The PT Boat Forum
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi

ť Forum Category: PT Boats of WWII
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi?cid=101&fct=showf

ť Forum Name: PT Boats - General
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboard.cgi?fct=gotoforum&cid=101&fid=102

ť Topic: Italeri PT-109 in box review from Cybermodeler Online
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboardr.cgi?cid=101&fid=102&tid=2913

Greetings all,
MRC who is the US distributor for Italeri supplied Cybermodeler with a kit, or at least photos of the parts, and they have published this on line review. I'm guessing he only has photos because if he had this in his hands he would know that everything in this kit is new including the hull. You can see from the article that he's building a very nice diorama of the 596 so I'm sure he's familiar with the kit. As soon as I get my copy I'll do an in depth review of the kit. In the mean time, enjoy.
Dave

[url]http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/kits/it/kit_it_5613.shtml[/url]

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Nov 14, 2012 - 5:47am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

OK review, except for one major thing, which the reviewer obsesses over -- quite incorrectly, in my view.

He states, as if it is undisputed fact, that after PT 109's starboard forward depth charge was knocked through the deck by the jolted torpedo incident, the depth charge, its cradle and the "shredded" section of foot railing were not replaced -- and how it would be inaccurate to build the boat as it was under JFK after that incident (the 109 at the time of her sinking) with both depth charges, cradles and starboard foot rail intact.

This is a heavy and total load of B.S.! In the first place, it was the port forward torpedo (not the starboard) that was jolted from its tube, knocking the port depth charge through the deck, as the wave that caused this struck the port hull.

And -- there is absolutely no evidence I've ever read of or heard about in 50 years of reading about and researching PT 109 that supports or points to the depth charge, its cradle, and a "shredded'' section of foot rail not being replaced -- but this reviewer writes as if this is accepted fact.

I know some PT enthusiasts have idly speculated about this when discussing the 109, but, that's all it is -- idle speculation.

The hole in the foredeck, the depth charge cradle, the foot rail, and the depth charge itself all would most probably have been repaired and replaced before the 109's last patrol. There's absolutely no reason to think otherwise, and foolish to make such definitive statements without any basis in fact.

Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Nov 14, 2012 - 3:11pm
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am

It is certainly doubtful that the Commander would have allowed PT-109 to continue on with any patrols with this so called type of damage. It s highly likely that the base force would have patched this area, and sealed it against the elements. I am still doubtful that this incident of a depth charge bouncing up in the air and having the force to crash through the deck happened, but for sake of conversation, let's say that it did. I for one highly doubt this type of damage would have gone unfixed.

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Nov 14, 2012 - 4:06pm
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

David Waples and I surprisingly agree on this point that the other undamaged depth charge was probably removed. Or, they replaced the damaged one.

Personally, I think the undamaged one was removed.

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: Nov 14, 2012 - 4:18pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

I've mentioned before that after looking at the photo of the 109 under way that it is very possible, and yes pure speculation on my part, that when the damage was repaired the depth charges were set back so it wouldn't happen again. If I were in Kennedy's shoes and I went through that type of an incident, that's probably something I would think about doing. We don't see it a lot but it has appeared in other photos where the depth charge racks are set back from the edge and the charges allowed to roll on the deck before leaving the boat.

Again, my two cents and I have no proof of it. Like you guys I don't think it makes any sense to leave one depth charge on the boat.

Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Nov 14, 2012 - 7:22pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Here's a shot of the set back depth charge Dave, a Morobe image from Gene's site:

[image]http://www.pt103.com/images/ptpics/comdesdiv1_morobe_4_Depth_Charge.jpg[/image]

Maybe one day a document will turn up explaining the reason it was moved back. Also, the free run across the deck seems iffy to me and makes me wonder why longer tracks weren't mounted.

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Nov 14, 2012 - 9:45pm
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

The funny thing is we don't have a photo of the depth charges in any other position than in the photo under Kennedy's command so we don't know if it was ever anywhere else. That said it would have to be mounted to where the torpedo could strike it when dislodged, so we can make certain assumptions on its location. The photo of the 109 doesn't clearly show if it had tracks like in the photo Jeff provides, but on the 109 photo it does appear to be closer to the edge than in this photo. It's not a great picture so I could be wrong. The 109 could have had this same mount but placed it closer to the edge. The photo isn't that great so who knows?

