I was browsing through Gordon Prange's At Dawn We Slept (an anti-revisionist history of Pearl Harbor) when I stumbled on this passage. If this isn't "vintage" Kaysing, I don't know what is!

"For sheer scurrility, however, we could award the wreath of poison ivy to a small Chicago newspaper, Women's Voice, which editorialized on December 27, 1951, concerning alleged events on Oahu: "The order the night before, to go into town, to get drunk... Those who returned to the ships in the night were kept from coming on board by officers with drawn revolvers..." Planes had been defueled "to make absolutely sure that no plane could be gotten into the air..." A staff sergeant, prudently unidentified, claimed that he did take off in his aircraft. And what did he find?
"...planes manned by white men, men whom I knew - British and Americans. There seemed to be a few Japs, but the shooting was done by white men..." Three other young men contributed enthusiastically to this myth: "There were Jap planes mixed in, but a lot of them did not shoot, and we afterward found they were photo fellows..."
A "civilian contractor" put on the capstone: "He said it was well known that Roosevelt with Churchill's help planned the whole thing, and called the Japs to help, promising them the Phillipine Islands".

Okay, you can stuff the missing brain cells back in now. But think about, 18 years before Apollo 11, a train of thought nearly identical to modern-day HBs had already come into being. Some things never change.

FFS! There are valid arguements about whether Churchill knew about the planned attack (via ULTRA), and we all know that some warning were ignored, but to claim it was done by "white men" (whatever that may mean)?

There are pilots alive today who participated in the attack.

Some people just cannot accept reality.

Here are a set of (modifed) rules which applied to a poster on another forum, but I think they apply to some who promote this sort of trash:

1. I don't have to prove I'm right; you have to prove I'm wrong.

2. If you can't answer the question, ignore the question.

3. When you can't defend, attack.

4. Muddy the waters by repeating "It's plainly obvious!" or "The answer is in plain sight, if only you would open your eyes!".

5. Quote sources, but never reveal sources.

6. If people don't agree with you, it's a conspiracy.

7. When prompted to answer questions you don't want to answer, ask "what questions?". If the questions are presented to you, say "But I already answered those". When asked to show when / where you answered, say "I'm not doing your work for you; it's all there if only you'd bother to look". If proof is shown that questions were never answered, ask "What questions?" and repeat the procedure.

8. It's not evidence if you don't agree with it.

9. Not applicable.

10. When you're completely backed into the corner, and there seems to be no escape, then in typical Monty Python fashion, you RUN AWAY!!!! RUN AWAY!!!!

11. If only one person agrees with you, you have moral superiority. If no-one agrees with you, see Rule 6.

__________________
"For ignorance to reign, all it takes is for knowledgable people to say nothing"

Lonewulf

This also maps directly on to some of the 911 conspiracy theories, with "friendly" aircraft involved in the attack and defensive systems being mysteriously out of action for one reason or another.

Sadly the similarity of the two theories will probably be seen by some theorists as providing mutual support for each of them.

Dear oh dear! What a load of ****! Doesn't matter how much evidence there is that it happened, there will always be somebody with such a tenuous connection with reality that they'll claim it was all a hoax or conspiracy.

I just want to know, how can this mythical "staff sargeant" identify the race and nationality of the pilots on a pitch-black night, flying several thousand feet up? Couldn't these "white men" been German, Spanish, Swedish, Polish, Lichensteinian? #-o

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers...

Just to alert you guys: BA is very particular about keeping this section of BABB focused on the moon-landing hoax and related astronomical and engineering issues. You might want to transfer this discussion about Pearl Harbor and 911 to BABBling.

While on the subject, I know this a bit of hijack so feel free to to ignore this, but there is a 9/11 conspiracy going round about the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania being shot down because it debris was found dispersed over a wide area.

__________________
Freedom For Fission A breath of fresh Iodine-131

What exactly does this have to do with Bill Kaysing? I am not a fan of Kaysing's at all, but let's not ascribe to him things that are totally non-sequitor. And seeing how this has nothing to do with the Moon Hoax, I'll lock it.

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com