Loose Change

[basketcase]

Oh good, another version.

It is actually a great movie - for psychology students to study about the pathology of conspiracy theories.

It is a great indicator. Every version that has come out has been severely debunked. Instead of the believers acknowledging the flaws or seeing that evidence may sway their views, they go on and try and find excuses. Their theory is the exact same level as that ancient aliens guy, a whole bunch of what if's.

 

[Rockslinger]

It's the claim that the US government planned and directed the attack that is far fetched.
First of all it fails the laugh test.

Also, we didn't read it in WikiLeaks so it can't be true.

Here is a real conspiracy theory. How could 10,000 warships cross 80,000 miles undetected on an open ocean to launch a sneak attack on an undefended Pearl Harbour?

 

[basketcase]

I can't say that I agree with you. Sometimes there are answers but they're not given real consideration for various reasons. With some conspiracies, there's lot's of knowledge and information
that contradicts the conventional explanation. I'm not talking about UFO's, Loch ness monster and paranormal stuff. I'm talking about stuff that's verifiable.
If the engineer's opinion you speak of is related to the 9/11 story, I think it's misleading as there is a huge number of accredited engineers and architects that refute the official version of physical events.
I get that there's a ton of garbage that gets attached to a conspiracy theory, but if you research with an open mind, you may come to some interesting insights.

I'd agree with you that there are some things that are (or have been) seen as conspiracy theories that have in fact turned out to be true (of course with someone believing every conceivable conspiracy theory, odds are something is going to end up being true). The issue I have with the conspiracy theories in general is that they are grounded on the assumption that their belief is true and then looking only at evidence that supports it. When conspiracy theory evidence is debunked, it in no way changes the opinion but causes claims that people are in on it or moving on to a different line. This runs completely against the scientific method which is based on following the evidence and changing opinions where warranted. That anti-climate change guy is a great example in that his deep felt belief was changed by evidence of the man made nature of global warming.

 

[basketcase]

When he was alive, didn't Osama bin Laden actually say that 9/11 was the work of Al Qaeda. Maybe OBL was actually a CIA operative? Actually, maybe OBL is still alive and living on a ranch in Texas? Keep an open mind.

P.S. And Neil Armstrong wasn't the first man or woman to walk on the moon.

Don't forget that the world is flat. Don't believe the government hype. All those satellite pictures of a round earth are faked.

 

[fuji]

Also, we didn't read it in WikiLeaks so it can't be true.

Here is a real conspiracy theory. How could 10,000 warships cross 80,000 miles undetected on an open ocean to launch a sneak attack on an undefended Pearl Harbour?

No satellites back then and radar was pretty limits in its range. Obviously would not be possible nowadays, but the technology back then was quite a bit more limited.

Your numbers are a bit exaggerated... Pearl Harbour is only about 4000 miles from Japan and there were only 50-60 ships in the Japanese fleet, and that includes some tankers and supply ships.

 

[Rockslinger]

Pearl Harbour is only about 4000 miles from Japan and there were only 50-60 ships in the Japanese fleet, and that includes some tankers and supply ships.

How do you hide an armada of 50 ships for 4,000 miles? You figure at least one fishing boat or a submarine/airplane on patrol would have spotted them. How could the U.S. have been totally surprised and unprepared when half the world was already in a shooting war? Why didn't the American carriers give chase when the enemy made their 4,000 mile return trip?

 

[basketcase]

Also, we didn't read it in WikiLeaks so it can't be true.

Here is a real conspiracy theory. How could 10,000 warships cross 80,000 miles undetected on an open ocean to launch a sneak attack on an undefended Pearl Harbour?

Maybe the US reconnaissance satellites were down that week?

 

[basketcase]

How do you hide an armada of 50 ships for 4,000 miles? You figure at least one fishing boat or a submarine/airplane on patrol would have spotted them. How could the U.S. have been totally surprised and unprepared when half the world was already in a shooting war? Why didn't the American carriers give chase when the enemy made their 4,000 mile return trip?