My assumption stated earlier was that the depth charges were originally mounted in such a way that in the stowed position the torpedo was able to come out and strike it. After repairs I again assumed from the photos that the depth charges were moved back so it wouldn't happen again. Well now I'm second guessing that assumption. The attached drawing is one I made up after I made the original Revell kit. As the 109 photo shows the depth charge is mounted closer to the chart house and would have to be pushed way back from the deck edge to avoid being hit even in the firing position. Hard to say why the 109 mounted it this way. It's also hard to say if she had depth charges at all at the time of her sinking. There's no evidence to support either way. There certainly is no evidence to support a single depth charge at that time. The only evidence we have is of the 109 photo shown below before the 37mm was mounted. We don't even know if the depth charge incident occurred before or after this photo was taken.

Something else to muddy the waters. Look at the crew photo below. Given the location of the depth charges in the photo wouldn't we see a hint of one in the crew photo below? Do we know when the crew photo was taken?

If you want to build her accurately based on the evidence you build her as shown in the attached photo with depth charges and no 37mm. That may be how I do it. Not sure yet.

Okay, time to go to work. :-)

[IMAGE]http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n27/David_Waples/PT%20BOATS/IMG_0002.jpg[/IMAGE]
[IMAGE]http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n27/David_Waples/PT%20BOATS/PT-109cover.jpg[/IMAGE]
[IMAGE]http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n27/David_Waples/JFKandPT109crewjpg.jpg[/IMAGE]

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 4:59am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

By the way I wrote Mike and pointed out the error in his review. I asked him if he would correct it and also to come by and visit with us.
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 5:15am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

The photo that Jeff put up clearly shows the edges of the depth charge rack moved back from the edge of the deck. This would suggest that the position of the rack, closer to the edge of the deck was in fact an interference of the torpedo when fired from the tube. Take into consideration that we already know that the damp climate of the Pacific, and improper charges did cause some torpedoes to hit the deck when fired. With the Depth charge rack installed close to the edge of the deck, this could cause quite a problem. In looking at the cover of my PT-109 book, which is shown on our message board, it is very tough to tell the position of the forward rack, but it almost looks as though that starboard rack has been moved back, out of the way from the launching MK-8. Again, with this not being a clear view type photo, one can only guess, because of the angle of the shot.

As Dave mentioned, without dates, it is tough to tell just when any of this took place. I guess it depends on how you wish to proceed as to how you want to build your Italeri PT-109 model. Without concrete evidence, who is going to tell you that it is wrong. .

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 6:53am
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

Hey David,

I noticed something in the photo on Ballard's book; I think I do see a depth charge behind the guy standing on the foredeck.

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 6:59am
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

Larger image:

[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/Webmaster/image-01.jpg[/image]

Posted By: Dick | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 8:22am
Total Posts: 1417 | Joined: Aug 27, 2006 - 6:36pm

And ... doesn't it appear that they are mounted way away from the deck edge? I realize David had commented on that before ... but when Mr. Washiak blew that photo just now, it becomes more apparant.

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 8:43am
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

Hey David,

I noticed something in the photo on Ballard's book; I think I do see a depth charge behind the guy standing on the foredeck.

I think you are right that there is a port depth charge. I see that there is no 37 mm anti-tank gun on the foredeck. I wonder if this image is prior to that accident with the depth charge?

It'd be nice if Italeri included the wheels for the 37 mm AT gun so that those who don't use the gun in their build could use it in another area.

Cheers

"Give me a faster PT boat for I'd like to get out of harm's way!"

Posted By: PeterTareBuilder | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 11:29am
Total Posts: 494 | Joined: Jun 24, 2008 - 5:59pm

I'm just wondering if this photo was taken while the 109 was under Westholm. Kennedy wasn't her only commander.

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 11:54am
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

I am seeing something there on the port side, but the photo makes it almost impossible to determine if this is another Depth Charge. The image is of poor quality, although it does seem like the starboard side depth charge is set back. Again, a poor quality photo, and the angle sometimes gives the illusion that you are seeing something that you are not. Tough call here.

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 12:01pm
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

It looks like a guy sitting on the deck leaning against the front of the cabin. The port depth charge might also be in the background. Also remember, the one that is shown, fell through the deck off M'binga while on patrol with PT 48.
Take care,
TED

Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 12:10pm
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am

It looks like the guy is on the other side of the dark item. It could be any thing and to speculate is foolish. The photo quality is horrible and to guess it is a depth charge is non-sense.
SH

Posted By: Hadly | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 12:11pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

Greetings gentlemen,

When I reviewed the PT-109 (and I do have the kit), I made some assumptions given that the hull is an 80' Elco just like PT-596. Since my 596 is a waterline model now, I don't have a reference to compare.

