On the “McAdams on Garrison, scholarship or propaganda?” thread I asked you for evidence there were refugees in Darwin (Australia) on the day of the first two Japanese air raids, Feb. 19 1942.

You replied:

The refugees were fleeing the Japanese. How hard is that to grasp?

“Many casualties were Dutch refugees from the Netherlands East Indies…”
http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/underattack/airraid.html

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=172573

Though not actually stated the obvious import was that the quote referred to casualties from the first Darwin raids. I was prepared to acknowledge that you were correct but to my surprise when I clicked on your link I discovered that the Dutch casualties were in Broome two weeks later. This would have clear to anyone who had read the paragraph YOU cited.

Other areas of northern Australia also suffered attacks at various times. The next most devastating was on 3 March 1942 at Broome. Again without warning, Japanese aircraft swept in low, bombing and strafing Broome’s harbour, township and airfield. Dozens of people were killed or wounded and 24 aircraft were destroyed. Many casualties were Dutch refugees from the Netherlands East Indies (modern Indonesia) whose flying boats were sitting defenceless on the harbour.

So my question to you is you really so careless that you posted the quote without reading the preceding sentences in the paragraph OR were you trying to “pull a fast one”?

This is a bit or a conundrum because I find it hard to believe anyone could be so sloppy but also find it hard to believe you would think I wouldn’t notice. I really think you should give a forthright reply, after all your credibility is on the line.

Len,

Greg's credibility isn't on the line.

It is your credibility that is lost.

BK

So Bill are you saying that…

1) the quote about the Dutch refugees wasn’t completely out of context and thus indicative of either gross carelessness or an intent to deceive on Greg’s part? OR
2) I’ve posted info that was so inaccurate/misleading I must have been extremely careless or dishonest? OR
3) Both?

Please offer justification/evidence for your response.

No,

What I am saying is that Greg has much more important research to do rather than engage in a debate with you over anything.

BK

Bill,

Like his appeals to authority, his false dichotomies also show the stuff of which he is made.

When he started casting aspersions against those who were eye-witnesses, it became clear that he had no real interest in the subject; except to deny all evidence of a cover-up in his zeal to nail my oily hide to the wall.

Good luck, Len...! To help in your quest, here's a list of logical fallacies... see if you can find one you haven't used yet....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies

Bill you are conflation importance of subject matter with quality of research and seem to rate both on how much the product agrees with your viewpoint. I haven’t looked much at his JFK research but if his postings concerning the Darwin attacks are exemplary he is quite careless and fails to verify that his sources are really saying what he claims they are. As if it weren’t bad enough that he twice quoted pages without having read them carefully he quoted a sentence without having read the paragraph. I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming these were accidents rather that failed attempts to deceive




Sorry Greg no “false dichotomy” in the above. You used a quote completely out of context either you did so by accident or you did so intentionally there is no third alternative which is why you chose to change the subject rather than address it

You keep referring to “appeals to authority” but you don't know what the term means. It is only considered a fallacy if “the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.” Since the people I cited had all extensively researched the attacks they are legitimate authorities

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...-authority.html



I didn't “casting aspersions” against them I merely suggested they might be mistaken given the passage of time, their advanced age and the trauma they went through at the time. As for eyewitnesses I suggested you look for a book (not available in Brazil) written by someone who was their published in 1966 (when the interviewed witnesses would have been younger and their memories fresher) but you seem to have declined



Please cite specific example of when and where I have used any of them. Here’s you favorite you did it almost every post.

Fallacy of quoting out of context

The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.[1]

[…]

The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context (as all quotes are) per se, but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

The last time you did this was the worst I can remember anyone doing on this or any other forum I participate in, you used a quote referring to Broome as if it were about Darwin. You of course will refuse to address this and prefer to change the subject, but I will keep bring it up till you do.

From the rules of behaviour for the forum:

"(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “liar” is banned from use on the forum. [Emphasis mine throughout.]

And Mr. Colby asks:

"So my question to you is you really so careless that you posted the quote without reading the preceding sentences in the paragraph OR were you trying to “pull a fast one”?"

Does Mr Colby not question BOTH the abilities AND the motives of the researcher with his question ? The first part of Mr. Colby's question appears to question the abilities of the researcher, while the second appears to question the motives of the researcher, IMHO.

If so, is that NOT a violation of the above-quoted rule of behaviour? Or do these rules not apply to Mr. Colby?

Well, your original argument was - either/or "gross carelessness" or "intent to "deceive" - a false dichotomy. Of course, you have changed the dichotomy now to "accident" or "intentional". Or are you saying all accidents necessarily involve "gross carelessness"? That would be yet another logical fallacy...



Wow - that's chutzpah! Quoting from a Jewish Holocaust site to prove your appeals to authority on the subject of the bombing of Darwin did not fall within the definition of "logical fallacy".

Nizkor - area of expertise = Jewish Holocaust.

Your appeal here then, has the very hallmarks of another appeal to authority within the definition of logical fallacy.

Here is what wiki says:

Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). [1]

On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

You imply your sources are infallible by impugning the eye-witnesses whom you say they chose to ignore.



So you've made up your your mind that it was deliberate (Which is the only way it could be a logical fallacy).

But hang on... didn't you tell Bill in this very same post "I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming these were accidents rather that failed attempts to deceive"

And by the way, you had already conflated Broome and Darwin, so this accusation is kinda ironic...



I'm sure John will humor you by keeping this forum going until Hell freezes over. I promise when it does I'll let you know when I stopped beating my wife.

As usual, you did exactly that which you falsely accused me of doing:

You quoted from An Awkward Truth that "The Melbourne Herald's report appeared on page 3 under the headline, 240 killed in First Raid on Darwin - Shipping Losses Also Given in Report." Conveniently for your argument, you left out the very next line, "It would have taken a keen-eyed reader to spot the 3 paragraph story..."

Though the author did not believe there had been a cover-up, unlike you, he did not shy away from evidence that pointed to one.

Mark,

thanks for voicing your concern over rule breaches, but I'm happy for Len to take his shots.

So long as I am able to reply in the manner I see fit.

NOTE TO MODERATORS – I suggest that unless Greg objects this thread be folded into the original one.



In this case there is essentially no difference either you made the out of context quotation a) ‘accidentally’ due to "gross carelessness" or b) ‘intentionally’ due to an "intent to "deceive".

I figured out what went wrong.

1) You did a Google search, the search string was more or less
darwin refugees 19 february 1942

2) Either
a) You simply copied and pasted one of the results without even bothering to open the page. The result was:

Australia Attacked - Air Raids
On 19 February 1942, Darwin suffered its first and most devastating air raid. ... Many casualties were Dutch refugees from the Netherlands East Indies ...www.ww2australia.gov.au/underattack/airraid.html

Note that your quote began and ended at the exact same points.

OR

b) You opened the page and copied the phrase without bothering to read the rest of the paragraph.

Either way you were grossly careless



???? And what by contrast are the areas of expertise of the authors of the Wikipedia page you cited?

You have no idea because you don’t know who they are! Presumably they know little if anything about the Japanese air raids against Australia either. What an absurd ad hom, logical fallacies are logical fallacies independent of the subject matter.

An just for your information since the Nizkor site is run by a non-Jewish Canadian and focuses on Holocaust victims of all races/religions/ethnicities it is inaccurate to call it a “Jewish Holocaust site”. Obviously however refuting the claims of Holocaust deniers schools the site owner in logical fallacies.



LOL ‘physician heal thyself’ you complain that I appeal to the authority of Nizkor but then appeal to the authority of Wikipedia!




Wikipedia is not an authoritative source, you don’t like Nizkor. There many cites that opine on the matter whose reliability is unknown so I did a Google search for argument from authority fallacy limited to .edu sites. Based on the 1st 10 hits academics are divided over when an argument from authority is improper (see below). Some object only if someone cites an authority does not have expertise in the area others if they do so place of other arguments. I did neither by case doesn’t rest solely on the historians.

You imply your sources are infallible by impugning the eye-witnesses whom you say they chose to ignore.

And you of course imply the handful of witnesses you cited “are infallible” when there is a great deal of evidence eye witness testimony is unreliable especially for elderly people, especially for people remembering events that took place decades earlier, especially form people remembering traumatic events.

Nor do I think any one of the researchers is infallible but think it is unlikely that all of the 6 people we know of who looked into this (not counting the LC or Douglas Lockwood whose book you shown no interest in consulting) would reject the numbers you are suggesting unless that is what the evidence indicates.

You offered the testimony of IIRC 4 - 5 witnesses out of thousands of people who were there. How do you know their views are representative of the others? The witnesses gave there accounts as elderly men 50 – 60 years after the event. The historians looked at a larger body of evidence including interviewing survives and examining documentary evidence.

One of the main stumbling blocks for the notion that there were 600 – 800 or more uncounted deaths is that based on what I’ve read none of it proponents can explain whose these people were. It’s difficult to imagine so many military personnel or civilians could so easily disappear without being noticed which leaves migrant workers, Aborigines and refugees but so far I’ve not seen evidence there were significant numbers of any of the above in Darwin that day.

Another problem with such theories is that it makes little sense that the government would admit that 243 – 292 Australian and allied military personnel and local civilians were killed but cover up the deaths of 600+ migrant workers, Aborigines or refugees.

Yet another problem that Grose pointed out, this would mean there many times more people killed that injured in the town something rarely if ever happens in such attacks.



It is unreasonable to expect a relatively brief entry to cover every possible scenario, I doubt the author anticipated someone would copy and paste a Google result without bothering to open the page. Legally someone who causes death or injury through negligence is liable for their acts. In any case you choose to look at only half the sentence part of the problem is the exclusion of “certain nearby phrases or sentences…that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words”

And by the way, you had already conflated Broome and Darwin, so this accusation is kinda ironic...

Predictably you still refuse to unambiguously admit error and got your facts wrong again. I never conflated them; I did however include the fatalities in Broome as part of those in northern Australia. As for the meaning of the disputed sentences. I asked members of another forum how they interpreted them. Of the 10 people who voted 7 understood both to refer to “all 97 raids”, 1 thought the 1st referred to Darwin and the 2nd to northern Australia only 2 understood both to refer to “the 64 raids on Darwin” but one said this was unclear. An 11th member said “there's no way from the text to distinguish between meanings…for either sentence” thought it “is a little more likely” they both referred to all 97.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155084

So getting back to matter at hand

1) Your case that 900 plus people were killed in Darwin on February 19 is weak
2) You not produced any evidence the LC were aware of the true death toll.

Search results for argument from authority fallacy site:.edu

1) Lake Superior College
Logical Fallacy “Argument from authority”
Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. It is reasonable to give more credit to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.

http://blog.lsc.edu/wipaige/2009/06/16/log...from-authority/

2) University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Appeal to authority
Definition: Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we're discussing. If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn't much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

[…]
Works Consulted

[…]

Hurley, Patrick J. A Concise Introduction to Logic. Thornson Learning, 2000
Lunsford, Andrea and John Ruszkiewicz. Everything's an Argument. Bedford Books, 1998.
Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. Introduction to Logic. Prentice Hall, 1998.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html

3) University of Oregon

Here is a list of everyday fallacies take from Peter A. Angeles Dictionary of Philosophy-- published by Barnes and Noble, copyright 1981.

