>>Too bad they didn't make an historically accurate version. That could have been interesting. ;}
>
>Curtis;
>
>I have found that if you take ten historians from different countries writing about a specific action, you will get ten different accounts. They might agree on the name of the battle and dates (maybe) but little else.
>
>What you could do is take actions from military logbooks and have an outline of what happened and when, on an event such as Pearl Harbor. But that is not "history", rather it is what was recorded as an official record. That is closer to reality than anyone could ever write.
>
>The majority of Pearl Harbor veterans that saw the movie and were interviewed afterward agreed it was very real. But, there were some who did not agree. Even the participants could not agree, so what do we know!
>
>
>Tom

That's for sure... Reminds me of the psychology experiments where a group of people see what they think is an actual event, and then are asked later to decribe the event and describe the person in the event. No two people ever agreed, even on simple stuff like the color of the persons hair, or what they were wearing, or even their skin color, at times. Saw this all the time during my homicide investigations. Which is one reason why I am against the death penalty, if it envolves sending folks to their death on this kind of evidence. Too easily, staged, too easily faked, to easily salted, and the recollection of 'witnesses' is too easily corrupted, if it wasn't a 'fill in' to begin with.