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

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

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

» Topic: Pure bilge (oxymoronic, isn't it?)
http://www.ptboatforum.com/cgi-bin/MB2/netboardr.cgi?cid=101&fid=102&tid=3637

If you read the latest IPMS journal or go to PTBOATWORLD, you'll see a review of the revised Schnellboot in Action monograph. The review is pure bilge, The writer would have you believe it is essentially the same as the original and that one would be better off finding a copy of the original rather than buying this one.

While retaining the familiar format of the In Action series, the revised Schnellboot monograph, written and illustrated by Dave Krakow, is substantially different from, and a marked improvement over, the original multi-author work published in 2003. The revised edition contains 22 more pages and over 40 additional photographs (a few of which are in color). The text is more concise and the substantive errors of the original have been corrected. Four new color profiles have been added.

The original work contained only two general arrangement drawings (an S 38 with kalotte and an S 100), the other classes being represented only by a profile drawing. The revised edition includes general arrangement (top and side view) drawings for all of the classes, as well as beautifully-executed detailed drawings of the torpedo tubes, G7a torpedo, Drehkranz mount for the bow 20mm, perspectives of the 20mm Flak 38 and 37mm Flak M42, radar and radio antenna mountings on the kalotte, and the RZA 5 torpedo sight.

It's definitely a nice addition to any collection of works on small combatants.

Al Ross

Posted By: alross2 | Posted on: Aug 19, 2014 - 4:31pm
Total Posts: 993 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm

So you can debunk the claim that this book is just a scaled up re-pop of the original book? Sir, please contact LT at your EARLIEST POSSIBLE convenience. [:-grin-:]

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Aug 20, 2014 - 1:57am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

Thanks, Al.

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Aug 20, 2014 - 5:24pm
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm

Having both the old and new editions, I can vouch for everything that Al has indicated. The new version is larger and much improved.

Mike

Posted By: Michael Vorrasi | Posted on: Aug 23, 2014 - 8:14am
Total Posts: 72 | Joined: Jul 1, 2013 - 11:46am

Who did the original work and why is it so bad. I have not seen it, so I do not know what Author did it.

Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Aug 23, 2014 - 8:54am
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am

The original 2003 work was co-authored by Connelly and Krakow. It isn't a bad monograph and is probably one of the better titles in Squadron's naval line, which is due primarily to Dave Krakow's efforts, despite Connelly's self-proclamations that he is the LEAD AUTHOR.

The primary substantive error in the original is that it describes the S 151- 158 boats as being a British Power Boat Company design, which they were not. Rather, they were a Lurssen design, which is very obvious from the photos included. There are a few other items, but it is still a useful work.

The problem lies not with the original monograph but with the review of the current revision. It clearly misrepresents what the new monograph contains.

Al Ross

Posted By: alross2 | Posted on: Aug 23, 2014 - 10:47am
Total Posts: 993 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm

Al, I recently read a post by the same author that may be equally suspect:

[maroon]You know, often, in the PT community ... I am often criticized for many of my stances on PT-109 - whether or not she was green, had a mast, had one or two depth charges on her foredeck, and especially because I say that Ballard was wrong when he said, with conviction, that the 109 went down in one piece.

Well, apparently, the family of a sailor named R.W. Marney who was lost went down, sold some of his effects at an auction in Boston for $200,000. Part of the collection were some letters from JFK concerning the man's death.

Kennedy's own words contradict Ballard and shore up my opinion in that she was split in two by the IJN AMAGIRI. When will some people (and some of you know who I'm referring to) stop and realize that I know what the Hell I talk about! It just pisses me off!

These are Kennedy's own words!

Your son rode the PT 109 with me on the night of August 1–2 when a Japanese destroyer, travelling at a high speed cut us in two, as we turned into him for a shot

When the crew was finally united around the floating bow, we could find no trace of him, although every effort was made to find him. I am terribly sorry that cannot be of more help or encouragement to you.[/maroon]

I have a hard time believing Dr. Ballard would state that. It goes against the official account of the incident. But I don't have his book, can anyone verify his saying that or is this more pure bilge?

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Oct 1, 2014 - 9:54am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

Jeff,

I think the Ballard claim of "being in one piece" was based on revisionist thinking/historythat the boat was "run over and mangled" by the Amagiri, (the mangled stern lying below the surface) and not "cut (completely) in two."

There's a beautifully-done painting of the incident in Ballard's book "Collision With History - The Search for John F. Kennedy's PT 109" (even though it shows the boat with its mast up) which illustrates this "run over and mangled" stance quite clearly.

Don't know where this thinking originated, other than perhaps the very, very sharp angle JFK drew of the collision on his Senate stationary back in the late '50's, which doesn't seem to illustrate a straight crash through the starboard twin-.50 turret and behind the cockpit, cutting the boat in two seperate pieces, of which the stern, weighted by the engines, sank. That sketch would seem to lend more belief to the "run over and mangled" theory.

Apparently, although I haven't read it, the new book "Into The Dark Water" by Mr. Domalgalski supposedly states the boat WAS cut completely in two, so...?

This revisionist stuff seems to go back and forth. Who knows? It may be a case of "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." My two cents always thought the boat was cut in two and the stern went down.

Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Oct 1, 2014 - 1:56pm
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am

Al, Jeff, and anyone else who has an opinion on "Pure Bilge". Jeff after reading what you highlighted, I want to know who is questioning whether or not the PT 109 was cut in two??
Correct me if I am wrong, but if a single object is cut isn't the end result two pieces? This is certainly what I learned in Mrs. Pellegrini's 1st grade art class, Ahhh! I remember as if it were yesterday..... a nice sunny 1969 September morning in Scudder Ave Elementary School at Copiague, Long Island, N.Y.I picked up a piece of green construction paper, took a pair of those blunt kid scissors and I began to slowly cut, and before long to my utter surprise....SHAZAAM! I had two pieces, one in my left hand and one on the small desk I sat at. This same principle was to be repeated time and time again over the years, then it was reinforced when my family moved to the Eastern Shore of Virginia in Mr. Garlick's High School Geometry class. When you cut a single object, it is cut in two.

[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/Ted%20Walther/PTCompassRose-1.jpg[/image]
a PT Boat superimposed on a compass rose to illustrate some generalized angles that have been written. The only one I have issue with is actually JFK's Drawing, even though he was there, wouldn't this angle have ruptured all forward bulkheads? Now with this in mind, if this angle is correct, With almost the entire starboard side of the bow gone, how would it remain upright for over 6 hours, then even after capsizing, how did the bow float for more than 24 hours? even if there was an air bubble formed it would not have lasted that long.[:-confused2-:]

other terms used in print are misleading, such as "cut in half", this is being used as a "generalized" term, meaning two pieces, that are not necessarily meant as 50-50[:-good-:][:-good-:]

All that aside, use any one of the colored arrows, and you have a boat cut in two![:-grin-:]
TAKE CARE,
TED
P.S. Now I hope this helps to lesson the confusion, but if it doesn't, the for god's sake don't pay any attention to those Japanese reports from the Amagri crew that say PT 109 was painted in the Adapter Camo Scheme!!![:-laughing-:][:-laughing-:][:-laughing-:]

Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Oct 1, 2014 - 1:59pm
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am

I find it hard to believe that the boat was actually cut in half, simply because of the contact with the Japanese Can. That type of force would likely cause a more blunt type of accident, or crushing type of accident. With that being said, there is no doubt the cut in two theory would have to have been caused by the explosion of the gas tanks, which would have pretty much finished the act of the boat being cut in two where the Destroyer began. We know that the stern sank ( where are the engines by the way Mr. Ballard) simply because of the sheer weight of three Packard Engines. Force of the Can hitting the deck would no doubt have crushed and split the decking with ease, but the heavy beams and the type of construction for the Elco boat would have taken this impact. I have been hit on the starboard side of my 24 foot boat back in 1987,by a runaway jet ski doing at least 30 knots (estimated by the Coast Guard) and it was again a massive blunt force hit that actually drove the boat at least 15 feet across the water. The boat did not sink, but was crushed and pretty much totaled

I understand that we are talking apples and oranges here, but in talking with Gerard Zinser many years ago, he claimed that when he came to the surface the boat was a pretty good distance away and burning. Although I do not argue that the boat was in two pieces in the end, I do not think it was caused mainly by the hit of the Destroyer, just my own thought here.

Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Oct 1, 2014 - 2:43pm
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am

Ted, the account that I recall reading as most trustworthy in my opinion, follows the red line in your diagram, however farther to starboard. The hit was placed just in front of the fwd. tube and it sheered off the starboard side of the boat including the starboard engine with it. So the red line would pass roughly through the 20mm mount on that same vector. The only issue though, is that a hit that far forward leaves the forward water tight compartment open, so maybe it was a similar vector line, but hitting just aft of the forward bulkhead line, maybe at mid point on the fwd tube. The reason I favor that red vector (but more to stbd). is simply that I think more of the crew would have been crushed or killed on any of the other lines in the diagram.

Mike

Posted By: Michael Vorrasi | Posted on: Oct 1, 2014 - 4:26pm
Total Posts: 72 | Joined: Jul 1, 2013 - 11:46am

Gawd, at least there are no color arguments in this latest rendition of the epic

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Oct 1, 2014 - 5:57pm
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm

I have a hard time believing Dr. Ballard would state that. It goes against the official account of the incident. But I don't have his book, can anyone verify his saying that or is this more pure bilge?

You should because at least in his own book he doesn't say that. In his book, Collision with History, The Search for John F. Kennedy's PT-109, Dr. Ballard started the expedition under the assumption that the boat was cut in two as that's the official record. It's also the recollection of the crew. THEY WERE THERE.

In Dr. Ballard's book he doesn't get to the point where they find the boat until the very end. To cut to the chase Dr. Ballard's team found an object using sophisticated sonar, rectangular in shape measuring approximately 23 x 40 feet. Keep in mind these are sonar images. Richard Keresey arrived and reviewed the material as well. They found exposed what they believe is a USN torpedo tube like that used on PT-109. Richard Keresey arrived and reviewed the material as well and believed it to be a torpedo tube like he used on PT-105. The evidence was reviewed by a Navy board and it was determined it was a PT Boat and based on the documented evidence of every USN PT decided it was probably PT-109.

I re-read the material and Dr. Ballard does not say anything about the hull being complete. He thinks the stern half is intact and buried. They have no idea where the bow section went because after interviewing one of the natives who investigated what was believed to be the bow section it turned out to be a Japanese vessel. Dr. Ballard drew the conclusion that the bow section just went down somewhere else.

Decide for yourself but there is no firm evidence that this boat was PT-109. There is a high likelihood that it is based on official documents and interviews with those who were there.

Why Garth started this rant on his Facebook page is a mystery to me. If anyone has some documented proof that Dr. Ballard said the entire hull was intact and never cut into two pieces, please point it out to me because I can't find it. If you can prove it I'll be the first to say I was wrong. For now I put a lot more stock in Dr. Ballard, Mr. Keresey, and the official record than the rants of a frustrated author.

Jerry, you'll be pleased to know that Dr. Ballard didn't draw any conclusions about the color of PT-109. I take your ribbing in good fun because I probably deserve it. :-)

Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 1, 2014 - 7:16pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Gent's:
I just enlarged the original writing I labeled the tracks of approach with on my PT compass rose with. check it out.
Take care,
TED

P.S. look up his original 1961 diagram at the JFK library website.

Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Oct 1, 2014 - 8:23pm
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am

OK WHO THE HELL OPENED UP THE 109 CAN OF WORMS AGAIN??? Oh wait...

Thanks guys, and thanks David for researching the book. I now know less than I thought I did. I'll guess we'll never really know what the explosion and 3 heavy engines knocking around did to the aft section.

I was going to add what's the definition of 1 piece but decided not to.

To go with Ted's nice drawing, here's the locations of the forward water tight bulkheads:

[image]http://www.pt103.com/images/asst/Elco_80_Water_Tight_Bulkheads_Fwd.jpg[/image]

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Oct 2, 2014 - 3:45am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

Jeff;
Thanks! you reinforced my statement, All forward watertight bulkheads were ruptured. The RED line on my diagram is the line drawn by JFK in 1961. That is 015 degrees. So again, how did the forward hull float for so long?
Take care,
TED

Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Oct 2, 2014 - 7:36am
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am

You're welcome Ted. The very forwardmost chamber must have been somewhat intact at least. Who knows what radial damage was done to it even if it didn't take a hit. And I'm not even guessing at exactly where the hit took place... or how much of her bottom was left. Maybe one day we'll have the tech to at least see the shape of what the worms haven't eaten.

Garth found his reference on youtube and gracefully shared it:

[maroon]For Will Day, David Waples, Jeff D. .............
Look here: from 5:40 (4:00) on .... he said it is intact! Damn it all, I'm NOT the f*cking idiot and ass you take me for David and Jeff![/maroon]

I watched the video, the only remote reference to its being whole was a CG of a half buried boat in the sand which Ballard probably had nothing to do with. Then a shot of Ballard in a boat pointing at the water and saying "we now know PT 109 is right here!" or similar. No reference to its being whole whatsoever. Here's a screenshot of the cgi:

[image]http://www.pt103.com/images/asst/BallardPT109cgiSm.jpg[/image]

A link to the video, it's under 6 minutes: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElI451TxsTg[/url]

He also mentioned a reference:
[maroon]Additionally, see the comments related to that video:
woodenmajor
2 years ago
the two vessels did not "collide" ,the IJN destroyer skipper SPOTTED the PT 109 (a much smaller craft ) and INTENTIONALLY ran it over ,this was a fairly commonplace tactic against enemy submarines and smaller craft ,especially at night ,when it might be very difficult to find it again . essentially ,the lookouts(and skipper) of PT 109 were caught napping and run over by a ship they should have spotted first ,given its much ,much larger size and the frothy white bow wave as it approached .[/maroon]

Sigh.

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Oct 2, 2014 - 12:06pm
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

I watched and listened to that video three times. Ballard makes absolutely no comment about the boat being intact or in pieces.

Al Ross

Posted By: alross2 | Posted on: Oct 2, 2014 - 2:55pm
Total Posts: 993 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm

Ok as much as I despise this subject, I must add my 2c. Ted, in your diagram showing the 3 tracks, all of them seem to imply that the destroyer cut the boat in half in exactly along a laser-straight line. This concept seems too convenient to follow real life. The bow of the Amagiri was pretty sharp, but I would be willing to bet it was at least as wide as 4 inches on the very front. Now imagine cutting your small boat in half by swinging a 2x4 board. Yes it will get the job done, but I doubt the result will be in a straight line as shown in the drawing. Why is this important? The entry and exit points of the cut could be in radically different spots thus leaving the forward bulkheads intact to enable the bow to float. I can imagine the hull of the 109 sort of 'wrapping around" the front of the Amagiri before it finally pushed through making an extremely jagged slice with not much left to determine exact entry and exit points. Again just something to consider. I also favor the blue line compared tot he red line, knowing that JFK drew the red line and he was there, but then again it was night and whether he based this line on the resulting cut or did he base it on the glance he may or may not have had momentarily at the time of the collision, we will never know.

Jerry Gilmartin
PT658 Crewman
Portland OR

Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Oct 2, 2014 - 3:01pm
Total Posts: 1472 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm

I have always liked how with all this new CGI technology the representation for a PT Boat still has the Lindberg battery covers on it.:0)

Jeff ; That is a quote in from another website correct? WOW!

Jerry;
Sorry, the lines are a reference only, I am not suggesting a laser cut. I am also with you, as I lead to above, I am questioning JFK's drawing, which providing that the bow floated for 24+ hours(upright for 6 hours before capsizing), his diagram makes no Naval Architectural sense to me. UNLESS the blue line(or something in this vicinity) was the true path of approach, then 3-4 damaged, but still functional water tight bulkheads could still sustain the section floating for so long.

But you did hit the nail on the head "Why is it so important"? It's not, I was just trying to keep in form with Al's excellent title: "Pure Bilge",
I was stirring the Bilge Water!![:-laughing-:]
Take care,
TED
P.S. Don't you remember I have a red flag next to my name on the Washichek OPS board. It's not there for nothing
[:-laughing-:][:-laughing-:][:-laughing-:][:-laughing-:]

Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Oct 2, 2014 - 6:10pm
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am

I watched and listened to that video three times. Ballard makes absolutely no comment about the boat being intact or in pieces.