[…]

8. Fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam (argument to authority or to veneration) [another of my personal favorites]. (a) appealing to authority (including customs, traditions, institutions, etc.) in order to gain acceptance of a point at issue and/or (b) appealing to the feelings of reverence or respect we have of those in authority, or who are famous. Example: "I believe that the statement 'YOu cannot legislate morality' is true, because President Eisenhower said it."



http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/fallacies.html

4) Prof. R. Cherubin - George Mason University

An argument from authority claims that the reader should accept something just because a person who is distinguished or accomplished or experienced (in a relevant field, or, in the more egregious cases, in any field) says it is true.
But if the purported authority really is credible in this case, he or she (or the author citing him or her) will provide the reasoning and evidence to show why his or her claims are correct.

www.gmu.edu/courses/phil/ancient/Effective_Argumentation.ppt

5) Texas A&M

Arguments from authority
An argument from authority is arguing that a claim is true because a certain person with authority says it is. In some cases, there is nothing at all wrong with taking someone as an authority for something: if I tell you that I have a serious pain in my left foot, then that's a very good reason for thinking that the proposition "Smith has a serious pain in his left foot" is true. More generally, there are at least two classes of arguments from authorities that are not only quite respectable but also probably unavoidable. The first concerns testimony: we rely on other people's reports of what they have seen, heard, read, etc., and believe things just because people have said them. Of course, this is a limited kind of authority. I can be an authority about what I saw while looking out of my window last night, but hardly of what you saw looking out of your window last Thursday while I was unconscious. The second kind of case is expert opinion: we often believe things just because a doctor, or a mechanic, or a historian has told us so. If relying on the opinions of others in cases like this were always unreasonable, then we'd have a hard time extending our knowledge beyond the present experience of our own lifetimes.
When people criticize arguments as bad arguments from authority, they generally have in mind a case in which someone is supposing that whatever a certain person says is true: "Well, Quine says that reference is always indeterminate, and his word's good enough for me." As you might expect, whether an argument from an authority is a good one in philosophy is liable to become the subject of a philosophical argument itself. However, philosophers would probably agree at least on this: when it comes to philosophical arguments, there are no philosophical authoritie
http://aristotle.tamu.edu/~rasmith/Courses.../fallacies.html

6) UC San Diego

Same as 3)

http://dimension.ucsd.edu/CEIMSA-IN-EXILE/...a0/art0-21.html

7) Prof Lance Cooper University of Illinois

(5). Argument from authority
The argument that we should adopt an idea because some respected person tells us to:

“The missile theory has expert witnesses. For example, just before Flight 800 broke into flames, private pilot Sven Faret reported that he saw ‘a little pin flash on the ground.’ In his view, that flash ‘looked like a rocket launch.’”

http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phy...cSkeptic_09.ppt

8) Dr. L. Kip Wheeler - Carson-Newman College

Appeal to Improper Authority (Argumentum Ad Verecundium, literally "argument from that which is improper"): An appeal to an improper authority, such as a famous person or a source that may not be reliable. This fallacy attempts to capitalize upon feelings of respect or familiarity with a famous individual. It is not fallacious to refer to an admitted authority if the individual’s expertise is within a strict field of knowledge. On the other hand, to cite Einstein to settle an argument about education or economics is fallacious. To cite Darwin, an authority on biology, on religious matters is fallacious. To cite Cardinal Spellman on legal problems is fallacious.

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html

9)Introduction to Logic – Lander University
2. Ad verecundiam (argument from authority)
Authority on x, L, says accept p.
p is outside the scope of subject x.
————————————––
p is true.
E.g., H. L. A. Jenkins, the noted international rose expert, has publicly stated that logic is essential to a life of excellence; consequently, it must be so.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/fall_summary.html

10) Philosophy 12 - Salk Institute for Biological Studies

When this fallacy is invoked some authority's judgment is put inplace of an argument when the authority is illegitimate and should not be a a surrogate inplace of sound reasoning. An appeal to authority is illegitimate when the purported authority is not an authority in the relevant field, is unidentified, or is particularly likely to be biased in some way

www.snl.salk.edu/~jacobson/Phil12/Handouts/H05%20Fallacies.pdf

I find it odd they you deny doing something you undeniably did. Intentionally or not you falsely created the impression that refugees were killed in Darwin.

I have no idea what your problem is with my quote is I cited it to dispute your claim the death toll was covered up for years. Whether it was on page 1 or page 3 or page 69 if something is reported in a newspaper it isn't being covered up.



Nope none of my posts violated any rules I never questioned you motives (I have no idea were Mark got that from) and you being careless occasionally or even regularly doesn't mean you are unable to do good research.

There are a number of books dealing with the battles to hold Indonesia which mention refugees being sent to and arriving in Darwin.

See for example, Battle submerged: submarine fighters of World War II or United States destroyer operations in World War II.





As I have explained, the objection is your leaving out the very next sentence which qualifies the impact of publication of
the figures. "It would have taken a keen-eyed reader to spot the 3 paragraph story..."

And this shows again you are guilty of what you falsely accuse me of... even in your latest reply, you state: In any case you choose to look at only half the sentence part of the problem is the exclusion of “certain nearby phrases or sentences…that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words”

The clear intention of the author you selectively quoted was to show that, though published, the story was hard to spot. By leaving that part out, you gave a false impression.

You have yet to show such selective quoting on my part.

Moreover, you are well aware that my argument is that the figure quoted in that story, is itself, part of the cover-up, since I dispute its accuracy.



I could care less what rules you have or haven't violated. I'm not hiding behind any rules.


Yes I do object. You started this thread. You're not going to hide from it now.



No difference???!!! Within the one one post, you went from giving benefit of the doubt that it was not deliberate to accusing of me of a deliberate deception. That is the point. There is a very big difference between those two.

And it is STILL a false dichotomy.




Whose a clever boy? Well, half clever anyway. Keep trying.



Encyclopaedias by their very nature, are repositories of such information, and in the case of wiki, provides numerous citations in support.

Nizkor, by its very nature, is a repository of information on one specific subject, and provided no citations for what you quoted.

The rest of your post is just argumentum verbosium.

Here is what you're trying to avoid.

There were an estimated 900 to 1100 killed in the initial bombings. The figure of approximately 250 does not take into account those whose who were non-citizens. The Lowe Commission was suppressed until the end of the war, and even 30 years on, nearly 200 pages were still being redacted. Where the death toll was published at all in those early years, it was given no prominence, was subject to censorship and gave only the official numbers, despite the opportunities to investigate rumors of "cover up" based on eye-witness accounts of the true magnitude of the deaths.

As for LBJ, you admit he was here for reasons of troop morale and personal political gain. The bombing of Darwin certainly had an affect on morale, especially given it was the same bombers who got PH. You also admit he was feted by powerful people here. To suggest he was not told of the Lowe Commission is naive. To suggest that he failed to grasp the utility of such a commission in keeping a lid on public disquiet, is beyond even that.

You produce more BS than the world’s biggest cattle ranch. The issue was how your quote completely changed what the author meant. And you should know by now you won’t get away with making stuff up. Both books you cite are available online and neither of them said anything about there being refugees in Darwin on the day of the attacks.

Battle submerged only mentions one group of refugees going their, this was in 1944 however. According to the latter “There the few Allied reinforcements dribbling in were meeting the first of the refugees driven down from the Philippines and the Netherlands East Indies” it gave no indication how many there were and this was in “the third week of January” a month before the attacks. How many of the unknown number were still there on February 19? Was there anywhere near enough to account for the 600 plus uncounted dead? And as I’ve asked you a few times already why would the government admit to the deaths of its own citizens and its and foreign troops but cover up those of foreign refugees?



BS You falsely created the impression the refugees the author referred to were in Darwin on the day of the attacks they weren’t. As for my quote, my point was that a number close to the still official death toll was made public with in weeks, its placement was irrelevant and the story did make it to the front page of at least one Australian newspaper.

http://newspapers.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2586452



No need for me to hide from this, nor would it do me much good if I wanted to since everyone has seen it. I imagine you want to “hide from” all your errors on the other thread.



Nope I still think all your misquotes were due to shoddy research rather than attempted fraud and until you can spell out another alternative those are the only two possibilities.


Typical neither an admission nor a denial nor an explanation of why you so severely mangled the quote. And no I don’t believe you quasi-denial.





If baby burns its finger in a candle it probably won’t get anywhere near a flame again for quite a while you however seem incapable of learning from experience and continue to quote sources you haven’t read carefully. The Wikipedia article you cited provided only one citation and it was to…to… (can you guess?), that’s right to the Nizkor page I cited! But wait it also has an “External Link” to a site called “The Fallacy Files” but it is to its entry on “Appeal to Misleading Authority”


"Here is what you're trying to avoid.

There were an estimated 900 to 1100 killed in the initial bombings."

Estimated by a few old men decades after the fact, a number not supported by anyone who researched what happened that day. I have repeatedly suggested you consult the 1966 book by a journalist who was there that day, but you’ve show no interest in it. Most curious.

"The figure of approximately 250 does not take into account those whose who were non-citizens."

And you have yet to show that significant numbers of “non-citizens” were in town that day let alone been subject to attack, let alone killed. Nor have you even attempted to explain why the government would admit to the deaths of foreign troops and Australians but cover up the death of foreign civilians. Nor why opposition parties would keep quiet. The Governor of the NT was appointed by Robert Menzies and thus presumably a member of the Liberal Party. He was severely criticized by the LR and wasn’t happy about it yet he never seems to have said anything about a cover-up or leaked news of such to other members of his party.

"The Lowe Commission was suppressed until the end of the war,"

Reports going over war time foul-ups are normally only released after the war ends for obvious reasons.

"and even 30 years on, nearly 200 pages were still being redacted."

That was of the transcript rather than the report proper as you falsely claimed. Since it is now over 60 “years on” I imagine the pages were released long ago.

"Where the death toll was published at all in those early years, it was given no prominence, was subject to censorship and gave only the official numbers, despite the opportunities to investigate rumors of "cover up" based on eye-witness accounts of the true magnitude of the deaths."

As noted above the 240 figure made it to the 1st page of at least one paper. What evidence was there at the time of a higher death toll?

"As for LBJ, you admit he was here for reasons of troop morale and personal political gain. The bombing of Darwin certainly had an affect on morale, especially given it was the same bombers who got PH. You also admit he was feted by powerful people here. To suggest he was not told of the Lowe Commission is naive. To suggest that he failed to grasp the utility of such a commission in keeping a lid on public disquiet, is beyond even that."

Was he aware of the LC? Since it was even reported in US newspapers I imagine so. Was he aware of any of the specifics of how it operated? I doubt it. Was he aware of the LC’s supposed rule in covering up the supposedly higher death toll? You’ve got nothing but speculation.

You produce more BS than the world’s biggest cattle ranch.

That's the biggest compliment you can pay someone of convict stock. Great great grandpappy George Parker would be proud. Best he could do was get himself transported at 15 for the heinous crime of trespassing. And btw, the biggest cattle ranch (called stations here) is in the Northern Territory. You know. Darwin and all that.

The issue was how your quote completely changed what the author meant. And you should know by now you won’t get away with making stuff up. Both books you cite are available online and neither of them said anything about there being refugees in Darwin on the day of the attacks.

Sorry. Did I miss something. What did I make up? Refugees are not brought to Darwin and immediately shipped out - at least not in most circumstances. Presumption has to err in favor of them remaining in the port they were brought to, at least in the short term (ie one or two months). The distances to other ports, modes of available transport, and numbers of people involved would have inhibited opportunities to move them quickly, even if that was what was wanted.

Battle submerged only mentions one group of refugees going their, this was in 1944 however. According to the latter “There the few Allied reinforcements dribbling in were meeting the first of the refugees driven down from the Philippines and the Netherlands East Indies” it gave no indication how many there were and this was in “the third week of January” a month before the attacks. How many of the unknown number were still there on February 19?

See above.

Was there anywhere near enough to account for the 600 plus uncounted dead?

I doubt it. And I never said they alone made up the number. I said non-citizens, which I made clear in previous posts included Aborigines.

And as I’ve asked you a few times already why would the government admit to the deaths of its own citizens and its and foreign troops but cover up those of foreign refugees?

The government want a low number of deaths. It was easy to not count refugees whose identities were probably unverifiable even before death.

The harder question is regarding the indigenous population - though there is an answer, and it has to do with the deaths of some "solving" what to do about white man's dirty little secrets.

BS You falsely created the impression the refugees the author referred to were in Darwin on the day of the attacks they weren’t

What are you blathering about here? Show where the author says they were moved out before the attacks, or admit you don't know if they were or they weren't. As I've indicated - default assumption - given various known conditions would be that the refugees were still in Darwin at the time of the attacks. And that fits with eye-witness reports of bodies being towed to sea. Those bodies would only be of people who "didn't count"

As for my quote, my point was that a number close to the still official death toll was made public with in weeks, its placement was irrelevant and the story did make it to the front page of at least one Australian newspaper.

Ah yes, the Canberra Times with a circulation of about 50. But you're right. This gets a bit more prominence on the front page. Wonder why?? Oh, I know! Shades of Dealey Plaza and the call to "get something out quickly to show that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone". Propaganda needs prominence to put the public back to sleep. This bit of blarney for instance, sticks to the figure of 15 dead by way of saying that was the civilian toll. The balance were all military. It goes on to say that "the damage done to Darwin was very small..." And you accuse me of BS and accept this as true? Or did they only lie about the damage but were truthful about the death toll?

Nope I still think all your misquotes were due to shoddy research rather than attempted fraud and until you can spell out another alternative those are the only two possibilities.

Trouble is, you've labelled it both in different parts of the same post. You can't keep track of the type of attack you're trying to mount, but I'll help you sort that out when you lose track. Fair enough?

Typical neither an admission nor a denial nor an explanation of why you so severely mangled the quote. And no I don’t believe you quasi-denial.

I didn't mangle any quotes. That's not to say I didn't make a mistake, but I'm having way too much fun watching you thrash about looking for "gotcha" moments to interfere in your antics.

Bottom line: What I have said is substantively correct. All else is just your side show.