Where exactly wold those recon planes be flying from? What was the range of those planes and how many did they have? As a counter point, in the battle of Midway, the Americans knew pretty much where the Japanese would be coming from in a small section of ocean and when and they still has significant difficulty finding the carrier group.

As a further question, why would a country at peace have wartime level recon patrols and what would the planes have done if the saw the ships belonging to a non-belligerent country?

As for the 'chase', how many ships were in a state to chase and how well do you think they would have fared against a fully equipped Japanese battle armada?


And since this is a conspiracy theory, perhaps I could call on you to suggest your alternate theory?

 

[Rockslinger]

And since this is a conspiracy theory, perhaps I could call on you to suggest your alternate theory?

Here is one theory I heard. President Roosevelt wanted a pretext to enter WW II. He ordered the carrier groups out to sea. Then he ordered all the battleships to be in dry dock lined up like sitting ducks. Then he ordered all the sailors to take shore leave.
Japan was on a war footing since 1937. How could the U.S. not know that it could attack at any time without warning?
BTW: The U.S. had already broken the enemy's naval code before the Battle of Midway plus it had luck on its side as well.

 

[MyHobbyist]

Too many dam conspiracy theorists man!!

 

[asterwald]

And if Neil armstrong really went to the moon, why was he so media shy? He obviously had something to hide.

 

[basketcase]

Here is one theory I heard. President Roosevelt wanted a pretext to enter WW II. He ordered the carrier groups out to sea. Then he ordered all the battleships to be in dry dock lined up like sitting ducks. Then he ordered all the sailors to take shore leave.
Japan was on a war footing since 1937. How could the U.S. not know that it could attack at any time without warning?
BTW: The U.S. had already broken the enemy's naval code before the Battle of Midway plus it had luck on its side as well.

And none of the pilots or naval crews ever said anything?

I'm going purely off memory but I recall there were only 2 US carriers away from Pearl at the time and they could not have launched the number of craft involved in the Japanese attack (even if somehow these thousands of men on board were able to stay silent).

 

[fuji]

And none of the pilots or naval crews ever said anything?

I'm going purely off memory but I recall there were only 2 US carriers away from Pearl at the time and they could not have launched the number of craft involved in the Japanese attack (even if somehow these thousands of men on board were able to stay silent).

I think the theory is that the US knew the Japanese attack was coming, because they had decrypted Japanese transmissions, and rather than take steps to defend against the attack, the US made itself interestingly vulnerable, so as to galvanize the US population behind the war effort. Interestingly because the US left all the obsolete battleships to be destroyed by the Japanese, while moving the highly valuable carriers out of harms way.

One flaw in that reasoning is that it was only in retrospect that people realized carriers were more valuable than battleships. I think at the outset of the pacific war the belief was still generally that battleships ruled the roost. Some had theorized about the strategic value of carriers before it was proven in battle, but it's hard to imagine the USN intentionally sinking all its battleships on a bet that they wouldn't matter.

 

[fmahovalich]

Let's face it...four years ago there were a ton of George Bush haters, who dug and dug, trying to pin this....and other issues at his feet.

He was called incompetent, stupid, etcetc.

But here is the reconciliation problem for these folk that they cannot wrap their heads around......

.....That a dumb George Bush, could keep this multi year, exceptional plan under wraps....execute it....and get away with it.

Dummies. ,!

 

[benstt]

No satellites back then and radar was pretty limits in its range. Obviously would not be possible nowadays, but the technology back then was quite a bit more limited.

Even during the Falklands war, the Argentinians had a hard time knowing where the British ships were, or detecting the long range bombing that the British flew.