Al Ross

Exactly right Al. And this is a clip from the original documentary. It's not even complete. If you want a more complete understanding of what Dr. Ballard and his team did there you need to read the book and view the entire documentary. I just wish we weren't attacked for setting the record straight. It's frustrating.

Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 2, 2014 - 6:18pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Maybe it may help to add the account of someone else who was there and possibly in a little better position to place the point of first impact.

Barney Ross was standing next to the 37mm gun at that time and from his telling of his part on that night from "JFK Life and Death of an American President" by Nigel Hamilton Volume one, page 579.

"The Destroyer saw us at I would say ten seconds before he hit us, and that was a sight I'll never forget. The mast keeling over at about a 45 degree angle towards us-this destroyer mast-and at this distance it would probably be maybe 100 feet. If he hadn't turned he would have just missed us, but by turning he caught us on the starboard bow at about a 20 degree angle to the longitudinal centre of the boat. So he split the boat sort of longways-not across the boat. He hit the bow up there about five feet from my right, and it continued on back."

Barney goes on to say that he had to grab the 37mm gun to stop himself from falling into the water so there is no doubt were he was on the deck,

There are a number of things this statement helps us with

First is that there is no doubt that the Destroyer DID turn to ram the 109.

Second is a point that seems to have been missed and would play a part in the ramming and that is that the Destroyer was well heeled over at the time of the impact, a point that all involved agree on but has not been shown to its full affect by anyone.

Third the cut in half theory looks to be very shaky with this. information.

Forth, Teds angle is close and if one factors in the angle of the Elco bow ,the angle of the destroyers heel over, the bow wave in front of the destroyers bow and the fact that most large ships have a bow with a 4-6 inch curve (not a blade like a bread knife) and the fact that the PT Boat was of light timber construction (which would tend to make it ride the bow wave away from the destroyer another point that has not been raised )then the damage described by Barney Ross can be understood.

Anyway as I say only my two cents worth,

Ta all and let the merriment continue

PS I still think Ballad only found one of the tubes and torp. which fell off the 109 at the time of ramming she's still out there waiting to be found!

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Oct 3, 2014 - 3:42am
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am

I don't think anyone has considered the action of the boat after impact. I doubt it just sat there as if clamped to the ocean. I'm sure it moved.

I think it's agreed that the bow section at some angle was separated from the boat. I think it's also agreed by everyone that the stern section went down immediately and the bow section remained floating for at least a short amount of time. The interview with the Japanese sailor indicated that he turned into the 109 on purpose.

It's a war grave and I don't see that there will be any attempt to try and recover these remains (boat and human). I personally don't think there should be.

Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 3, 2014 - 6:17am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Agreed, guys...

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Oct 3, 2014 - 8:20am
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm

Well, the forepart of the 109 definitely drifted eastward down Blackett Straight with the current for hours after the collision, so...

And, for what its worth, per Captain Tameichi Hara, skipper of the IJN DD Shigure, fourth in line in the Japanese destroyer column that night, the night was "pitch dark," and "we were making 30 knots...a truly breakneck speed for such a dangerous waterway."

Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Oct 3, 2014 - 1:43pm
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am

Regarding bilge #1: Krakow's update of the Squadron/Signal Schnellboot in Action is brilliant and useful, and essential to anyone modelling a schnellboot. For one thing, there are color photos that weren't in the first edition, including some showing S-100 class boats with red anti-fouling paint (most sources I've seen insisted it would have been dark grey like known S-38 class boats. Krakow's prinzeugen.com site is also excellent.

As for Bilge #2: I can't find ANY evidence that Ballard said the boat was intact. What he did claim was that the bow, or a significant part of it, was intact.

The stern has not been found and may have been crushed to bits. Here's a Nat Geo article wherein the Navy confirms they believe it to be PT 109:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0709_020710_kennedyPT109_2.html

Posted By: zeusbheld | Posted on: Oct 4, 2014 - 9:11pm
Total Posts: 61 | Joined: Aug 12, 2014 - 9:54pm

In his book AT CLOSE QUATERS, published in 1962, Capt. R.J. Bulkley, Jr. states on page 124 the following regarding the ramming and loss of the 109:

"The 109 had started to turn to starboard preparatory to firing torpedoes. However, when PT 109 had scarcely turned 30 degrees, the destroyer rammed the PT, striking it forward of the forward torpedo tube and shearing off the starboard side of the boat aft, including the starboard engine.

Considering it is stated that only the starboard engine was lost from the collision, in my mind it would tell me, a piece of the starboard side of the boat was more like "fileted" off, rather than the popular cut in half theory.
In that case the rendering shown, less the Lindberg steering hatches, would appear to be a reasonable facsimile of what the wreck looked like at it's time of sinking.

Larry
62 Bel-Air
260 Eagle EXP
79 Cole TR-2

Posted By: bubbletop409 | Posted on: Oct 4, 2014 - 11:01pm
Total Posts: 164 | Joined: Apr 22, 2013 - 11:48pm

In his book AT CLOSE QUATERS, published in 1962, Capt. R.J. Bulkley, Jr. states on page 124 the following regarding the ramming and loss of the 109:

"The 109 had started to turn to starboard preparatory to firing torpedoes. However, when PT 109 had scarcely turned 30 degrees, the destroyer rammed the PT, striking it forward of the forward torpedo tube and shearing off the starboard side of the boat aft, including the starboard engine".

Considering it is stated that only the starboard engine was lost from the collision, in my mind it would tell me, a piece of the starboard side of the boat was more like "fileted" off, rather than the popular cut in half theory.
In that case the rendering shown, less the Lindberg steering hatches, would appear to be a reasonable facsimile of what the wreck looked like at it's time of sinking.

Larry
62 Bel-Air
260 Eagle EXP
79 Cole TR-2

Posted By: bubbletop409 | Posted on: Oct 4, 2014 - 11:03pm
Total Posts: 164 | Joined: Apr 22, 2013 - 11:48pm

Ah to the sounds of Bing Crosby and his rendition of Danny Boy on my wife's nightly viewing of modern family AHHHHH!!! Bing I like as for the rest ?

O well back to the topic at hand picking up the Japanese side of things from R.J. Donovans book "In the port engine room Petty Officer Yoshiji Hiramatsu heard a scraping noise against the hull, he also observed that the starboard propeller shaft was vibrating. the reason for this was found later to be the starboard propleller had had part of a blade sheared off.

"IF' the PT109 had been sheared from point of inpact to the stern and the larger port section had travelled along the side of the destroyer as a number of the crew Kennedy included attested to then, the damage to the destroyers propellers could only have been caused by the sheared off starboard section as the destroyer first separated it and then rode over it,

Again this is an area that has not been put forward before "mainly due to respect to the two lost men", but as the starboard section has never been found or parts of them then the possibility that the Destroyers propellers may have turned this part of the 109 into matchwood with the starboard engine or one of the torpedos accounting for the damage to the propeller.

If the Destroyer had run over the port section then the story we are all talking about would never have happened.

I fully concur with the idea that this vessel has full War Grave status and should be accorded the proper respect if it can ever be proven 100 percent that it has been found. (Finding a torpedo tube with a torpedo in it does not a full vessel make ). Just as with the Japanese midget Submarine off Sydney Harbour there is a look but do not touch rule in place, however until it had been found there were a large number of attempts to find it and not all of then were willing to share their find with others. this would mean that either the Sub would have disappeared out right or bits and pieces would end up in persons homes or private museums over time. This would happen if the 109 were found by the wrong people without a doubt.

Anyway only my 2 cents worth.

Ta.

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Oct 5, 2014 - 3:50am
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am

My understanding based on the Nat Geo article is that it's more than just a torpedo tube.

Sonar strongly indicates that there's a substantial chunk of wreckage there.

The article says that if it's been submerged much of the wood would have been eaten by wood borers. I think that's likely; I'm familiar with the effects of a humid tropical climate, and the things that live in it, have on all sorts of things (I live in Thailand).

I don't see any reason to believe that the wreck isn't consistent with the description of how the boat was destroyed.

I'm a bit bemused as to why they (or someone) doesn't research the wreck a bit more for a positive ID. I believe gravesites should be respected, of course... but I also believe that it isn't disrespectful to do what's necessary to identify the dead (but maybe that's just me, I don't know).

------

Regarding the Schnellboot book, I made a mistake that's haunting me: the photo of the boat with red anti-fouling paint is an S-38 class boat, not an S-100.