If baby burns its finger in a candle it probably won’t get anywhere near a flame again for quite a while you however seem incapable of learning from experience

No Pain, no gain!

and continue to quote sources you haven’t read carefully. The Wikipedia article you cited provided only one citation and it was to…to… (can you guess?), that’s right to the Nizkor page I cited! But wait it also has an “External Link” to a site called “The Fallacy Files” but it is to its entry on “Appeal to Misleading Authority”

Well, here's the link I provided for that cite. Anyone is free to go to it and see who wiki cited.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_qu..._out_of_context

For those who couldn't be bothered checking, but are willing to take the word of this BS artist, here are wikis sources:
References

1. ^ Ivor H. Evans, editor, Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable, 14th edition, Harper & Row, 1989, ISBN 0-06-016200-7,
2. ^ Yale Book of Quotations [1]

p158
3. ^ AJ Giannini. Use of fiction in therapy. Psychiatric Times. 18(7):56-57,2001.

[edit] External links

* The Black-or-White Fallacy

entry in The Fallacy Files

Not a Nizkor citation in sight. I'm sure Len has an explanation.
----------------------
There were an estimated 900 to 1100 killed in the initial bombings."

Estimated by a few old men decades after the fact, a number not supported by anyone who researched what happened that day. I have repeatedly suggested you consult the 1966 book by a journalist who was there that day, but you’ve show no interest in it. Most curious.

Cute. Those "old men" had told the same story when they were young to family members.

"The figure of approximately 250 does not take into account those whose who were non-citizens."

And you have yet to show that significant numbers of “non-citizens” were in town

You yourself have provided quotes to the effect that there were large numbers of Aborigines in Darwin. As I have explained already, they were non-citizens ie not counted in the census data.

that day let alone been subject to attack, let alone killed. Nor have you even attempted to explain why the government would admit to the deaths of foreign troops and Australians but cover up the death of foreign civilians.

I thought it was self-evident as to why they would. Theywanted the appearance of a low death toll - hard to hide civilian and military deaths - not so hard to hide the deaths of people whose identity is not recorded. Just tow those bodies out to sea... problem solved.

Nor why opposition parties would keep quiet.

Tweedle dee and tweedle dum when it comes to anything of any importance.

The Governor of the NT was appointed by Robert Menzies and thus presumably a member of the Liberal Party. He was severely criticized by the LR and wasn’t happy about it yet he never seems to have said anything about a cover-up or leaked news of such to other members of his party.

Not the way party politics works. You take your knocks for the party and you stand by party policy.

Was he aware of the LC? Since it was even reported in US newspapers I imagine so. Was he aware of any of the specifics of how it operated? I doubt it. Was he aware of the LC’s supposed rule in covering up the supposedly higher death toll? You’ve got nothing but speculation.

What you doubt is of course, up to you. As for it being speculative - of course it is! Your point being?

It is not however, speculation out of thin air. A commission to serve a political aim rather than the truth was exactly the sought thing that would interest a politician of LBJ's calibre. And the fact is, he employed the same technique a bit over twenty years later...

I was referring of course to you providing the quote about Broome as if it were about Darwin

"Presumption has to err in favor of them remaining in the port they were brought to, at least in the short term (ie one or two months). The distances to other ports, modes of available transport, and numbers of people involved would have inhibited opportunities to move them quickly, even if that was what was wanted. "

Of course you ignore you bring caught up on your shoddy research once again, one the books you cited put the refugees there in 1944 not 1942. The second had an unknown number there a month before the attacks. Lockwood (pg 40) and Timothy Hall in Darwin 1942: Australia's Darkest Hour (pg 27) reported that at the time Darwin was served by “civil airliners, such as they were, flying scheduled services from Adelaide and Brisbane” additionally the town was connected by road, train and ship to other parts of the country and thus refugees and migrant laborers would have had plenty of opportunities to leave. Indeed on pages 12 and 13 (your bad luck!) of Darkest Hour Hall wrote that:

…one of the more unedifying sights in Darwin had been of able-bodied men physically pushing women and children aside to buy for their own use seats that had been ear-marked for the evacuees. These men, a large number of whom were migrant workers, took so many of the seats originally allocated to the evacuees that it was more by chance than good management that the women and children had been evacuated by the time the Japanese finally attacked

[…]

…evacuation plan went to the airlines and pleaded with them to take several pregnant women who were among the refugees waiting to be air-lifted to safety. A similar plea to a group of migrant laborers who had just bought seats on the aircraft went completely unheeded.

So it seems non-citizens (migrant laborers in this case) were able to leave town in significant numbers and were not ones to be pushed around, more on this later. Even you concede that the expected layover time for refugees in Darwin could be “one or two months”. According to your ONLY source an undefined number of refugees already were in there when a ship arrived a month before the attacks. i.e. they could have been there a month already.


Google Books returns 41 books with “Darwin” and “1942” in their titles about 15 of which are duplicates, about wreck diving or works of fiction. Almost half of the remaining 25 – 26 books are specifically about the attacks most the rest are military histories/soldiers memoirs. One is, An Analysis of Race Relations Between 'coloureds' and 'whites' in Darwin 1911-1942, which would be interesting to take a look at concerning your theory many/most of the uncounted fatalities were Aborigines, another is the mayor diary entry from that day.

http://books.google.com/books?client=firef...nG=Search+Books

There were no applicable hits in any of the books for “Philippines”, “Filipino” or “Filipinos”. The only hit for "migrant" or "migrants" was quoted above. The words “refugee” or “refugees” appear in only 3, Grose, Lockwood and Hall. In all three cases the terms referred to either the civilians evacuated before the raids (Hall) or the ones who fled it after them (Grose and Lockwood). The only relevant hits for “Dutch” or “Netherlands” were in Lockwood (pg 40) and Hall. Apparently “in February 1942…Dutch DC3s which commuted between Australia and the fast-diminishing remnants of the Dutch East Indies” also used the Darwin airstrip (Hall pg 27, that was a freebie) so it is reasonable to expect a few Dutch colonists were there the 19th .

Since no other source you or I have found mentions refugees, Filipinos or Dutch people being there February 19 it’s logical to assume not many (if any) were still there at the time. Since the only reference to migrant workers is about them leaving I don't expect many were there either. None of the hits for Aborigines indicated any were killed other than a young girl the Territorial Administrator was criticized for not getting better medical attention. If you really are interested in getting to the truth you should get the above mentioned books which are available in numerous libraries in Australia but apparently not in any Brazilian ones. The Lockwood and Hall books are snippet view only but I included as much of the relevant passages as I could see at the end of this post.

http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=Australia...qt=results_page

"As I've indicated - default assumption - given various known conditions would be that the refugees were still in Darwin at the time of the attacks. And that fits with eye-witness reports of bodies being towed to sea. Those bodies would only be of people who "didn't count" "

Report, you have only one and it is a 2nd hand paraphrase, we don’t even know his name. As for your “default assumption” see above.



We only know of the article’s placement in 2 papers, page 1 in one, page 3 in the other.

"Wonder why?? Oh, I know! Shades of Dealey Plaza and the call to "get something out quickly to show that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone". Propaganda needs prominence to put the public back to sleep."

Wait are you complaining that the story was given too little or too much “prominence”? Both can’t be true.

"This bit of blarney for instance, sticks to the figure of 15 dead by way of saying that was the civilian toll. The balance were all military. It goes on to say that "the damage done to Darwin was very small..." And you accuse me of BS and accept this as true? Or did they only lie about the damage but were truthful about the death toll?"

Based on the Lowe Report and seemingly the conclusion of every historian to study the attacks (other perhaps than Forrest) - yes, the number of dead was close to the true number Curtin's assessment of the damage however was not straight forward. I don’t know of anyone claiming Lowe underestimated the damage, he said several buildings were “a total loss”.



No I never said or indicated I thought you did it on purpose. Odd that you almost admit making a mistake but deny mangling the quote. It referred to the March 3 attack on Broome you cited it as if it referred to Darwin 2 weeks earlier, how does that not constitute mangling?





My god you really showing how confused you are now. Did you down a couple of Foster’s “oil cans” or smoke some doobies before posting? I cited the wiki page on out of context quotes YOU cited their page about “Argument from authority”. That page has only one link and it’s to Nizkor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority



I don’t suppose a citation for this claim will be forthcoming?


"You yourself have provided quotes to the effect that there were large numbers of Aborigines in Darwin. As I have explained already, they were non-citizens ie not counted in the census data."

You are correct but your theory still faces enormous hurdles only about 40 – 60 civilians including about 30 dock workers out of a civilian population of 2000 were known to have been killed (Lowe, the Darwin plaque and Grose give similar numbers), a fatality rate of about 3%. But as you would have it for reasons unknown the number of “non-citizens” killed would be 10 – 30 X that (600 – 1200). Thus one would have to conclude that there were about 20 – 60,000 “non-citizens” in town or for reasons unknown they were far more likely to get killed. And since only about 30 allied soldiers were killed the would have had to have been far more likely than military personnel on the ground to get killed

But obviously there weren't ten of thousands of non-citzens in Darwin and based on the available evidence white Australians were more likely to be victims that day because the locations that were attacked were mostly government buildings. According to the Lowe Report (pgs 8 & 13) the ‘civilian’ facilities struck were the warf, “the Administrator's Office…Government House…The Police Barracks…The Post Office , the Telegraph Office, the Cable Office…The Civil Hospital…two or three private residences... the Guinea Airways hangar…three huts [at the air field]… the hospital at Berrima.” I imagine you will object to the source but doubt you will find reports of serious damage to other locations. So where did the hundreds of Aborigines etc get killed?

Also there seems to be little dispute that about 300 – 400 people were injured, that was Lowe’s estimate. According to Wikipedia citing a book not available online the estimate was over 400 with 200 seriously injured, Womack said the number was 311. I have not seen any one challenge these numbers. Except for people in ships that were sunk we would expect there to be more injured than killed but if we were to accept the numbers you’re pushing 2 – 5x more people were killed than injured.

Another hurdle is that 600 – 1200 people, even non-citizens would have several times that many friends and relatives. Though you’re right that Aborigines, migrants and refugees probably wouldn’t have been missed by white Australians they would have been by their friends and relatives. Have you heard any reports of people complaining that their father, brother, mother, uncle, friend etc disappeared or was killed and had their body unceremoniously dumped at sea or bull dozered into a mass grave? No? Why not? I mean Aborigines started speaking up about the “Stolen Generation” and other travesties committed against their people years ago, but none, not one it seems has said anything about the hundreds of their people who were killed in the raids and had their bodies dumped at sea. I suggest you contact the main Aboriginal groups in the NT and tell them they should look into it. I imagine that as with most tribal people Aborigines put a great deal of importance on proper burial and would be extremely offended by their relatives’ bodies being treated in such away. This would probably interfere with their progression to the next life according to their religion.

One large group of migrant men refused to give their seats on a plane to pregnant women but you think they or others would remain silent forever about the death/ disappearance / unceremonious burial of friends and family?

Nope all you have is a handful of excerpts of decades after the fact witness accounts and you have no way of knowing if they are representative. Based on what Peter Forrest said I doubt they are. He told ABC:

“I'm completely satisfied, from talking to people who survived, that the death toll could have been anything up to double that 243.

On the other hand, I have spoken to people who were here and they reckon it could have been anything up to 1,500.”

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2002/s485505.htm

In other words though some witnesses think “up to 1,500” were killed most put the toll under 486.



I don’t think most Australians would have cared much about Aborigines getting killed.



Odd then mid-century Australian politics must have been very different from other parts of the world. The party out of power in the US has never shied away from criticizing the president’s conduct during wartime presidential and midterm elections. There have even been problems with in parties LBJ was challenged for the nomination in 1968 and in 1863 there was talk or replacing Lincoln as the Republican nominee in the 1864 election. And just off the top of my head the PM’s wartime conduct has been an issue in elections in Israel and participation in unpopular wars (think Iraq) has been one in Spain, Italy and even yes Australia. In Georgia opposition parties led demonstrations against Saakashvili over the Ossetia debacle. But I guess the UAP/Liberal Party in Australia and were different - they preferred to loose the 1943 and 46 elections rather than bring up a serious case of misconduct.


But my extensive research into the subject (i.e. 5 – 10 minutes on Wikipedia) indicated that 1940’s Australian politics weren’t so unforgiving, in 1940 with the country technically at war Labour refused to form a coalition with the UAP, soon Robert Menzies, the PM was undercut by members of his own party and in 1941 was forced out as PM and party leader, soon after that Labour gained control. After the 1943 election Menzies regained control of his party but in 1944 dissolved it to start a new one, his new party was defeated in 1946 and he only regained power in 1949 after he led opposition to Labour’s plans to nationalize banks. He was Australia’s (and one of the world’s) longest serving PM’s he spent a quarter century as leader of one his country two main parties, he was obviously a very ambitious man. Yet you think he and his parties’ would have kept quiet? He made a stink about bank privatization but said nothing about a major cover up? Sorry that rationalization makes even less sense than the “Apollo hoax” proponents rationalization that the USSR kept quiet because they were afraid the US would stop selling them grain.



