Question for Greg Parker

[Len Colby]

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?

[Greg Parker]

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.

[Len Colby]

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.

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

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.

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

[Greg Parker]

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.

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

LOL. Perhaps nuance is not yours.

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.

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.

Not my problem; not my concern. I did what I said I would.

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.

I made it clear from the start they should feel free to give their own opinion. Nothing has changed. I really don't give a tinkers if they post here, get in touch with you, trash what I sent, applaud it, ignore it, or print it off and eat it with a Chianti to wash it down.

There was a cover-up of the facts. A "blue ribbon" commission was organised to allay public fear with a compromise set of "facts" hovering between the brazen lies originally promulgated and the more realistic estimates of those who were actual witnesses. LBJ was already a canny politician, and I'm sure the idea of using a "blue ribbon" panel of esteemed gentleman to sell an official lie was one with which he would have been rather taken.

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

[Len Colby]

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.

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

LOL. Perhaps nuance is not yours.

What more can I say you were wrong. If you were referring to me saying "I suspect this will only happen some time after Feb. 30?", that an ironic way of saying never

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.

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.

Not my problem; not my concern. I did what I said I would.

Of course it's your problem, you are expected to provide citations for your claims here,your the one who came up with the cockamamie scheme for doing so. That you can't get anyone to cooperate with you doesn't free you from your obligation.

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.

I made it clear from the start they should feel free to give their own opinion. Nothing has changed. I really don't give a tinkers if they post here, get in touch with you, trash what I sent, applaud it, ignore it, or print it off and eat it with a Chianti to wash it down.

For what ever reason they are talking,thus it behooves you to find someone else or just post your evidence just like every one else does.

.

There was a cover-up of the facts. A "blue ribbon" commission was organised to allay public fear with a compromise set of "facts" hovering between the brazen lies originally promulgated and the more realistic estimates of those who were actual witnesses.

Something you've yet to present evidence for

[Greg Parker]

What more can I say you were wrong. If you were referring to me saying "I suspect this will only happen some time after Feb. 30?", that an ironic way of saying never

OMG! DID I MISS YOUR IRONY?????

Like I said, perhaps nuance is not your strong point.

Of course it's your problem, you are expected to provide citations for your claims here,your the one who came up with the cockamamie scheme for doing so. That you can't get anyone to cooperate with you doesn't free you from your obligation.

I discharged my obligation by providing the cite. The rules do not say how this should be done. Stop making stuff up.

QUOTE

There was a cover-up of the facts. A "blue ribbon" commission was organised to allay public fear with a compromise set of "facts" hovering between the brazen lies originally promulgated and the more realistic estimates of those who were actual witnesses.

Something you've yet to present evidence for

Oh but I have. The only kind you could expect to find with something like this is circumstantial, and I have provided it, despite your claim to the contrary.

[Len Colby]

Of course it's your problem, you are expected to provide citations for your claims here,your the one who came up with the cockamamie scheme for doing so. That you can't get anyone to cooperate with you doesn't free you from your obligation.

I discharged my obligation by providing the cite. The rules do not say how this should be done. Stop making stuff up.

Sorry merely claiming unidentified witnesses quoted/paraphrased by an unidentified source (sources?) back your claims does not constitute a citation. And yes the rules DO say how this should be done:

(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 assume websites, magazines, newspapers, video clips and audio files (among other sources of info) were included in the “etc” but you haven’t even told us if your witnesses were paraphrased and (perhaps) quoted in a book, document, website, magazine, newspaper, video clip or audio file let alone which one. You’ve stated that you won’t allow your fabled volunteer to paraphrase let alone quote your witnesses who it turns out (in some cases at least) weren’t even there but were relatives of (unnamed) soldiers who were.

So you came no where close to “discharge[ing your] obligation”, Stop making stuff up!

If however you believe you provided a real citation please quote the appropriate passage and tell us the post number

QUOTE

There was a cover-up of the facts. A "blue ribbon" commission was organised to allay public fear with a compromise set of "facts" hovering between the brazen lies originally promulgated and the more realistic estimates of those who were actual witnesses.

Something you've yet to present evidence for

Oh but I have. The only kind you could expect to find with something like this is circumstantial, and I have provided it, despite your claim to the contrary.

