Old Wounds

[hawker]

Anyone could do it in "Victory in the Pacific" if they had the ability to weigh the opportunity and the risk. I took a calculated risk and it paid off quite well. I'll bet that on a good day, given the right circumstances, you could do it too, assuming you have the ability to recognize opportunity and calculate risk.

Oh yes,in game maybe,in RL hardly.
And you said that would be LIKELY outcome.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Speaking of hearsay, here's my favorite story (I wasn't there so this is hearsay, but I knew all participants so it's pretty reliable hearsay for what it's worth).

An lawyer from Atlanta was here in Rome, Georgia, representing the plaintiff in a big case. A "country lawyer" from Rome was representing the defendant.

The Atlanta lawyer moved to admit an affidavit from a witness. The affidavit reported what the witness had seen. The Rome lawyer objected on the basis that it was hearsay. The Atlanta lawyer replied that it was a certified affidavit. Rome lawyer: "Then it's certified hearsay." The judge refused to admit the affidavit.

Hmmm... i am intrigued by these distinctions. Maybe this is OT, but:

OK - i can understand why someone testifying that they heard a defendant bragging about a murder is hearsay (even if admissible): the information about the murder came from another party, and you don't have direct knowledge of the murder.

However, if you testify that someone requests another person to do something in your presence, do you not have direct evidence of the request?

If, by example if A and B are talking to C, and C requests B to perform an illegal act (let's say it is murder of D); D gets murdered. Then A goes to the police tells them what they know and C is arrested (and there is other evidence to support that C is responsible for the crime).

So - A's testimony about the circumstances is hearsay? [&:]

OK - i've been reading up on this... perhaps Georgia statues differ, but IF someone was willing to testify under oath about something, it doesn't seem to be hearsay. i don't think it is the case about the woman stating what she heard in FDR's office since there was no testimony involved... here is what i've found that seems to be relevant:

"Hearsay is the legal term that describes statements made outside of court or other judicial proceedings. Unless one of about thirty[1] exceptions applies, hearsay is not allowed as evidence in the United States. The Hearsay Rule is an analytic rule of evidence that defines hearsay and provides for both exceptions and exemptions from that rule. There is no all-encompassing definition of hearsay in the United States. However, most evidentiary codes defining hearsay adopt verbatim the rule as laid out in the Federal Rules of Evidence [1], which generally defines hearsay as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Rule 801, 28 U.S.C. App. See Rule for Courts-Martial 801, Manual for Court Martial, United States (2005 ed.). Historically, the rule against hearsay is aimed at prohibiting the use of a person's assertion, as equivalent to testimony to the fact asserted, unless the assertor is brought to testify in court where he may be placed under oath and cross-examined."

"The theory of the rule excluding hearsay is that assertions made by human beings are often unreliable; such statements are often insincere, subject to flaws in memory and perception, or infected with errors in narration at the time they are given. The law therefore finds it necessary to subject this form of evidence to “scrutiny or analysis calculated to discover and expose in detail its possible weaknesses, and thus to enable the tribunal (judge or jury) to estimate it at no more than its actual value” (Wigmore on Evidence §1360).

Three tests are calculated to expose possible weaknesses in a statement:

1. Assertions must be taken under oath;
2. Assertions must be made in front of the tribunal (judge or jury); and
3. Assertions must be subject to cross-examination.

Assertions not subject to these three tests are (with some exceptions) prohibited insofar as they are offered testimonially (for the truth of what they assert)."
So, of course the affadavit case quoted above is "certified hearsay" since it fails rule 3, and probably rule 2, although not rule 1.

If the person DID come into court to testify, i am thinking it would not be hearsay. As it stands now - yes, it is, because there was no court case involved.

In my example of the person overhearing the attempting to hire someone to kill another person: if the person testified under oath, got the evidence through on their own (not through a third party), testified to a tribunal, and was subject to cross-examination, then the testimony would NOT be hearsay. At least under the Federal Rules of Evidence (or at least this is how i read it).

But, since in my original statement: yes, it is hearsay since it fails at least the second 2 criteria. Unless the case ever goes to court (and if the person is still alive and testified - the article is several years old and i am not sure the woman is still alive...)[:D]

Somehow i doubt you could put FDR on trial now - under current US law, anyway.