Of course it’s nothing more than “speculation out of thin air” your case that 900 or more people were killed is more legless than a billion worms and you’ve presented zero evidence that Lowe was aware of these supposed additional fatalities. All you have is about 5 eyewitness reports out of the thousands of survivors and the barely interesting footnote that LBJ was briefly in the country well almost 2 months after Lowe reported on the number of people killed in Darwin.


Excerpts from

Australia's Pearl Harbour: Darwin, 1942 By Douglas Lockwood
http://books.google.com/books?id=C-M_AAAAYAAJ

AND


Darwin 1942: Australia's darkest hour By Timothy Hall
http://books.google.com/books?id=sC4aAAAAMAAJ

Lockwood

PG 40

Darwin then had a second aerodrome at Parap between the town and the RAAF base. It was used principally by civil airliners, such as they were, flying scheduled services from Adelaide and Brisbane, and by Dutch DC3s. It was here that Ross and Keith Smith


PG 162

Not until February 21 did Abbott go to Adelaide River. His visit was then necessary, and requested by Blake, to help clear the area of about five hundred civilian refugees. Every one was medically examined and three hundred were called up for military service. The remainder were sent south by rail and road. Abbott arranged for rations to be issued to these men, and for the collection and return to Darwin of municipal vehicles needed to resume the town’s sanitary and garbage services.”

I imagine the refugees would not have spent a long time in Darwin it would be easier to take of them near the large population centers to the south. Presumably the ships bringing supplies to Darwin returned pretty much empty


Hall


PG 10

…Harbour. Darwin was now actually inside the battle area and each…and the Territory’s Administrator was instructed to have the first batch of evacuees ready to travel south on the Zealandia on about 19 February. From then there was a steady exodus of refugees in ships of all sizes. State Premiers had been alerted to expect the refugees and reacted with fulsome promises of help, tempered in some states. South Australia was warned to expect about two thousand, including 'a small number of Australian-born Chinese'. The prospect of the Chinese seemed to bother the South Australians more than the two thousand Europeans and Premier Playford sent a cautionary warning to…

PG 11

…whatever they could scourage along the way till they reached Adelaide.

On 18 February the last plane load of priority refugees whom the government had ordered out urgently two months earlier finally…

PG 12

one of the more unedifying sights in Darwin had been of able-bodied men physically pushing women and children aside to buy for their own use seats that had been ear-marked for the evacuees. These men, a large number of whom were migrant workers, took so many of the seats originally allocated to the evacuees that it was more by chance than good management that the women and children had been evacuated by the time the Japanese finally attacked

PG 13

…evacuation plan went to the airlines and pleaded with them to take several pregnant women who were among the refugees waiting to be air-lifted to safety. A similar plea to a group of migrant laborers who had just bought seats on the aircraft went completely unheeded.

When the last of the women and children had gone, those left behind had time to wonder, in some cases for the first time, what lay in store for them.



PG 27

In February 1942 the civil aerodrome was used by the few airliners which still
came in to Darwin on scheduled services to Brisbane and Adelaide; and by Dutch DC3s which commuted between Australia and the fast-diminishing remnants of the Dutch East Indies. The RAAF also kept a detachment of Wirraway trainers there....

Incorrect Mark - just because someone, Greg in this case, was careless on one occasion doesn’t means he is habitually so let alone that he is incapable of doing better research is he so desired. That said though he was repeatedly sloppy in the threads were we discussed the Darwin bombings.

I’m also curious as to how you’d categorize what he seems to be admitting was a mistake, he quoted a sentence from a text without having read the paragraph it came from. Do really think saying he was “careless” was inappropriate?

You should also bear in mind that Greg was the first to make such an accusation, he wrote:

Pat,

thanks for trying to be conciliatory, but no need. Len is wrong. His superficial research is no different than quoting the Dallas Morning Herald quoting the Warren Report that Oswald acted alone.

So perhaps these rules don’t apply to Mr. Parker.



The clause about not questioning “the motivations of the poster” was be generally interepreted as prohibiting suggesting he or she has some ulterior motive (such as working for the CIA etc), something I’ve never done here. More applicable would the banning of ‘the word “liar”’ which has been interpreted as any accusation that a poster was dishonest but I always made it clear I though Greg’s errors were due to sloppiness rather than an intent to deceive.

And since you are so concerned about members following the rules you should berate Greg for repeatedly ignoring number 5:

I was referring of course to you providing the quote about Broome as if it were about Darwin

Er. No, it was YOU who did that.

Of course you ignore you bring caught up on your shoddy research once again, one the books you cited put the refugees there in 1944 not 1942. The second had an unknown number there a month before the attacks. Lockwood (pg 40) and Timothy Hall in Darwin 1942: Australia's Darkest Hour (pg 27) reported that at the time Darwin was served by “civil airliners, such as they were, flying scheduled services from Adelaide and Brisbane” additionally the town was connected by road, train and ship to other parts of the country and thus refugees and migrant laborers would have had plenty of opportunities to leave. Indeed on pages 12 and 13 (your bad luck!) of Darkest Hour Hall wrote that:

There are ALWAYS refugees in Darwin. That was the point. What's yours?

As for airlines etc... the call to evacuate was limited pretty much limited to (white) women and children. Connected by road. Yes. One road. And that is STILL the case. Usually inaccessible for part of the wet season which goes from November through to March.


…one of the more unedifying sights in Darwin had been of able-bodied men physically pushing women and children aside to buy for their own use seats that had been ear-marked for the evacuees. These men, a large number of whom were migrant workers, took so many of the seats originally allocated to the evacuees that it was more by chance than good management that the women and children had been evacuated by the time the Japanese finally attacked

[…]

…evacuation plan went to the airlines and pleaded with them to take several pregnant women who were among the refugees waiting to be air-lifted to safety. A similar plea to a group of migrant laborers who had just bought seats on the aircraft went completely unheeded.



So it seems non-citizens (migrant laborers in this case) were able to leave town in significant numbers and were not ones to be pushed around, more on this later. Even you concede that the expected layover time for refugees in Darwin could be “one or two months”. According to your ONLY source an undefined number of refugees already were in there when a ship arrived a month before the attacks. i.e. they could have been there a month already.

You're confusing migrant laborers with refugees. Whilst the migrant laborers were non-citizens, assuming they were in the country legally, their identity was not a problem.

"As I've indicated - default assumption - given various known conditions would be that the refugees were still in Darwin at the time of the attacks. And that fits with eye-witness reports of bodies being towed to sea. Those bodies would only be of people who "didn't count" "

Report, you have only one and it is a 2nd hand paraphrase, we don’t even know his name. As for your “default assumption” see above.

You haven't touched any assumptions. Migrant workers do not = refugees. In any case, you ignore the fact that I've said Aborigines would have made up the larger proportion.

"Wonder why?? Oh, I know! Shades of Dealey Plaza and the call to "get something out quickly to show that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone". Propaganda needs prominence to put the public back to sleep."

Wait are you complaining that the story was given too little or too much “prominence”? Both can’t be true.

Why am I not surprised you don't get it? The story was buried when reporting on bare facts with or without a sprinkling of government sanctioned misinfo.

It got prominence when the story included bold barefaced propaganda eg that there was limited damage to the town.

Based on the Lowe Report and seemingly the conclusion of every historian to study the attacks (other perhaps than Forrest) - yes, the number of dead was close to the true number Curtin's assessment of the damage however was not straight forward. I don’t know of anyone claiming Lowe underestimated the damage, he said several buildings were “a total loss”.

The Canberra Times story you defend including the line "the damage done to Darwin was very small..." and this was, if I remember quoting or paraphrasing the LR. The town was destroyed. Between the bombing and Cyclone Tracy, there is only one building standing that pre-dates WWII.

No I never said or indicated I thought you did it on purpose.

Yeah, you did. But in that same post, you also said you gave the benefit of the doubt. You can't keep track, that's all, basically because you don't care. Facts aren't what this is about from your side. Anyone wanting to torture themselves, can review the threads and see for themselves.

My god you really showing how confused you are now. Did you down a couple of Foster’s “oil cans” or smoke some doobies before posting? I cited the wiki page on out of context quotes YOU cited their page about “Argument from authority”. That page has only one link and it’s to Nizkor.

No pulling the polyester over your eyes, is there? Naughty me, naughty wiki. However, if you look at the overall work they've done on logical fallacies, there is more than adequate citation. Nizkor, from memory, does not provide any cites.

There were an estimated 900 to 1100 killed in the initial bombings."

Estimated by a few old men decades after the fact, a number not supported by anyone who researched what happened that day. I have repeatedly suggested you consult the 1966 book by a journalist who was there that day, but you’ve show no interest in it. Most curious.

Cute. Those "old men" had told the same story when they were young to family members.

I don’t suppose a citation for this claim will be forthcoming?

Correct. As explained a number of times, I won't subject witnesses to your peculiar form of cynicism.

What I would be willing to do is pass the information to a disinterested party who can verify what I've said is true.

Of course it’s nothing more than “speculation out of thin air” your case that 900 or more people were killed is more legless than a billion worms

Now that's the funniest line so far! Don't know how I'm going to top it.

and you’ve presented zero evidence that Lowe was aware of these supposed additional fatalities. All you have is about 5 eyewitness reports out of the thousands of survivors and the barely interesting footnote that LBJ was briefly in the country well almost 2 months after Lowe reported on the number of people killed in Darwin.

Nope. I've got witnesses who said contemporaneously that the number of deaths was much higher, that military was sworn to secrecy, the fact that LBJ was a political animal and the Darwin bombings and the coverup would have been useful information on a number of levels.

What I've got includes that Australia was looking to the US by then instead of the UK and as a "junior" partner, information was shared mainly one way. - from Aus to US... very little the other way... and with the mission he had, along with his "Rising Star" of politics badge, there would have been a scramble to give him all sorts of information.

Finally, what I've got is LBJ faced with his own need for a cover up and opting for his own version of the Lowe Committee to achieve it.

??? WTF are you talking about? I think your strategy is to get this “debate” going into pointless circles hoping I will give up. I asked YOU for evidence there were refugees in DARWIN at the time of the attacks YOU provided the quote, “Many casualties were Dutch refugees from the Netherlands East Indies” as it referred to DARWIN when in fact it referred to BROOME 2 weeks later!



There is zero evidence significant numbers of refugees were in Darwin on the day of the attacks and only indirect evidence suggesting some might have been there at the time

"As for airlines etc... the call to evacuate was limited pretty much limited to (white) women and children."


"You're confusing migrant laborers with refugees. Whilst the migrant laborers were non-citizens, assuming they were in the country legally, their identity was not a problem."

One of your few witnesses speculated that many (or was it most?) of those killed were migrants, in any case it is reasonable to expect that if migrants were able to get plane tickets refugees would have been able to as well.

The government sponsored evacuation of white and Asian Australian women and children is one thing, other people including migrants and presumably refugees leaving on their own is another. Some times the latter displaced the former.



Your speculation shifts like the wind, you previously indicated you thought many of the uncounted were migrants (and refugees). I haven’t ignored anything and indicated why it is unlikely large numbers of uncounted Aborigines or any other types of people were killed that day:

1) No reports from friends or relatives
2) No explanation why Aborigines (or other non-citizens) would have been killed in such disproportionately high numbers compared to whites especially since the Japanese targeted military and other government installations
3) No explanation why so many more people would have been killed than wounded on dry land during the attacks.
4) Darwin historian Peter Forrest’s indication most witnesses believed the toll was less than 486

You of course choose to ignore this in your reply.



You really are confused both articles appeared the same day and had the same (or essentially the same) text.



I cited it I didn’t “defend it”. It cited Curtin quoting the report. Curtin lied; the report said the town was extensively damaged. The number of buildings destroyed in 1974 has no bearing on whether Lowe omitted damage to locations were hundreds of uncounted Aborigines, refugees or migrants could have been killed.



Nope I’ve always said it was probably due to sloppiness. Apparently you’ve confused because I cited the following from the wiki page about quoting out of context:

“The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context (as all quotes are) per se, but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words.”

You excluded the “nearby…sentences…that serve[d] to clarify” that the refugees were not in Darwin by your sloppiness. It is unreasonable to expect the author to have foreseen someone coping a Google search result without opening the page.



Cute trick, using sarcasm to avoid acknowledging you made a couple of completely false statements. The number of citations there are in Wikipedia’s OTHER articles on logical fallacies has nothing to do with your completely false claim the one about argument from authority cited “numerous” ones when in fact it only cited Nizkor. Nor does it have anything to do with your confused claim the article in question was the one about quoting out of context.