It's generally thought that red anti-fouling paint on S-100 class boats was fairly typical. Until seeing that photo I had the impression that it was widely thought that the S-38 boats were boot grey underneath, not dark red. That photo alone's worth the price of the book but there are several excellent photos that weren't in the first edition.

Posted By: zeusbheld | Posted on: Oct 5, 2014 - 4:23am
Total Posts: 61 | Joined: Aug 12, 2014 - 9:54pm

For those of you keeping track of Garth's rant, here's his latest misinformation.

"With all due respect to NAT GEO and Dr. Ballard, this is bilge: First, location: No other PT (patrol torpedo) boat was lost in the search area. Plus, the location of the find is consistent with historical accounts of the PT-109 bow's drift. (The stern, or rear, sank at impact.) ...
PT-166 sank two weeks previously in the same general area.
Also, neither the book or the broadcast mentioned ANYTHING about finding anything but the torpedo tube. Where were/are the other three tubes, the 50s?, the 20mm?, the 37mm M3? The engines? The gas tanks? Other metallic artifacts? A debris field?
Just one torpedo tube? And that guy looking at the monitor, organismically screaming, "That's a Mark 8 tube with a Mark 18 torpedo from PT-109!" Come on!"

I'll only speak to the references to Dr. Ballard's work. In the book they identified with sonar a target that was rectangular in shape about 23' by 40'. This was not discussed in depth in the original release video. I've pointed this out already. There were no other significant sonar targets in the area. Surrounding the tube was a lot of debris. The assumption was that most of the debris is buried under sand. It's a war grave and they were not authorized to do any excavating or recovery by the US Navy.

Yesterday I pulled out the video and watched it from beginning to end. The historian observing the video states that they have a torpedo tube with a Mark VIII torpedo. He never says anything about a Mark VIII tube with a Mark 18 torpedo from PT-109. In fact if you go back and review the video Garth posted in his previous rant the historian is very clear and it doesn't match what Garth states.

The historians had records of the disposition of every PT Boat. There is no mention of PT-166. They targeted their search area based on what was known about the Tokyo Express, the observations of the coast watchers, and the locations of the islands the crew swam to. Not to mention Mr. Keresey who joined the team.

I found the book and the video very interesting. Particularly the information about the coast watchers and their network. I would suggest reading and watching the original video and ignoring the rants on the Facebook PT Boat Special Interest site and Garth's rants. I think Dr. Ballard and his team did very well with what they had to work with. You be the judge.
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 5, 2014 - 9:37pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

This is the same guy that hears things others can't right? That gets angry when others won't accept his questionable guesswork as fact? His response to others not hearing: [maroon]Screw it. I am all-too aware of those "men" on that forum think of me, and no matter what I say is right in their minds, or what pass for minds on that forum. So, screw it.[/maroon]. A man will admit he was mistaken. I did like the way he paraphrased Al's pure bilge title though.

I didn't mean to start another 109 rehash but I have found it very interesting. Thanks David Buck for Barney Ross's story, I hadn't heard it before.

EDIT: I took my childish name calling out.

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Oct 6, 2014 - 7:54am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

You can certainly make up your own mind without anyone's ranting and raving. My own thought's here, is this team went out to look for signs of PT-109, and simply they found a Torpedo Tube. That is all, and to me at least one torpedo tube does not mean they found anything associated with PT-109. I have stated before on this board that certainly the engines represent the heaviest part of the boat by far, and if they would come across those, it would no doubt ( in my mind at least) raise eyebrows as to a possible find. Engines have nomenclatures on them, and if they could find one of those, it would tell you plenty. Finding a piece of something in an area that was so congested with other boat traffic doesn't mean they found PT-109. To me, I would need more evidence then that.

Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Oct 6, 2014 - 11:25am
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am

I pretty much feel the same way that Frank does. I guess you can call me a "skeptic" concerning Dr. Ballards Torpedo Tube being deemed as "the PT109". There seemed to be a lot of pressure on him to find SOMETHING, so the explorers just took the first crumbs and "called it good". I would personally liked to have seen a little more concrete evidence of engines and other items, and if that is not possible, at least dig a couple of scoopfuls of dirt to see what is attached to that torpedo tube, just for the sake of positive identification. If we are to believe the accounts, the "war grave" portion of the boat would have been the aft section, where the motor mac (Marney) was standing watch and the gunners mate (Kirksey) aft gun turret was. The torpedo tube was attached to the front part wasn't it? That part had no bodies inside of it since it floated for several hours, so why the reluctance to dig? I never understood that.
Thanks for listening.
Jerry

Jerry Gilmartin
PT658 Crewman
Portland OR

Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Oct 6, 2014 - 7:05pm
Total Posts: 1472 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm

Jerry,

At the time of the collision, Marney was in the forward (starboard) turret next to the cockpit, and Kirksey had been last seen on deck near the starboard aft torpedo tube.

I never understood, and don't agree, with the "war grave" stance, either. From my viewing of the documentary and reading of the book, the reason Ballard's exploration didn't dig deeper around the torpedo tube seemed to be a combination of the depth (1,300 feet), the current, and the inadequacies of their diving robot -- it really wasn't set up for excavation.

Personally, I'm convinced Ballard probably found a torpedo tube and torpedo from the 109. What's left under the tube was (is) buried under the sand.

The only question I've ever had about the authenticity of the tube is the absence of the half-a-dozen or so bracing "rings" around the tube -- they don't show up in Ballard's photos.

Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Oct 6, 2014 - 7:33pm
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am

Wow, we've done a fine job of hijacking Al's review and turning it into another PT-109 discussion.

While we would all love to know that this was 100% confirmed PT-109 we're not going to get that. Dr. Ballard expressed concern that they would not find anything due to the sand covering up the remains of the boat. There is technology that could be taken out there now that would look into the sand and tell us what is there. Maybe someday that will happen but don't hold your breath. That part of the world is littered with WWII wreckage and the under water graves of many many sailors. Frankly the engine and the tube could be miles apart and it would be a monumental effort to locate them and probably still want not be conclusive. It's just not practical. Furthermore the US Navy considers these war graves and they are very serious about people not disturbing them. Whatever is left of PT-109 is buried or consumed by the ocean.

That said the Ballard expedition did their research to determine what boats were lost in this area and it's likely they found a piece of it. Garth in his rant states that PT-166 was sunk in this vicinity. It didn't take much effort on my part to discover that PT-166 was sunk off of Munda Point by the Army Air Corp. Munda point is not even close to where PT-109 was struck. Munda Point is on the southern side of New Georgia from where the Tokyo Express operated that night. Also the 109 was stuck well north of Vonavona and Kohinggo Islands which separate New Georgia from the location of the 109 sinking. We can be very sure that this tube didn't come off PT-166.

I'm not 100% convinced myself but given the evidence I think it is highly likely that this came off the 109 boat. This uncertainty is acknowledged in the film and in the book. In my opinion this effort, given what they had to work with was well done. Why Garth chose to attack this effort is beyond me. It's mean spirited, self serving, and not well researched on his part.

Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 6, 2014 - 7:57pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Thanks Drew on the correction, I never knew their last believed locations were up on the deck. Even still, the front half would not have had any bodies since the crew was floating on it for several hours before abandoning it. So I think several people agree on the validity of determining the front half to be a "war grave" or not.. Isnt the USS Arizona also considered a war grave? Yet, the Navy has given special permission to allow limited penetration into the wreck for historical documentation and identification purposes. I have seen proof of this on documentary films. So the idea of digging a little dirt from around the torpedo tube is not out of the realm of possibility if you look at it in the same light as the permission given to explore the USS Arizona. I guess we will never know! Take care. Jerry

Jerry Gilmartin
PT658 Crewman
Portland OR

Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Oct 6, 2014 - 9:02pm
Total Posts: 1472 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm

Jeff, A little light banter as they say

Here is a little more from Barney Ross but in a different direction so,

"We had these two coconut logs to brace the legs of the 37mm cannon. I'd say the logs were 8-9 feet long, about 10-12" in diameter. I think we had just tied them down, I'm not sure... When we swam to shore we used one coconut log."

Most models and depictions of the 109 show these logs as 8x2-8x4 planks, I have read other members of the 109s crew also stated that they were logs as well.

