| Author | Message | | Ken Halliwell | | Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:59 am Post subject: |
| From the interview (emphasis added): | Quote: | GERHART: the transcripts tend to show that the Israelis were confused as to the nationality [of the ship].
HICKMAN: That's right, that's right, and that is my only real access to information as to what was available, other than the reading of course but from the SIGINT picture that I witnessed, I would tend to say that the Israelis did not know that they had attacked a U.S. vessel and naturally that is up for grabs as to what other people think what happened. But granted that's my evidence that was available to me a the time, and that's probably a little bit of bias and prejudice on my part. I was partial to the Israelis as to a nation having learned the Hebrew language. And you know, sort of learned to know the Israelis for what they were and what they were up against. ... | | |  | | Cowboy | | Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:08 am Post subject: |
| | However, his interpretation is quite consistent with the NCOI. | | | | Ken Halliwell | | Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:14 am Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | However, his interpretation is quite consistent with the NCOI. | Agreed. But you may recall that the Senior Attorney (Captain Ward Boston) for the NCOI recently issued an affidavit impeaching the transcripts integrity and relating personal knowledge that the finding of "mistaken attack" was directed from high command.
Additionally, the reviewing attorney, Captain Staring (later promoted to Navy's JAG command officer -- a Rear Admiral billet) has publicly stated, several times, that he zeroed-in on the mistaken identity finding and could not justify it based on the record of NCOI testimony and exhibits. After telling his superiors the review would take several days and that he was finding evidentiary problems, his review of the matter was abruptly ended, the record of proceeding taken from him, and he went on with other work.
Simply because an NCOI finding (i.e., opinion) exists and agrees with opinions from some other sources does not mean necessarily that the opinon is somehow converted into fact and immutable. | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:34 am Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | Agreed. But you may recall that the Senior Attorney (Captain Ward Boston) for the NCOI recently issued an affidavit impeaching the transcripts integrity and relating personal knowledge that the finding of "mistaken attack" was directed from high command. |
That would be the same Captain Ward Boston whose claims about Admiral Kidd have been discredited by a letter that Kidd sent to Cristol, and who made no claims about Kidd until Kidd was dead and unable to refute.
| Quote: | | Simply because an NCOI finding (i.e., opinion) exists and agrees with opinions from some other sources does not mean necessarily that the opinon is somehow converted into fact and immutable. |
Simply because opinions from other sources do not agree with an NCOI finding does not mean necessarily that the NCOI findings and conclusions were incorrect. | | | | Ken Halliwell | | Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:08 am Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | That would be the same Captain Ward Boston whose claims about Admiral Kidd have been discredited by a letter that Kidd sent to Cristol, and who made no claims about Kidd until Kidd was dead and unable to refute. | Did you read the 1991 letter from Kidd? Perhaps you missed this part: "Nothing you told me, wrote to me or provide by way of documentation has been inconsistent with what we had to work with at the time." Without knowing what Cristol said and provided Kidd, we have no way to evaluate the significance of Kidd's statement. Ergo, Cristol evidence proves nothing.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Simply because an NCOI finding (i.e., opinion) exists and agrees with opinions from some other sources does not mean necessarily that the opinon is somehow converted into fact and immutable. |
Simply because opinions from other sources do not agree with an NCOI finding does not mean necessarily that the NCOI findings and conclusions were incorrect. | Proving that opinions are dime a dozen and prove nothing. | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:11 am Post subject: |
| | Which is why I keep going back to the sworn testimony and known facts. | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:18 am Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | Did you read the 1991 letter from Kidd? Perhaps you missed this part: "Nothing you told me, wrote to me or provide by way of documentation has been inconsistent with what we had to work with at the time." Without knowing what Cristol said and provided Kidd, we have no way to evaluate the significance of Kidd's statement. Ergo, Cristol evidence proves nothing. |
You do raise a good point. It would be incorrect to assume the exact subject matter of the discussion.
| Quote: | | Proving that opinions are dime a dozen and prove nothing. |
According to your opinon. | | | | Ken Halliwell | | Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:35 am Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | Which is why I keep going back to the sworn testimony and known facts. | Ditto... Plus, for me, photographic evidence of attack damage. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words... | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