EDIT: It actually gets a lot more complicated... but not all out of court statements are considered hearsay. For instance:

"For example: Witness testifies that yesterday he spoke to Jim (who was in Vermont) on the phone and that Jim made the following statement, "It's raining in Vermont!" If the attorney is seeking to use this statement to prove that it was in fact raining in Vermont, then it is hearsay. But, if the attorney is seeking to use the statement to prove that the phone lines were working that day, or that Jim had not lost the power of speech, or for any other purpose, then the statement is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and therefore it is not hearsay."

In the case of the woman (should she be testifying) re: the FDR conversation - it could be argued that she is not trying to prove that FDR was trying to bring emergency supplies to PH, but rather that it was trying to prove foreknowledge by FDR of an attack.

Whether or not you could get a judge to accept it as testimony, well, it also depends if it is civil or criminal court.

BTW - just trying to figure out exactly what is meant by hearsay here... again, the statues differ state to state, and if you happen to be in Louisiana, forget it...

[mdiehl]

Oh yes,in game maybe,in RL hardly.
And you said that would be LIKELY outcome.

And I meant it. If the USN could sink four IJN CVs in June 1942 with 2 cvs worth of aircraft, they could sink 4 (or even six of 'em) with a well timed 3 CV strike in Dec 1941. As I noted, all that would have been required would have been for the USN to hit Strike Force after Strike Force had launched its second deckload at Pearl Harbor.

Hard to know the exact outcome but I think the loss of 3-6 IJN CVs under such circumstances for the possible loss of one American CV is the LIKELY result, given what we know about poor Japanese recon, inferior plane handling and deck spotting, and poor CV design, inferior CAP control, ineffective AAA, and weak damage control. If it were 3 USN CVs against six Kriegsmarine Graf Zeppelin class CVs (tying together things that never happened but one could imagine happening), the total annihilation of the Axis force would be a near-certainty.

The Japanese were the masters of the set piece battle. They were outstanding at launching airstrikes from Japanese CVs against immobile, unsuspecting targets such as land installations and ships in port. They were exceptionally bad at fluid battle, and generally inferior to the USN, CV for CV.

[hawker]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Oh yes,in game maybe,in RL hardly.
And you said that would be LIKELY outcome.

And I meant it. If the USN could sink four IJN CVs in June 1942 with 2 cvs worth of aircraft, they could sink 4 (or even six of 'em) with a well timed 3 CV strike in Dec 1941. As I noted, all that would have been required would have been for the USN to hit Strike Force after Strike Force had launched its second deckload at Pearl Harbor.

Hard to know the exact outcome but I think the loss of 3-6 IJN CVs under such circumstances for the possible loss of one American CV is the LIKELY result, given what we know about poor Japanese recon, inferior plane handling and deck spotting, and poor CV design, inferior CAP control, ineffective AAA, and weak damage control. If it were 3 USN CVs against six Kriegsmarine Graf Zeppelin class CVs (tying together things that never happened but one could imagine happening), the total annihilation of the Axis force would be a near-certainty.

The Japanese were the masters of the set piece battle. They were outstanding at launching airstrikes from Japanese CVs against immobile, unsuspecting targets such as land installations and ships in port. They were exceptionally bad at fluid battle, and generally inferior to the USN, CV for CV.

Yes,just like in Coral sea[:D]
Lexington was in port and get torpedoed at anchor[;)]

I was away for a while but you dont change.
Same old one-sided ignoring facts Mdiehl[:D]

P.S. Dont try to talk about strategic victory in Coral sea,two japanese CV meet two US CV and Lexington was sunk.

P.S.#2 Santa cruz, Hornet was sunk

Eh,but you will find the way to rewrite history[;)]

[bradfordkay]

hawker, we have been asked to keep our discussions civil with no personal attacks. Your last post crossed this line.

You might want to check this post made by Joe Wilkerson:

tm.asp?m=1649590


Thanks

[Coach Z]

Point three. I have never heard that anyone in the US had solid evidence about where the Japanese carriers were prior to the attack. Does anyone know any different?

[/quote]

Actually Cuttlefish the IJN was so careful about hiding the location of the 6 carriers, that they took the primary radio men off each carrier. AS I understand (My fathers a HAM Radio operator as well) every person has a distinct way of sending morse code...a style and and exoert can often identify the person by their "style" of sending code. Has to do alot with the length of pauses between dots, dashes, and words.

[hawker]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

hawker, we have been asked to keep our discussions civil with no personal attacks. Your last post crossed this line.