Sorry have to add that he also said that it had the wheels on it, that one might put the cat among the pigeons!

Any ideas?

I am not meaning to create any more storms but mealy a question to ask if this has been picked up by you or others.

Sometimes it pays to read what people who were there have to say, better than guessing at what may have happened. My way of looking at it.

On Ballad while I think he did a good job with the limited amount of resources he had, maybe he could have shown a lot more of the video at the wreck site, as it is the limited amount they did show and the manner in which it was interpreted has raised more questions than it answered. I think this is why this topic keeps being a rather hot one, as many people still feel that the boat is still out there somewhere, and the manner in which she went down only adds to the mystic.(and to poke a few holes for fun, what colour was she, did she or did she not have her mast, why was she travelling at 10 knots? Oh and have a look at this one, in the short video a few pages back in the CGI shot at first there is a shot of the destroyer approaching the 109 from the PORT FOREQUARTER??? I thought she was hit on the Starboard side, oops, next shot shows the destroyer on her Starboard Forequarter. Sooo If they can't get that right well says it all does't it).

A"hhhh well all in good fun.

Just my two cents worth.

Ta Jeff.

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Oct 7, 2014 - 11:54pm
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am

"Coconut logs?"...hmmm...interesting...

For what it's worth, in the film "PT 109," the spread trail legs of the 37 millimeter gun on the foredeck is shown braced across their rears with... a coconut log!

I've long ascribed to this depiction as being correct, although most modelers don't include the log across the ends of the trail legs in their versions of what the boat looked like on it's final patrol.

As to the "wheels on" theory on the 37 mm gun, John Hersey's original article "Survival" in The New Yorker magazine of June 17th, 1944 -- the very first account of the PT 109 "saga" -- the gun is described as having "the wheels still on," or words to that effect. Richard Tregaskis, in his 1962 book "John F. Kennedy: War Hero" (a republished and expanded version of his previously published "John F. Kennedy and PT-109") also stated the 37 mm was "still mounted on tires" when it was secured to the 109's foredeck, but...

Robert J. Donovan's exhaustively researched (interviews with all the surviving crew members) 1961 book "PT 109 - John F. Kennedy In World War II" stated the 37 mm "the wheels of which had been removed" was "placed...in position with its axles resting on on the ("two-by-eight") planks, so...?

Personally, since Barney Ross was present on the set of the film (as a crusty CPO who gets a bucket of cosmoline solvent dumped on his head by Cliff Robertson as JFK) and several members of the real crew visited the set, I'm going with the wheels-off, mounted on 2" x 8" planks, coconut log brace across the rear of the trail legs theory.

Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Oct 8, 2014 - 7:43am
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am

Is that the article that quoted JFK (?) as saying the 37mm was hanging off the bow by a chain? I found that interesting but can't remember details, they are on my other computer. I think it was from a New Yorker article. Hm, Pat has some nice tiny 3D printed chains...

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Oct 8, 2014 - 8:46am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

It makes sense to me, a field expedient brace. since they probably thought the 37mm would be front heavy, and the legs might bounce on the deck if the hit rough seas.
Take care,
TED

Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Oct 8, 2014 - 8:53am
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am

Jeff,

Donovan wrote, in "PT 109 - John F. Kennedy In World War II," that "The 37-millimeter gun, still lashed to the deck, had fallen overboard and was hanging uselessly in the water. To Ross it looked like a giant fish lure."

John Hersey, in his The New Yorker article "Survival," wrote: "The 37-millimetre gun had flopped over the side and was hanging there by a chain."

Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Oct 8, 2014 - 10:28am
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am

Thanks Drew, the Hersey quote is what I was talking about. I found the article online:[url]http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkpt109.shtml[/url]. It is not written as a direct quote from a crew member so it is of dubious value.

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Oct 8, 2014 - 12:25pm
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

If I ever do another 109 boat it's not going to have that bloody 37mm on it. :-)
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 8, 2014 - 8:35pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Thanks Drew I knew that someone would have further information that I had not seen(jeeez it only gets worse does't it and that's just by asking an innocent little question!!!).

Dave, Damm man next you'll want to know what colour green to paint it.

You know when I can get off the floor after Dave Ws last I might try and enlarge Ballards book cover just to see if that pesky mast is there,

Tonight I will admit that I can sit here and read the rest of the Board with a smile on my face, Sorry Dave didn't mean to make a problem for you, how about two 109 models one without the wheels and logs and one with them, then you have both sides covered. I suppose then you may have to paint one a faded grey and the other a faded green but which one is which, oh well back to headache territory with that one.

Ta

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Oct 9, 2014 - 5:13am
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am

Ah, but I do know what color she was thanks to Ted and Mr. Prescott, skipper of PT-61. Or at least as much as anyone will know thanks to those wonder color photographs. I know you guys like to make fun of me about that but honestly I don't mind.

IF I do another 109 boat, and that's a big IF, I would do it with the gun displayed off the model. Frankly one of the other boats that has that 37mm anti tank with a permanent mount such as in the photo that Tracy White recently provided is more interesting to me.

Dave

PS. Didn't this thread start as a book review on the Schnellboot? What the hell happened? Seems to me if you keep a thread going on long enough here it turns into something about PT-109. I'm sure I'm equally to blame. Sorry we hijacked your thread Al.

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 9, 2014 - 5:46am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Sorry we hijacked your thread Al.

David Waples

You will be punished, Waples...
[:-grin-:]

Al

Posted By: alross2 | Posted on: Oct 9, 2014 - 7:41am
Total Posts: 993 | Joined: Oct 30, 2006 - 8:19pm

Hijacking's probably my fault, although I DID comment on the excellence of Mr. Krakow's new version Schnellboot in Action.

Extra for modelers: Regarding that damned 37mm, coconut palm logs would have a very distinct wood grain. I'm unsure how the grain should look at small scale, but if i decide to build a 109 i've got a coconut wood spoon, I can observe it from an appropriate distance to simulate scale.

Here's a coconut log, and a plank to better highlight the grain:

[image]http://ak7.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/4344707/preview/stock-footage-coconut-log-and-farm-in-countryside.jpg[/image]

[image]http://www.naturalbuildingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/coconut-wood.jpg[/image]

Posted By: zeusbheld | Posted on: Oct 10, 2014 - 5:44pm
Total Posts: 61 | Joined: Aug 12, 2014 - 9:54pm

Just for the heck of it, I’m posting some screen captures from the movie showing it’s depiction of the gun installed on coconut logs as discussed in the book. I’ve always been surprised by the nice timber used on models when the install was a quick fix. Of course I have no real info to go on.

Posted By: Dick | Posted on: Oct 11, 2014 - 12:44pm
Total Posts: 1417 | Joined: Aug 27, 2006 - 6:36pm

Oh brother[:-good-:]

Well, the last photo is somebody's next diorama.
Take care,
TED

Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Oct 11, 2014 - 1:03pm
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am

Jeff, A little light banter as they say

Here is a little more from Barney Ross but in a different direction so,

"We had these two coconut logs to brace the legs of the 37mm cannon. I'd say the logs were 8-9 feet long, about 10-12" in diameter. I think we had just tied them down, I'm not sure... When we swam to shore we used one coconut log."

Most models and depictions of the 109 show these logs as 8x2-8x4 planks, I have read other members of the 109s crew also stated that they were logs as well.

Sorry have to add that he also said that it had the wheels on it, that one might put the cat among the pigeons!

Any ideas?

I am not meaning to create any more storms but mealy a question to ask if this has been picked up by you or others.

Sometimes it pays to read what people who were there have to say, better than guessing at what may have happened. My way of looking at it.

Hi David,
That is interesting. Robert Donovan's book specifically states "planks". He spoke of how a Japanese air raid stopped their plans to permanently attach the planks and the gun and Kennedy gave instructions to lash both planks and gun down to the deck. During the swim he states "planks" again which in my mind is different than logs. Maybe both were used? Maybe Mr. Ross was thinking about the movie? Who knows.

Whee was this information from Mr. Ross obtained? I would like to read it if it's available somewhere.

I'm with you. Veterans memories count for something. However I've also heard veterans, including my dad, contradict themselves. Who can blame them, it's been so long.

Thanks for the information and observation David

Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 11, 2014 - 3:12pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Great screen captures, Dick, thanks.

Funny, although I remembered a log at the rear of the gun across the trail legs, I never noticed the log under the front of the gun in the movie.