I presume that was an excuse for not being able to back your claims. You seem to be implying you’ve spoken to witnesses yourself and still are in contact with them, is that the case?

“What I would be willing to do is pass the information to a disinterested party who can verify what I've said is true.”

If Tink, John, Andy or any ex- or current moderators (other than Peter) are willing to be intermediaries I’d take their word on it. Preferably your ‘witnesses’ will OK being quoted directly and ID at least indirectly (e.g. ‘a local policeman who participated in the burial teams said “I place hundreds of corpses on to barges which were towed out to sea”’ I imagine however a new excuse will be forthcoming.

“Nope. I've got witnesses who said contemporaneously that the number of deaths was much higher, that military was sworn to secrecy, the fact that LBJ was a political animal and the Darwin bombings and the coverup would have been useful information on a number of levels.”

Perhaps you do, but after all this you’ve yet to present such witnesses or evidence. The closest you’ve come so far is a single 85 year-old witness saying something along those lines 2/3 of a century after the fact.

“What I've got includes that Australia was looking to the US by then instead of the UK and as a "junior" partner, information was shared mainly one way. - from Aus to US... very little the other way... and with the mission he had, along with his "Rising Star" of politics badge, there would have been a scramble to give him all sorts of information.”

“Finally, what I've got is LBJ faced with his own need for a cover up and opting for his own version of the Lowe Committee to achieve it.”

Like I said speculation with no evidentiary basis

EDIT - expanded list of acceptable intermediaries.

??? WTF are you talking about? I think your strategy is to get this “debate” going into pointless circles hoping I will give up.

No. That was YOUR strategy harking back to the very old thread you resurrected. And I have no problem with you continuing it.

I asked YOU for evidence there were refugees in DARWIN at the time of the attacks YOU provided the quote, “Many casualties were Dutch refugees from the Netherlands East Indies” as it referred to DARWIN when in fact it referred to BROOME 2 weeks later!

The confusion was and remains yours regarding Broome. You conflated the figure of 900 for all the attacks across the Top End wih the estimates of 900 to 1100 for initial Darwin attacks. You seemed at the time to labor under the misapprehension that Broome and Darwin were side by side.

There is zero evidence significant numbers of refugees were in Darwin on the day of the attacks and only indirect evidence suggesting some might have been there at the time

Lack of evidence is not evidence that none were there. Under the circumstances, I'd hardly expect there to be any evidence. That is what you're not getting. As refugees, identities were mostly unknown. If they were among those towed to sea, then the bodies could not be counted.

"As for airlines etc... the call to evacuate was limited pretty much limited to (white) women and children."


"You're confusing migrant laborers with refugees. Whilst the migrant laborers were non-citizens, assuming they were in the country legally, their identity was not a problem."

One of your few witnesses speculated that many (or was it most?) of those killed were migrants, in any case it is reasonable to expect that if migrants were able to get plane tickets refugees would have been able to as well.

What with? Paw paws? Mangoes?

The government sponsored evacuation of white and Asian Australian women and children is one thing, other people including migrants and presumably refugees leaving on their own is another. Some times the latter displaced the former.

Your speculation shifts like the wind, you previously indicated you thought many of the uncounted were migrants (and refugees). I haven’t ignored anything and indicated why it is unlikely large numbers of uncounted Aborigines or any other types of people were killed that day:

Try and grasp reality here okay? Just for a second.

1) No reports from friends or relatives

Friends and relatives of refugees and Aborigines could have reported them missing????? :-D

Friends and relatives of refugees were almost certainly still back in the country of origin and would have no clue of their fate. I'm trying to imagine Aborigines in the '40s deciding they should tell their white "protectors" that their loved ones were missing and the mental image is just impossible to take seriously.

2) No explanation why Aborigines (or other non-citizens) would have been killed in such disproportionately high numbers compared to whites especially since the Japanese targeted military and other government installations

As I've explained, Darwin is situated on a ludicrously small tract of land. You could not single out "government instalations" without taking out most of the town. Indeed, as happens elsewhere in the world with such isolated outposts, government administration accounts for a disproportionate share of the job market. It's a curious place that both embodies the last frontier AND suckles on large amounts of government money. But I digress...due to the climate and in some cases, for cultural reasons, Darwin also has a very large proportion of those living on the streets.

3) No explanation why so many more people would have been killed than wounded on dry land during the attacks.

February is at the end of the Wet season. The land would not be "dry" and rain, humidity, and a third world hospital would no doubt ensure many of the wounded ended up on the dead list through secondary infections and diseases.

4) Darwin historian Peter Forrest’s indication most witnesses believed the toll was less than 486

Name the witnesses and how old they were when they gave those figures.

You of course choose to ignore this in your reply.

Ignore what?

You really are confused both articles appeared the same day and had the same (or essentially the same) text.

I don't recall the other article playing down the amount of damage Darwin endured.

I cited it I didn’t “defend it”.

Okay. Great. Progress. You don't defend the newspaper stories which helped play down the damage and the number of deaths.

It cited Curtin quoting the report. Curtin lied; the report said the town was extensively damaged. The number of buildings destroyed in 1974 has no bearing on whether Lowe omitted damage to locations were hundreds of uncounted Aborigines, refugees or migrants could have been killed.

Nope I’ve always said it was probably due to sloppiness. Apparently you’ve confused because I cited the following from the wiki page about quoting out of context:

Like I said, anyone who wants to torture themselves can go back and check that you did indeed make contradictory claims. Neither of those theories was on the money.

“The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context (as all quotes are) per se, but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words.”


You excluded the “nearby…sentences…that serve[d] to clarify” that the refugees were not in Darwin by your sloppiness.

I had nothing to do with the refugees not being in Darwin. I wasn't even born!


I presume that was an excuse for not being able to back your claims. You seem to be implying you’ve spoken to witnesses yourself and still are in contact with them, is that the case?

“What I would be willing to do is pass the information to a disinterested party who can verify what I've said is true.”

If Tink, John, Andy or any ex- or current moderators (other than Peter) are willing to be intermediaries I’d take their word on it. Preferably your ‘witnesses’ will OK being quoted directly and ID at least indirectly (e.g. ‘a local policeman who participated in the burial teams said “I place hundreds of corpses on to barges which were towed out to sea”’ I imagine however a new excuse will be forthcoming.

I have no doubt you imagine lots of things.

There will be no quoting, or any other information posted which might assist you find anyone.

I will pass the information on to John. He can verify my claims or not as he sees fit by eg confirming/not confirming that the witness states what I have indicated.

I find it hard to believe you can really be as confused as you act and assume you are being disingenuous so as to avoid having to explain your blunder. But I’ll play along. Here’s the deal, intentionally or not you are conflating two separate matters.

1) The first is our differing interpretations over the meaning of the following sentences:

“From the first raid on 19 February 1942 until the last on 12 November 1943, Australia and its allies lost about 900 people…”

AND

"Local sources estimated that between 900 and 1100 people were killed."

From this article:

http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/art.../darwinbombing/

The problem is that it is unclear whether those numbers applied to all 97 raids on northern of Australia or just the 64 on Darwin or in the case of the second just from the Feb. 19 raids. I’m not really interested in going over that once again other than to point out once again I brought this up on another forum and (NOT counting me) 73% of respondents agreed with my interpretation of the 1st sentence and 82% with me about the 2nd, if you would count Dave Rodgers who said he didn’t vote but leaned towards my interpretation that would be 75 and 83% respectively.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=155084

2) The second, the one you want to avoid discussing at all costs, the one I have wanted you to explain since starting this thread is your blunder, i.e. providing the following quote as if it referred to DARWIN on February 19 when in fact it referred to BROOME 2 weeks later!

“Many casualties were Dutch refugees from the Netherlands East Indies...”

If you had bothered to open the page, instead of simply copying the snippet from your Google search results you would have know that it was not about Darwin here’s the whole paragraph:

Other areas of northern Australia also suffered attacks at various times. The next most devastating was on 3 March 1942 at Broome. Again without warning, Japanese aircraft swept in low, bombing and strafing Broome’s harbour, township and airfield. Dozens of people were killed or wounded and 24 aircraft were destroyed. Many casualties were Dutch refugees from the Netherlands East Indies (modern Indonesia) whose flying boats were sitting defenceless on the harbour.

www.ww2australia.gov.au/underattack/airraid.html

So we are talking about different sentences in different paragraphs in different articles on different websites discussed in different posts and relevant for different reasons (the total number of fatalities vs. whether or not any of them were refugees). To make a long story short two entirely separate issues but I’m sure you will continue to conflate them so as to avoid discussing your blunder. Do you really think people reading this are so dumb they won’t notice?

So as to give you less room to avoiding dealing with the above I will only deal with the rest once you reply to it. One exception though. Did John send you a PM (or e-mail) saying he was willing to serve as an intermediary? If not I wouldn’t presume to impose on him. One thing I would expect him (or whoever does this) to do is take steps to verify the people really are who you/they claim they are. If you would trust him (and if he’s willing) Evan might be the best person if your witnesses are military veterans.

Also your insistence on paraphrasing your 'witnesses' stinks. There is no way directly quoting an e-mail will allow me to contact them.

EDIT - Formatting

Len,

1. I have dealt with "the above". You are merely making excuses to avoid dealing with my last post.

2. No I have not sent any PM to John. Your entire response to my offer is based upon your own assumptions. Here's the deal: If John or anyone else on your trusted list wants to contact me, I'll give them the information. They can decide for themselves whether I've fairly represented it here or not and let you know via this thread or privately.



There won't be any quoting, let alone paraphrasing. All you're getting is a simple confirmation that I've fairly represented what they recall, or that I have not.

BS you’ve gone to great lengths to avoid “deal[ing] with the above”. All you’ve done is deny you did anything wrong and once almost half admit you might have. You made 7 posts before the one above on this thread:

Post 5 – Avoided explaining what happened
Post 8 – Avoided explaining what happened
Post 9 – Denial “you did exactly that which you falsely accused me of doing”
Post 12 Denial “you are guilty of what you falsely accuse me of.”
Post 14 – Denial followed my an ambiguous seeming admission of error “I didn't mangle any quotes. That's not to say I didn't make a mistake,”
Post 17 - Avoidance/Denial “Er. No, it was YOU who did that.”
Post 19 – Avoided explaining what happened

So go ahead, prove me wrong quote from an earlier post where you explained your misleading quote.

I see only 3 possibilities, in order of probability. You

1) …copied the Google search without opening the page
2) …opened the page and copied the phrase without reading the paragraph
3) …read the paragraph and knew the phrase referred to Broome but quoted it as if it were about Darwin anyway.

If there are any other possibilities please spell them out. In the 1st two scenarios you were horribly sloppy in the 3rd you committed intellectual fraud



Don’t count on it. Give me a STRAIGHT answer and I will proceed with the rest forthwith. I even have a tidbit waiting for you, direct evidence there were some Dutch people in Darwin the 19th



Since you or your intermediary posting direct quotes would in no way allow me to track your witnesses down (your supposed concern) your method of dealing with this is highly suspicious. Will he (or she) get e-mails from your supposed ‘witnesses’ or just copies of their statements from you?

Greg,

I’m not in the least surprised to failed to address your mangling of the quote which is apparent to anyone paying attention on this thread. With your numerous erroneous claims and misunderstandings of your own sources on this and the earlier thread you’ve demonstrated that no one should accept any of your claims unless they’ve checked your citations



I doubt even their specific “identities were mostly unknown”. Unless they snuck in they would had to have identified themselves to government authorities. But obviously the presence of large numbers of refugees would not go unnoticed, yet it seems that none of several books about the attacks mentions them being there except for 2 brief references (one apparently copied from the other) to planes flying from the Dutch East Indies (DEI) to Darwin. Nor are they mentioned in any of the other books on Google with ‘Darwin’ and ‘1942’ in their titles nor in any of the articles you and I dug up, nor in the book about the role of the Dutch Naval Air Service in the DEI 1941-2 even though it mentions the evacuation of refugees to Broome. The only other reference was to an unknown number being there a month earlier. The most reasonable assumption is that there was only a small number of them there that day.

I did however find a contemporary reference. On April 2, 1942 the Nambour Chronicle, a weekly paper from a small town north of Brisbane, reported [on page 5] that during the evacuation of Darwin “Red Cross workers gave…Assistance [to]…various Dutch people and sailors who found themselves without clothing.” So there were some Dutch people in town that day but several of them survived and none it seems ever said anything about their relatives/friends/compatriots getting killed and dumped at sea. So in this case yes absence of evidence is evidence of absence of "significant numbers of refugees...in Darwin on the day of the attacks"

http://www.nambour-chronicle.com/download....80&type=pdf [(free) registration required]



What makes you assume they were destitute? I know lots of refugees from Europe during the same period and their descendents. Most of them were Jews many were family members. I’ve also met refugees from Spain, Cuba, Vietnam and the USSR, most had a reasonable amounts of money when they left. If the ones in Darwin were so destitute how did they pay for their tickets THERE in the 1st place? Blocks of smoked Gouda and clogs?

