PDA

View Full Version : A reminder of a life lost.



Swivet
07-20-2011, 04:40 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbr...arbor-203334414.html (http://news.yahoo.com/apnewsbreak-skull-discovered-pearl-harbor-203334414.html)

~S~


HONOLULU (AP) An excavation crew recently made a startling discovery at the bottom of Pearl Harbor when it unearthed a skull that archeologists suspect is from a Japanese pilot who died in the historic attack on Dec. 7, 1941.
Archaeologist Jeff Fong of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Pacific described the discovery to The Associated Press and the efforts under way to identify the skull. He said the early analysis has made him "75 percent sure" that the skull belongs to a Japanese pilot.
He did not provide specifics about what archaeologists have learned about the skull, but said it was not from one of Hawaii's ancient burial sites. They also contacted local police and ruled out the possibility that it's from an active missing person case, said Denise Emsley, public affairs officer for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Hawaii.
The items found with the skull provided some clues: forks, scraps of metal and a Coca-Cola bottle Fong said researchers have determined was from the 1940s.
Fifty-five Japanese airmen were killed and 29 of their aircraft were shot down in the attack, compared with the 2,400 U.S. service members who died. No Japanese remains have been found at Pearl Harbor since World War II.
Pearl Harbor is home to the USS Arizona Memorial, which sits on top of the battleship that sank during the attack. It still holds the bodies of more than 900 men.
The skull remains intact despite being dug up with giant cranes and shovels.
It was April 1 when items plucked from the water during the overnight dredging were laid to dry. When it was determined a skull was among the dredged items, contractors were ordered to stop the work, Emsley said.
"We definitely wanted it to be handled correctly," she said.
The Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command on Oahu, charged with identifying Americans who were killed in action but were never brought home, has been asked to determine who the skull belongs to. The cranium was turned over to the command's lab for tests that will include examining dental records and DNA, said John Byrd, the lab's director and a forensic anthropologist.
"We're working on the case but the case is just in the early stages of analysis," he said. "We're not going to know much more about it for a while yet."
The lab is the only accredited Skeletal Identification Laboratory in the United States. JPAC has identified more than 560 Americans since the command was activated in 2003. When more information is gleaned from the skull, other agencies could get involved including the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and the Japanese Consulate.
Daniel Martinez, the National Park Service's chief historian for Pearl Harbor, said experts on Pearl Harbor know enough about the specific location where Japanese planes went down in the attack that they might be able to match the skull with a crewmember.
Martinez said that beyond the historical significance of the finding, it is a reminder of a life lost.
"I think that anytime you're able to reclaim a casualty and perhaps even identify it, regardless of what country, it may bring closure to a family," he said.


~Salute~
To all the brave men and women from both sides who fought and lost their lives that fateful day....

DKoor
07-21-2011, 10:55 AM
After all these years... I suppose it doesn't mean much but it will surely, if true, bring some relief to his descendants because now they know his fate.

nvrsummer2
07-21-2011, 11:35 AM
Amazing, I hope he gets to rest in piece now. He may have been part of our most infamous attacks, but at least they did it as soldiers and not terrorists.

He deserves a soldiers burial

danjama
07-21-2011, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by nvrsummer2:
Amazing, I hope he gets to rest in piece now. He may have been part of our most infamous attacks, but at least they did it as soldiers and not terrorists.

He deserves a soldiers burial

Sorry, but what are you talking about? There is literally no difference between a terrorist and a Japanese pilot on that day - they committed an act of war, before any war was declared - essentially an act of terrorism.

Leave the skull for the fishes.

Halfen
07-22-2011, 10:45 AM
Please don't get me started.

There is Absolutely no comparison.
The soldier was in a military attack against a military target. He also had the decency to use his own military plane that was not filled with women and children.

Be nice if he gets to be indentified to get a proper funeral.

Bremspropeller
07-22-2011, 11:30 AM
Halfen beat me to it.


essentially an act of terrorism.

B-B-B-Bullhsit!

danjama
07-22-2011, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Halfen beat me to it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">essentially an act of terrorism.

B-B-B-Bullhsit! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what the **** was the difference to all of you?

What was honourable about an attack on a sleeping harbour that belonged to a country in a state of peace?

Nothing more than a terrorist - just because he was a pilot in a plane long ago, you think that affords him some respect. THAT's b-b-b-bull****.

VW-IceFire
07-22-2011, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Halfen beat me to it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">essentially an act of terrorism.

B-B-B-Bullhsit! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what the **** was the difference to all of you?

What was honourable about an attack on a sleeping harbour that belonged to a country in a state of peace?

Nothing more than a terrorist - just because he was a pilot in a plane long ago, you think that affords him some respect. THAT's b-b-b-bull****. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's not really so black and white and the situation doesn't fit into the definition of terrorism.

As explanation: Tensions between the US and the Empire of Japan at the time were building for months (if not decades). Case in point was that the USAAF ordered their crews to park aircraft away from revetments out in the open to prevent Japanese saboteurs from doing damage to their aircraft.