And -- that looks like a WWII German Pak 37 field piece, not a U.S. M3 37mm gun!

Posted By: Drew Cook | Posted on: Oct 11, 2014 - 5:56pm
Total Posts: 1306 | Joined: Oct 19, 2006 - 10:44am

Drew;
Actually it looks more like this gun Frankie and his buddy are playing with back in dubya dubya one!

[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/Ted%20Walther/1916french37mm.jpg[/image]
[:-laughing-:]
Take care,
TED

Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Oct 11, 2014 - 9:42pm
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am

Well, the last photo is somebody's next diorama.

Now there's a workaround!

Build a diorama of the scene from the movie, and all the disputed unknowns no longer matter to the modeler...

(A good follow up diorama might be the PBR from Apocalypse Now).

Posted By: zeusbheld | Posted on: Oct 12, 2014 - 2:14am
Total Posts: 61 | Joined: Aug 12, 2014 - 9:54pm

Hi David,

The Book in question is,
JFK Life and death of an American President. Volume One: Reckless Youth.

ISBN 071 262 5712

The book gives 90 pages of reference notes and the reference for Barney Ross and his statements are only given as the "CBS interview, Audio Visual collection".

Been looking but have not found anything on the net yet to cross reference to.

At the moment it would appear that the timber for the mounting of the 37mm may have been a combination of planks and logs.

Interesting reading Donovans book compared to this other, Donovan Writes as an author telling a story were as Nigel Hamilton is able to write his book as an autobiography. Very different styles of writing, with Hamilton being the JFK Scholar and Associate Professor in the John W McCormack Institute of the University of Massachusetts at Boston, while writing his book.

Going back to the collision itself I know that over time the popular belief has been that of the 109 being cut in half directly behind the cockpit ( this may be due to Dovonans Book and of course the movie which depicts this very graphically, note film capture no.3, 1 page back why with all the other things they spent time on to get right and this point is so wrong !!! someone boo booed as they say or what they needed to depict was not possible at that time we will never know) and this belief has fuelled many a heated argument, but if only the report that was delivered on the 16th Aug. 1943 by Lt. Byron White which was compiled by obtaining the firsthand witness statements from the crew of the 109 while it was still fresh in their minds, had been published then maybe the question of the Destroyers exact path through the boat would never have arisen.

This report is available on the net in a three section format and section three sets out the collision and the path of the Destroyer through the 109 in quite good detail, this report lays to rest any notion that the 109 was cut through behind the cockpit.

Hope this helps a little (by the way I picked the book up at a flea market for $2.00 no one else wanted it, to me a wealth of information about a time and an interest that I have)

Just my 2cents worth,

Ta

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Oct 12, 2014 - 5:13am
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am

Thanks David. I couldn't find Bryon "Whizzer" White's report. If you can point it to me that would be appreciated. Bulkeley refers to it in his book so I'm sure I've picked up most of the short version.

I found the book on ebay for $4.00 delivered so I'll cheek it out. I recall the movie being inaccurate and a disaster but I won't hold the author accountable for that.

Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 12, 2014 - 6:12am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Here Dave, I had saved it possibly from the JFK library site: [url]http://www.pt103.com/asst/Sinking of PT 109 - Memorandum to CO MTB Flotilla One.pdf[/url].

Zeus, that is a good idea! You'd sure have some argueless documentation for it.

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Oct 12, 2014 - 8:06am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

Here Dave, I had saved it possibly from the JFK library site: [url]http://www.pt103.com/asst/PT_109_1943_Report.zip[/url].

Zeus, that is a good idea! You'd sure have some argueless documentation for it.

While I think there is no excuse for swill like Michael Bay's "Pearl Harbor" it is the normal for filmmakers to take some liberties even when the historical record suggests otherwise, in the interest of drama and spectacle. Even if it was known to the filmmakers that the boat wasn't cut neatly in half like that, they could have decided that it made a more spectacular and/or dramatic image. Haven't seen the film in decades, but it IS a spectacular image, that still... and I'm inspired to watch the movie when I get a free day...

Thanks for the link to the report. I read lots of stuff from the PT 103 site but I haven't specifically been interested in the 109 until now (something about coconut wood I guess).

Posted By: zeusbheld | Posted on: Oct 12, 2014 - 8:34am
Total Posts: 61 | Joined: Aug 12, 2014 - 9:54pm

I'm just curious as to how long this thread will continue, there must be another subject we can talk about. I know, let's all write letter's to Will to try and get him to send me his boat that he promised me 5 years ago. Ted, I might have had a gun like that back in the day. PT-109 projects? If I had the funds I would love to do PT-109 as she is slamming into the dock side tool shed in the movie, but Stan's days of modeling are almost behind him now.......................

Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Oct 12, 2014 - 8:44am
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am

Thanks to Dick Washichek the report is now available in a much easier to read .pdf file. Thank you Dick! Here's a link:
[url]http://www.pt103.com/asst/Sinking of PT 109 - Memorandum to CO MTB Flotilla One.pdf[/url]

I'll edit my previous post to point to this also.

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Oct 12, 2014 - 11:43am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

Well strange as it may seem Frank this thread has gone on mainly because you asked a question that has not been answered, and while many of the actual events can be dug up if one is willing to dig a little the answer to your question to Mr Ballard is the one that really needs to be answered!

David, on your last I do find that memory of an event does get a little clouded over time no matter who you talk to the story does seem to change over time, just human nature. Thats why taking first hand accounts is the best way.

Al sorry to have hijacked your thread.

Dick great screen captures now I know how Ballards Torpedo ended up in half (tongue firmly in cheek with that one).

Ted all one has to do is to add the missing rear section to the 109s hull and depict this visible under the water and you would be somewhere close, I'm sure someone will find this to be a challenge.

Jeff D. re Garth the idea is not to get steamed up over something such as this topic, there is such a wealth of history to be found that "I" at least find this really puts a smile on my face digging it up.

And Frank when someone does find those engines and the rest of PT109 what a day that will be!

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Oct 12, 2014 - 1:44pm
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am

I'm just curious as to how long this thread will continue, there must be another subject we can talk about. I know, let's all write letter's to Will to try and get him to send me his boat that he promised me 5 years ago. Ted, I might have had a gun like that back in the day. PT-109 projects? If I had the funds I would love to do PT-109 as she is slamming into the dock side tool shed in the movie, but Stan's days of modeling are almost behind him now.......................

Frank, I suspect this thread will end before you stop asking Will to send you his model.

Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 12, 2014 - 2:06pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Would love nothing better than to find those engines, I know it would tell a tell tale story, ok ok I am after 5 years going to stop asking Will for his boat, let's see there must be others I can get a boat from, lol.

Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Oct 12, 2014 - 4:00pm
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am

@ Frankie: SURE you will!

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Oct 12, 2014 - 5:37pm
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm

Hey Will, why don't you post some photos of that boat so Frank will remember what it looks like:0)
Take care,
TED

Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Oct 12, 2014 - 7:41pm
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am

There is a shot of it with Cliff Robertson on one of the other threads. How could Frankie forget?.....

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Oct 12, 2014 - 10:45pm
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm

Now Ted that's just being MEAN ,and I bet you bite the heads off rattle snakes to just for fun!!

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Oct 12, 2014 - 10:46pm
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am

He's terrible he has had me waiting for the Post man to deliver that boat for 5 years now. Just think what Stanley could do to make her look brand new again....................

Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Oct 12, 2014 - 11:26pm
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am

OK OK 1 last time I swear. Some one posted a link to a video in which Ballard clearly indicates he believed the 109 went down in more than 1 piece, check from 24:00 on: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLpGcyPBpEs[/url].

Ballard says "I wanted to hear there was half of it waiting for me down there" in response to another mentioning a "slice theory". He then goes on to say how they gave up on the stern section due to too much rubble and went to search for the bow. Case closed.

Thank you all for the lovely 109 discussion, we should do this more often! *runs and hides*

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Oct 16, 2014 - 3:55am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

Thanks for sharing that Jeff. The more discussion you hear the more the pieces come together.
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 16, 2014 - 5:24am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Not bad, guys....Seven pages and counting!

