The death throes of a conspiracy theory.

[kookbreaker]

Wow. Lot of whining from SHC. For all the time he spent inventing dialogues he could have at least familiarized himself with some of the basics.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

When I was fourteen a trusted neighbor told me he needed my help. He gave me the Hearings, forty big fat books, and asked me to find out how FDR "did it". I reported back just before I left for boot camp to advise him that there was no smoking gun. However, by then I was thoroughly hooked on History. When the internet came along I decide to share what I had found over the years. With Patrick Clancey I developed some serious collections of information on WWII, 100+ gig of documents. And I still haven't found a smoking gun. If SHC put in the same effort ... Nah, that's not going to happen.

In other words, you are speculating that FDR "didn't do it" because you haven't found a smoking gun that suggests he "did it" yet? Does that about sum it up?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

You asked for information.

I also asked that you summarize and explain the relevance of what was linked.

For some reason, you guys are incredibly reluctant to do that. I wonder why.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Blahblahlah

Yeah, we have already established that you are far too lazy and dishonest to read books that challenge your religious beliefs yourself. And that you somehow think it is the responsibly of others to spoon food you information out of them. The fact of the matter is that you don't give a **** about learning about al Qaeda, otherwise you would read it yourself. Just like you don't give a **** about learning about Pearl Harbor.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In other words, you are speculating that FDR "didn't do it" because you haven't found a smoking gun that suggests he "did it" yet? Does that about sum it up?

No, I found fatal flaws for every conspiracy theory ever put forward.

 

[Dancing David]

I am finding it harder and harder to get a real challenge from the Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Theorists. Some of this may be due to fatigue, some to bright shiny new conspiracies available, and some due to the fact that they just can't come up with a slightly plausible idea anymore.

Or some of us read the links you provided and what seemed possible, became very unlikely.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Or some of us read the links you provided and what seemed possible, became very unlikely.

Then you went down the same path I did. And you earned your status honestly. Well done!

 

[kookbreaker]

I also asked that you summarize and explain the relevance of what was linked.

For some reason, you guys are incredibly reluctant to do that. I wonder why.

Because we are not at the beck and call of the intellectually lazy and dishonest who cannot even examine basic information.

Still, want a summary? Here:

On December 7th, 1941 a task force of the Japanese Imperial Navy with 6 carries and over 350 aircraft made an unprovoked attack on the US Base at Pearl Harbor. This was done without a declaration of war, and it caught the all the US Navy and Army forces completely off guard. All the soldiers, sailors, marines, junior officers, senior officers, and government were surprised by this attack.

To date, not one scrap of valid evidence has shown that any person at any level of the US military or government had any knowledge that the attack at Pearl Harbor was going to take place. Carefully planning and discipline in the Japanese Navy, in addition to complacence in the United States led to the attack being a complete surprise, albeit not a complete success.

All rational historians, be they professional, academic, or amateur have accepted that the attack was a surprise. Only a handful of cranks, politically motivated fools and dishonest conspiracy nutters have tried to disagree. Their arguments have been failures and they depend on deliberate misunderstandings, intellectual dishonesty, and outright fraud (see Stinnett debunkings or ask about them for details).

Now, have at it with your claims that prove otherwise.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Good job, Kookbreaker.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/congress/Vol40.pdf Page XI.

 

[The Dark Lord]

Because we are not at the beck and call of the intellectually lazy and dishonest who cannot even examine basic information.

Still, want a summary? Here:

On December 7th, 1941 a task force of the Japanese Imperial Navy with 6 carries and over 350 aircraft made an unprovoked attack on the US Base at Pearl Harbor. This was done without a declaration of war, and it caught the all the US Navy and Army forces completely off guard. All the soldiers, sailors, marines, junior officers, senior officers, and government were surprised by this attack.

To date, not one scrap of valid evidence has shown that any person at any level of the US military or government had any knowledge that the attack at Pearl Harbor was going to take place. Carefully planning and discipline in the Japanese Navy, in addition to complacence in the United States led to the attack being a complete surprise, albeit not a complete success.

All rational historians, be they professional, academic, or amateur have accepted that the attack was a surprise. Only a handful of cranks, politically motivated fools and dishonest conspiracy nutters have tried to disagree. Their arguments have been failures and they depend on deliberate misunderstandings, intellectual dishonesty, and outright fraud (see Stinnett debunkings or ask about them for details).

Now, have at it with your claims that prove otherwise.

Can you prove that the government isn't hiding information that shows foreknowledge and that the existing evidence which suggest not isn't faked?

No?

Ha, ha, ha, ha!

I win.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I could, if I wished, be the biggest pain-in-the-ass conspiracy theorist who ever denigrated so many men with claim of "just let it happen". I know where all the cherry-pickable items are.

 

[JayUtah]

I also asked that you summarize and explain the relevance of what was linked.

You didn't ask me anything, so knock off the rhetoric. I don't owe you anything. I'm just noting that I think you're being unreasonable.

For some reason, you guys are incredibly reluctant to do that. I wonder why.

I don't wonder. It's because we don't indulge the kind of laziness you're demonstrating. If you want erudition, get it the same way everyone else does. Learn or ignore -- your choice. Just quit whining.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Still, want a summary? Here:

On December 7th, 1941 a task force of the Japanese Imperial Navy with 6 carries and over 350 aircraft made an unprovoked attack on the US Base at Pearl Harbor.