As for the PT-109 torpedo vs depth charge rack information, I'm not the expert here but when I did research the background for this review, I found the incident written up on Wikipedia which is the source for my information. If it is wrong, I don't have a counterpoint to reference and it sounds like the facts even now are in contention.

To the point that PT-109 would not have been sent out on patrol with a missing rack, while I didn't serve in WWII, my time in uniform did tell me that we improvise when needed, especially when we're operating in austere conditions. Rendova and their larger home port are still at the end of the supply line and they would understandably not have a replacement rack sitting in a warehouse. A dead engine would be a hull-downing event, not a missing rack.

Thoughts?

Respectively,

Michael Benolkin
Owner/Publisher, Cybermodeler Online
www.cybermodeler.com

Posted By: Michael Benolkin | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 12:14pm
Total Posts: 1 | Joined: Nov 15, 2012 - 5:57am

Logically, if you see one depth charge to starboard, and you are aware of what is written in Donovan's book, and Mr. Ross' own drawing of the 109 show two depth charges on the foredeck, then, why is it nonsense to logically think it is the port depth charge?

It would be illogical to think otherwise, would it not?

It looks like the guy is on the other side of the dark item. It could be any thing and to speculate is foolish. The photo quality is horrible and to guess it is a depth charge is non-sense.
SH

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 12:59pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

Point well taken Mike, although the smashed deck most likely would have been fixed before the 109 went back out on patrol. Trying to walk around in the dark with what is supposed to be a nice flush deck, only to walk and or trip into the hole would certainly not make any sense. If I was Skipper of that boat, it would go to the base force for repairs. This however brings up a good point. We know the boats would not go out with engines with problems, and all guns needed to be in working order, as well as any radio and or radar equipment. If one tube was malfunctioning would they go out with three good tubes? It makes sense that missing one depth charge would not keep a boat in from the nights patrol, I wonder what the protocol was for boats that needed repair, that might not have the boat at 100%. What kept a boat in from patrol, and what was deemed ok for a boat to head out on patrol that needed something that was not considered critical, if at all.

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 1:16pm
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

Perhaps the tube was repaired, seeing it was a primary weapon system, and the depth charges were 'add-ons' and were not considered vital to a mission, Frank.

Posted By: TGConnelly | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 1:22pm
Total Posts: | Joined: Unregistered

Mike;
1. The Starboard depth charge is the one that fell through the deck into the crews quarters, while on patrol in stormy seas with PT 48 off Mbanika Island(I misspelled in an earlier post as M'binga), Russell Islands the starboard torpedo was inadvertently launched during a storm without first deploying the tube into firing position. The launching torpedo sheared away the depth charge mount and some of the footrail. That is the one that is visable in the photo.
2. Rendova/Lumbari Island was not yet a "base" when this photo of PT 109 was taken, May 1943. RON 9 moved up to Rendova on 30 June 1943. PT 109 was operating out of The Russell Islands(Mbanika Island). all repair work was done at Tulagi(which was 90 miles away), during this time frame.
3. They could have gotten a replacement depth charge rack, when back at Tulagi being repaired, as supplies were coming into Tulagi at a regular pace by this time.
Take caree,
TED

Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 1:24pm
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am

Thank you for the first look at the kit Michael, it was very interesting to see the included parts. I noticed that the flag had 50 stars...

Based on her history then, and in modern times on this forum, I think it logical to assume that the 109 is a cursed boat. I would not be surprised to learn that her ghost creeps out in foggy weather, terrorizing the local natives...

Maybe, if building this kit as a radio controlled vessel, it would be better to build it as PT-190?

I sure am anxious to get one for myself.

Cheers

"Give me a faster PT boat for I'd like to get out of harm's way!"

Posted By: PeterTareBuilder | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 1:44pm
Total Posts: 494 | Joined: Jun 24, 2008 - 5:59pm

I guess what this all boils down to, is build the boat the way you want to. If you want to leave off one depth charge, so be it. If you do not want to add the mast, so be it, if you want to build her with the mast folded, so be it, If you want to build her without the 37mm on her decks, so be it. We are being a bit anal here. Bottom line is, without photographic evidence, or knowing someone who was there and can tell us, like Nike says, "JUST DO IT.......................

Posted By: Frank J Andruss Sr | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 1:45pm
Total Posts: 3497 | Joined: Oct 9, 2006 - 6:09am

Ted's right -- the torpedo/depth charge incident occurred while the 109 was based at Searlesville in the Russell Islands, not Rendova.

Donovan wrote: "PT 109 had to be laid up again briefly for repair of the damage from the fallen depth charge. Shortly after the work was completed Kennedy received orders in mid-July to proceed to the forward operating base for motor torpedo boats at Rendova..." Donovan doesn't specify that the 109 went back to Tulagi for the repairs, although Ted stated all repairs were being done there at this time.