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Oct 16, 2014 - 10:59am
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm

You're welcome Dave, and congrats Will you made page 8! [:-cheers-:]

The mostly unscripted video is unclear when it gets to them giving up looking for the remains of the stern and deciding to try the forward section. It sounded to me like they revised the area where they thought she went down after believing the wreckage the coast watcher saw beached was actually a Japanese vessel.

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Oct 16, 2014 - 12:43pm
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

It's amazing. Our friend at the PT SIG Facebook site is once again misrepresenting his own submission. He suggests Dr. Ballard "poo poos" the split boat theory when in fact Dr. Ballard simply states that the historian was "driving" the split boat theory. Dr. Ballard simply was hoping that it wasn't the case and was hoping for larger sections to locate. This before they even located what they found. Dr. Ballard's words and meaning are quite clear.

Dr. Ballard goes on to say that their equipment indicated something much larger below the sand and that when they tried to pull up on the training rod they were unable to get it to move.

Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 16, 2014 - 8:24pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Hmm how much bigger did he expect them(the two bits) to be, most timber boats in that area simply rot or are eaten away leaving any metal bits behind. He found one of those in an area where there was nothing else, not bad, see single object on sandy bottom investigate single object found boat search over, go home hero, total time spent around one week!

Just between you, me and the horse shed, Bet he thought that's the easiest thing he ever fond.

I'm still a little interested in his statement that "the sonar contact puts the find at about 23"wide and that's about the width of a PT Boat"??
Didn't someone tell him that the side had been sheared off, and with the knowledge that that included the starboard engine and so would have sorta taken 4'-5' off the width maybe more!?

Just talking out loud so to speak.

D.buck

Hi David,
First a key point. He didn't "expect" to find bigger parts. He was hoping, not expecting that the remains were bigger for purposes of locating it. Dr. Ballard talks about the expectations he had based on his previous investigation of Iron Bottom Sound where he found much smaller objects such as aircraft in relatively good condition. In the documentary they also discussed concern about the wood being completely destroyed.

Yes, the historian they brought along did as Dr. Ballard said drive the shear theory. It wasn't unfamiliar to Dr. Ballard or the team. After scouring the area they only found one target which was the confined debris field. Dr. Ballard said they had a "rectangular" shaped target. I do remember seeing video of the sonar image and it certainly wasn't a perfectly shaped rectangular boat hull.

I think they feel reasonably confident they found some of the remains of the 109. I expect we'll never know for sure. The only reason I'm driving this thread is because of the frustration of, you know who, misquoting and twisting around other people's credible work and words for his own benefit. It's certainly okay to have opinions. I certainly have had some and they've been proven wrong. I'm okay with that. It's all part of learning.

Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 17, 2014 - 5:15am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Amazing, I know Garth is reading this and quoting me in his rant. In the video you recently posted from the Kennedy Library is where Dr. Ballard mentioned the slice theory. I don't recall him discussing it in his book or the original documentary.
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 17, 2014 - 6:07am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

[image]http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p249/ptboats/Ted%20Walther/JAPSteamrollerhendersonfield1942-1.jpg[/image]
Dave! Don't just stand there, jump in that steamroller and drive this baby into the ground!!![:-laughing-:]
Take care,
TED

Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Oct 17, 2014 - 8:54am
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am

Ted hmmm interesting concept!

Dave both in the book and the Nat. Geo. Doco. the slice theory are put forward as the main manner in which the collision happened. Book, page 92 Para. 2, followed by a two page illustration that depicts it quite well. Doco has Ballard talking of both the theorys with the main one being the slice theory which is also depicted when they do the animated portrayal of the collision.

While Ballard got this right so to speak as far as how the events unfolded, I and I guess a few others (gauging by the amount of interest this topic gets) feel that there was a lot more of the wreck site that could have been shown, and that was deliberately kept from being shown.

For interest the book is 192 pages long and has 3 small and 1 medium sized images in it with no real idea what we are looking at other than saying that we are looking at a Torpedo tube!

In the Doco. we seem to spend a lot of time looking at the back of someones head or sticking their thumb up in the air and at one point we have Ballard explaining that the contrarotating propellers can be clearly made out yet all that we see is the middle of his back???
Also he states that they can clearly make out the Training Mech. of the tube, oops sorry have not found it yet in any of the videos, is there someone out there that can say they saw any of this or where there may be somewhere that this vision can be down loaded as Nat. Geo. do not appear to have it available and I don't think they went all that way for 4 pickees and a couple of minutes of video.

Its not Ballard but the production company that seems to have setup the video and the book to be rather vague so I guess that all I'm saying is that if they are going to say that they have further evidence then I (and others ) would like to see it rather than someones back at a point of interest.(if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck as they say but in this case they seem to be saying that you will just have to take their word for it and that they are right without really allowing us to see what they do or do not have).

O'well that's just the feeling I get from putting all this together Dave, so I believe there is still more to the story that's all.

Finding it is the fun bit!!!

Ta

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Oct 17, 2014 - 7:15pm
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am

Hi David,
You are correct. In the documentary Dr. Ballard is sitting with Max Kennedy discussing how the ship was sunk. They talk about the two possibilities which he identifies is a more perpendicular strike on the 109 on the starboard side (still at an angle), and a slicing cut through the boat. The narrator in the documentary, not Dr. Ballard later states that the slicing angle is supported by the evidence.

I checked the book and it doesn't specifically say "slice" or "shear". It merely says that the large part of the boat remained afloat.

Okay, here is the sonar shot they took of what they believe is the torpedo tube. This image came from the documentary. Dr. Ballard states that they could look down into the sand and they could see something under the sand with their sonar. Looking at this shot you can see that it is lighter than the surrounding area indicating that there could be something there. I don't know. I'm not a sonar expert. The artistic view in the documentary showing what they "might" find if the pulled back the sand is wishful thinking. But this lighter area is what he was referring to when he said they could look down into the sand.

I don't agree with the conspiracy theories. There simply isn't anything else to show. Not much of anything so they spent the majority of the time talking about the people and such. For us purists it would have been nice to have them point out the details of the torpedo tube such as the impulse chamber and the training arm Bollard said they grabbed on to. Knowing Keresey I don't think he would have put up with any BS. The man spoke his mind when he didn't agree with something. So I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Enough of this. I'm going to go fishing.

Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 17, 2014 - 9:01pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Dave, enjoy your fishing.

Thanks for talking its been fun,

Ta

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Oct 18, 2014 - 1:37am
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am

The fishing was great today. Beautiful weather and respectable action, especially for this time of the year. Low clear water and spooky fish.

Waiting for me when I got home was the JFK Reckless Youth book. After dinner I sat down and started reading. I got to the part about the 37mm being secured to the deck. The first thing I noticed was that unlike much of the book this part was not quoted. It is not credited to Barney Ross either based on the index and the author's notes. It's not credited to anyone in the notes section.

Barney Ross is quote on the next page. He states that he volunteered to go along with the 109. Kennedy told him to come along since he was short on crew. Anyway, Barney Ross states that he volunteered to go along. He commented on "this contraption" meaning the 37mm and that it still had its wheels on it. He only said that the base carpenters had secured it to the deck so that it wouldn't roll around.

The author quotes crewman Harris as saying that they used two of the coconut logs that were used to brace the legs. In my opinion how the gun was secured continues to be unknown except that according to Barney Ross' recollection it still had its wheels intact and the base carpenters had secured it somehow. There were also coconut logs used for bracing the legs but how that is done is still not known.

Another surprise to me was that Barney Ross recollects the 109 being lit up by search lights. They thought it was from shore batteries but it was probably the destroyer.

The book is interesting in that there are a lot of quotes from people who were there. And they do provide some details that are interesting.

Thanks David for suggesting the book.

Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 18, 2014 - 8:24pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Will;
Now 9 and counting![:-cheers-:] by the way Dave, you didn't mention what kind of fish you caught?
Take care,
TED

Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Oct 18, 2014 - 9:40pm
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am

Roger that, Bubba....

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Oct 18, 2014 - 9:54pm
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm

Will;
Now 9 and counting![:-cheers-:] by the way Dave, you didn't mention what kind of fish you caught?
Take care,
TED

GPS coordinates of initial put in: N40 deg 41.298' W105 deg 19.055'
River: Cache La Poudre (Trivia: Named by the French who stored gun powder there)
Water conditions: Crystal clear
Method of fishing: Wading
River volume: Approx. 150 cfs
Weather clear and sunny all day. Temperature at put in 40 degrees at 09:00 and 70 degrees at 17:00 when departing.
No contact with enemy fishermen but there were alcoholics who were identified as wearing blaze orange clothing and carrying rifles.