Was it really unprovoked? The McCollum Memo disagrees with you here. It looks to me like there was an intent to provoke Japan to attack within certain circles of our government.

This was done without a declaration of war, and it caught the all the US Navy and Army forces completely off guard. All the soldiers, sailors, marines, junior officers, senior officers, and government were surprised by this attack.

Do you have any real proof that our government was surprised by this attack? If so, where is it?

To date, not one scrap of valid evidence has shown that any person at any level of the US military or government had any knowledge that the attack at Pearl Harbor was going to take place.

Is that because our government would never dare admit, or allow the public to see evidence of, foreknowledge of the attacks? I say yes.

Carefully planning and discipline in the Japanese Navy, in addition to complacence in the United States led to the attack being a complete surprise, albeit not a complete success.

Inconclusive. It can not be reasonably determined that it was mere "complacency" that led to the Japanese success at Pearl Harbor.

All rational historians, be they professional, academic, or amateur have accepted that the attack was a surprise.

What makes them "rational"? Because they agree with your side? Why do they became automatically irrational when they don't?

Either way, you are engaging in a logical fallacy. Argumentum ad populum. Appeal to popularity. Something doesn't become true just because enough people believe it.

Only a handful of cranks, politically motivated fools and dishonest conspiracy nutters have tried to disagree. Their arguments have been failures and they depend on deliberate misunderstandings, intellectual dishonesty, and outright fraud (see Stinnett debunkings or ask about them for details).

Now, have at it with your claims that prove otherwise.

You're going to have to do better than this to prove your conspiracy theory, government truther. Painting your opposition as "cranks" and "fools" only suggests that you aren't confident enough in your evidence to prove your case.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Only two of the points in the McCollum Memo were actually enacted after it was written. Other were planned and cancel. See Army 236 for details.

 

[jaydeehess]

Prove it. Put your links into your own words for me. Summarize them. Buttress them by copying and pasting the choice quotes for me. For all I know you're lying about this crap you're linking here.

You're not impressing me at all with this amateur posturing.

The summary from one of those links says it quite succinctly. Others could paraphrase it for you but as far as i can see it doesn't need further summarizing.

Rumors abounded during the war, and the release of the Congressional Investigation Report on July 26, 1946, while containing information that would scotch most of them, did not end the speculations. Part of the problem with the Pearl Harbor Attack Investigation Report (PHA for short) was that it was in 40 parts bound in about 23 volumes. Extracting the answers to the bizarre stories that ran rampant was a daunting task for even the most serious researcher.

Today, however, with the aid of computer searching, we can locate information about events and people that have been buried in stacks and university attics for decades. Of course, no one will be able to convince the die-hard Roosevelt-haters that he didn't arrange, or at least allow, the attack, but for those of us who simply want the answers to questions such as "Why didn't the Opana Point radar-contact report reach Adm. Kimmel?", the testimonies of the people involved will illuminate the situation in a most satifactory manner.

 

[JayUtah]

What makes them "rational"? Because they agree with your side? Why do they became automatically irrational when they don't?

Straw man. You didn't wait for an answer.

Either way, you are engaging in a logical fallacy. Argumentum ad populum. Appeal to popularity. Something doesn't become true just because enough people believe it.

Nonsense. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy only when the question is a inherently a matter of deduction or inference. When the question at hand is a matter of informed judgment, not logic, and the populus is the body of well-informed subject-matter experts, there is no fallacy. No one is saying it "becomes true." It simply becomes the most parsimonious explanation for all the available observations. That's all that's being asserted.

You're going to have to do better than this to prove your conspiracy theory...

He doesn't have the burden of proof. You do. Don't pretend otherwise.

Painting your opposition as "cranks" and "fools" only suggests that you aren't confident enough in your evidence to prove your case.

No such painting has occurred. The only label that has been applied to you is "lazy," and you earned that one.

 

[MG1962]

Irrelevant. Why would the British need to be "in on" a conspiracy to allow the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor?

That's stupid.

Irrelevant? Curious you ignored the Phillipines were attacked on the same day. The US didn't need the attack on Pearl Harbor. And the British must have been in on it otherwise why didn't they smash the Japanese - Just like (according to you) the US should have at Pearl Harbor

 

[jaydeehess]

Was it really unprovoked? The McCollum Memo disagrees with you here. It looks to me like there was an intent to provoke Japan to attack within certain circles of our government

Yes, unprovoked in that the Japanese clearly were first to resort to military action. Were they feeling pressure from the USA to not expand their empire, yes. were they being obstructed in that expansion, yes. Were they prepared at all to halt that expansion? no and thus they undertook first strike military action.

 

[jaydeehess]

Irrelevant? Curious you ignored the Phillipines were attacked on the same day. The US didn't need the attack on Pearl Harbor. And the British must have been in on it otherwise why didn't they smash the Japanese - Just like (according to you) the US should have at Pearl Harbor

Indeed, the British did not reinforce their bases in the east therefore they wanted the Japanese to succeed according to SHC's logic.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yes, unprovoked in that the Japanese clearly were first to resort to military action. Were they feeling pressure from the USA to not expand their empire, yes. were they being obstructed in that expansion, yes. Were they prepared at all to halt that expansion? no and thus they undertook first strike military action.

Joint Committee Exhibit 17 shows just how unlikely it was for the President to initiate a provocative policy in regard to Japan.