Can you provide a quick summary including post #s? All you’ve produced is 2nd hand quotes/paraphrases of about 5 – 6 of the 20,000 or so people who were there, made decades after the events. But witness aren’t always reliable I can post many examples of them getting things wrong. For example a few days ago there was a police shooting in LV under disputed circumstances, a 19-year old witness on the same sidewalk interviewed the next day said "They shot him in the back," even he said “three shots were fired from behind me and to my right” but the he also said “the shooter was on my right side” and based on his description of his wounds the cop was to his right and slightly in front of him:

It appears that one entered my right pec, bounced off my sternum, went through my left pec, then shattered my humerous just above my left elbow. The second shot went in my lower right abdomen and exited my left abdomen without hitting any vital organs

http://www.lvrj.com/news/lv-officer-wounds...t-67506182.html

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/...#comment-127180 (post #73)

So if a 19-year old can get her facts wrong after a day how much faith can we put in people in their 70’s – 90’s speaking about something that happened 50 – 65 years earlier? Your witnesses’ claims however don’t stand to scrutiny for reasons I’ve spelled out previously.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Len Colby

[Evan Burton]

I PM'd Greg and offered to act as a middleman, and Greg kindly passed me his evidence.

The person says that there was a coverup about the Darwin bombing. This person said that their father had related to another sibling that barges had been filled with the dead and dumped at sea. They would seem to indicate that their father - and other soldiers - were sworn to secrecy about what they did, as the government did not want the people knowing the full toll.

That is about the extent of it, though nowhere did I see anything about refugees or foreigners being killed - just that a large number were killed and there had been a cover-up regarding it.

The person is relating what their father said, but the person telling this does not appear to be a historian or anything similar. The text is on a site that is totally unrelated to history, politics, etc. It might be described as a hobby blog.

I'd have absolutely no reason to doubt that the person believes what they say but I do note a couple of things:

- the story has gone from father to sibling 1 to sibling 2. This means it is possible - not probable but possible - that the story has been altered in telling.

- we don't have any clear indication of the numbers involved. They have said the number killed was greater than we were told... but greater than WHAT number? Than we were told in the 1940s? 1950s? 1980s? Are the current numbers acknowledged accurate, or is there still a cover-up? I don't know.

Hope this helps and happy to expand if required.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Evan Burton

[Len Colby]

I PM'd Greg and offered to act as a middleman, and Greg kindly passed me his evidence.

The person says that there was a coverup about the Darwin bombing. This person said that their father had related to another sibling that barges had been filled with the dead and dumped at sea. They would seem to indicate that their father - and other soldiers - were sworn to secrecy about what they did, as the government did not want the people knowing the full toll.

That is about the extent of it, though nowhere did I see anything about refugees or foreigners being killed - just that a large number were killed and there had been a cover-up regarding it.

The person is relating what their father said, but the person telling this does not appear to be a historian or anything similar. The text is on a site that is totally unrelated to history, politics, etc. It might be described as a hobby blog.

I'd have absolutely no reason to doubt that the person believes what they say but I do note a couple of things:

- the story has gone from father to sibling 1 to sibling 2. This means it is possible - not probable but possible - that the story has been altered in telling.

1) Did the woman give her name or use a webhandle?

2) Did her father indicate that the conspiracy continued after the immediate events?

3) Greg said she indicated more than one witness said these things but based on your account she only related what her father (supposedly) told her brother.

4) He also indicated he had multiple witnesses but based on your account he only had one.

So it seems Greg has one witness (albeit 3rd hand) for the corpses being dumped at sea but there is no way to tell if it is the same one already quoted or independent confirmation. There were about 20,000 people there that day so a few telling such stories does not prove much.

- we don't have any clear indication of the numbers involved. They have said the number killed was greater than we were told... but greater than WHAT number? Than we were told in the 1940s? 1950s? 1980s? Are the current numbers acknowledged accurate, or is there still a cover-up? I don't know.

The official toll has not changed much, in 1942 Lowe counted 243 but assuming some remained to be counted said “approximately 250”, in 2001 the Northern Territories Administration unveiled a plaque totaling 292 but they under counted the fatalities from one US ship by 3 – 5 men. The plaque says 10, the USN 13 and Peter Grose 15.