 

[Rockslinger]

Some had theorized about the strategic value of carriers before it was proven in battle,

I think it was Billy Mitchell who showed that an aircraft could sink a battleship. BTW: The Bismarck was fatally damaged by carrier launched 100 year aircrafts.
When the U.S.S. Hornet steamed towards Japan they were spotted by a Japanese fishing boat and had to launch their aircrafts prematurely. How hard could it be to spot a 50 ship armada that travelled 4,000 miles?

 

[basketcase]

In the middle of the pacific, a few hundred miles from any populated areas and trade routes? Have you looked at the route the Japanese took?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PearlHarborCarrierChart.jpg

 

[Rockslinger]

I'm going purely off memory but I recall there were only 2 US carriers away from Pearl at the time and they could not have launched the number of craft involved in the Japanese attack

Even if only 2 (I thought it was 3 or 4), they could have launched over 80 aircrafts, more than enough to sink low on fuel ships. Instead they were ordered north, not west to chase the fleeing enemy fleet. Anyway, those same carriers won the great victory at Midway 6 months later.

 

[basketcase]

It was two. One was on the way to Wake to drop off planes and the other was on it's way to midway to do the same. The US thought that those targets would be attacked first and was sending them more forces. A third had just made it to San Diego from duty in the Atlantic. A fourth and fifth were in the Atlantic/ under construction.

Number of planes? The eyewitnesses reported more than 80 planes (343 was the official number) and many of the troops in Pearl would have been able to differentiate between Japanese and American planes (at the start of the war the US carrier based planes were sub-par).

Why would they not chase? The two carriers were separated by a couple hundred miles and over-matched by far; the Japanese had 6 first line carriers. As for Midway, they US victory was in part because they had the element of surprise and knew roughly where and when they would find the Japanese. Even then, dumb luck in timing had a major impact. To add, Midway was 4 vs 3 while after Pearl, if the 2 US carriers had been able to meet up and actually find the fleeing fleet, it would have been 6 vs 2 with no element of surprise. Simply protecting Pearl from another attack or potential invasion was more important to the US than trying to chase a superior Japanese fleet.

Finally, unless the US forced the Japanese to change their records and lie about the attack, the Japanese military was pretty clear about exactly what they did and had plenty of records and planning details.



Like 9/11, the closest you could claim to a conspiracy supported by evidence is that the US could have known about the attacks in advance but I'm more willing to believe disorganization and bad decisions (as typical in any bureaucracy) over a conspiracy to allow attacks on their own people.

 

[jazzpig]

I'd agree with you that there are some things that are (or have been) seen as conspiracy theories that have in fact turned out to be true (of course with someone believing every conceivable conspiracy theory, odds are something is going to end up being true). The issue I have with the conspiracy theories in general is that they are grounded on the assumption that their belief is true and then looking only at evidence that supports it. When conspiracy theory evidence is debunked, it in no way changes the opinion but causes claims that people are in on it or moving on to a different line. This runs completely against the scientific method which is based on following the evidence and changing opinions where warranted. That anti-climate change guy is a great example in that his deep felt belief was changed by evidence of the man made nature of global warming.

If you read my earlier post (#18) you'll see that I acknowledged that.
But that's different than those who will not acknowledge new, credible evidence based on the assumption that only " conspiracy theory nutjobs" believe this stuff.
No difference, just the other side of the coin.
The conspiracy theorists I think you refer to, are those that try to connect the dots about general events and speculate on the who and why and how.
I'm talking about something very different.
I'm talking about an event that took place in front of our very eyes, where there is physical evidence that can be scrutinized, where we have scientific/engineering models by which we can verify
or validate the outcomes of specific physical events.
There are lots of serious people supporting this, architects, engineers , firefighters that have offered incriminating testimony, etc.

The JFK assasination was exposed because of the physical evidence, not speculation. But it took years for most peolple to accept it, because it didn't fit into their paradigms.
Somebody mentioned that they couldn't even keep Clinton's scandal under wraps. Big deal.
To assissinate the president in broad daylight, in public, in front of all those people, and we still can't find out who was behind it after all these years, doesn't that say something?
I think this sums it up.