No reason whatsoever to think the port depth charge and cradle (and foot rail) weren't all repaired/replaced during the repair of the boat at Tulagi. And...the depth charge ended up in a bunk in the crew's quarters after the accident, not overboard.

The starboard side photo of the 109 underway at sea is from JFK's personal WWII photo album. It was most probably taken while JFK skippered the boat.

Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 2:14pm
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am

Dick, is there any way you can make the last two pages go away?

Guys, as far as I know the only documented reference to the depth charge incident is in Donovan's book, PT-109. I pulled it off the shelf and here's what I read from it and what I just shared with Mike.

I'll summarize to set the scene. PT-109 received a distress call from another PT. After they met up it was discovered that the PT in distress had a large hole in the hull and were in need of a dewatering pump. Kennedy didn't have one of course but saw a destroyer and went off to secure a pump. Upon arriving at the destroyer this is what Donovan wrote...

"As the two drew together the destroyer would rise high above PT 109. Then the destroyer would slide down a trough and 109 would soar above it. The two skippers had to maneuver with care to keep the vessels from slamming together lest the destroyer's steel hull crush the plywood shell of 109. Precariously the heave one cylinder pump was pass as if between two men on a teeter-totter.

Kennedy edged away from the destroyer and was circling back to the damaged boat when the top of a wave smote his port hull with such force that it jolted one of the torpedoes out of its tube. The torpedo banged into a heavy depth charge, a collision that brought together enough explosives to have blown Kennedy and his crew to bits, had not the two weapons been set to fire under different conditions. However, the depth charge toppled off its perch, crashed through the deck into the crew's quarters and landed on the bunk above where Drewitch was trying to sleep."

He goes on to write...

"Kennedy got the pump to the other boat without further accident and stood by until a tender came to the rescue."

He then writes....

"PT 109 had to be laid up again briefly for repair of the damage from the fallen depth charge. Shortly after the work was completed Kennedy received orders in mid-July to proceed to the forward operating base for motor torpedo boats at Rendova, one of the large islands in the Solomons, in the middle of the main battle then being fought in the Pacific. On your way, small fry," a destroyer blinked as 109 churned away from the Russels."

Am I missing something? As far as I can tell that's really it and all we have to go by. If you read it carefully it doesn't say that the port torpedo hit the depth charge. A waive hit the port side of the boat causing a torpedo to strike the depth charge. People assume it was the port side but we really don't know for sure. Some assumed (I did for a while) that the torpedo actually fired but Donovan never said that. There's no further discussion about the depth charges beyond this incident. About the only thing we know for sure was that the 109 had depth charges under Kennedy's command and one was damaged in an accident. There's no evidence to indicate that the the depth charge was put back in the same place, if it was moved to a different spot, or if they were removed all together after that incident. The best picture we have of PT-109 is on the cover of the National Geographic book that appears on the thread you posted on which was before the 37mm was lashed down temporarily the night of her sinking. The picture isn't clear enough to know if there is more than one depth charge.

All that said there's nothing wrong with discussing the possibilities and reviewing the material and photos to try and discover an answer. At the end of the day we're speculating and we need to make sure that we treat it that way and not interpret it as fact.

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 9:11pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Well said, David. On another matter; anyone have an opinion on whether any/all of the tubes were cranked out at the time of the collision? Given the sudden nature of the occurance, I would guess not....

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Nov 15, 2012 - 11:06pm
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm

My GUESS would be no. If the torpedo slid out and impacted the depth charge pushing it through the deck you would think it would be in the stowed position, otherwise you would think it would be just out there hanging in the tube.

From Donovan's writing my assumption is that the Tender secured the weapons (torpedo and depth charge), and structural repairs were made after returning to base.

It's difficult to say where Drewitch was sleeping at the time. According to Donovan Drewitch was severely injured, not by the depth charge itself, but from being thrown around below decks in high seas after being startled by the event. A bad day for a guy trying to get some sleep.

My modeling brain is thinking this would make a great diorama. The 109 in high seas, torpedo hanging out of the tube, big ole hole in the deck, Kennedy at the helm with other's eyes fixed on and reacting to the event. Somebody needs to warn Stan immediately! :-)
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Nov 16, 2012 - 4:44am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Interesting and enlightening discusson. I always assumed it was the port torpedo that was jolted from the tube and hit the depth charge but it seems nothing actually says which one it was.