I contacted Peter Forrest the Darwin based historian who has extensively researched the attacks. Posted below is our exchange (minus unanswered questions, salutations and irrelevant bits)

I am writing you because I am interested in the dispute over the death toll of the 1st two Darwin raids. In December 2000 you were paraphrased as saying “the first Japanese air raids on Darwin probably killed more than double the official figure of 243”. However by February 2002 you seemed to lower your estimate a bit because you said: “The official total found by a royal commission in March '42 was 243. I regard that as being the baseline figure. I don't think we'll ever know what the true figure was. But I'm completely satisfied, from talking to people who survived, that the death toll could have been anything up to double that 243.” What are your current views? Do you agree with Peter Grose that the total is probably just over 300? Or do you think it closer to 486 or perhaps still higher? If the latter who do you think the uncounted dead where?

1. I have never had a firm opinion about the exact death toll. It is something we will never know. What I have consistently said is that the death toll was certainly greater than the 243 figure. We now know for sure that it was at least about 300. It could have been more and probably was, but just how many more is unclear. We do not know exactly who was in Darwin that day.

2. I have spoken with many survivors, scores of them – some of them put the figure at above 1,000, others say between 500 and 1,000. They all say many more than 243.

3. However, I am sceptical about eye witness accounts of the bombing on 19 February 1942. Nobody was able to take an overview, nobody saw anything beyond their own immediate area. The events were shocking and dramatic and I feel that there has been a natural and forgivable tendency to overstate the consequences.

4. I think it is pretty pointless at this time speculating on the matter – we simply don’t have the evidence we need to come to a firm view. Any estimate is a pure guess. I would say about 400, but that is a just an informed guess.

In his next e-mail he responded directly to my points. He used ALL CAPS but I converted to normal text (indented and bolded) for readability

Do all the witnesses say it was well over 300 - 400? Or do some accept that the now official number of 300 might be roughly correct? Do many claim to have personally seen/buried 400+ bodies.

I do not know what all the witnesses now say – I have not spoken to all of them. Many do claim to have seen great numbers of bodies, but there is no certainty about just how many.

Where (in your or their estimation) might hundreds of uncounted dead have come from? Local civilians? Refugees? Itinerant workers? Aborigines? Foreign/Australian military?

Refugees, local civilians including aborigines, some merchant mariners, but not the military – they counted their people. Nobody really knows exactly who, other than military, was in Darwin that day.

What about the supposed "military intelligence" estimate of 1100 killed? Doesanyone besides Rex Ruwoldt claim to have heard it?

Not that I know of.

Does the dispute date back to the war or is it more recent? The earliest reference I could find was from 1992

The argument goes back to the beginning – as soon as the royal commission announced its findings there were people who disputed the calculation of fatalities.

Do you think there was an active conspiracy to suppress the actual number…?"

No

So some of what he says supports Greg’s theory but mostly it supports my view. The evidence in support of his theory is far too weak to considered probable let alone stated as established fact

EDIT - Typos fixed

Edited November 16, 2009 by Len Colby

[Greg Parker]

Firstly, thank you Evan. What you gave seems a fairly even-handed and careful appraisal

Greg said she indicated more than one witness said these things but based on your account she only related what her father (supposedly) told her brother.

Rubbish. Why do think she said the soldiers (plural) were sworn to secrecy?

4) He also indicated he had multiple witnesses but based on your account he only had one.

I don't believe I said I had multiple witnesses. I maywell have said there were multiple witnesses.

So some of what he says supports Greg’s theory but mostly it supports my view.

Really?

Let's have a look:

Death toll under-estimated - tick

Refugees - tick

Aborigines - tick

The only things he does not support is that the under-estimate was deliberate, and the highest estimates of the true toll.

I'd say he mostly supports me.

Was the under-estimate deliberate?

Well. he admiits the witnesses were claiming a much higher figure from the get-go -- yet those witnesses seem to have been excluded from giving evidence to the Lowe Commission. I submit the reason for that was to deliberately suppress any evidence suggesting massive losses.

format edit

Edited November 17, 2009 by Greg Parker

[Len Colby]

Firstly, thank you Evan. What you gave seems a fairly even-handed and careful appraisal

Greg said she indicated more than one witness said these things but based on your account she only related what her father (supposedly) told her brother.