You might want to check this post made by Joe Wilkerson:

tm.asp?m=1649590


Thanks

Hi Brad, you mean because of word "ignorant"?
I just check dictionary because english is not my language. " Ignorant" is different in my language than in english.
In my language there is no offense [:-]

I will change that word.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: pbear

Facts, facts, don't muddy the water with facts, you can not prove that it was not a conspiriacy therefore it must have been. [:D]

Heinlein's Razor:

"Never attribute to villainy that which may be eadequately explained by stupidity."

Hanlon's Razor

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Coach Z

Point three. I have never heard that anyone in the US had solid evidence about where the Japanese carriers were prior to the attack. Does anyone know any different?

Actually Cuttlefish the IJN was so careful about hiding the location of the 6 carriers, that they took the primary radio men off each carrier. AS I understand (My fathers a HAM Radio operator as well) every person has a distinct way of sending morse code...a style and and exoert can often identify the person by their "style" of sending code. Has to do alot with the length of pauses between dots, dashes, and words.

Yes - this is one reason that the claims that the position of the KB had been triangulated are controversial... they had (at least some of ) the original radio operators put ashore to conduct dummy traffic to deceive the US SIGINT folks... it worked to a certain extent, although by December 7 USN Intel at PH realized they didn't have a clue where the KB was.

This led to the (in)famous quote shortly before the attack, that went something like "You mean the Japanese carriers could be about to sail around Diamond Head, and we wouldn't know about it?"

The Japanese also had supposedly put "seals" on the transmitting keys so that the radio operators could not transmit.

However, it IS possible to transmit without a key. One instance i know of is a HAM operator on board a yacht seized (illegally) by a foreign government managed to transmit a message to the American Embassy after the microphone and Morse-key was seized.

The HAM operator managed to transmit by taking a cut microphone wire, strip the wire, and send out Morse by tapping the bare wires together... leading to timely intervention by the US government. [8D]

[Yamato hugger]

I'm a big fan of conspiracies.

Kennedy? Yes. In the early 1960s in the heat of the cold war, Cuban missle crisis and all that, a ex-US Marine guard at the US embassy in Russia "defects" to the USSR, and then returns home a short time later to the US and no one even monitors him? No way. He was a US agent and was set up. No doubt in my mind.

Twin towers? Nope. Dont believe this for a minute.

Moon landing? Yes. In 1977 I saw a picture taken from orbit of the eastern Med during the 1973 Arab - Israel war a series of blown up photos. The next showed the corner of the Med, the next the nearby desert with dust and smoke visible and little dots (tanks), the next was one of the tanks, and the final one, taking up a full 8x10 was the tank commanders watch. Now if they could do that in 1973, why is it we havent seen a photo of any of the moon landing sites? Neither taken from the moon orbiters at the time, nor from Hubble or any of the many exploration probes sent since?

Pearl Harbor? Yes. I dont think FDR had intended for it to be as bad as what happened. I believe that the warnings sent were intended to get the commanders there to get their search forces out and spot the Japs before they actually attacked, and I believe the lack of them doing just that is what got them relieved of command.

Roswell? The list goes on [:D]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
I'm a big fan of conspiracies.

Pretty much guarantees that everything to follow is nonsense.., but thanks for contributing. [:D][:D]

[rtrapasso]

Moon landing? Yes. In 1977 I saw a picture taken from orbit of the eastern Med during the 1973 Arab - Israel war a series of blown up photos. The next showed the corner of the Med, the next the nearby desert with dust and smoke visible and little dots (tanks), the next was one of the tanks, and the final one, taking up a full 8x10 was the tank commanders watch. Now if they could do that in 1973, why is it we havent seen a photo of any of the moon landing sites? Neither taken from the moon orbiters at the time, nor from Hubble or any of the many exploration probes sent since?

Well, i've seen pics... the "spy satellites" NASA has circling the moon aren't nearly as fancy as those the CIA has, though, and so they aren't as good.

EDIT: Here's one:
http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/ima ... to-Enlarge

[Yamato hugger]

If you have a link to them? I would like to see them. I love going to NASA in Florida every time I go down there, I followed the Mars probes and the NEAR missions intently and thought it odd that NASA had never displayed any photos of the moon landing sites from space.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

If you have a link to them? I would like to see them. I love going to NASA in Florida every time I go down there, I followed the Mars probes and the NEAR missions intently and thought it odd that NASA had never displayed any photos of the moon landing sites from space.

