"That is what is alleged. "
And its fucking bullshit.
Was everyone involved in this story lying to?
https://www.historynet.com/the-niihau-incident.htm
"Not a single one was preserved for the museum or for historical purposes"
https://www.pearlharboraviationmuseum.org/experiences/hangar-37/
That museum has one of only TWO Nakajima B5N's that appear in any museum. The Japanese produced thousands of them. Now does the fact that only two of those planes appear in a museum mean that the war didn't happen? The Japanese Zero was the most famous plane of the war. 10,000 were built. Zeros only appear in two US museums - National Museum of the United States Air Force and at the Pacific Aviation Museum. Again the "proof" is so scant does that mean the war didn't happen?
"It is well-known in Hawaii that the Pearl Harbor attack was a false-flag attack. "
Yeah, well no fucking shit. This is the reason why -
https://enjoyingthejourney.blogspot.com/2008/12/nov-30-1941-honolulu-headline-japanese.html
It was a false flag in that the attack was no suprise and that the FDR Regime engineered the attack. Find me one fucking Hawaiian that was there at Pearl that day saying there was no attack at all.
"I'm not sure what the Japanese attack fleet has got to do with this"
Because the pilots and sailors talked about their part in the attack! How did the US government get them to lie? How did the US government get thousands of US sailors and soldiers and all the citizens to lie about it?
The Niihau incident is also addressed in the PDF. The earliest public information about the Niihau incident seems to date to the 1950's. The story is completely incongruent with itself. It centers around the pilot having some secret documents that he wants to keep hidden from the locals.
Does it make sense to go on a combat mission over enemy territory carrying secret documents? It doesn't, not in the least. Much of the story would be congruent with an espionage mission carried by the Japanese to spy on Hawaii, but it doesn't fit the notion of a combat mission.
Another unlikely element of the NIi'hau story is that the Japanese didn't know that the island was populated, so they had chosen to land on it if they couldn't make it to the carrier. If so, Japanese intelligence was so stupid they didn't even bother to read the 1911 encyclopedia Britanica entry for the island.
Therefore, the Ni'ihau incident appears to be fabricated.
Regarding the Nakajima B5N. The museum's indicates that that this type of aircraft was supposedly used at the Pearl Harbor attack, but no details about the aircraft itself, such as where it was supposedly shot down, where and when it was recovered, who was piloting it, etc.
If you have such details about that B5N, I would be very interested in hearing about them.
Because the pilots and sailors talked about their part in the attack!
They wrote that after the war. If the US demands that, regardless of whether it's true or not, how are the Japanese going to deny it? They lost the war and they are a country directly occupied by the US military.
"Does it make sense to go on a combat mission over enemy territory carrying secret documents"
You don' t know jack shit do you? Front line combatants carry radio frequencies and codes, maps, intelligence all the time to aid their missions. All of that is very valuable to the enemy. The Jap pilot didn't have time to destroy it because he was too busy crash landing his damaged plane and then was stunned and dazed by the crash.
"the Japanese didn't know that the island was populated"
It was probably a cultural/language mix up because that island is forbidden to outsiders: no Whites and no US military. Japanese spies certainly couldn't go there to check it out. Bad intel is a common occurrence in every war in history. Alexander and Caesar where almost done in my bad intel on many occasions. It wasn't a plot by the US government.
"how are the Japanese going to deny it? "
Easy. Just say 'we didn't do it and you have no proof'. Even Osama Bin Laden denied doing 911. Mossad had to produce a bunch of obviously fake Bin Laden videos to cover for it.
Again, how did the US government get hundreds of Japanese servicemen to lie? Their stories appeared in the Japanese media before the war ended. How did they get thousands of Hawaiian residents to lie even decades after the war? How did they get thousands of US servicemen to lie even decades after the war? How did they get Admiral Kimmel and General Short to lie and to accept the disgrace and dishonor of having the attack pinned on them which they then tried to fight valiantly to clear their names? After Pearl Harbor every command officer that questioned the "surprise attack" narrative, and there were a lot, had their careers stopped short while those that protected the FDR Regime got promoted and rewarded. Why would they all lie? Why wouldn't some of them spill the beans? Military people spilled the beans about Pearl Harbor being a FDR setup, about the 9/11 inside job, and the USS Liberty attacks.
I tell you why because this "no planes at Pearl Harbor" story is unmitigated BULLSHIT.
You don' t know jack shit do you? . . .. I tell you why because this "no planes at Pearl Harbor" story is unmitigated BULLSHIT.
Get your emotions out of the way and you'll see things the way I do.
Again, how did the US government get hundreds of Japanese servicemen to lie? Their stories appeared in the Japanese media before the war ended.
They did? I am interested in your sources. I would like to see and read those articles.
How did they get thousands of Hawaiian residents to lie even decades after the war?
The truth is known throughout Hawaii.
How did they get thousands of US servicemen to lie even decades after the war?
Members of the US military do not have free speech. That is only for civilians.
Why would they all lie? Why wouldn't some of them spill the beans?
Americans seemed to be very gong-ho on killing Japanese and taking their body parts home as trophies. People who act like that might not reach the level of morality of somebody who would feel compelled to tell the truth.
Suppose their might have been a handful of US servicemen who were not like that. They would have likely been aware of the immorality of their fellow servicemen and the willing ignorance of the American public, most of whom would have held fast on to whatever the press presented to them as truth, regardless of the evidence presented.
What would be the point in them in commiting treason, condeming themselves and their loved ones to a certain death, while at the same time the truth is easy to discern from photographs?
(post is archived)