A few days before the raids the Director-General of Health and Medical Services in Queensland, one of two states with direct air service to Darwin warned that there was an increased danger of malaria bearing mosquitoes and that “this is especially increased owing to the entrance to Australia at present of numbers of refugees from the Dutch East Indies and the Philippines”. Though he did not say they were in his state it seems unlikely they would be of concern to him and Queenslanders unless they were. Take a look at a map and keep in mind the 2420km maximum range (down to 563km with max payload) of DC3’s it is very unlikely Brisbane or even any of the small towns in the north of the state was their port of entry.

http://www.nambour-chronicle.com/download....22&type=pdf [(free) registration required]
http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=188


If they were there in significant numbers many would have known each other. Once again based on the refugees (or their descendents) known to me personally they usually travelled in groups my mother escaped Europe with her parents, bother and a friend of the family. My dad who had just earned his PhD travelled with a friend from his university. They all went to Cuba where they befriended other European refugees (mostly Jews), the death of any one (let alone hundreds) of them would not have gone unnoticed.

"I'm trying to imagine Aborigines in the '40s deciding they should tell their white "protectors" that their loved ones were missing and the mental image is just impossible to take seriously."

Strawman, I never said they should have complained in the 1940’s. To the contrary I pointed out that for the last few decades many Aborigines have become more vocal about the wrongs done to them. Even with shorter life expectancy many of the Aborigines in town that day or who had loved ones there would still have been alive in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and even the beginning of the 21st century.



So at best we would expect the ratio “non-citizens” killed to approach that of whites. But even if we make the unreasonable assumption there were equal numbers of civilian citizens and “non-citizens” for your numbers to add up the latter would have to have been killed at a rate 10 – 30 X higher than the former, they even would have to have died at a rate higher that military personnel on the ground.



Was that a failed attempt a humor or were you being obtuse?! Obviously I meant people on land as opposed to those on ships or in planes. If you don’t own a dictionary several free ones are available online.



Why don’t you ask him? And how many of your “witnesses” can you name? He seems to have done most of his research 2000 – 2. Presumably the people he and other historians spoke to were on average the same age as those now claiming the toll was close to or over 1000.

Lockwood who witnessed the attacks published his book in 1966 and spoke to many survivors, but apparently he didn’t question the death toll. Odd that you’ve shown no interest in reading it, I even provided you with a link listing the libraries in your state that have it.



Grose didn’t provide the whole text but as he points out the death toll “was played down by the newspapers”. The Argus also published their article on page 3 and it quoted Curtin as saying “The damage to the town itself was small” based on Grose’s comments the Herald’s article was based on his statement as well. I'll amend my earlier statement "...both articles appeared the same day and gave similar information"

http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article8240009



As above I’m unsure if you were trying to be funny or were being obtuse, I was referring to your mangling (intentional or not) of the quote about refugees in Broome on March 3, 1942 so as to make it appear they were in Darwin on February 19.

Bumped for Greg.

Greg is one of the most knowledgeable and responsible JFK assassination researches currently working on the case, and there is nothing Len Colby can do or say to change that fact.

He is only losing credibility by bothering to engage in a discussion with you, someone who is recognized as a person intent on spewing arguments and discord.

I advise Greg not to bother responding to any of your antagonisms and insults and spend the time doing what he does best.

Bill Kelly

I’ll take your word for it regarding his research regarding the assassination, unfortunately I can’t say the same about his work regarding the Darwin raids, it has been very sloppy and replete with gross errors.



Oh yes recognized by people like Peter and Jack who label those who disagree with them ‘the Borg’, ‘brownshirts’,‘disinfo’ agents and people who should be hung by their thumbs. I have been more polite with Greg than vice versa.



If you go back over the two threads you’ll see that he started the “antagonisms and insults”. Unlike him I haven’t use profanity, accused the other of being intentionally deceptive or attacked his character.



The reason Greg didn’t reply is because he can’t rebut my points, he made a claim which he can’t defend. You have essentially acted as his fire brigade saving him from having to respond

There's nothing Greg can do or say that can help you improve your image.

It's quite clear that your intention isn't to determine the truth as to what happened, but to attack Greg, and that seems to be your intention and style, and therefore there's no reason to continue to the dialog.

BK

There's this late John Ford picture called "The Horse Soldiers." John Wayne and William Holden (who resembled David Atlee Phillips) play Union officers in the Civil War. From the beginning of the film they're at each other's throats, and in the fourth quarter they have a punch-up. As fists fly, a cannonball is hurled into the frame and it explodes. "The Rebs are over here!" someone shouts, and our heroes go back to their real business.

Sam Peckinpah lifted that bit for the end of his splendid western called "Major Dundee." This time, the French are breaking up the donnybrook, down in Mexico, between Charlton Heston and Richard Harris. Peckinpah made sure that the actor who calls out, "You boys want a real fight? Over here!" is the Ford actor, Ben Johnson.

It is remarkable how many war narratives in American film are based on the protagonists fighting among themselves when not engaging the enemy - Howard Hawks' "Air Force" being the exemplar, and an influence on "Star Wars." I believe that Hollywood likes this story because it expresses the myth of its self-image, celebrated each year at the Academy Awards.

Greg Parker was the only researcher to solve the Oxnard Call controversy -- it had nothing to do with Karyn Kupcinet as Penn Jones, Jr. maintained.

Kathy C

Bill and Kathleen, thanks guys... you say the nicest things! I've been getting a gentle kicking privately for my part in this quagmire...

David, I love old Westerns... watched "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid" today... a twist on your theory, I think?

Len,



You should have realised I'm not hiding from you. I've been waiting for one of your trusted personages to contact. I don't intend to continue anything before then - and certainly will not be wasting much more on this, anyway. Life's too short.



Only you could categorise one citation error as "gross errors". Mostly what this amounts to is you misreading my comments, or trying to second guess what I really mean and basing replies around that instead of what was actually said. This is something you have continued to do right up to your own version of what you think I was offering in regard to witnesses.



So? Have I said any of those things? If not, what's your point? Trying to cast me in the same light? I don't think that boat has any sails...

As for who has been polite... you're being disingenuous. You have wrapped your insults in coy language. I on the other hand, have been up front and honest in my insults. I don't disguise them in cute questions.



In fact, you did start it by asking if I had made a particular fact up out of whole cloth. My so called "insult" was only in response to that: "How $%$&()_ dare you?" I believe is what I said. I then demonstrated that I had NOT made anything up. That was an honest response - your question was only in that form to avoid any accusation you'd breached any rules and because you wanted to be able to say later how freaking polite you are by comparison. Your "politeness" however, is as contrived as your hairstyle.

Yeah right that’s why you waited till Bill provided you “cover” to respond. Since the idea of forwarding your info to a third party was yours and I made it clear I found your conditions unacceptable it’s up to you to contact them not the other way round. Seemingly then that was just another excuse not to reply.

As for the rest of your post I’m not interested in getting into another round of “he said, she said” (or “he said, he said” in this case) with you. My interest is in the Darwin bombings and your allegation there was a “large scale conspiracy” which “last(ed) for many, many years” to cover up the death toll. The evidence so far indicates that wasn’t the case. You've avoided responding to post #23 for a week and will continue to do ad infinium.

You know David, when I talked with David A. Phillips on the phone this came up.

After Gaeton Fonzi's Washingtonian article came out I called information and got Phillips' phone number, called out of the blue and he picked up and talked for about an hour.

One of the things I mentioned to him was that I enjoyed reading The Carlos Contract, and thought it would make a good movie.

Phillips said that he was going to write a book about his WWII prisoner of war experiences in Germany, but then the movie Stalag 17 came out, and it was very similar to what he was going to write. And I mentioned he had many similar attributes with the William Holden character.

And just like William Holden's character wasn't the Rat after all, maybe DAPhillips wasm't the one doing the framing and was set up as a patsy as much as Oswald?

While some dissenters and debaters come around and learn to play the game right and make valued contributions to what we know, I wouldn't put any such hope in Colby.

BK

Whenever I see William Holden play a CIA officer in the somewhat underrated spy spoof, "Casino Royale," I think of Phillips.

Too bad no Hollywood-struck Cuban said, "Maurice Bishop? He looked like William Holden!" There should be more typology in identification.

Holden made several films touching on the cold war or its anxieties. He would have made a great Graham Greene-style ugly American in a Caribbean adventure - he had that comic-absurdist executive/spy thing down cold.

Phillips looks most like Holden in that photo of him under the CIA road sign. Though Phillips looks booze-hollow there - dessicated, as if secreting a load of bad teeth in the back of his mouth

David i think this is the CIA sign that


you mention within this comp by James' of phillips..b

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Owner/Desktop/imgres.jpg


I tried to post a picture of Holden with a cigar.

There's also one of Holden in a tux that gives him a 007 flair.

Thanks for the Phillips pix B.

You know Phillips was an actor, and was in an acting troupe in Havana.

And David, to address another one of your points - I think Americans enjoy arguing with each other, like brothers fight, as it develops a good sense of competition. Things get sluggish when there's no competition.

But it seems like Len is going around poking people on the shoulder trying to pick a fight for the fun of it.

BK

"And David, to address another one of your points - I think Americans enjoy arguing with each other, like brothers fight, as it develops a good sense of competition. Things get sluggish when there's no competition."
<
<
It really is one of the key American myths in film, and it has one of three typical outcomes:

At the end of the picture, everybody proves themselves by banding together against the common enemy, and

1) everybody goes home somewhat damaged, but proud. ("The Horse Soldiers," "Alvarez Kelly")
2) the biggest malcontent proves the greatest hero, sacrificing of his life for the others. ("Air Force," "Major Dundee")
3) the hero actually gets it in the end, but his sacrifice inspires the malcontents to soldier on righteously ("Saving Private Ryan")

See "Platoon," the "Star Wars" movies, for variants. The story filters into non-war American films as well.

Is this the seminal American myth? It descends from the Gospels, like Puritanism from the Exodus. This must look typically self-absorbed to our global members, a Greek vase cartoon of our character.

So Greg have you convinced anyone to be your ‘fact checker'? Since it was your idea, to verify one of your claims, in support of one of your theories and to carried out under your terms it up to you to contact any of the people I said would be acceptable rather than for me to do so on your behalf or any of them to contact you spontaneously.

I imagine your odd terms might make some reluctant to get involved.

Ah, that "CIA, Next RIGHT"sign always makes me laugh [to keep from depression]! How apt! A sign of our times!

Yeah right that’s why you waited till Bill provided you “cover” to respond.

Are you suggesting a conspiracy between myself and Bill? My my...

Since the idea of forwarding your info to a third party was yours and I made it clear I found your conditions unacceptable it’s up to you to contact them not the other way round. Seemingly then that was just another excuse not to reply.

Seemingly? Isn't what you have called a weasel word when used by others? You were the one demanding the evidence. I don't jump to your command. You wanted it, you should have organised someone.

As for the rest of your post I’m not interested in getting into another round of “he said, she said” (or “he said, he said” in this case) with you.

You brought it up, but now that you're reminded about what's been said, you want to drop it.

My interest is in the Darwin bombings and your allegation there was a “large scale conspiracy” which “last(ed) for many, many years” to cover up the death toll. The evidence so far indicates that wasn’t the case. You've avoided responding to post #23 for a week and will continue to do ad infinium.

You continue to jump to conclusions based on what you wish or thought I said, or assumptions about what I meant.

So Greg have you convinced anyone to be your ‘fact checker'? Since it was your idea, to verify one of your claims, in support of one of your theories and to carried out under your terms it up to you to contact any of the people I said would be acceptable rather than for me to do so on your behalf or any of them to contact you spontaneously.

I don't recall any book of rules on these things, Len ol' pal.

I imagine your odd terms might make some reluctant to get involved.

Just shows your powers of discernment are all in your fevered imaginings, and how you go so wrong in so many other parts of these threads. Someone volunteered.

I have told them to verify that there is at least one more witness to bodies being towed out to sea and to a cover up of the real death toll. I have also asked them not to provide any direct quotes, but they should feel free to offer their own opinion of the worth of the evidence, good, bad or indifferent.

"Ah, that "CIA, Next RIGHT"sign always makes me laugh [to keep from depression]! How apt! A sign of our times!"
>
>
Notice that Richard Case Nagell makes comedy out of that sign in his most famous Verdestein letter.

No I suggesting that if no one had made a post like his you wouldn’t have replied




Depends on the context: your claimed “Lowe handed in a supplemental report on April 9, but according to the National Archives, it appears to have been a work in progress between 1942 and 1945.” However the archives said nothing of the sort it was yet another case of you citing a page you had not read carefully. I speculated as to why you did something. I can’t read minds but you can and should read pages before you cite them.

