View Single Post
Old 07-23-2017, 01:58 AM
Tom_in_CA's Avatar
Tom_in_CA Tom_in_CA is offline
Elite Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 8,175

Originally Posted by davidlhyde63366 View post
It has well documented that the Japanese troops looted evey country they invaded cleaning out goverment treasuries, banks ,national treasures any thing of value they could get there hands on. ....
And such has been the sad history of mankind in ALL the past wars. Looting and sacking of each other's countries has gone on. And sure, sometimes those goodies are found 100s, or 1000's of years later. But to jump from that factoid, to somehow saying "there's a treasure in every cave", is a leap of logic.

Originally Posted by davidlhyde63366 View post
..... The Philippines was a staging place for the Japanes to consolidate all the treasures to send them back to Japan for the war effort. .... .
This is up for dispute. It is an assumption that is only conjecture. And is, in fact, counter-intuitive. I mean, think about it: JAPAN was the conqueror in this case. The Philippines was only one of their conquered zones. And would have required shipping to this location. Why oh why oh why would they simply not have taken the looted goodies back to their own HOME country ?

Like if you got goodies and had a treasure, don't you take it back to YOUR OWN headquarters ? Rather than squirreling it away at someone else's remote location This has been the bone of contention by those scholars who have challenged this whole notion. I'm sure the "Yamashita faithful" will come up with all sorts of colorful conspiracy theories of how "anything's possible". But just saying that when you ask yourself if there's a "more plausible explanation", you begin to see that the freighting of those plunders to some off-shore colony (as opposed to their own coffers and home-base) it starts to make little sense.

Originally Posted by davidlhyde63366 View post
.... I also wouldn't put a lot of stock in Wikipedia since they have a disclaimer saying Wikipedia makes no gurantee of validity,and is a open content collaborative encylopedia .
But I'll bet if portions of the material were supporting the alleged treasure, you would certainly subscribe to those portions of the article. Right ? Hence it's just a matter of picking and choosing.

I challenge you to read the portion of the article on the skeptic's view. And FORGET THAT IT'S "WIKI". Instead: Go to the footnotes of the VERY AUTHORS that they are citing for those statements. To get the source material in the bibliography that those statements are coming from. Because it's not "wiki" saying those things. It's drawn from the balanced comments from each side's proponents. And wiki is nothing more than an encyclopedia, where they are simply reporting what the different viewpoints are saying. The footnote sources are right there David.
Reply With Quote

1 members found this post helpful.