Rubbish. Why do think she said the soldiers (plural) were sworn to secrecy?

Since you refuse to even let Evan paraphrase the woman there is no way for me to know for certain what she said but you are still left with one (supposed) witness, her father, unless her brother was also told this by some of their fathers army buddies

4) He also indicated he had multiple witnesses but based on your account he only had one.

I don't believe I said I had multiple witnesses. I maywell have said there were multiple witnesses.

That only proves how bad your memory is then you indicated this on at least 4 occasions:

1) “I've got witness

es

who said contemporaneously that the number of deaths was much higher, that military was sworn to secrecy”

2) “This is something you have continued to do right up to your own version of what you think

I was offering

in regard to witness

es.

”

3)

Also your insistence on paraphrasing

your

'witness

es

' stinks. There is no way directly quoting an e-mail will allow me to contact them.

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.

4)

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 witness

es

to your peculiar form of cynicism.

So some of what he says supports Greg’s theory but mostly it supports my view.

Really?

Let's have a look:

Death toll under-estimated - tick

Refugees - tick

Aborigines - tick

The only things he does not support is that the under-estimate was deliberate, and the highest estimates of the true toll.

LOL the only thing he doesn’t support is your central thesis. As for the death toll after briefly backing the LC’s count my position evolved to supporting Grose’s calculation that “a little over 300, perhaps as many as 310 or 320” died, this not radically different from Forrest’s view that the total “was at least about 300…[probably] about 400”, in 2002 he said the total was “anything up to double that 243” You consistently pushed the notion that 900 -1100 people died that day.

In other word I believe the under count was 55 - 70

Forrest believes it was 50 – 240, probably around 150

You believe it was 650 – 850.

So tell us again about “he mostly supports” you.

"I'd say he mostly supports me.

Was the under-estimate deliberate?

Well. he admiits the witnesses were claiming a much higher figure from the get-go –"

He said some people disputed the count since the LC announced its findings not that most of the people say the numbers were much higher have said this since. But this contradicts your theory that the dispute over the death toll was kept secret for “many years”

"...yet those witnesses seem to have been excluded from giving evidence to the Lowe Commission."

Or perhaps they weren’t asked about the death toll it does not seem to have been a major concern of theirs it occupies only half a page of a 17 page* report. I imagine you and I each have spent more time on this than Lowe did. So far you’ve not presented any evidence that anyone claims the LC failed to call them or that they told the LC more people were killed but were ignored etc

* That’s the total of both reports minus the covers, tables of contents and comments.

"I submit the reason for that was to deliberately suppress any evidence suggesting massive losses."

That’s just speculation (that there was deliberate suppression) based on speculation (that the LC excluded or ignored witness who said the toll was much higher) based on speculation (that 900 plus people died). You however stated it as established fact.

EDIT - Formatting

Edited November 17, 2009 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

So Greg, have you decided to abandon your Darwin theory?

[Evan Burton]

1) Did the woman give her name or use a webhandle?

Her name

2) Did her father indicate that the conspiracy continued after the immediate events?

It was not indicated, just that they were sworn to secrecy.

3) Greg said she indicated more than one witness said these things but based on your account she only related what her father (supposedly) told her brother.

Correct.

4) He also indicated he had multiple witnesses but based on your account he only had one.

I can't comment on that.

[Len Colby]

1) Did the woman give her name or use a webhandle?

Her name

2) Did her father indicate that the conspiracy continued after the immediate events?

It was not indicated, just that they were sworn to secrecy.

Did she say anything about her or her brother being in contact with any of her father's army buddies? Why did he supposedly tell him but not her?

3) Greg said she indicated more than one witness said these things but based on your account she only related what her father (supposedly) told her brother.

Correct.

Yes but in Greg's strange intellectual algebra one guy (supposedly) saying 'Me and my mates saw X, Y and Z' = multiple witnesses

4) He also indicated he had multiple witnesses but based on your account he only had one.

I can't comment on that.

"Can't" because you don't know or "can't" because of your 'non-disclosure agreement' with Greg? Perhaps moot since he now denies saying this even though he clearly did.

EDIT - Typo

Edited November 22, 2009 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

So Greg, have you forsaken your fallacy fueled furtive falatities fantasy or are further replies forthcoming?