Denyav wrote in message ...
Firstly part of my deleted text,
There was no Pearl Harbor warning delivered to the US and the last
people to know of one would have been the army intelligence, they
were not watching the IJN.
The diplomatic cables give no warning on any of the Japanese
attacks, only that there was a high probability someone would
be attacked.
Title: The "Magic" background of Pearl Harbor.
Publisher: [Washington] : Dept. of Defence, U.S.A. : for sale by
the Supt. of Docs., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., [1978]
Description: 5 v. in 8 : maps (on lining paper) ; 27 cm.
Pardon me,but but by repeating official stories we cannot learn much more than
what we already know.
Let us see the claim what the war warning messages contained about
Pearl Harbor is deleted, along with the actual messages themselves,
since the truth destroys the claim. Now comes the decision to delete
the transcripts of the Japanese messages, since the claimed "attack
Pearl Harbor" message does not exist the actual record needs to be
deleted as well.
More deleted text,
"It contains the cables, including decode dates, the transcripts
of bugged Japan-US phone calls and state department assessments
of the various meetings.
There is a project at Purdue University to put the above books into
electronic form with an index, I am unsure about its current status.
See also
Author: Komatsu, Keiichiro.
Title: Origins of the Pacific War and the importance of 'magic'.
Publisher: New York : St. Martin's Press, 1999.
Where as part of the work the author looks at the problems with translating
Japanese into English and what sort of effects mistranslations had."
I suggest reading the messages, they tell you lots, things like the
maps of Panama that were so good a courier was to take them to
Japan. The ships in harbour messages from the other ports, not
just Hawaii and so on.
Kimmel and/or his descendants were given chance to defend themselves and to
challenge to official version only TWICE,one Navy investigation (There were
several Navy investigations but in only one he was allowed to defend himself
aganist charges !!!) the other was Congressional and both of them came to
conclusion that Kimmel should be exhonorated.period.
Try again, the Congressional investigation found against Kimmel.
The navy investigation found for him. By the way investigations
are about deciding charges, trials are for defending charges.
1) Roberts Commission, 1941/42 found against Kimmel and Short
2) Hart Inquiry in 1944, mainly evidence collecting
3) Pearl Harbor Army Board in 1944, criticised Short, Marshall and Gerow.
4) Naval Court of Inquiry, exonerated Kimmel.
5) Clausen Investigation, 1944/45, mainly evidence gathering. (He wrote
a book on it and gives Kimmel and Short the highest rankings in the
contributors to the defeat list.)
6) Hewitt Inquiry, 1945, follow on to Naval court, Kimmel denied access,
no report published.
7) Clarke Investigation, 1944/45 investigation into claims of documents
being destroyed, found this not to be the case.
8) Joint Congressional Committee, 1945/46, Hawaiian commanders guilty
of errors of judgement, not dereliction of duty.
Kimmels defense were basically "FDR-Stimson-Marshall trio wanted it
happen and made it happen by witholding information that was known in
Washington and London.
Putting words into Kimmel's mouth now I see. Kimmel's defence was
that he was deprived of information he needed, mainly messages from
the local Japanese consulate and timely warning of the time the last
Japanese message was supposed to be presented to the US. There
was nothing said about senior leaders wanting the attack to happen.
All "official" facts were known to panelists but they still accepted Kimmels
version.
If one entity becomes evidence collector ,DA,police,judge,jury and executioner
the evidence that they present becomes irrelevant.
I like this, if the one entity argument is followed then the claimed let
off for Kimmel is the rigged result, it was an all Navy affair.
The Thurman knew it line appears to be part of the Pearl Harbor
movie plot. Presumably the system noticed it was really Dan
Aykroyd in disguise with false ID.
See for example,
http://www.epinions.com/content_68513926788
Military Intelligence Characters of this movie were based on real characters
moreover they and/or their relatives were interviewed by the the makers of the
movie.
I see "based on real characters", and I presume the transcripts of these
claimed conversations are available? I presume you have traced the
people the pilots and nurse were based on as well? Found the message
the plot line was based on as well? Double checked the interviews were
with people present, not relatives reporting hearsay 60 years later?
Perhaps the fundamental reality that the US Army intelligence people
did not work on IJN codes will intrude at some stage.
Alternatively Hollywood movies said to be fiction can be taken as the
truth, so the US has Luke Skywalker hiding somewhere no doubt.
John Wayne won WWII almost single-handed, serving in all branches
of the US military?
It sums up the "evidence" quite well when a Hollywood entertainment
product is the source of truth.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.