather than sooner. How could something like this possibly be missed? However, as I said before, I have more work to do on this.

I’m NOT saying that I could never be convinced otherwise, but on balance, I think that the routine of the additional sub in the harbor is unlikely. I certainly have just as many preconceived notions and prejudices as any man. To their credit, the Discovery Channel did provide contrary evidence. I think that, unless the 5th midget is located, this matter will forever remain the delightful conundrum it is.

Regardless of the side you come down on, you just have to love the interest and controversy this story has engendered.

Mike W.

--------------
Mike Wenger
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
David Aiken Search for posts by this member.
Moderator-Historian
Avatar

TeamIcon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 901
Joined: Feb. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2003,8:50 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Quote (Mike Wenger @ Dec. 11 2003,08<!--emo&:0)
3. The basis for my conclusion (shaped in great measure by Divirgilio’s thinking) is this… forget the subs- count the torpedoes.

2 – Sakamaki’s sub, unfired.
2 – Honolulu harbor sub, unfired.
2 – Ward’s sub, unfired.
2 – Monaghan’s sub – fired.

That leaves us with the final two torpedoes. St.Louis recorded zigzagging right and left and ringing up 24 knots to evade two torpedoes JUST as she passed the entrance bouys at 1004 – 2 FIRED, both of which exploded ashore.

Aloha Mike,
Thank you for supporting my initial thoughts on this topic [shared with John, etc] ...to count the torpedos.

The second thought considered is, what would happen to the midget sub once it got that far into the harbor...the idiot CO would be in the way of the aerial attack...and would be struck by one of those torpedos being dropped...exactly where the hypothesis says he was located.

Third, we must understand the launch times, lat-long, and distance from the harbor entrance of each midgets. This directly sorts who got to the harbor channel entrance in what order, given select knowledge of problems in certain navigational skills and equipment failures. This helps us understand that the initial midget to enter the harbor was the "Monaghan" midget and the "St Louis" midget was the one which radioed a successful launch.

Cheers,
David

--------------
Cheers,

David Aiken, a Director
Pearl Harbor History Associates, Inc.

Keep the largest WWII website on line!
Join NOW: $25
P.O. Box 1007
Stratford, CT  06615

http://www.pearlharbor-history.org/
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 15
Mike Wenger Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: Apr. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 11 2003,9:22 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

David,

I agree wholeheartedly.  Looking at the locations/times of release are virtually the ONLY way to arrive at any plausible scenario that postulates which named mini-sub did what.

This is one of those issues (as with many others) which, likely, will not be fully resolved in our lifetimes.  Too many documents have been lost.  A bushel basket of documentation remains, but there are too many irreparable gaps.

It is sometimes difficult to know what makes these TV people at once so susceptible to the sensational and yet so resistant to examining all the hard evidence.  Parshall and I repeatedly told these Discovery Channel folks that there was little or no way for the 2nd sub to be in PH, but to no avail.  I rather feel that because we came into the process late (October) the DC had cast their dice financially.  One of the producers at Termite Art did say in retrospect that he wished he had consulted with US earlier.

With that said, it was an entertaining program.   And how about the Type 91 Torpedo hydrodynamics tests!  That was unprecedented... It certainly confirmed that the weapons worked, as if ANY proof was required there!

Wenger

--------------
Mike Wenger
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
Tracy White Search for posts by this member.

Avatar

TeamIcon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 772
Joined: Aug. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 13 2003,8:17 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Greetings Mike. I just did a headcheck with David as when I saw that I rolled my eyes and I wanted to make sure the eye roll was warranted.

The tests done at U of M (my Dad's Alma Mater!;) unfortunately settled or demonstrated nothing. The fins were designed to make the torpedos fall in the air flatter, to keep the nose from dropping and pointing down. They fell off AS SOON as they hit the water. The test at U of M watched what would have happened had the fins stayed on at least during the initial dive, but in actuallity they were long gone. They tested a design that never happened.