"You were the one demanding the evidence. I don't jump to your command. You wanted it, you should have organized someone."

Your understanding of the burden of proof is quite skewed, you claimed to have multiple witnesses supporting your claims, I asked for a citation. The general rule everywhere is that it’s up to the claimant to provide evidence and that’s how it works here too:

"(iii) Wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make. This will help those carrying out academic research into this area."

I was replying to Bill but now I’m ready to move on because it’s a waste of time. Trust me the more we go over this the worse you come out. You still haven’t owned up to your screw up presenting the quote about the refugees in Broome as if they were in Darwin.



Oh yes I just “jump[ed] to conclusion” that you don’t want to reply to post #23 and by sheer coincidence you still haven’t replied to it.



LOL this from the guy who cited pages he hadn’t read at least 3 times in these threads

"Someone volunteered.

I have told them to verify that there is at least one more witness to bodies being towed out to sea and to a cover up of the real death toll. I have also asked them not to provide any direct quotes, but they should feel free to offer their own opinion of the worth of the evidence, good, bad or indifferent."

So who’s your volunteer? Or is that secret as well? I already told you your conditions were totally unacceptable but I’ll reserve judgment until he (or she) makes their report.

A few quick questions though:

1) Since the previously cited person who said they saw “bodies being towed out to sea” is not identified how will your volunteer determine that the ‘additional’ witness is actually someone else?

2) How will your volunteer be able to determine your witnesses are who they say they are?

3) Why are you insisting on such bizarre conditions? There is no way direct quotes will allow me to contact your supposed witnesses.

Are you suggesting a conspiracy between myself and Bill? My my...

No I suggesting that if no one had made a post like his you wouldn’t have replied

Wrong. I was going to reply and DELAYED doing so after seeing Bill's post because I know how your mind works.

Since the idea of forwarding your info to a third party was yours and I made it clear I found your conditions unacceptable it’s up to you to contact them not the other way round. Seemingly then that was just another excuse not to reply.

Seemingly? Isn't what you have called a weasel word when used by others?

Depends on the context: your claimed “Lowe handed in a supplemental report on April 9, but according to the National Archives, it appears to have been a work in progress between 1942 and 1945.” However the archives said nothing of the sort it was yet another case of you citing a page you had not read carefully. I speculated as to why you did something. I can’t read minds but you can and should read pages before you cite them.

The archives, from memory, has a listing as "The Lowe Report 1942 - 1945". I suggested to you that this gives the appearance it was operational during that period. I used a qualifier because I did not believe that appearance was necessarily correct. You were the one who made the definitive (and erroneous) statement that the Commission wound up after the issuing of the first report. As I pointed out, there was the matter of a second report on April 9.

"You were the one demanding the evidence. I don't jump to your command. You wanted it, you should have organized someone."

Your understanding of the burden of proof is quite skewed, you claimed to have multiple witnesses supporting your claims, I asked for a citation. The general rule everywhere is that it’s up to the claimant to provide evidence and that’s how it works here too:


"(iii) Wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make. This will help those carrying out academic research into this area."

You are confusing the provision of evidence with how that provision is carried out. What a shock that you don't understand the difference.

As for the rest of your post I’m not interested in getting into another round of “he said, she said” (or “he said, he said” in this case) with you.

You brought it up, but now that you're reminded about what's been said, you want to drop it.

I was replying to Bill but now I’m ready to move on because it’s a waste of time. Trust me the more we go over this the worse you come out. You still haven’t owned up to your screw up presenting the quote about the refugees in Broome as if they were in Darwin.

It does not matter who you were replying to - the unalterable fact is that you brought it up and when the facts were pointed out - you wanted to drop it.

As for owning up - how many times do I have to say I made a mistake? My only qualm is your continued miss-description of it. You on the other hand, need to own up to trying to add Broome deaths to Darwin's in order to (partially) account for a higher death toll in the latter.

My interest is in the Darwin bombings and your allegation there was a “large scale conspiracy” which “last(ed) for many, many years” to cover up the death toll. The evidence so far indicates that wasn’t the case. You've avoided responding to post #23 for a week and will continue to do ad infinium.

You continue to jump to conclusions based on what you wish or thought I said, or assumptions about what I meant.

Oh yes I just “jump[ed] to conclusion” that you don’t want to reply to post #23 and by sheer coincidence you still haven’t replied to it.

I'm sure there's another logical fallacy there somewhere!

I imagine your odd terms might make some reluctant to get involved.

Just shows your powers of discernment are all in your fevered imaginings, and how you go so wrong in so many other parts of these threads.

LOL this from the guy who cited pages he hadn’t read at least 3 times in these threads

Here we go again. Point them out.

"Someone volunteered.

I have told them to verify that there is at least one more witness to bodies being towed out to sea and to a cover up of the real death toll. I have also asked them not to provide any direct quotes, but they should feel free to offer their own opinion of the worth of the evidence, good, bad or indifferent."

So who’s your volunteer? Or is that secret as well? I already told you your conditions were totally unacceptable but I’ll reserve judgment until he (or she) makes their report.

Patience. Presumably they will get around to posting something eventually. The person was one of your choices.

A few quick questions though:

1) Since the previously cited person who said they saw “bodies being towed out to sea” is not identified how will your volunteer determine that the ‘additional’ witness is actually someone else?

Finally a well thought out, pertinent question. Having another look at both, I cannot guarantee it is not the same person. However, this one does say that "soldiers" plural saw this and were coerced into secrecy.

2) How will your volunteer be able to determine your witnesses are who they say they are?

Some things have to be taken on trust in the absence of any grounds to dismiss them. In legal circles, "facts" are often accepted without question by all parties where no grounds exist to dismiss.

3) Why are you insisting on such bizarre conditions? There is no way direct quotes will allow me to contact your supposed witnesses.

Again, you are basing these queries on assumptions that have no foundation in reality.

That listing only made it appear to YOU that the LC “was operational” 1942 – 5 because you had not read the page it was on carefully. The text of the page mentioned the “Commission of Inquiry led by Mr Justice Lowe which issued two reports, one on 27 March and the other on 9 April 1942”, other listings were for “Air raid on Darwin – final report of Commission of Inquiry*1942” AND “Transcript of evidence, Darwin air raid inquiry*1942”AND “Darwin air raid inquiry – exhibits (includes seven photographs) 1942”. There was even a listing for Bombing of Darwin – report by Mr Justice Lowe*1942–49, so based on your “logic” one would to conclude that “it appears to have been a work in progress between 1942 and 1945 AND 1949”

You said that in support of your now abandoned claim LBJ was in Australia during the HEARINGS. The difference between late March and early April was irrelevant because he only arrived in mid-May, in any case the HEARINGS ended in late March and the main report, the one which discussed the casualties and destruction was submitted then as well. You made no mention of the earlier report.




In this case there is no difference, since you came up with this convoluted way of ‘providing’ your evidence ‘carrying it out’ is up to you.



I brought it up with Bill who I believed I could have reasonable discussion with, debating you on this is like debating Jack White when he was insisting WTC6 (pictured below) was white (latter amended to light gray). Actually it's even more pointless because the color ofthe building was relevant to the discussion while this crap isn't.



"As for owning up - how many times do I have to say I made a mistake? My only qualm is your continued miss-description of it. "

Once is enough, this is the first time you’ve done so, the closest you came till now was mixed with denial. “I didn't mangle any quotes. That's not to say I didn't make a mistake.” Why didn’t your mistake qualify as a “gross error”? You didn’t read the paragraph you took the quote from; I doubt you even opened the page.

"You on the other hand, need to own up to trying to add Broome deaths to Darwin's in order to (partially) account for a higher death toll in the latter. "

Since 8 - 9 out of 11 people who responded on another forum understood the totals to refer to all the raids on northern Australia it’s more likely you misread than I. Don’t feel bad it was ambiguously written. Even if you were correct the fact that so many people misunderstood it demonstrates it was poorly written. Misunderstanding an unclear text is not the same as not reading a paragraph you take a quote from.



Only if we count your refusal to deal with information which contradicts your theory (post 23) as confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance. Speaking of which you still haven’t replied. Yeah I just “jump[ed] to conclusion” that you don’t want to reply to it nothing could be further from the truth.


1) You wrote:

“Here is what the government now admits:

From the first raid on 19 February 1942 until the last on 12 November 1943, Australia and its allies lost about 900 people, 77 aircraft and several ships. Many military and civilian facilities were destroyed

[…]

http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/art.../darwinbombing/

Since we know fatalities were light in the latter raids, we must conclude that the original official figure on the first raid was severely fudged, even going by the conservative grand total now admitted to.”

But you failed to notice that later on in the same page there was a sentence that contradicted you; “The two raids killed at least 243 Australians and allies.”

2) : you claimed “Lowe handed in a supplemental report on April 9, but according to the National Archives, it appears to have been a work in progress between 1942 and 1945.” When in fact they said he submitted his reports in 1942, see above for more detail.

3) You cited the quote about refugees in Broome as if they were in Darwin. This was the most egregious case because this was clearly stated in the paragraph.

4) I remembered two more. You cited the book, Battle Submerged: Submarine Fighters of World War II, in support of your claim significant numbers of refugees from ‘Indonesia’ were in Darwin on the day of the attacks (Feb.19,1942) but the only refugees the book mentioned going to Darwin was a group of 50 “United States citizens…holed up on Panay” [central Philippines] in March 1944 (pgs 33 -4)

http://www.archive.org/stream/battlesubmer...684mbp_djvu.txt

5) You claimed the Wikipedia page about 'argument from authority' was more authoritative than the Nizkor one because the former (approximate quote) ‘cited numerous sources’ while the latter cited none but in reality Wikipedia’s only cited source was Nizkor. Rather than admit error you claimed we were discussing a different fallacy.



In other words your witness accounts are 2nd or 3rd hand in that case I'd have to know who your sources are.



I thought these were people you were in contact with personally but it sounds like they are published accounts. I’ll reserve judgment till your ‘fact checker’ posts.



You're right I’m just imagining that instead of simply posting your evidence here like everyone else you insist in doing so in a strange Rube Goldbergian fashion.

So Greg it's been over 5 days can you check in with your volunteer and she if he or she will offer their assessment anytime soon?

I'd also like to know if they can to confirm your claim that some of the witnesses have been saying this since the 1940's.

Since the idea of forwarding your info to a third party was yours and I made it clear I found your conditions unacceptable it’s up to you to contact them not the other way round. Seemingly then that was just another excuse not to reply.

Seemingly? Isn't what you have called a weasel word when used by others?

Depends on the context: you claimed “Lowe handed in a supplemental report on April 9, but according to the National Archives, it appears to have been a work in progress between 1942 and 1945.” However the archives said nothing of the sort it was yet another case of you citing a page you had not read carefully. I speculated as to why you did something. I can’t read minds but you can and should read pages before you cite them.

The archives, from memory, has a listing as "The Lowe Report 1942 - 1945". I suggested to you that this gives the appearance it was operational during that period. I used a qualifier because I did not believe that appearance was necessarily correct. You were the one who made the definitive (and erroneous) statement that the Commission wound up after the issuing of the first report. As I pointed out, there was the matter of a second report on April 9.

That listing only made it appear to YOU that the LC “was operational” 1942 – 5 because you had not read the page it was on carefully. The text of the page mentioned the “Commission of Inquiry led by Mr Justice Lowe which issued two reports, one on 27 March and the other on 9 April 1942”, other listings were for “Air raid on Darwin – final report of Commission of Inquiry*1942” AND “Transcript of evidence, Darwin air raid inquiry*1942”AND “Darwin air raid inquiry – exhibits (includes seven photographs) 1942”. There was even a listing for Bombing of Darwin – report by Mr Justice Lowe*1942–49, so based on your “logic” one would to conclude that “it appears to have been a work in progress between 1942 and 1945 AND 1949”

It is possible to have a "final" report AND for the inquiry to continue after that report. The FBI issued a "final" report on the assassination - yet in testimony, Hoover stated the inquiry would always be open.

You said that in support of your now abandoned claim LBJ was in Australia during the HEARINGS. The difference between late March and early April was irrelevant because he only arrived in mid-May, in any case the HEARINGS ended in late March and the main report, the one which discussed the casualties and destruction was submitted then as well. You made no mention of the earlier report.

Aha. "Abandoned". Great. You point out an error I made in a post several years ago, I accept the correction and you categorize it as "abandoning" my previous claim. How pray tell, do you categorize holding on to an incorrect claim? Does it depend on which side of the picket fence you're on as to whether or not this is "abandonment"?


"You were the one demanding the evidence. I don't jump to your command. You wanted it, you should have organized someone."