Dave, you say that it seems like the Tender secured the 109's torpedo and depth charge. Is that from the line in the book about the 109 standing by until the Tender "came to the rescue"? When I read it, my assumption was that the 109 waited with the damaged PT boat until the Tender came to the damaged boat's rescue. After reading your comment i can see it from that perspective too.

I totally agree that everything about the depth charges is speculation except that at some point in time there were 2. During the mission in question a wave hit the port side of the boat and dislodged a forward torpedo and it hit a depth charge causing to crash through the deck. That is ALL we KNOW. The rest is speculation. It really does seem that one could pick any one of several possible combinations and nobody could prove you "wrong" (nor could you prove you are "right", only that was possibly the "right" answer).

Here is how I see it:
1. It is probable it was the port torpedo and depth charge but not guaranteed.
2. The depth charge and rack were not lost to the sea so the repair crew had them to reinstall if so desired. Since the DC was knocked from the rack and crashed thru the deck, is it possible that the was still in place and the hole and repair did not actually involve the rack?
3. At least one forward torpedo tube (the unknown side that jolted forward) did not have the tube cover or retainer (or the impact broke it) or the torpedo could not have been jolted out of the tube.
4. There is photographic proof of where the starboard depth charge was located at some point in time but do not know if it was before or after the repair.
5. The photo posted of the boat with the very inboard located rack looks to me to show a rack that was originally designed to be mounted closer to the edge so that the DC would roll on metal rails all the way to the deck edge. The engineer in me says if I was designing it, this is how i would do it. The fact that, as it is shown, the DC would have to roll off the steel rails and across the wooden deck to reach the deck edge indicated to me that the rack was mounted further inboard than the location it was designed for. This begs the question, "Why?". I'm not sure of the relative timing but could it have to do with reports of the damage to the 109?

Food for thought.

Ed

Posted By: ducati650 | Posted on: Nov 16, 2012 - 5:44am
Total Posts: 450 | Joined: Feb 19, 2007 - 10:01am

Guys,

Before Dick may "make these last two pages go away..."

I certainly didn't mean to cause such a fuss over the PT 109 torpedo/depth charge incident.

I was just tired of what, to me, is a completely speculative story, which someone at some point in time has laid down as fact, about this depth charge not being replaced...and that the 109 patrolled after the incident with one depth charge, and was in the one-depth charge configuration when rammed and sunk by the Amagiri.

There's just no written or oral evidence to support that.

And Ted, you state definitively it was the starboard depth charge that crashed through the deck. Why do you say that, when it was written that the port hull was struck by the heavy wave that jolted the torpedo into the depth charge? It stands to reason it would have been the port forward torpedo and port depth charge.

I didn't know Michael Benolkin got his PT 109 "missing depth charge, cradle, and toe rail" information from Wikipedia, so I'm sorry I was so harsh with my comment on that part of his review. Wikipedia, unfortunately, has inaccurate information in some of it's entries.

In my opinion, this is one of them.

Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Nov 16, 2012 - 2:48pm
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am

If a large wave hit port, the boat would have listed to stbd and gravity could have jarred the torpedo loose. Or, the boat righting itself and hitting the following trough could have done the same for the port torpedo...

Ed, those depth charges were mounted pretty securely. I'm guessing the rack would have been damaged badly.

Until a report on the incident shows up we won't know.

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Nov 16, 2012 - 5:04pm
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

Hi there.

Discussing and speculating on what, why or how something happened or looked is what makes history so interesting. Just think, this incident happened only about 69 years ago. With all of the controversy surrounding it, is there any wonder that historians have so much trouble agreeing on other military historical events?

Cheers

"Give me a faster PT boat for I'd like to get out of harm's way!"

Posted By: PeterTareBuilder | Posted on: Nov 16, 2012 - 7:27pm
Total Posts: 494 | Joined: Jun 24, 2008 - 5:59pm

First thanks to Dick for cleaning up the thread.

Now, obviously the Wikipedia article is wrong. It appears that you can edit or suggest an edit somehow. Has anyone tried to do this?

Ed, I try to separate fact from opinion when I make a posting. I think I'm getting better at it but sometimes I'm probably guilty of muddying the waters. Certainly opinions I had from years ago have been proven incorrect with time and evidence.

I wrote Mike at Cybermoder Online separately and he's holding to what is written on Wikipedia rather than from Donovan's narrative. That would not be the course I would take but it's his site and he can do as he wishes.

I think it's good to discuss these questions in history. It's important to share evidence and remember to identify our guesses and ideas as what they are when we share them so that we minimize confusion. It's also important to be respectful even if you don't think you're getting it back in return.

Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Nov 16, 2012 - 9:18pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm