# PLEASE OFFER YOUR HONEST OPINIONS...



## DAI PHAN (Oct 16, 2017)

Hello all,

I am Dai Phan and I am involved with aviation history all my life. I built model planes, build and fly scale RC planes and collect aviation memorabilia whenever I can. I was elated when I found Ron Cole website where I can get a print and the ACTUAL relic from the crash site of Yamamoto for less than 200 bucks ! I then also ordered a print with a Zero and a relic fragment from the actual a/c. However I stumbled on a thread posted on this forum today about the questionable practice by Ron Cole. Someone even commented if the relics are legit at all ! Some mentioned on how he used others work and called his own. Needless to say. I wonder if my relic is actually what it is but I am NOT saying that is not what it claims. So in your opinion, should I take a chance in ordering more relics from his website? I plan to purchase the entire collection. Thank you so much and I look forward to your reply. Dai

PS: Is there a service where the fragment can be confirmed of its origin or the year of its production?


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 16, 2017)

I'm not going to say anything negative about Ron Cole, or his business practices. I would, however, say that verifying the provenance of antiquities is very difficult.


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 16, 2017)

Today I received the art print (framed with the relic hot glued outside the glass). My heart is torn between doubting if this IS the actual relic and having the eerie feeling that this piece actually came from an A/C that crashed with all lives on board with Yamamoto being the main target. I may be holding a piece of history that I would never dreamt of having ... Dai


----------



## pbehn (Oct 16, 2017)

Unless it has a number on it that can be traced back to the Yamamotos aircraft via the manufacturer then it is a fragment.


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 16, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Unless it has a number on it that can be traced back to the Yamamotos aircraft via the manufacturer then it is a fragment.



The fragment is a multi-layered soft metal that I do not think has the serial number. I do not want to pry it open. However I can remove a piece that can be sent in for analysis. With carbon dating the piece can be traced back. I am NOT doubting RC, I just want to know if the piece is something that did not come from a toy truck. DP


----------



## pbehn (Oct 16, 2017)

DAI PHAN said:


> The fragment is a multi-layered soft metal that I do not think has the serial number. I do not want to pry it open. However I can remove a piece that can be sent in for analysis. With carbon dating the piece can be traced back. I am NOT doubting RC, I just want to know if the piece is not something that did not come from a toy truck. DP


Sorry but unless it has a number or is shown in a photo being recovered it is a fragment of metal. Carbon dating proves nothing and there are lots of crashed planes to get fragments from. Why is Yamamotos plane so important anyway?


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 16, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Sorry but unless it has a number or is shown in a photo being recovered it is a fragment of metal. Carbon dating proves nothing and there are lots of crashed planes to get fragments from. Why is Yamamotos plane so important anyway?



It is the history that I am interested in. Dai


----------



## Reegor (Oct 16, 2017)

I have never heard of Mr. Cole. But with any such relic, you have to ask "what are the odds," and "by what chain of events was this item recovered and ended up with me?" Who would have recovered parts from the A/C at the time? And whoever they were, you are depending on the honesty and care of everyone it was resold to before it ended up with Mr. Cole. At each stage there would be an incentive to fabricate/lie. Do you know what part of the A/C it was supposedly from? If you look at blueprints, does the design match that location? Have you had the metallurgy evaluated?
On the other hand, you will obviously derive a lot of pleasure from _believing_ that you have a piece of that aircraft. And most likely nobody can prove that you don't. So go ahead and enjoy yourself!


----------



## parsifal (Oct 16, 2017)

I didn’t know this Ron Cole character either. When I googled him, I got this from wiki. Not a great source, buta start.

*“Ronald G. Cole* is a figure in the militia movement in the united States. He was the founder and leader of the Colorado Light Infantry militia groups in 1993. Cole is the author of the book _Sinister Twilight_, in which he attempts to explain the Branch Davidian side of the standoff with federal authorities that took place in Waco, Texas in 1993. Cole became a national anti-government figure after the events of the Waco siege.

In 1994, he met with the notorious domestic terrorist Timothy Mcveigh prior to the Oklahoma city bombings. In 1997 at McVeigh's trial, Cole handed out leaflets demanding fair treatment for McVeigh, as well as news releases for the North American Liberation Army. He also spoke to the media about alleged harassment of paramilitary group members by law enforcement.

Also in 1994, Cole was involved in an incident at the site of the destroyed Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas. A standoff occurred between self-proclaimed leaders of the remnants of the sect over who had control of the property. Cole and another Branch Davidian, Wally Kennett, were accompanying Andrew Hood, a man who had been supportive of the Branch Davidians, to the property. Their party was fired upon by Amo Bishop Roden, the wife of former Davidian leader George Roden who lived in a shack on the site. Roden was charged with felony deadly conduct, and Kennett and Cole were charged with misdemeanor weapons violations.

In 1997 Cole and three other militia members were arrested by federal agents and local officers in response to a warrant alleging they possessed machine guns in their house in Aurora Colorado In 1998 Cole plead guilty in a plea bargain to four federal counts of illegally possessing unregistered firearms. In response Cole said "They're trying to make me look like a terrorist because I criticize the federal government publicly." Lee Hill, a defense attorney who represented the left wing icon Leonard Peltier, said "They made an example of him. He's an idealist who has annoyed the wrong people." Cole was sentenced to 27 months in federal prison and was released in May 1999.

Cole currently lives in Pueblo Colorado.”

Is this the same person that you purchased your memorabilia piece from?

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 16, 2017)

Not sure how much use carbon dating would be for metals. Carbon used for steels is sourced from coal, so is pretty old.

Unless there is other carbon based material in the fragment.


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 16, 2017)

DAI PHAN said:


> The fragment is a multi-layered soft metal that I do not think has the serial number. I do not want to pry it open. However I can remove a piece that can be sent in for analysis. With carbon dating the piece can be traced back. I am NOT doubting RC, I just want to know if the piece is not something that did not come from a toy truck. DP



How much are you wiiling to spend? There are analysis techniques for determining isotope ratios and elemental composition which may be able to give a minimum age and whether it's consonant with the age and origin. Faking relics is a very old business, probably dating back to Classical Greek or before.


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 17, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> How much are you wiiling to spend? There are analysis techniques for determining isotope ratios and elemental composition which may be able to give a minimum age and whether it's consonant with the age and origin. Faking relics is a very old business, probably dating back to Classical Greek or before.



Yes I am sure. I have 10 prints from well known aviation artists with their signatures, number of the print, the pilot signatures and documentation of the authenticity ( a certificate that states this print is real with actual signatures). But I see how easy it is to fake such a thing and pass them on for real. Since I already ordered another print from Ron, I will keep it at that. Dai

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 17, 2017)

parsifal said:


> Is this the same person that you purchased your memorabilia piece from?



I do not believe that is him, this Ron Cole's background is as an architect.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I've done business with him before and never had an issue with him so I feel he's honest. One thing to also keep in mind is whomever he is getting the "relics" from could be dishonest as well. It's a tough call but for me I am 2-1 when it comes to buying an authentic relic.


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 17, 2017)

vikingBerserker said:


> I do not believe that is him, this Ron Cole's background is as an architect.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I've done business with him before and never had an issue with him so I feel he's honest. One thing to also keep in mind is whomever he is getting the "relics" from could be dishonest as well. It's a tough call but for me I am 2-1 when it comes to buying an authentic relic.



You are right on that. Getting a print plus a rare relic for 150.00 bucks is much less than I expect. I would reckon it commands much higher price since it came from a very historical significant wreck. Dai


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 17, 2017)

The relic is very soft metal, easily bent laminated with many pieces together about 1.5 mm thick. It is painted green on one side. Can the aircraft skin be this soft? Dai


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 17, 2017)

vikingBerserker said:


> I do not believe that is him, this Ron Cole's background is as an architect.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I've done business with him before and never had an issue with him so I feel he's honest. One thing to also keep in mind is whomever he is getting the "relics" from could be dishonest as well. It's a tough call but for me I am 2-1 when it comes to buying an authentic relic.



You are 2-1 when come to buying relics so what happens to the 1? Dai


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 17, 2017)

A seller on eBay advertised an antenna mast for a Martin B-10 which I bought, but when I received it it was obviously too small. It turned out to actually be for a Boeing P-26 which I explained to the seller. I had to make a small but valid threat and he ended up taking the item back, and refunding what I paid, plus the return freight.

It fortunately had an aircraft number and a serial number on the part so it was easy to prove my case. A piece of twisted metal is different and unless the initial source of it is truly reputable, its a tough call.

I hope it is authentic as it would be a cool piece art/relic to have.


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 17, 2017)

vikingBerserker said:


> A seller on eBay advertised an antenna mast for a Martin B-10 which I bought, but when I received it it was obviously too small. It turned out to actually be for a Boeing P-26 which I explained to the seller. I had to make a small but valid threat and he ended up taking the item back, and refunding what I paid, plus the return freight.
> 
> It fortunately had an aircraft number and a serial number on the part so it was easy to prove my case. A piece of twisted metal is different and unless the initial source of it is truly reputable, its a tough call.
> 
> I hope it is authentic as it would be a cool piece art/relic to have.



Yes in deed. Yesterday I was touching the relic and an eerie feeling overcame me. If this IS the actual piece from Yamamoto plane, then I am holding a piece of wreckage that 7 people died in. It is like having a piece of coffin that a person was buried in. I assume this piece is original and if someone scammed me, he will have to answer to the Lord one way or another. Dai

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 17, 2017)

.... battlefield looting is as old as war ... including, sadly, the removal of gold teeth, but, that said, when the battle is long over and tempers have cooled, the trafficking in war relics of any kind just just .... creepy.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 17, 2017)

michaelmaltby said:


> .... battlefield looting is as old as war ... including, sadly, the removal of gold teeth, but, that said, when the battle is long over and tempers have cooled, the trafficking in war relics of any kind just just .... creepy.


Where a death is involved I believe any relics should be the property of relatives and museums.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 17, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Where a death is involved I believe any relics should be the property of relatives and museums.


There are many flying warbirds that were involved in fatal crashes.
In fact there are many aircraft flying today that have been involved in fatal accidents.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 17, 2017)

gumbyk said:


> There are many flying warbirds that were involved in fatal crashes.
> In fact there are many aircraft flying today that have been involved in fatal accidents.


Fair point but they are not bought and sold as relics. I once bought a car at auction in which a woman had been killed. when I contacted the "previous owner" with a question about it he was completely devastated that someone had put the write off back on the road, so maybe I see things a bit black and white.


----------



## rochie (Oct 17, 2017)

Aside from the relics some of his art work could be photo shopped versions of other peoples work or photographs.

There has been at least 3 threads on here with multiple accusations of plagiarism.


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 17, 2017)

michaelmaltby said:


> .... battlefield looting is as old as war ... including, sadly, the removal of gold teeth, but, that said, when the battle is long over and tempers have cooled, the trafficking in war relics of any kind just just .... creepy.


So is Indiana Jones a grave robber or a famous archeologist bringing relics to the museums to preserve its/their history? DP


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 17, 2017)

rochie said:


> Aside from the relics some of his art work could be photo shopped versions of other peoples work or photographs.
> 
> There has been at least 3 threads on here with multiple accusations of plagiarism.



Yes I see and that is why I am concerned about the authenticity of the Yamamoto relic. Dai


----------



## pbehn (Oct 17, 2017)

DAI PHAN said:


> So is Indiana Jones a grave robber or a famous archeologist bringing relics to the museums to preserve its/their history? DP


He is fictional character.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 17, 2017)

pbehn said:


> He is fictional character.



I know but if happens in real life then what side are you on? DP


----------



## rochie (Oct 17, 2017)

pbehn said:


> He is fictional character.


Noooooo say it is not so, i thought they were documentaries

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 17, 2017)

pbehn said:


> He is fictional character.



O.K. So, just replace "Indiana Jones" with "Howard Carter", or "The British Museum"...


----------



## pbehn (Oct 17, 2017)

DAI PHAN said:


> I know but if happens in real life then what side are you on? DP


In general I believe that much archaeology is grave robbing by the state. I have visited hundreds of historic sites including Stonehenge twice. I have never heard or read anything that increased my knowledge, they just speak vaguely abut "primitive religious ceremonies". Well a burial in UK is a religious ceremony and if I bury someone I would appreciate it if they remain buried. In my region there are hundreds if not thousands of Tumuli or burial mounds, all have been excavated and as far as I can see nothing really learned but the skeletons of those buried are kept in boxes and drawers in scientific institutes, until they lose interest and lose them or see them out with the rubbish. I have been to museums which have human skeletons on display and I consider it ghoulish. My uncle was custodian of a castle in Yorkshire. His job was to maintain and preserve it not to add to it or change it.

When it comes to the famous and especially the notorious it becomes a different matter.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 17, 2017)

gumbyk said:


> O.K. So, just replace "Indiana Jones" with "Howard Carter", or "The British Museum"...


I find everything to do with "Egyptology" to be grave robbing, especially the conclusions. The Egyptians beliefs and practices are no more or less weird than a UK state funeral, just different. As on my other post, it seems that people who have degrees in history and archaeology have the right to do to ancient graves what any normal civilian doesn't in normal life.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 17, 2017)

rochie said:


> Noooooo say it is not so, i thought they were documentaries


Rochie,....they lied, although there are an alarming number of people who watch such things and believe they are based on truth.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 17, 2017)

pbehn said:


> I find everything to do with "Egyptology" to be grave robbing, especially the conclusions. The Egyptians beliefs and practices are no more or less weird than a UK state funeral, just different. As on my other post, it seems that people who have degrees in history and archaeology have the right to do to ancient graves what any normal civilian doesn't in normal life.


I was thinking Greece when talking British Museum. There are now fairly strict controls over what archaeologists can and can't do. AFAIK each dig has to be approved by the country they are working in.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 17, 2017)

gumbyk said:


> I was thinking Greece when talking British Museum. There are now fairly strict controls over what archaeologists can and can't do. AFAIK each dig has to be approved by the country they are working in.


I worked in Greece with a young female engineer, she had spent two months in London just visiting museums (I am sure she had other more social activities too) She loved the place especially the British museum. The Elgin Marbles are actually in a poor state compared to how they were originally, that is because it was used as a storehouse for gunpowder which exploded. If those marbles weren't in the British Museum then they probably wouldn't be in the Acropolis either because the Nazis looted art and they would have loved them for some construction in Berlin. In this case the British Museum fulfilled a function, but perhaps it is time they went back, however I think if they did fewer peple would see them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 17, 2017)

DAI PHAN said:


> So is Indiana Jones a grave robber or a famous archeologist bringing relics to the museums to preserve its/their history? DP



Indiana Jones is a character in a movie, so...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 17, 2017)

pbehn said:


> I find everything to do with "Egyptology" to be grave robbing, especially the conclusions. The Egyptians beliefs and practices are no more or less weird than a UK state funeral, just different. As on my other post, it seems that people who have degrees in history and archaeology have the right to do to ancient graves what any normal civilian doesn't in normal life.



I agree to an extent, but I think at some point because of historical value it does belong in a museum. But I do see your point and understand it.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 17, 2017)

It is not valid to claim that valid archaeology amounts to grave robbing. All things in the world are owned by somebody, or some government. If a university or individual has the permission or authority to retrieve a given artefact then it is legitimate for them to do that. If a government legislates to either apply a blanket prohibition on the extraction or retrieval of certain items, such as what the German government has done with the retrieval or display of Nazi memorabilia, then such retrieval becomes a crime with another description but is still not grave robbing, .

For submerged war wrecks, there are international rules concerning retrieval of items from such wrecks, and the respect that needs to be paid to the dead that can be associated with those wrecks. It is generally a crime to remove items from a war grave without permission.

With regard to Ancient site, the law varies from country to country. In Australia, to be considered a grave site, you must be within a declared cemetery to be considered a grave site. It is not a grave site, if no-one has been buried there for more than 50 years (I think). Cemeteries older than this frequently are decommissioned (not the right term) the headstones removed and the land redeveloped. Frequently cemeteries that have some historical significance are protected by some form of heritage order. A few of the really old burial sites are designated archaeological site, which under the ICOMOS Burra International charter are protected by international convention. Same applies to most aboriginal burial sites.

One would think that Yammotos crash site would be protected by this charter. If so, the removal of wreck pieces for the purposes of souvenirs would seem to be running contrary to the intent of the abovementioned cultural heritage charter.

What makes it particularly irksome to me is that this souvenir hunting is often done without any certification or record keeping. The souvenirs are sold off with no benefit to the public awareness or appreciation. The items sit in some ones drawer somewhere, unloved, forgotten and not contributing in any way to the wider awareness of the event. So, no, I’m not in favour of this sort of souveniring but I would also say it is not grave robbing, unless the permissions processes have not been followed.


This is an interesting article on the plunder of WWII pcean floor wrecks in the Indonesian archipelago

Wartime shipwrecks are being illegally salvaged. Are we powerless to stop it?


----------



## parsifal (Oct 17, 2017)

In the United States laws about salvage and souvenirs are generally managed under the e *Abandoned Shipwreck Act* of 1987. Tthe United States government asserts ownership to all abandoned shipwrecks in state waters ( out to three miles on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, out to either three or nine miles in the Gulf of Mexico, and throughout the United States portion of the Great Lakes ) through the Abandoned Shipwreck Act. However, the Abandoned Shipwreck Act, which essentially eliminated both the law of finds and the law of salvage of abandoned shipwrecks in state waters, transferred title to all abandoned wrecks in state waters to the respective states, some of which have management policies that facilitate shipwreck exploration and identification, and permit artifact recovery (e.g., South Carolina).

The other important ownership issue to be considered involves those shipwrecks entitled to *sovereign immunity*. Sovereign shipwreck property encompasses warships and other vessels used for military purposes at the time of their sinking. This would include naval vessels of any nation, including German U-boats, Confederate States Naval warships, Colonial privateers, and Spanish galleons. Further, this includes both naval warships sunk by accident or belligerent action, such as the _U.S.S. Schurz_ or the _U.S.S. Jacob Jones_, as well as those disposed of in tests or sunk as an artificial reef, such as the U.S.S. Wilkes Barre.

President Clinton's Statement on United States Policy for the Protection of Sunken Warships (January 19, 2001) succinctly sums up the issue of sovereign immunity:

"Pursuant to the property clause of Article IV of the Constitution, the United States retains title indefinitely to its sunken State craft unless title has been abandoned or transferred in the manner Congress authorized or directed. The United States recognizes the rule of international law that title to foreign sunken State craft may be transferred or abandoned only in accordance with the law of the foreign flag state."

Since sunken U.S. Navy vessels are federal property, according to U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. 641), technically no portion of a government wreck may be disturbed or removed, and any *unauthorized removal of any property from a U.S. Navy wreck is illegal*. Ypu coul;d say such unauthorized removals constitute a form of grave robbing.

According to the principle of sovereign immunity, foreign warships sunk in United States' waters would be protected by the United States government, who would act as custodians of the sites in the best interest of the sovereign nation. Other countries generally acknowledge this principle as well. For example, the _C.S.S. Alabama_, as a Confederate States Navy warship, became the property of the United States following the end of the Civil War. While it was sunk off the coast of France, it is still recognized as United States property. Likewise, the _H.M.S. Fowey_, a fifth-rate British warship sunk of the coast of Florida, still remains the property of the United Kingdom. Yet, it should be pointed out that in some situations even foreign governments do not play by their own rules and respect the principle of sovereign immunity.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 17, 2017)

England has some provisions for the protection of aircraft crash sites

Military Aircraft Crash Sites | Historic England


----------



## parsifal (Oct 17, 2017)

so my advice about the fragment that was purchased is that morally it probably should probably have never been removed. legally I would say the wreck was probably unprotected, given its location.


----------



## stona (Oct 18, 2017)

Without boring everyone to death, I will just point out that radiocarbon dating only works on organic material that was once alive and either absorbing carbon, in carbon dioxide, from the atmosphere (as in a general sense, plants), or by eating said plants (as in a general sense, animals).

Cheers

Steve (I was a chemist!)


----------



## pbehn (Oct 18, 2017)

stona said:


> Without boring everyone to death, I will just point out that radiocarbon dating only works on organic material that was once alive and either absorbing carbon, in carbon dioxide, from the atmosphere (as in a general sense, plants), or by eating said plants (as in a general sense, animals).
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve (I was a chemist!)


Some things can be dated by a radioactive isotopes presence or not as being before or after Hiroshima Nagasaki and air tests of nuclear weapons.


----------



## MiTasol (Oct 18, 2017)

parsifal said:


> This is an interesting article on the plunder of WWII pcean floor wrecks in the Indonesian archipelago
> 
> Wartime shipwrecks are being illegally salvaged. Are we powerless to stop it?



The wreck of the HMAS Sydney was only found in March 2008 off Western Australia and already has suffered the same fate


----------



## pbehn (Oct 18, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree to an extent, but I think at some point because of historical value it does belong in a museum. But I do see your point and understand it.


I remember when the Tutankhamun exhibition came to London. An expert explained that the Egyptians hid his tomb, so they searched for it. They sealed it up and the seal was broken. Tutankhamun was placed in a gold sarcophagus and mummified to protect the body and so the sarcophagus was opened and the body unwrapped then examined with photos and the body on display. It was complete disrespect for a dead person like a public dissection. The excuse is to obtain knowledge but the expeditions cost a fortune to mount. If the Pharaohs were buried in wooden boxes surrounded by nothing of worth the expeditions wouldn't have been mounted because no treasure and fame would have resulted from it. 

Near my home there is the tomb of St Cuthbert, a Saint from early Christian England. His resting place has been changed vandalised robbed and changed many times since he died in 687. In 1104 a tiny gospel was removed and is now in the British library. The people who put it in were Christians and the people who took it out were Christians. Even in one of the holiest sites in UK being "laid to rest" only means being put aside until curiosity gets the better of us.

I understand things have historical value and interest but I don't understand a side of humanity that has to take and own things associated with the dead. When something is declared a war grave most respect it but some are even more determined to explore it with the Holy Grail being the ships bell.

There is a priory at Guisborough, near my home where the first and second Lords of Annandale are buried. They were both called Robert de Brus, the sixth Lord of Annandale became Robert de Brus the first of Scotland. No one knows where in Guiborough they are buried and no one really looks because it isn't worth it. I prefer for them to remain where they are at rest as they are supposed to be rather than dug up with anything of interest removed for display with the bones re buried as if they were unknown victims of a plague.
St Cuthbert's coffin features in new display at Durham Cathedral.


----------



## stona (Oct 18, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Some things can be dated by a radioactive isotopes presence or not as being before or after Hiroshima Nagasaki and air tests of nuclear weapons.



That may well be possible, I've no idea what particular isotopes they would look for, but that wouldn't be radiocarbon dating.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Oct 18, 2017)

stona said:


> That may well be possible, I've no idea what particular isotopes they would look for, but that wouldn't be radiocarbon dating.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


It is definitely possible but I don't know if it possible on metal.
Nuclear Weapons Tests and Environmental Consequences: A Global Perspective


----------



## mikewint (Oct 18, 2017)

I'm with Steve and we have similar backgrounds in this. C-14 dating is for biologic materials. The process of radiocarbon dating measures the ratio of C-14 (radioactive) to C-12. C-14 has a half life of 5,730 YEARS so even if this were a valid method in this case it would be like trying to measure the diameter of a hair with a yard (meter) stick. For the same reason metal isotope decays would also be to crude to measure something so recent in time. AND even IF you could date the fragment to this period it would prove nothing.

The best that could be done here is similar to (Old can of worms) the TIGHAR researches on Gardner (Nikumaroro) Island for Earhart's Electra. Many pieces of aluminum alloy have been found there and the metal can be analysed and its composition determined. That composition can then be compared to the various aluminum alloys used in aircraft construction at the time the Electra was built. If the compositions match, even if exactly, ALL you can say is that the piece COULD have come from the aircraft in question. Since more than one aircraft was made with that blend of metals.
Bottom line, unless you have a serial number....

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 18, 2017)

mikewint said:


> I'm with Steve and we have similar backgrounds in this. C-14 dating is for biologic materials. The process of radiocarbon dating measures the ratio of C-14 (radioactive) to C-12. C-14 has a half life of 5,730 YEARS so even if this were a valid method in this case it would be like trying to measure the diameter of a hair with a yard (meter) stick. For the same reason metal isotope decays would also be to crude to measure something so recent in time. AND even IF you could date the fragment to this period it would prove nothing.
> ....


I agree with both yourself and Steve, I was discussing radioactive contamination not radiocarbon dating.


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 18, 2017)

mikewint said:


> I'm with Steve and we have similar backgrounds in this. C-14 dating is for biologic materials. The process of radiocarbon dating measures the ratio of C-14 (radioactive) to C-12. C-14 has a half life of 5,730 YEARS so even if this were a valid method in this case it would be like trying to measure the diameter of a hair with a yard (meter) stick. For the same reason metal isotope decays would also be to crude to measure something so recent in time. AND even IF you could date the fragment to this period it would prove nothing.
> 
> The best that could be done here is similar to (Old can of worms) the TIGHAR researches on Gardner (Nikumaroro) Island for Earhart's Electra. Many pieces of aluminum alloy have been found there and the metal can be analysed and its composition determined. That composition can then be compared to the various aluminum alloys used in aircraft construction at the time the Electra was built. If the compositions match, even if exactly, ALL you can say is that the piece COULD have come from the aircraft in question. Since more than one aircraft was made with that blend of metals.
> Bottom line, unless you have a serial number....



I wonder how much this would cost? I want to find out. Dai


----------



## stona (Oct 18, 2017)

DAI PHAN said:


> I wonder how much this would cost? I want to find out. Dai



I assume you mean an analysis of the material. I have no idea how much that would cost, but it wouldn't prove anything decisively anyway. 

The best result would show that it was material used in the construction of Japanese aircraft during the relevant period. It won't prove that the artefact is what it is purporting to be. There must be tons of that stuff littered around the Pacific.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 18, 2017)

stona said:


> I assume you mean an analysis of the material. I have no idea how much that would cost, but it wouldn't prove anything decisively anyway.
> 
> The best result would show that it was material used in the construction of Japanese aircraft during the relevant period. It won't prove that the artefact is what it is purporting to be. There must be tons of that stuff littered around the Pacific.
> 
> ...


The tests are actually cheap to run, that doesn't mean that they are cheap because the equipment costs a fortune. The big problem is finding someone with the expertise to make the judgement, in practice you will get a lot of provisos and caveats that amount to a very big "It could be but then again it may not be"


----------



## mikewint (Oct 18, 2017)

That I cannot answer. BUT for just $19,500 you can pick up your own Xsort Alloy XRF Analyser on Ebay:

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Oct 18, 2017)

i hope that they throw in complementary steak knives at that price


----------



## mikewint (Oct 18, 2017)

This wreck is located in the jungle near Moila Point, a few kilometers off the Panguna-Buin road near Aku. A path has been cut through the jungle to the site and requires an hour walk from the main road. Today, the wreck is closely guarded from theft or removal of any souvenirs.
Since the 1960s, Japanese delegations have visited the crash site, and erected a memorial plaque on the admiral's seat, and often leave memorial sticks at the site.
The fuselage door, a section of the outer wing and Yamamoto's seat were recovered from the crash site during the 1970s. Other smaller relics were also salvaged, including one of the control columns, and the aircraft's manufacture number stencil were in the possession of RAAF 183rd Reconnaissance Flight, Pacific Island Regiment, based at Lae during the 1970s (the fate of these items today is unknown).
The fuselage door, outer wing panel and seat were donated and were displayed at The Air Museum of Papua New Guinea until it closed in the late 1970s and were transferred to the PNG Museum. In the 1990s, the outer wing panel and seat were placed on permanent loan to the Isoroku Yamamoto Memorial Hall & Museum.

Richard Rudd recalls visiting the site in October 1968:
"While on an aerial mapping project, based out of Buin in October.1968 and the 'kiaps' at the time, (Australians), whilst imbibing and in conversation at the Buin Club, mentioned that a couple of weeks prior to our arrival, they had escorted a group of Japanese, complete with maps and WWII drawings to try and relocate the crash site. Which they did. We asked if it would be possible to be guided there again and when their time permitted, we drove up the coast/ inland track, getting permissions from various villages, until we quit the road and hiked off into the jungle for an hour or so. First sight was a wing, with Hinomaru leaning against a forest tree, a flap? and then the bulk of the rear fuselage and engines. Much forward was all crushed and burnt and the Admirals seat by the rear door. In the jungle quiet, it was a sad scene to contemplate. Author Terry Gynne-Jones did a comprehensive article, with excellent color pictures in GEO magazine in the late 1970s"




Japanese ambassador to PNG HE Hiroharu Iwasaki with Deputy Director of National Planning

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 18, 2017)

mikewint said:


> This wreck is located in the jungle near Moila Point, a few kilometers off the Panguna-Buin road near Aku. A path has been cut through the jungle to the site and requires an hour walk from the main road. Today, the wreck is closely guarded from theft or removal of any souvenirs.
> Since the 1960s, Japanese delegations have visited the crash site, and erected a memorial plaque on the admiral's seat, and often leave memorial sticks at the site.
> The fuselage door, a section of the outer wing and Yamamoto's seat were recovered from the crash site during the 1970s. Other smaller relics were also salvaged, including one of the control columns, and the aircraft's manufacture number stencil were in the possession of RAAF 183rd Reconnaissance Flight, Pacific Island Regiment, based at Lae during the 1970s (the fate of these items today is unknown).
> The fuselage door, outer wing panel and seat were donated and were displayed at The Air Museum of Papua New Guinea until it closed in the late 1970s and were transferred to the PNG Museum. In the 1990s, the outer wing panel and seat were placed on permanent loan to the Isoroku Yamamoto Memorial Hall & Museum.
> ...



I am surprised that I have the ownership of the relic if indeed real. Dai


----------



## mikewint (Oct 18, 2017)

Unfortunately without a serial number or a documented "Chain of Custody" there is no way to say for certain. A metallurgical analysis could tell you IF the alloy content matches the alloys used at the time by the Japanese BUT that still does not prove it is actually from Yamamoto's Betty.
Just as an aside: you can also buy pieces of the "True Cross" on Ebay AND various relics of various Saints (Human remains not allowed by Ebay)
Advice as old as time: Caveat Emptor


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 18, 2017)

mikewint said:


> Unfortunately without a serial number or a documented "Chain of Custody" there is no way to say for certain. A metallurgical analysis could tell you IF the alloy content matches the alloys used at the time by the Japanese BUT that still does not prove it is actually from Yamamoto's Betty.
> Just as an aside: you can also buy pieces of the "True Cross" on Ebay AND various relics of various Saints (Human remains not allowed by Ebay)
> Advice as old as time: Caveat Emptor
> View attachment 469268



I think if a dealer/seller is selling such important artifacts he/she would have secured some proof that it actually is the real thing don't you think? DP


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 18, 2017)

mikewint said:


> This wreck is located in the jungle near Moila Point, a few kilometers off the Panguna-Buin road near Aku. A path has been cut through the jungle to the site and requires an hour walk from the main road. Today, the wreck is closely guarded from theft or removal of any souvenirs.
> Since the 1960s, Japanese delegations have visited the crash site, and erected a memorial plaque on the admiral's seat, and often leave memorial sticks at the site.
> The fuselage door, a section of the outer wing and Yamamoto's seat were recovered from the crash site during the 1970s. Other smaller relics were also salvaged, including one of the control columns, and the aircraft's manufacture number stencil were in the possession of RAAF 183rd Reconnaissance Flight, Pacific Island Regiment, based at Lae during the 1970s (the fate of these items today is unknown).
> The fuselage door, outer wing panel and seat were donated and were displayed at The Air Museum of Papua New Guinea until it closed in the late 1970s and were transferred to the PNG Museum. In the 1990s, the outer wing panel and seat were placed on permanent loan to the Isoroku Yamamoto Memorial Hall & Museum.
> ...



So he sat in the rear of the airplane? I always thought he sat behind the pilots? DP


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 18, 2017)

You're taking your life into your hands if you try to even visit crash sites in PNG now. Yamamoto's plane may be different, but I'm fairly sure you'd have to get permission from everyone you came across. Even then there's no guarantee that you won't come across someone who doesn't want you there and takes matters into his own hands.
Visiting other sites (even with government permission) is nearly impossible. I have friends who spent a few nights in PNG jail because they wanted to just visit sites and film. They had permission from one government department, but were told they didn't need any more permissions. Guess the advice they got was wrong, and they didn't pay the right bribes.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Oct 18, 2017)

I can't site a source but my impression is that he was seated in the rear of the aircraft. At the nearest Japanese Army post at Aku, Lt. Hamasuna observed smoke from the crash. At first, he believed it was an American airplane crash and he led a group of twelve to the crash site, and was the first to arrive the following day. Next, a Japanese Navy patrol was sent to the site to recover the Admiral's body. When they arrived, they found Yamamoto's sword and Admiral rank insignia (shoulder bars) missing. They have never been located to this day.
After the crash, a Japanese Navy patrol that recovered Yamamoto's body and transported his remains to the 1st Base Command at Buin, where an autopsy was preformed on April 20, 1943. Many published accounts state Yamamoto died in his seat. Yamamoto had been thrown clear of the plane's wreckage, his white-gloved hand grasping the hilt of his katana sword, his body still upright in his seat under a tree. Hamasuna said Yamamoto was instantly recognizable, his head tilted down as if deep in thought. A post-mortem of Yamamoto's body indicated two bullet wounds, one to the back of his left shoulder, and a separate bullet wound to his left lower jaw, that appeared to exit above his right eye. The Japanese navy doctor examining Yamamoto's body determined the head wound killed Yamamoto. (These more violent details of Yamamoto's death were hidden from the Japanese public.
Afterwards, Yamamoto's body wearing his uniform was cremated and some of his remains were buried at Buin. Part of his ashes were flown aboard a G4M1 Betty from Buin Airfield (Kahili) to Rabaul and Truk where his ashes were transferred to Battleship Musashi and transported to Tokyo arriving on May 3, 1943 when news of Yamamoto's death was officially reported to the Japanese press as "having died in combat aboard an aircraft". On June 5, Yamamoto received a state funeral in Tokyo. His remains were buried at Tama Cemetery, and a portion given to his wife and buried at his family shrine in Nagaoka.


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 18, 2017)

mikewint said:


> When they arrived, they found Yamamoto's sword and Admiral rank insignia (shoulder bars) missing. They have never been located to this day.
> 
> Yamamoto had been thrown clear of the plane's wreckage, his white-gloved hand grasping the hilt of his katana sword, his body still upright in his seat under a tree.



There seems to be a contradiction here - did he have his sword or not?

I'm not surprised that he removed his rank insignia if he had the opportunity - I can't imagine that the locals would treat him too well, and ritual cannibalism was still routinely practiced. As for his katana, that may have given him away as high-ranking as well, so may have been similarly disposed of.


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 18, 2017)

gumbyk said:


> There seems to be a contradiction here - did he have his sword or not?
> 
> I'm not surprised that he removed his rank insignia if he had the opportunity - I can't imagine that the locals would treat him too well, and ritual cannibalism was still routinely practiced. As for his katana, that may have given him away as high-ranking as well, so may have been similarly disposed of.



This is from Ron Cole website on how he got the relics. Thoughts please. DP

Aviation Art of Ron Cole & Cole's Aircraft: Yamamoto's Aircraft Wreck: History, Art, and Relics by Ron Cole


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 18, 2017)

I have read somewhere that there was NO wounds on his body at all. It was concluded by the pathologist that he died of internal and shock injuries. According the Mr. Cole's article he said the near death co pilot placed the Admiral body in an upright position before he died. But the people who visited wreck said the entire from half of the plane was burned and crushed. Interesting. DP


----------



## pbehn (Oct 18, 2017)

DAI PHAN said:


> This is from Ron Cole website on how he got the relics. Thoughts please. DP
> 
> Aviation Art of Ron Cole & Cole's Aircraft: Yamamoto's Aircraft Wreck: History, Art, and Relics by Ron Cole


With all works of art the question is do you like the picture yourself. Without the piece of metal would you be happy at the price and proud to hang it on the wall. Do you consider the metal increases the pictures value or that the painting increases the metals value. For my money I believe you can buy an original painting or sketch for the same price with absolute certainty of provenance done by Winston Churchill who was a prolific artist but not of course notorious.
Winston Churchill's paintings auctioned from Essex collection


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 18, 2017)

gumbyk said:


> There seems to be a contradiction here - did he have his sword or not?
> 
> I'm not surprised that he removed his rank insignia if he had the opportunity - I can't imagine that the locals would treat him too well, and ritual cannibalism was still routinely practiced. As for his katana, that may have given him away as high-ranking as well, so may have been similarly disposed of.



I read on wiki that the other admiral who survived the Yamamoto ambush in the second Betty that crashed in the water later rode in a three seater on the final kamikaze mission. His plane was shot down in the final dive. He removed his rank insignia before the final mission and was documented in the final photograph before taking off. Dai


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 18, 2017)

pbehn said:


> With all works of art the question is do you like the picture yourself. Without the piece of metal would you be happy at the price and proud to hang it on the wall. Do you consider the metal increases the pictures value or that the painting increases the metals value. For my money I believe you can buy an original painting or sketch for the same price with absolute certainty of provenance done by Winston Churchill who was a prolific artist but not of course notorious.
> Winston Churchill's paintings auctioned from Essex collection


I want to have a piece of history so I can respect its history. Not for profit later at all. Dai


----------



## pbehn (Oct 18, 2017)

DAI PHAN said:


> I want to have a piece of history so I can respect its history. Not for profit later at all. Dai


The piece of history is just a piece of metal, the picture and the accompanying "blurb" add false authenticity to a piece of metal in my opinion.


----------



## rochie (Oct 18, 2017)

Picture looks no better than a screen grab from Il-2 if i am being honest, i am no fan of this "artist" i will admit

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Oct 18, 2017)

I heard/read all of those. As I read it there were two Japanese parties. An initial rescue party and a recovery party. The initial party found him as posted still in his seat under a tree. When the second party arrived to recover the body the sword and insignia were missing.
As to the wounds or not I've read read three, no wounds except a cut over his eye, one bullet wound through his chair and into his chest, and the two wounds chest and head. Since these were .50 cal the wounds would have been massive. The initial report from the Japanese doctor was censored to preserve Yamamoto's image.
The US initially tried its best to hush up the entire mission afraid that the Japanese would realize that their Naval code had been broken. Through pilot "gossip" the story finally leaked


----------



## pbehn (Oct 18, 2017)

rochie said:


> Picture looks no better than a screen grab from Il-2 if i am being honest, i am no fan of this "artist" i will admit


If you have a genuine WW2 "Betty" then by accompanying each small piece of it with a picture and charging $100,000 would make it among the most valuable planes in the world.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 18, 2017)

mikewint said:


> Through pilot "gossip" the story finally leaked



Did it leak before the end of the war?


----------



## pbehn (Oct 18, 2017)

rochie said:


> Picture looks no better than a screen grab from Il-2 if i am being honest, i am no fan of this "artist" i will admit


If you have a genuine WW2 "Betty" then by accompanying each small piece of it with a picture and charging $100,000 would make it among the most valuable planes in the world.


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 18, 2017)

mikewint said:


> .
> The US initially tried its best to hush up the entire mission afraid that the Japanese would realize that their Naval code had been broken. Through pilot "gossip" the story finally leaked



A good example of "military intelligence ". 
It like we thought the Japanese didn't know who was shot down, or who shot them down, and they're supposed to think this was just some random encounter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 18, 2017)

gumbyk said:


> There seems to be a contradiction here - did he have his sword or not?



All the reports I have read state that the sword was still on him.


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 18, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Where a death is involved I believe any relics should be the property of relatives and museums.



That's never been the case, especially in a case of government property: Yamamoto's heirs have no rights to the pieces of the IJN's airplane. Neither, one could argue, does somebody looting a crash site.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 18, 2017)

rochie said:


> Picture looks no better than a screen grab from Il-2 if i am being honest, i am no fan of this "artist" i will admit



Same here. I have never been a fan of it. 

I am not saying his work is not any good, just that it is not my style of "art".


----------



## parsifal (Oct 18, 2017)

gumbyk said:


> You're taking your life into your hands if you try to even visit crash sites in PNG now. Yamamoto's plane may be different, but I'm fairly sure you'd have to get permission from everyone you came across. Even then there's no guarantee that you won't come across someone who doesn't want you there and takes matters into his own hands.
> Visiting other sites (even with government permission) is nearly impossible. I have friends who spent a few nights in PNG jail because they wanted to just visit sites and film. They had permission from one government department, but were told they didn't need any more permissions. Guess the advice they got was wrong, and they didn't pay the right bribes.




I generally agree, however its not as wild as it may seem, although bougainville in particular is a hotbed of simmering land ownership disputes. just for the record, Bougainville is not part of PNG. it is a separate state, quite independent of the Port Moresby administration

The issue fuelling the problem is land ownership. it is quite reasonable for landowners to want admission fees paid for access onto their land. the problem is that land ownership in the Solomons is not defined by survey or government record. its governed by tribal ownership, passed down by word of mouth, often on the basis of handshake deals. If money is likely to be derived from ownership, in an impoverished, uneducated society like the Solomons, its not hard to work out what is likely to happen.

but it is possible to view these sites in relative safety, you just need the permissions. that's best arranged via the organized tour parties

Nocookies


----------



## stona (Oct 19, 2017)

DAI PHAN said:


> I think if a dealer/seller is selling such important artifacts he/she would have secured some proof that it actually is the real thing don't you think? DP



You can't assume that. Provenance is everything for this sort of artefact, as it is for any antique or artwork. If the seller had such provenance you never asked for the proof of it and now you don't have it.

You asked for honest opinions. Mine is that you have a piece of metal that may be from a Japanese aircraft, may be from Yamamoto's aircraft, but you can't prove it. It's just a piece of metal, worth the same as a piece from any scrapyard without that provenance.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 19, 2017)

stona said:


> You can't assume that. Provenance is everything for this sort of artefact, as it is for any antique or artwork. If the seller had such provenance you never asked for the proof of it and now you don't have it.
> 
> You asked for honest opinions. Mine is that you have a piece of metal that may be from a Japanese aircraft, may be from Yamamoto's aircraft, but you can't prove it. It's just a piece of metal, worth the same as a piece from any scrapyard without that provenance.
> 
> ...


He also has a picture Steve.


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 19, 2017)

DAI PHAN said:


> I think if a dealer/seller is selling such important artifacts he/she would have secured some proof that it actually is the real thing don't you think? DP



One would, wouldn’t one? Sales of fraudulent relics is a very lively business. Caveat emptor, in spades.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Oct 19, 2017)

swampyankee said:


> One would, wouldn’t one? Sales of fraudulent relics is a very lively business. Caveat emptor, in spades.


The Hitler diaries got as far as being serialised in the newspapers before being exposed as a fraud.


----------



## Barrett (Oct 19, 2017)

In the 1980s the Yamamoto crash site was the tentative goal of a group of US aces engaged in a bitter controversy over who did the deed. Tom Lanphier said he shot off the right wing in a 90-degree deflection shot. Rex Barber fired from astern. Plans were laid to visit the site and resolve the dispute, but by then the site was inaccessible due to a local conflict. (IIRC some Australian miners/etc had been attacked by locals.) One of the aces had been an AF accident investigator who was willing to go along. However, eyewitness and photo evidence prior to then clearly showed the bullet holes from astern--lengthwise rather than circular. Also, the wings had been on the airframe when it hit the trees. (That's separate from the near impossibility of severing a spar from the wingtip end.)


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 19, 2017)

Barrett said:


> In the 1980s the Yamamoto crash site was the tentative goal of a group of US aces engaged in a bitter controversy over who did the deed. Tom Lanphier said he shot off the right wing in a 90-degree deflection shot. Rex Barber fired from astern. Plans were laid to visit the site and resolve the dispute, but by then the site was inaccessible due to a local conflict. (IIRC some Australian miners/etc had been attacked by locals.) One of the aces had been an AF accident investigator who was willing to go along. However, eyewitness and photo evidence prior to then clearly showed the bullet holes from astern--lengthwise rather than circular. Also, the wings had been on the airframe when it hit the trees. (That's separate from the near impossibility of severing a spar from the wingtip end.)


Rex Barber was given the official person who shot down the plane. DP


----------



## mikewint (Oct 19, 2017)

pbehn said:


> Did it leak before the end of the war?


At this point in time Yamamoto was the most hated man in the US, the Osama bin Laden of his time. The Japanese Navy, relied on coded radio transmissions to send many of its most secret messages. American cryptanalysts had broken the latest version of the JN-25 code just in time for the Battle of Midway in June 1942. In early April 1943, Yamamoto planned a one-day inspection trip from Rabaul to bases around the southern tip of Bougainville. In preparation, his staff sent the itinerary to local commanders. Although the staff wanted Yamamoto’s schedule hand-delivered to Bougainville, Japan’s Eighth Fleet naval headquarters was so confident in the security of the JN-25 code that it sent the message by radio.
The decoded itinerary not only included the date and precise times for Yamamoto’s upcoming visits to the bases on Bougainville, but also revealed that he would be flying in a twin-engine bomber escorted by only six fighter planes.

Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, conferred with Commander Edwin T. Layton, his chief intelligence officer. No Marine or Navy fighter aircraft had the range to intercept Yamamoto’s flight and a carrier could not get close enough without being detected therefore the only option was P-38 Lightning fighters based on Guadalcanal.
Nimitz knew that if the Japanese thought Yamamoto had been ambushed, they would suspect their code had been broken and change it. He decided the risk was worth it, because the Japanese had no one of comparable stature to replace Yamamoto. To be safe, he and Layton concocted a cover story: that Australian coastwatchers hiding in the jungles of Rabaul had tipped them off.

Nimitz ordered Admiral William F. Halsey, commanding the area of operations that included Guadalcanal, to get Yamamoto. Like Nimitz, Halsey was concerned the mission would endanger their code-breaking secrets. Nimitz said he would assume responsibility for the risk. Halsey’s headquarters transmitted the order: “Talleyho. Let’s get the bastard.”

On April 18 at 7:10 a.m., 18 P-38s took off from the Fighter II airstrip on Guadalcanal. Each twin-boom fighter was fitted with external fuel tanks to extend its range to over 1,000 miles. A flat tire on takeoff and a mechanical failure reduced the flight to 16 planes.
Shortly before 10 a.m. near Empress Augusta Bay on Bougainville, the American pilots spotted two Japanese G4M Betty bombers and their escorting A6M Zero fighters. The P-38s quickly downed both bombers one into the jungle and the second into the sea.

At every stage, planners had stressed the need for secrecy. But even before the P-38s had landed, security was compromised. As the returning planes neared Guadalcanal, Lanphier radioed to the control tower: “That son of a bitch will not be dictating any peace terms in the White House.” Lanphier’s announcement was shocking to others on the mission. Air-to-ground messages were broadcast in the clear, and the Japanese monitored American aviation frequencies. Lanphier’s message left little to the imagination. Bystanders on Guadalcanal, including a young navy officer named John F. Kennedy, watched as Lanphier executed a victory roll over the field before landing. “I got him!” Lanphier announced to the crowd after climbing out of his cockpit. “I got that son of a bitch. I got Yamamoto.”

Halsey and Nimitz heard of the success from a secure message. He passed along his congratulations to the “hunters,” saying it sounded as though “one of the ducks in their bag was a peacock.” Meanwhile, U.S. officials were trying to make it appear as if the attack on Yamamoto had been sheer happenstance. Over the next few weeks, they repeatedly sent P-38s to Balalae to give the impression that the long journey was a regular mission for American fighter patrols. Additionally, American officials made no public statements to suggest they knew that Yamamoto had been killed. Despite their best-laid plans, officials had forgotten to factor in human nature: people talk.

The secret spread quickly on Guadalcanal. Servicemen openly discussed the mission’s details, which soon became common knowledge on the island. With men arriving and leaving every day, the truth was impossible to contain. Eventually, the story spread so widely that it became the subject of cocktail party gossip in Washington.
Chatty pilots became the most serious threat to the code-breaking secret. After the successful mission, the two fliers credited with downing Yamamoto—Lanphier and Barber—enjoyed 10 days of leave in New Zealand. The two were golfing with Brigadier General Dean Strother when an Associated Press correspondent, J. Norman Lodge, approached them. The reporter seemed to know a lot about the Yamamoto mission and, using an old reporter’s trick, asked the pilots to just clarify some details. Amazingly, Lanphier and Barber talked candidly and freely about the mission. On May 11, 1943, Lodge filed his story with the censors for transmission back home. Although he did not mention the breaking of Japanese codes, he wrote that American “intelligence had trailed Yamamoto for five days” and that American pilots had specifically targeted him. The story included Lanphier’s description of the mission and quoted Strother as saying that the U.S. military had known Yamamoto’s itinerary.

If Lodge’s story had seen the light of day, the JN-25 code might have quickly become a thing of the past. Not only did his story show that the United States knew of Yamamoto’s death, which Japan had not announced, but also that the Americans had known Yamamoto’s location. No Australian coastwatcher would have known his precise schedule; a compromised JN-25 code was the only explanation.
The censors could not believe what they read. They quickly passed the story up the chain of command. Nimitz immediately ordered Halsey to “secure and seal in safe” Lodge’s notes and story. He told Halsey to “initiate immediate corrective measures and take disciplinary action as warranted.”

Lanphier, Barber, and Strother returned from leave to find a summons to meet Halsey on his flagship. When they arrived, an irate Halsey refused to return their salutes and simply stared at them. When he finally erupted, As Barger later recounted: he started in on a tirade of profanity the like of which I had never heard before. He accused us of everything he could think of from being traitors to our country to being so stupid that we had no right to wear the American uniform. He said we were horrible examples of pilots of the Army Air Force, that we should be court-martialed, reduced to privates, and jailed for talking to Lodge about the Yamamoto mission.

Halsey eventually reduced their Medal of Honor recommendations to the second-highest valor award, Navy Crosses.

On May 21, 1943, just over a month after the mission, Japan announced that Yamamoto had met a “gallant death on a war plane” while “engaged in combat with the enemy.” It was front-page news in the United States.

American officials kept up their façade about not knowing what had happened. The U.S. Office of War Information told reporters it thought Yamamoto had been killed in a passenger plane crash between Bangkok and Singapore on April 7, 1943. Other news accounts claimed he might have taken his own life because of recent Japanese setbacks.
Then, two magazine articles poked holes in the American cover story.
The May 31, 1943, issue of Time magazine included a story on Yamamoto’s death. It ended with: “When the name of the man who killed Admiral Yamamoto is released, the U.S. will have a new hero.” That was incompatible with an accidental plane crash or suicide. In that same issue, another story described a mission in the South Pacific that mirrored Operation Vengeance. Although the story did not explicitly name Yamamoto, it described Lanphier shooting down a bomber and, on the way home, wondering if he “had nailed some Jap bigwig.” The implication was clear: the United States knew its fliers killed Yamamoto.

Loose talk about the mission continued and was so prevalent that General Marshall wanted to make an example of any officer caught talking about it.

The story behind Operation Vengeance became public less than two weeks after Japan’s formal surrender. “Yamamoto Death In Air Ambush Result of Breaking Foe’s Code,” blared a headline in the New York Times on September 10, 1945. The story, written by an Associated Press reporter, credited fellow reporter Lodge as the source for stating that Yamamoto had “met flaming death…because this country broke a Japanese code.” American fliers, the Associated Press reported, “knew in advance the course his aerial convoy was to follow and ambushed him.” Two years after he initially filed his story with the censors, Lodge finally had his scoop.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Oct 19, 2017)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> All the reports I have read state that the sword was still on him.



Joe, I have another source which states:
Amada Sadayoshi's (maker of the sword) son has explained that the Admiral was hit by bullets. Three hit the sword made by his father...2 on the saya and 1 on the tsuka. The sword was returned to the Navy Headquarters in Tokyo and kept in a safe. The funeral procession carried his Gensui sword presented to him by the Emperor (not Amada's sword). Late in the war the Navy building received a direct hit from a bomb and the safe and the Sadayoshi sword was totally destroyed.


----------



## pbehn (Oct 19, 2017)

mikewint said:


> At this point in time Yamamoto was the most hated man in the US, the Osama bin Laden of his time. The Japanese Navy, relied on coded radio transmissions to send many of its most secret messages. American cryptanalysts had broken the latest version of the JN-25 code just in time for the Battle of Midway in June 1942. In early April 1943, Yamamoto planned a one-day inspection trip from Rabaul to bases around the southern tip of Bougainville. In preparation, his staff sent the itinerary to local commanders. Although the staff wanted Yamamoto’s schedule hand-delivered to Bougainville, Japan’s Eighth Fleet naval headquarters was so confident in the security of the JN-25 code that it sent the message by radio.
> The decoded itinerary not only included the date and precise times for Yamamoto’s upcoming visits to the bases on Bougainville, but also revealed that he would be flying in a twin-engine bomber escorted by only six fighter planes.
> 
> Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, conferred with Commander Edwin T. Layton, his chief intelligence officer. No Marine or Navy fighter aircraft had the range to intercept Yamamoto’s flight and a carrier could not get close enough without being detected therefore the only option was P-38 Lightning fighters based on Guadalcanal.
> ...



Great post Mike. I seem to remember there was some sort of cover story about locals or spies advising on Yamamotos movements to explain the interception.


----------



## mikewint (Oct 19, 2017)

mikewint said:


> To be safe, he and Layton concocted a cover story: that Australian coastwatchers hiding in the jungles of Rabaul had tipped them off.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## gumbyk (Oct 19, 2017)

parsifal said:


> I generally agree, however its not as wild as it may seem, although bougainville in particular is a hotbed of simmering land ownership disputes. just for the record, Bougainville is not part of PNG. it is a separate state, quite independent of the Port Moresby administration
> 
> The issue fuelling the problem is land ownership. it is quite reasonable for landowners to want admission fees paid for access onto their land. the problem is that land ownership in the Solomons is not defined by survey or government record. its governed by tribal ownership, passed down by word of mouth, often on the basis of handshake deals. If money is likely to be derived from ownership, in an impoverished, uneducated society like the Solomons, its not hard to work out what is likely to happen.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I know PNG, Bougainville, and the Solomons are different countries, and I also understand the reasons for Bougainville being that hotbed of resentment (mainly towards Australia). My comments were specific to PNG, and based on personal experience, both mine and people I know.
It doesn't matter what permission you have in PNG, someone can change their mind on a whim and you're screwed.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 19, 2017)

I believe the wreckage should be ferried back to the States and have its place in a museum where people can appreciate its history. Leaving to rot in the jungle is a disservice to its legacy. Am I the owner of a piece of the highly valuable and historical significant wreck in our modern time history ??? Dai


----------



## rochie (Oct 19, 2017)

DAI PHAN said:


> I believe the wreckage should be ferried back to the States and have its place in a museum where people can appreciate its history. Leaving to rot in the jungle is a disservice to its legacy. Am I the owner of a piece of the highly valuable and historical significant wreck in our modern time history ??? Dai


Why America ?
If it was to be moved, why not back to Japan ?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Oct 19, 2017)

Dai, I don't mean to "Harsh your mellow" and/or "rain on your parade" BUT... As I and others have posted UNLESS you have a serial number and/or an independently verified chain of custody document by a recognized authority you can believe what you want but it has no standing. If you have your piece analyzed by a reputable firm AND the paint and metal are consistent with KNOWN Japanese usage at the time (Yamamoto's Betty was brand new) ALL you can say is that what you have could POSSIBLY be from the aircraft.
Ron Cole's "say so" is insufficient, as is the "say so" of the excavators. Even if I had pictures of myself at the crash site holding a piece of metal does not mean that the piece I send you came from that source.
One has only to look at the trade in religious relics. The number of pieces of the "True Cross" could make a small forest.
So in short: The check is in the mail...Of course I'll respect you in the morning...This hurts me more than it hurts you....I'm from the government and I'm here to help you...I can quit any time....I love the gift...Of course I'll warn you before...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DAI PHAN (Oct 20, 2017)

mikewint said:


> Dai, I don't mean to "Harsh your mellow" and/or "rain on your parade" BUT... As I and others have posted UNLESS you have a serial number and/or an independently verified chain of custody document by a recognized authority you can believe what you want but it has no standing. If you have your piece analyzed by a reputable firm AND the paint and metal are consistent with KNOWN Japanese usage at the time (Yamamoto's Betty was brand new) ALL you can say is that what you have could POSSIBLY be from the aircraft.
> Ron Cole's "say so" is insufficient, as is the "say so" of the excavators. Even if I had pictures of myself at the crash site holding a piece of metal does not mean that the piece I send you came from that source.
> One has only to look at the trade in religious relics. The number of pieces of the "True Cross" could make a small forest.
> So in short: The check is in the mail...Of course I'll respect you in the morning...This hurts me more than it hurts you....I'm from the government and I'm here to help you...I can quit any time....I love the gift...Of course I'll warn you before...



Fully agreed. DP


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 22, 2017)

pbehn said:


> The Hitler diaries got as far as being serialised in the newspapers before being exposed as a fraud.



I wouldn't be surprised if some people still think they were genuine.


----------