Your understanding of the burden of proof is quite skewed, you claimed to have multiple witnesses supporting your claims, I asked for a citation. The general rule everywhere is that it’s up to the claimant to provide evidence and that’s how it works here too:


"(iii) Wherever possible, members should give references (books, documents, etc) concerning the comments that they make. This will help those carrying out academic research into this area."

You are confusing the provision of evidence with how that provision is carried out. What a shock that you don't understand the difference.

In this case there is no difference, since you came up with this convoluted way of ‘providing’ your evidence ‘carrying it out’ is up to you.

Why am I not surprised you're trying to change the subject to a non-existent rule. You said it was up to me to provide the evidence. I've made provision for that, so there is no basis for your squealing.

As for the rest of your post I’m not interested in getting into another round of “he said, she said” (or “he said, he said” in this case) with you.

You brought it up, but now that you're reminded about what's been said, you want to drop it.

I was replying to Bill but now I’m ready to move on because it’s a waste of time. Trust me the more we go over this the worse you come out. You still haven’t owned up to your screw up presenting the quote about the refugees in Broome as if they were in Darwin.

It does not matter who you were replying to - the unalterable fact is that you brought it up and when the facts were pointed out - you wanted to drop it.

I brought it up with Bill who I believed I could have reasonable discussion with, debating you on this is like debating Jack White when he was insisting WTC6 (pictured below) was white (latter amended to light gray). Actually it's even more pointless because the color ofthe building was relevant to the discussion while this crap isn't.

Then why did you bring it up at all with anyone? Seems it's only "crap" now because the facts don't back you up.

"As for owning up - how many times do I have to say I made a mistake? My only qualm is your continued miss-description of it. "

Once is enough, this is the first time you’ve done so, the closest you came till now was mixed with denial. “I didn't mangle any quotes. That's not to say I didn't make a mistake.” Why didn’t your mistake qualify as a “gross error”? You didn’t read the paragraph you took the quote from; I doubt you even opened the page.

You still don't get it... but you're a tryer...

"You on the other hand, need to own up to trying to add Broome deaths to Darwin's in order to (partially) account for a higher death toll in the latter. "

Since 8 - 9 out of 11 people who responded on another forum understood the totals to refer to all the raids on northern Australia it’s more likely you misread than I. Don’t feel bad it was ambiguously written. Even if you were correct the fact that so many people misunderstood it demonstrates it was poorly written. Misunderstanding an unclear text is not the same as not reading a paragraph you take a quote from.

LOL. I want their names, addresses and social security numbers! Now!

My interest is in the Darwin bombings and your allegation there was a “large scale conspiracy” which “last(ed) for many, many years” to cover up the death toll. The evidence so far indicates that wasn’t the case. You've avoided responding to post #23 for a week and will continue to do ad infinium.

You continue to jump to conclusions based on what you wish or thought I said, or assumptions about what I meant.

Oh yes I just “jump[ed] to conclusion” that you don’t want to reply to post #23 and by sheer coincidence you still haven’t replied to it.

I'm sure there's another logical fallacy there somewhere!

Only if we count your refusal to deal with information which contradicts your theory (post 23) as confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance. Speaking of which you still haven’t replied. Yeah I just “jump[ed] to conclusion” that you don’t want to reply to it nothing could be further from the truth.

I have already told you I was waiting for someone to contact to get that evidence out of the way first. An any event, I just had another look at your post. That you claim it contradicts anything doesn't make it so. The only fact you brought out supports me by way of verifying that refugees were in Darwin. The rest is just your speculation vs my speculation.

LOL this from the guy who cited pages he hadn’t read at least 3 times in these threads

Here we go again. Point them out.


1) You wrote:

“Here is what the government now admits:

>From the first raid on 19 February 1942 until the last on 12 November 1943, Australia and its allies lost about 900 people, 77 aircraft and several ships. Many military and civilian facilities were destroyed

[…]

http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/art.../darwinbombing/

Since we know fatalities were light in the latter raids, we must conclude that the original official figure on the first raid was severely fudged, even going by the conservative grand total now admitted to.”

But you failed to notice that later on in the same page there was a sentence that contradicted you; “The two raids killed at least 243 Australians and allies.”

There is no contradiction.

2) : you claimed “Lowe handed in a supplemental report on April 9, but according to the National Archives, it appears to have been a work in progress between 1942 and 1945.” When in fact they said he submitted his reports in 1942, see above for more detail.

Indeed - see above.

3) You cited the quote about refugees in Broome as if they were in Darwin. This was the most egregious case because this was clearly stated in the paragraph.

I know I did make one error. I'll take your word this was it. Wrong URL posted late at night.

4) I remembered two more. You cited the book, Battle Submerged: Submarine Fighters of World War II, in support of your claim significant numbers of refugees from ‘Indonesia’ were in Darwin on the day of the attacks (Feb.19,1942) but the only refugees the book mentioned going to Darwin was a group of 50 “United States citizens…holed up on Panay” [central Philippines] in March 1944 (pgs 33 -4)

http://www.archive.org/stream/battlesubmer...684mbp_djvu.txt

The "significant" part, I believe, is your embellishment, unless you can find a quote where I said it. What I recall saying is that Darwin is and always has been, a place for refugees. I don't see why I would have used this for any other purpose since I had a cite for the time for the bombing.

5) You claimed the Wikipedia page about 'argument from authority' was more authoritative than the Nizkor one because the former (approximate quote) ‘cited numerous sources’ while the latter cited none but in reality Wikipedia’s only cited source was Nizkor. Rather than admit error you claimed we were discussing a different fallacy.

What I actually said was as an encyclopedia, wiki is in the business of providing facts like any other encyclodedia. Nizkor's expertise is elsewhere - and whilst it is true Wiki cited Nizkor on that one type of logical fallacy, Nizkor provides no citations whatsoever, while Wiki does provide many, many citations on logical fallacies.


A few quick questions though:

1) Since the previously cited person who said they saw “bodies being towed out to sea” is not identified how will your volunteer determine that the ‘additional’ witness is actually someone else?

Finally a well thought out, pertinent question. Having another look at both, I cannot guarantee it is not the same person. However, this one does say that "soldiers" plural saw this and were coerced into secrecy.

In other words your witness accounts are 2nd or 3rd hand in that case I'd have to know who your sources are.

Close relative of witness.

QUOTE
2) How will your volunteer be able to determine your witnesses are who they say they are?

Some things have to be taken on trust in the absence of any grounds to dismiss them. In legal circles, "facts" are often accepted without question by all parties where no grounds exist to dismiss.


I thought these were people you were in contact with personally but it sounds like they are published accounts. I’ll reserve judgment till your ‘fact checker’ posts.

Okay. Good. You finally catch on that you have based too much around your assumptions.

3) Why are you insisting on such bizarre conditions? There is no way direct quotes will allow me to contact your supposed witnesses.

Again, you are basing these queries on assumptions that have no foundation in reality.

You're right I’m just imagining that instead of simply posting your evidence here like everyone else you insist in doing so in a strange Rube Goldbergian fashion.

Yes, bit only because you're so special...

Crap, why not just admit you were careless and move on? The meaning of the word ‘final’ seems to escape you. I never heard of an FBI report about the assassination labeled ‘final’, please provide evidence such an animal ever existed, then evidence that after its issuance JEH said the investigation was still open. Failing that as I expect you will post evidence of any official body issuing a “final report” on a subject before they finished their investigation. In any case the archives made no mention of Lowe or his commission issuing any reports after 1942.

Why didn’t you tell us “it appears to have been a work in progress between 1942 and 1949” since one of the listings went to that year?



“Several years ago”? Actually you continued to insist you were correct till a few weeks ago. I called it your “now abandoned claim” because at time of you inaccurate claim about the

GREG: “How pray tell, do you categorize holding on to an incorrect claim?”

One that’s been shown to be wrong? Perhaps being ‘bull headed’,you’re good at that.


GREG: "Why am I not surprised you're trying to change the subject to a non-existent rule. You said it was up to me to provide the evidence. I've made provision for that, so there is no basis for your squealing."

You wanted me to organize a fact checker for you. That was your responsibility not mine.




Please cite were you previously admitted error.



Failed jokes aside since most people understood it the way I did I was probably correct and if I’m not the worst I’m guilty of is misunderstanding a poorly written ambiguous passage.

GREG: "I have already told you I was waiting for someone to contact to get that evidence out of the way first. An any event, I just had another look at your post [#23 Len]. That you claim it contradicts anything doesn't make it so. The only fact you brought out supports me by way of verifying that refugees were in Darwin. The rest is just your speculation vs my speculation."

You are correct it is most my analysis vs. yours but I believe mine shows that you case doesn’t make any sense. Using your witnesses as an excuse to not reply rings hollow because we’ve already seen similar witness reports, witnesses aren’t always correct, there are for example various contradictions between DP ones. Yes there were a few Dutch refugees in Darwin that day, apparently none however said anything about friends or relatives getting killed and having their bodies dumped at sea, wonder why?



Of course there is you, claimed that a death toll well over 243 could be inferred from the text which would obviously come as a surprise to the author since he cited that number. IF you had seen that, you were guilty of intentional deception but obviously you hadn’t.Another problem is that you failed to do your math first


Agreed



Nope you got the URL right. You did a Google search and either copied the result with out opening the page OR you opened it and found the sentence via a page search but neglected to read the other sentences in the paragraph which contradicted your claim.


I’m not sure if you actually said it but it was implicit, if for example there were 53 refugees in town that day and 14 were killed but not counted it wouldn’t help much in getting from 250 -320 killed to 900 – 1100.

GREG: What I recall saying is that Darwin is and always has been, a place for refugees.

What you recall is irrelevant. In response to “Intentionally or not you falsely created the impression that refugees were killed in Darwin.” you actually wrote:

“There are a number of books dealing with the battles to hold Indonesia which mention refugees being sent to and arriving in Darwin.”

Thus we were talking about Dutch/Indonesian refugees in Darwin on the day of the raids.

GREG: I don't see why I would have used this for any other purpose since I had a cite for the time for the bombing.

Actually your other cite was for an unknown number already in Darwin a month before the bombing. I’m the one who found the cite for there being some there that day.

LEN: 5) You claimed the Wikipedia page about 'argument from authority' was more authoritative than the Nizkor one because the former (approximate quote) ‘cited numerous sources’ while the latter cited none but in reality Wikipedia’s only cited source was Nizkor. Rather than admit error you claimed we were discussing a different fallacy.

GREG: What I actually said was as an encyclopedia, wiki is in the business of providing facts like any other encyclodedia. Nizkor's expertise is elsewhere - and whilst it is true Wiki cited Nizkor on that one type of logical fallacy, Nizkor provides no citations whatsoever, while Wiki does provide many, many citations on logical fallacies.
[/color

]

Since we were debating the relative merits the Wikipedia and Nizkor pages on ‘argument from authority’ obviously you were referring to them. The number of citations they provided or not on other pages was irrelevant since Wikipedia is written and edited by numerous basically anonymous contributors. In post #14 you falsely claimed we were discussing another page.

LEN: 3) Why are you insisting on such bizarre conditions? There is no way direct quotes will allow me to contact your supposed witnesses.

Again, you are basing these queries on assumptions that have no foundation in reality.

LEN: You're right I’m just imagining that instead of simply posting your evidence here like everyone else you insist in doing so in a strange Rube Goldbergian fashion.
GREG: [color="#FF0000"]Yes, bit only because you're so special...

You love making dumb jokes to avoid giving real replies.

Don't expect any further comments on most of the above as it is tangential to the meat of the debate.

So Greg its been 10 days since you said someone volunteered, but we have yet to hear from him (or her), why do I suspect this will only happen some time after Feb. 30?

Because you have enough self-awareness to suspect your theories are as accurate as your calendar.

I did what I said I was going to do. Need I remind you, you picked the people you trusted. The volunteer was among those.

Yes both are quite accurate Nov. 7 IS 10 days after Oct. 28, the day you said you had a volunteer, perhaps counting in not your forte



And of course I hadn't picked any one you would have used that as an excuse. If you prefer someone else send me a PM with a few names and hopefully a couple will be acceptable to me. Funny when I said it seemed no one was willing to be your middleman, you got all sarcastic an cited your volunteer, and now it seems he (or she) is unwilling to back you up.

My best guess is that they are unconvinced by your 'evidence' and wants to save you the embarrassment of saying so openly but as a current (or former) Admin/Mod they should say what they think regardless. Any chance of you telling us who they are? Or if you prefer not to make that public tell me via PM and I promise not to divulge their identity to anyone else (IF you so request) or get booted from the forum if I do.

PS -To Greg's "volunteer" please send me a PM or e-mail,once again I won't divulge your ID you prefer and will accepted getting booted if I go back on my word