Open hostilities had not been declared although they had been sent and the Japanese ambassador had been instructed to deliver them. His staff took too long decoding the message and it was only after the attack that the message had been delivered. US signal intelligence had actually decoded the message before the Japanese ambassador had.

There is no doubt that the attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor was a surprise or sneak attack. But if you look to the traditional definition of terrorism (in short: to cause terror to a populace as the primary objective) then the attack at Pearl Harbor is not an act of terror. It was an act of war waged by one military against another military to achieve a military objective. In the Japanese case it was meant to be a knockout blow to so destabilize the American position in the Pacific as to allow them to conquer the territory they so desired for their empire.

Sorry if I'm rehashing stuff that students of history already know.

You can argue the finer points of that but we then get into messy semantics.

Getting back onto topic... fascinating discovery. A real historical find and no doubt it'll take some delicate work discover who this pilot is.

T_O_A_D
07-22-2011, 05:31 PM
Stay civil and on track with the original post.

We haven't had any visitors in our cells @ Ubitonimo lately.

Many of the Mods would enjoy doing unspeakable things, after such a dry spell.

danjama
07-22-2011, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Halfen beat me to it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">essentially an act of terrorism.

B-B-B-Bullhsit! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what the **** was the difference to all of you?

What was honourable about an attack on a sleeping harbour that belonged to a country in a state of peace?

Nothing more than a terrorist - just because he was a pilot in a plane long ago, you think that affords him some respect. THAT's b-b-b-bull****. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's not really so black and white and the situation doesn't fit into the definition of terrorism.

As explanation: Tensions between the US and the Empire of Japan at the time were building for months (if not decades). Case in point was that the USAAF ordered their crews to park aircraft away from revetments out in the open to prevent Japanese saboteurs from doing damage to their aircraft.

Open hostilities had not been declared although they had been sent and the Japanese ambassador had been instructed to deliver them. His staff took too long decoding the message and it was only after the attack that the message had been delivered. US signal intelligence had actually decoded the message before the Japanese ambassador had.

There is no doubt that the attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor was a surprise or sneak attack. But if you look to the traditional definition of terrorism (in short: to cause terror to a populace as the primary objective) then the attack at Pearl Harbor is not an act of terror. It was an act of war waged by one military against another military to achieve a military objective. In the Japanese case it was meant to be a knockout blow to so destabilize the American position in the Pacific as to allow them to conquer the territory they so desired for their empire.

Sorry if I'm rehashing stuff that students of history already know.

You can argue the finer points of that but we then get into messy semantics.

Getting back onto topic... fascinating discovery. A real historical find and no doubt it'll take some delicate work discover who this pilot is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you're not implying that I don't know the history behind Pearl Harbour.

I stand by my opinion, sorry if that upsets anybody here. I suppose it's all about perception and interpretation, not strict dictionary definitions.

Toad, you won't see me in this thread again.

Badsight-
07-22-2011, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
So what the **** was the difference to all of you?

What was honourable about an attack on a sleeping harbour that belonged to a country in a state of peace?

Nothing more than a terrorist - just because he was a pilot in a plane long ago, you think that affords him some respect. THAT's b-b-b-bull****. your typing to military minded people who have admiration/respect for the military way of killing people

getting them to agree with your POV isnt going to happen

VW-IceFire
07-22-2011, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Halfen beat me to it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">essentially an act of terrorism.

B-B-B-Bullhsit! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what the **** was the difference to all of you?

What was honourable about an attack on a sleeping harbour that belonged to a country in a state of peace?

Nothing more than a terrorist - just because he was a pilot in a plane long ago, you think that affords him some respect. THAT's b-b-b-bull****. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's not really so black and white and the situation doesn't fit into the definition of terrorism.

As explanation: Tensions between the US and the Empire of Japan at the time were building for months (if not decades). Case in point was that the USAAF ordered their crews to park aircraft away from revetments out in the open to prevent Japanese saboteurs from doing damage to their aircraft.

Open hostilities had not been declared although they had been sent and the Japanese ambassador had been instructed to deliver them. His staff took too long decoding the message and it was only after the attack that the message had been delivered. US signal intelligence had actually decoded the message before the Japanese ambassador had.

There is no doubt that the attack by Japan on Pearl Harbor was a surprise or sneak attack. But if you look to the traditional definition of terrorism (in short: to cause terror to a populace as the primary objective) then the attack at Pearl Harbor is not an act of terror. It was an act of war waged by one military against another military to achieve a military objective. In the Japanese case it was meant to be a knockout blow to so destabilize the American position in the Pacific as to allow them to conquer the territory they so desired for their empire.

Sorry if I'm rehashing stuff that students of history already know.

You can argue the finer points of that but we then get into messy semantics.

Getting back onto topic... fascinating discovery. A real historical find and no doubt it'll take some delicate work discover who this pilot is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you're not implying that I don't know the history behind Pearl Harbour.

I stand by my opinion, sorry if that upsets anybody here. I suppose it's all about perception and interpretation, not strict dictionary definitions.

Toad, you won't see me in this thread again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In reading my post again I realize that sounds condescending when I did actually mean that particular line apologetically.

I guess we'll agree to disagree and thus encourage this thread to go back on track.

stugumby
07-22-2011, 10:19 PM
Interesting find there, one should always try to identify and return remains to wherever they came from. Me personally i would like to see the mini sub the USS Ward sunk in a museum, not rusting away on the bottom, the crews remains should be returned to their homeland. Would it be really wrong to raise that sub and preserve it in an above ground tank that people could walk around and see it, leaving the crews remains inside, still a war grave but on land? Not really different than the trench of bayonets at verdun or the crematoriums at the death camps??

Bremspropeller
07-23-2011, 03:09 AM
What was honourable about an attack on a sleeping harbour that belonged to a country in a state of peace?

War is about winning, not about "being Mr. Nice Guy".

And it's not that the US secret agecies hadn't anticipated something of the likes happening...

After all, it was a military attack by regular military-forces on military targets. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DKoor
07-23-2011, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by T_O_A_D:
Stay civil and on track with the original post.

We haven't had any visitors in our cells @ Ubitonimo lately.

Many of the Mods would enjoy doing unspeakable things, after such a dry spell. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
So what the **** was the difference to all of you?

What was honourable about an attack on a sleeping harbour that belonged to a country in a state of peace?

Nothing more than a terrorist - just because he was a pilot in a plane long ago, you think that affords him some respect. THAT's b-b-b-bull****. your typing to military minded people who have admiration/respect for the military way of killing people

getting them to agree with your POV isnt going to happen </div></BLOCKQUOTE>While I agree, thing is that by military standards this wasn't terrorism it's nothing alike terrorism today.

But then again, I am and will always be against any stupid conflict that causes lost of human life and property. That's just about any conflict.

In general, such conflicts bring very little good if at all to those that take most risk. Soldiers. Winning or losing. No such thing in war. There is only those who live and those who die. Only politicians win or lose. Masses can't comprehend that. Never did, never will.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Halfen
07-24-2011, 04:46 AM
"What was honourable about an attack on a sleeping harbour that belonged to a country in a state of peace?"
Who said anything about it being honorable .
.
"I stand by my opinion, sorry if that upsets anybody here. I suppose it's all about perception and interpretation, not strict dictionary definitions."
Or it could be about knowing the difference between murdering women and children and an act of war.

"your typing to military minded people who have admiration/respect for the military way of killing people"
Who said anything about having "admiration/respect " for killing people.

I find it strange that some who are so advanced find themselves here in a sim that revels in the destruction of human life.

Metatron_123
07-24-2011, 07:26 AM
An interesting discovery, though I don't believe it would make much difference to the relatives, they knew the man was kia.

The whole discussion of assigning blame is a bit superfluous when the remains in question belonged to a man who had little influence over the events of that day.

PhantomKira
07-24-2011, 09:03 AM
A good find. I've always been mildly fascinated with the forensic science of facial reconstruction on skulls, and hope they take the time to attempt it and are successful here.


Originally posted by DKoor:
But then again, I am and will always be against any stupid conflict that causes lost of human life and property. That's just about any conflict.

In general, such conflicts bring very little good if at all to those that take most risk. Soldiers. Winning or losing. No such thing in war. There is only those who live and those who die. Only politicians win or lose. Masses can't comprehend that. Never did, never will.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yesterday I happened upon a copy (very abridged, I'm sure) of Sun Tsu's Art of War. One of the sections deals with ways of obtaining victory, and it is very clear that the best way to obtain victory is not to use your army, physically, at all. One should, if at all possible, avoid conflict, using the simple presence of power to dictate terms. Armed conflict comes in options down the list.

I'm also finishing up Attack on Yamamoto by Carroll v. Glines c. 1990 Orion Books, NY ISBN 0-517-57728-3. Naturally, part of the background involved points out Yamamoto's position as the very reluctant hero of the Japanese. Sure, he planned the attack, and he led the Imperial Navy, but he never was convinced that Japan would, or even could, win. He had visited the U.S. and knew of the industrial power base that others did not. In fact, his outspoken reluctance was his reason for being put in the position of Admiral of the Fleet in the first place. He had been in politics prior to that, and as such his outspoken anti-war statements had been getting him death threats from fellow Japanese who called him an "American Lover" or somesuch, etc. A major part of the reason for giving him a military position, apparently, was that Japanese military men were not to be involved in politics, and his anti war thoughts thus disappeared from the public eye.

Background for those who may be interested, the book is essentially Glines' attempt to back up the idea that it was Barber, not Lanphier, that shot down the bomber carrying the Admiral. There's a lot of very interesting background to the story that I didn't know.

Badsight-
07-24-2011, 10:43 PM
Originally posted by Halfen:
Who said anything about having "admiration/respect " for killing people i did, just a few posts above yours

its what armies do.

loads of simulation players are people who have served - &/or have an admiration for how militarys operate (or the technology behind their operations)

admitting that doesnt make me one of them, its just reality ive gained from online conversing around this game