Question for Greg Parker

[Len Colby]

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,

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

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

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.

Edited October 25, 2009 by Len Colby

[William Kelly]

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.

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

[David Andrews]

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

Edited October 26, 2009 by David Andrews

[Bernice Moore]

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

[William Kelly]

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

Edited October 26, 2009 by William Kelly

[David Andrews]

"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.

Edited October 26, 2009 by David Andrews

[Len Colby]

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.

[Greg Parker]

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.

[David Andrews]

"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.

[Len Colby]

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...

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

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.

"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."

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.

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 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

"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.

[Greg Parker]

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.

[Len Colby]

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”

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Len Colby]

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 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.

[Greg Parker]

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...

[Len Colby]

LEN: …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...

GREG: 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.

LEN: 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”

GREG: 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.

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?

LEN: 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.

GREG: 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"?

“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.

GREG: "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. "

LEN: 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.

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

Please cite were you previously admitted error.

GREG: "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. "

LEN: 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.

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

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?

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

GREG: Here we go again. Point them out.

LEN: 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.”

GREG: There is no contradiction.

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

LEN: 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.

GREG: Indeed - see above.

Agreed

LEN: 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.

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

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.

LEN: 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

GREG: The "significant" part, I believe, is your embellishment, unless you can find a quote where I said it.

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:

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.