--------------
Let's see what this does...

Tracy White
http://www.ResearcherAtLarge.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 17
Mike Wenger Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: Apr. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 15 2003,1:24 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

You are absolutely correct, of course.  However, I would still maintain my point… that they indeed tried something never tried before.  They were on the right track, but jumped off the wrong box-car.

It does bring up an interesting point.  Checking/verifying distant sources or any untried theory takes an inordinate and disproportionate amount of resources.  If you don’t believe that, try taking a $10,000 research trip to Japan (with all its attendant dead-ends and blind alleyways)!  Anyone who risks capital, whether personal or financial, in pursuit of what they think might be the truth is to be lauded, not denigrated or belittled.

There was a very interesting segment on Carl Sagan's "COSMOS" program from several decades back that told of a Russian scientist who postulated that, many millions of years ago the planet Jupiter somehow belched forth the planet Venus.  The important thing to remember about this demonstrably false notion was not that it was silly or stupid, but that it was suppressed by the Soviet government.

Any search for the truth requires a courageous abandonment of preconceived notions, and a willingness to examine every theory, irrespective of its apparent merit.  Those who would have preferred silence on the air waves to the DC's late production should think of that.

The search for truth leads in many, many different directions, my friend.  One NEVER knows what insights can be accrued in the pursuit of any pathway, however misguided the search.  Did the Discovery Channel come to some errant judgements?  Well, quite likely.  Did their various laboratory tests leave some things to be desired?  Definitely.  Did the program serve as a catalyst for more creative thinking and analysis?  YES... except among those who think they possess all knowledge.

Forty to fifty years down the road, long after I am gone and forgotten, and have mingled with the soil of North Carolina, I can guarantee you that someone will invest the $50,000 to $100,000 or so that it will take to actually test the Pearl Harbor torpedoes properly.  They will probably be inspired by such a program as we saw last week, as flawed as it was.  In the meantime, we should be grateful for those who put their reputations on the line by producing and/or publishing.  They give us a great gift.

--------------
Mike Wenger
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
Ken Hackler Search for posts by this member.
Moderator-Historian
Avatar

TeamIcon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 421
Joined: Mar. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 15 2003,1:48 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Mike,

I agree with you about the courage it takes to put forth a theory in public, exposed to all the criticism.

However, I firmly believe that they should pay close attention to the media they have chosen.  They failed to properly research this, yet they push ahead, on television.  This reaches millions of people who will now accept this as "fact" despite the horrible flaws.

I have a real issue with people who use such a medium for their personal gain without care for the truth, which is what I believe happened here.

John Rodgaard will not respond to the many questions regarding the theory they continue to put forth, nor will he address the obvious.  As a matter of fact they went out of their way to avoid those issues.

I guess my real problem with these guys is that they no longer seek the truth, but only to salvage their reputations.

--------------
Ken Hackler
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
Tracy White Search for posts by this member.

Avatar

TeamIcon

Group: Moderators
Posts: 772
Joined: Aug. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 15 2003,7:42 Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I'm all for research that improves our knowledge. research with an agenda though, even though they're spending their money, shoul dnot be lauded. I refuse to give accolades to someone who seeks to use history for an incorrect premise.

People who try and simply make mistakes are another matter. The bit done at the U of M was good in that they tried, but in the end is completely irrelevant.

--------------
Let's see what this does...

Tracy White
http://www.ResearcherAtLarge.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 20
Mike Wenger Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 86
Joined: Apr. 2001

Member Rating: None
PostIcon Posted on: Dec. 16 2003,11:10 Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

At last, we strike a happy agreement.

1. Charlatans exert a most destructive influence, whatever their activity or mode of operation.
2. All discourse/discussion is good.

Wenger

--------------
Mike Wenger
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
19 replies since Dec. 08 2003,11:57 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 2 of 2<<12
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply Rumors - Part 9
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code




Spring into Action Banner