The fish caught were as listed below, the majority of which were Brown Trout. All fish were returned to the river.

Brown Trout: Not a stocked fish in this river.
Brown Trout color: Camouflaged with shades of green, brown, and black with some red.
Size: 11" to 13"

Rainbow Trout: Stocked fish in this river.
Color: Similar to the brown except lighter in color with red stripe down the side.
Size: 11" to 12"

Total quantity of fish not documented but approx 12 catches and approx 6 missed strikes.
Flies used: PMX size 12 with bead head prince or bead head pheasant tail size 16.

No photos were taken of these fish

Ah... that was fun. :-)

Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 19, 2014 - 6:24am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Ahh! Rainbow Trout....NICE!!

Posted By: TED WALTHER | Posted on: Oct 19, 2014 - 9:22am
Total Posts: 3059 | Joined: Oct 16, 2006 - 7:42am

Last time I fished for rainbows was at Clear Lake in the High Sierras. Toooo long ago.

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Oct 19, 2014 - 9:35am
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm

Dave glad to hear that you enjoyed your fishing.

Sometimes it's just good to get out of the house, away from the computer and get a bit of fresh air!

The book JFK The Restless Youth does show that there is a lot more information available than just the snippets that are in Donovans book, this brings up other questions that have not yet been answered such as, a lot has been made of the Japanese wreck on Naru Isl. does anyone have any idea how it came to be there?

It has been said that the Australian coastwatcher saw the PT 109 floating in Blackett Straight, lost sight of it while he moved his base camp and when he reestablished himself reported the wreck south of Naru Isl. It has been said that in the 2 days it took him to move the 109 sank and the Jap vessel arrived on Naru Isl.(quite possible ) no one has said were from or how it got there. The vessel that the two islanders removed the two rifles from was definitely a Jap barge/ patrol boat, however one would think if they had been able to climb aboard then there would have been enough of it for the coatswatcher to see well before he setup his new camp, also unless it had run aground (quite possible)there seems to have been very little action in that area over those two days

What became of the report from the two New Zealand Pilots that were sent out to find the wreck found a? wreck overflew it and filed a report on their return. This report would tell us which wreck they had seen and where it was seen by them?

There is a lot to this that we will never know but there is also much that could be found that could shed a little more light on the story.

By the way Dave I am glad that you itemised your story on the time you spent fishing, makes it so much easer to use this in "Tales of Daves fishing days" a story from the past, published in 50-60 years from now.

I'm quite sure someone will manage to get it mixed up even then!!

Have a good day Dave.

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Oct 19, 2014 - 4:54pm
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am

Glad you appreciate the fishing trip humor David. Sometimes you just have to poke fun at yourself. :-)
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 19, 2014 - 9:38pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Dave W. , I'm so jealous. I fished in RMNP once. It was wonderful.

Steve

Posted By: Nuge210 | Posted on: Oct 20, 2014 - 8:17am
Total Posts: 323 | Joined: Jun 4, 2008 - 7:50am

Oh yeah, Al - It IS oxymoronic....

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Oct 20, 2014 - 10:38pm
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm

Gee Dave now everyone wants to be a comedian,

Re your last, life's pretty dull if you can't laugh at yourself now and again. Going to wander downstairs and work on my PTs the wifes watching that damm dog woman again!

Ta

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Oct 20, 2014 - 11:22pm
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am

OK, I think I annoyed the neighbours enough plus it made me remember something, so how's this for a possible theory, and working on Ballards sonar dimensions as a rough guide.

After the hull of the 109 had rolled over and the crew had swum away I was wondering might the hull have done a Titanic and with the lower heaver section dragging downward might it have reached a point where the hull, not built to take such strain separated, with the lighter bow section now able to float quite easily and the heaver stern section sinking to the bottom.

One would normally think that this section of the boat would have gone down in that one piece however as she had suffered massive damage from the collision then this theory is just a possibility.

OK just thinking out load and having a bit of fun with it.

Ta.

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Oct 21, 2014 - 1:38am
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am

Good Lord can we now close this book, it has been read so many times even the Library is going to toss it out.

Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Oct 21, 2014 - 10:19am
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am

Come on, Frankie - we're going for 20 pages.

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Oct 21, 2014 - 3:49pm
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm

Good Lord I am falling asleep now from this post, I don't think I can take another page Will.

Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Oct 21, 2014 - 5:06pm
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am

Frank, I don't know how to break this to you.... you don't have to read it! :-)
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 21, 2014 - 7:51pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Do I detect a bit of sarcastic tone in that message, I sure hope not...............

Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Oct 21, 2014 - 8:02pm
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am

I'm not sure he CAN read it....

Will

Posted By: Will Day | Posted on: Oct 21, 2014 - 9:49pm
Total Posts: 1955 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 4:19pm

I know he's running out of fingers...?

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Oct 21, 2014 - 10:35pm
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am

Shows how much you both know, I have Toes too, just think if this keeps up Will will get his wish of 20 pages for a single thread............

Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Oct 21, 2014 - 11:55pm
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am

It appears to me that while Will Day may be aiming for 20 or more pages, someone else may be shooting for 4000 responses. Just thought I would get my two cents in.

Posted By: Pat Rogers | Posted on: Oct 22, 2014 - 1:53am
Total Posts: 72 | Joined: Oct 10, 2006 - 3:21am

Yes! Congrats Pat, the big Two-Oh! [:-cheers-:] [:-good-:]

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Oct 22, 2014 - 3:39am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

Frank, I don't know how to break this to you.... you don't have to read it! :-)
Dave

David Waples

Just poking some fun Frank.

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 22, 2014 - 6:26am
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

I am so sick of this thread. Cant we move on already?

Jerry Gilmartin
PT658 Crewman
Portland OR

Posted By: Jerry Gilmartin | Posted on: Oct 22, 2014 - 6:28am
Total Posts: 1472 | Joined: Oct 8, 2006 - 11:16pm

OK, I'm stupid. I was excited in my anticipation, there's still 2 or 3 days until 20 so let me rephrase:

Yes! Congrats Pat, the medium One-One! [:-cheers-:] [:-stong-:]

Posted By: Jeff D | Posted on: Oct 22, 2014 - 7:41am
Total Posts: 2200 | Joined: Dec 21, 2006 - 1:30am

Yo Guys, I agree with Jerry Gilmartin. enough already.
Even JFK summed it up with "They sank my boat..."
Let's move on and talk about something else...
...The navy's new Combat Craft Medium, MK 1--- the next generation 'PT boat'...
...Frank Andruss's sex life...
...ANYTHING

Ross Fisher

ross@dupagels.lib.il.us

Posted By: ROSS FISHER | Posted on: Oct 22, 2014 - 8:10am
Total Posts: 82 | Joined: Jul 23, 2008 - 10:03am

Ross what sex life? I have been married for 37 years. Dave no worries I think we are all having a bit of fun with this thread. We could talk about Will promising me his boat and never sending it, or we could talk about Dave donating my Exhibit a PT BOAT or...............................

Posted By: Frank Andruss | Posted on: Oct 22, 2014 - 10:32am
Total Posts: 3964 | Joined: Feb 9, 2007 - 11:41am

Hmmm.. if you look over the last three pages the most interesting post has been has been Daves fishing trip HA!

D.buck

Posted By: David Buck | Posted on: Oct 22, 2014 - 12:27pm
Total Posts: 332 | Joined: May 4, 2008 - 2:59am

I am so sick of this thread. Cant we move on already?

Jerry Gilmartin
PT658 Crewman
Portland OR

Jerry, step away from the mouse. :-)
Dave

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 22, 2014 - 7:36pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm

Ross what sex life? I have been married for 37 years. Dave no worries I think we are all having a bit of fun with this thread. We could talk about Will promising me his boat and never sending it, or we could talk about Dave donating my Exhibit a PT BOAT or...............................

Oops! Sorry Frank, it's going on display next week at Rockler. And now I've discovered a couple of errors. It shouldn't be in a PT Boat exhibit. :-)

David Waples

Posted By: David Waples | Posted on: Oct 22, 2014 - 7:40pm
Total Posts: 1679 | Joined: Jan 2, 2007 - 9:55pm