Yeah - see post above (crossing posts)
Here is the main article:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/mi ... 10427.html

[Yamato hugger]

Sweet, thanks. I'd consider that confimation enough [;)]

Still odd that in all the photos at NASA, they dont have any displayed nor on their web site.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Sweet, thanks. I'd consider that confimation enough [;)]

Still odd that in all the photos at NASA, they dont have any displayed nor on their web site.

Well - i could make some guesses:
1) NASA considers the whole thing silly, and figures its already debunked it adequately;
2) The CLEMENTINE photos are actually DOD photos (not NASA) - and so NASA doesn't want to display them on their site;
3) Anyone SERIOUSLY committed to a moon-landing hoax conspiracy is probably not going to be convinced by these photos ("The Scientists faked those too!!")

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The true issues here were brought up in At Dawn We Slept. Though dated, the book still rings with strong arguments. I think a good portion of blame must sit with Kimmel and Short. They had gotten so many warnings and cautions, that they should have done SOMETHING more then they did. I believe that Prange described it as a 'fatal lethargy' of the mind.

I consider Prange's books the most convincing works on this subject. 'At Dawn We Slept' is concentrating on the events leading to Dec 7th. For even more arguments, see 'The Verdict of History', which is about the responsability for the disaster. This book also deals with revisionism, including consideration of John Toland's 'Infamy', and shows the weakness of the arguments of the anti-Roosevelt thesis.

Regarding the link in the first post - most points in this collection of 'evidence' do not stand up to closer examination - see Prange! Many statements are incomplete, out of context, distorted or not proven. One blatant example is the 'Tokyo-Budapest message' (quote from the 'conspiracy website):

"7 December - A message from the Japanese Consul in Budapest to Tokyo:
"On the 6th, the American Minister presented to the Government of this country a British Government communique to the effect that a state of war would break out on the 7th." The communique was the Dec 5th War Alert from the British Admiralty. It has disappeared. This triple priority alert was delivered to FDR personally Dec 5. "

This British Government Communique was not about Pearl Harbor, not even about Japan, but a warning from the British Government to Hungary, Roumania and Finnland "...that if they did not agree to cease fighting the Soviet Union, London would declare war on them". Accoring to Prange, anyone could have checked the true meaning of this Communique because most US newspapers carried the story in the headlines on Dec 6th.

But the most blatant hole is the very idea of 'war through the backdoor' - how could FDR have known for sure that Hitler would declare war on the USA if Japan attackes the US? German-Japanese treaties did not oblige Germany to do so. Japan had not declared war on Russia when Germany invaded it, so obviously there was no 'mutual support' pact between Japan and Germany before PH - so why expect Germany to help the Japanese against the US?

In short, this conspiracy stuff is good for a laugh and nothing else.

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Coach Z

Point three. I have never heard that anyone in the US had solid evidence about where the Japanese carriers were prior to the attack. Does anyone know any different?

Actually Cuttlefish the IJN was so careful about hiding the location of the 6 carriers, that they took the primary radio men off each carrier. AS I understand (My fathers a HAM Radio operator as well) every person has a distinct way of sending morse code...a style and and exoert can often identify the person by their "style" of sending code. Has to do alot with the length of pauses between dots, dashes, and words.

Yes - this is one reason that the claims that the position of the KB had been triangulated are controversial... they had (at least some of ) the original radio operators put ashore to conduct dummy traffic to deceive the US SIGINT folks... it worked to a certain extent, although by December 7 USN Intel at PH realized they didn't have a clue where the KB was.

This led to the (in)famous quote shortly before the attack, that went something like "You mean the Japanese carriers could be about to sail around Diamond Head, and we wouldn't know about it?"

The Japanese also had supposedly put "seals" on the transmitting keys so that the radio operators could not transmit.

However, it IS possible to transmit without a key. One instance i know of is a HAM operator on board a yacht seized (illegally) by a foreign government managed to transmit a message to the American Embassy after the microphone and Morse-key was seized.

The HAM operator managed to transmit by taking a cut microphone wire, strip the wire, and send out Morse by tapping the bare wires together... leading to timely intervention by the US government. [8D]

I have read in Prange that the Japanese even removed the fuses from the transmitters - you may be able to send without transmitting keys, but not without electric current, no? Furthermore, high-ranking Japanese officers who participated in the sortie of KB against Pearl have given testimony that KB did not break radio silence.

[Feinder]

I remember "Victory in the Pacific".  A good beer-and-pretzels game (esp if you're getting into war-games at the age of 10 with your brother).  Except we didn't have any beer when we were 10.
 
-F-

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The true issues here were brought up in At Dawn We Slept. Though dated, the book still rings with strong arguments. I think a good portion of blame must sit with Kimmel and Short. They had gotten so many warnings and cautions, that they should have done SOMETHING more then they did. I believe that Prange described it as a 'fatal lethargy' of the mind.

I consider Prange's books the most convincing works on this subject. 'At Dawn We Slept' is concentrating on the events leading to Dec 7th. For even more arguments, see 'The Verdict of History', which is about the responsability for the disaster. This book also deals with revisionism, including consideration of John Toland's 'Infamy', and shows the weakness of the arguments of the anti-Roosevelt thesis.

Regarding the link in the first post - most points in this collection of 'evidence' do not stand up to closer examination - see Prange! Many statements are incomplete, out of context, distorted or not proven. One blatant example is the 'Tokyo-Budapest message' (quote from the 'conspiracy website):

"7 December - A message from the Japanese Consul in Budapest to Tokyo:
"On the 6th, the American Minister presented to the Government of this country a British Government communique to the effect that a state of war would break out on the 7th." The communique was the Dec 5th War Alert from the British Admiralty. It has disappeared. This triple priority alert was delivered to FDR personally Dec 5. "

This British Government Communique was not about Pearl Harbor, not even about Japan, but a warning from the British Government to Hungary, Roumania and Finnland "...that if they did not agree to cease fighting the Soviet Union, London would declare war on them". Accoring to Prange, anyone could have checked the true meaning of this Communique because most US newspapers carried the story in the headlines on Dec 6th.

But the most blatant hole is the very idea of 'war through the backdoor' - how could FDR have known for sure that Hitler would declare war on the USA if Japan attackes the US? German-Japanese treaties did not oblige Germany to do so. Japan had not declared war on Russia when Germany invaded it, so obviously there was no 'mutual support' pact between Japan and Germany before PH - so why expect Germany to help the Japanese against the US?

In short, this conspiracy stuff is good for a laugh and nothing else.

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Coach Z



Actually Cuttlefish the IJN was so careful about hiding the location of the 6 carriers, that they took the primary radio men off each carrier. AS I understand (My fathers a HAM Radio operator as well) every person has a distinct way of sending morse code...a style and and exoert can often identify the person by their "style" of sending code. Has to do alot with the length of pauses between dots, dashes, and words.

Yes - this is one reason that the claims that the position of the KB had been triangulated are controversial... they had (at least some of ) the original radio operators put ashore to conduct dummy traffic to deceive the US SIGINT folks... it worked to a certain extent, although by December 7 USN Intel at PH realized they didn't have a clue where the KB was.

This led to the (in)famous quote shortly before the attack, that went something like "You mean the Japanese carriers could be about to sail around Diamond Head, and we wouldn't know about it?"

The Japanese also had supposedly put "seals" on the transmitting keys so that the radio operators could not transmit.

However, it IS possible to transmit without a key. One instance i know of is a HAM operator on board a yacht seized (illegally) by a foreign government managed to transmit a message to the American Embassy after the microphone and Morse-key was seized.

The HAM operator managed to transmit by taking a cut microphone wire, strip the wire, and send out Morse by tapping the bare wires together... leading to timely intervention by the US government. [8D]

I have read in Prange that the Japanese even removed the fuses from the transmitters - you may be able to send without transmitting keys, but not without electric current, no? Furthermore, high-ranking Japanese officers who participated in the sortie of KB against Pearl have given testimony that KB did not break radio silence.

As any broke apartment dweller knows, there are ways to get around blown or absent fuses...[:D]

High ranking officers may or may not be aware of everything that their underlings do.

[GaryChildress]

EDIT: Sorry to perpetuate a thread hijack.

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Sweet, thanks. I'd consider that confimation enough [;)]

Still odd that in all the photos at NASA, they dont have any displayed nor on their web site.

I always thought it strange that the pics from the moon's surface (at least the ones I've seen) don't have stars in the background.

Not saying I believe it was a hoax just wonder why no stars. [&:]