• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The death throes of a conspiracy theory.

If you're going to put stuff in people's mouths, why not make it cookies?
I like oatmeal raisin cookies.

Okay, I love you, bye-bye!
 
ANTPogo said:
Because you can't prove that someone didn't know something. You can only prove that they did know something (generally through some form of document or testimony or other evidence where they acknowledged knowing it).
Click to expand...

In other words, you guys can't fully prove what you believe about Pearl Harbor? That Roosevelt didn't allow the attack to take place so the American people could be dragged into another foreign intervention?

Are you basically admitting that you are theorizing based on both incomplete evidence and what you believe is most likely?

For example: prove you didn't know when Whitney Houston was going to die before it happened. Or that you didn't know when the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan last year was going to happen before it happened. Or that 9/11 was going to happen before it happened.
Click to expand...

That's exactly my point. You guys don't really know what Roosevelt was aware of prior to December 7, 1941. You're hoping and believing he didn't allow Pearl Harbor to be attacked, but you don't actually really know.
 
Last edited:
SpringHallConvert said:
False.

You claim Roosevelt had no foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack. That's an affirmative claim. You need to prove it. If you can't, you're only speculating on incomplete evidence.

That makes you a conspiracy theorist, as you are theorizing about a conspiracy that either did or didn't happen. If you don't like that, tough. But don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger, pal.
Click to expand...

This is easy. Show that Roosevelt had any prior knowledge of the attack. I've only been looking for 47 years now. You no doubt have the edge on me there.
 
SpringHallConvert said:
Are you basically admitting that you are theorizing based on both incomplete evidence and what you believe is most likely?
Click to expand...

No, we're looking at all the evidence that does not indicate in any way, shape, or form that Roosevelt had foreknowledge of the Pearl harbor attack, and is completely consistent with the idea that Roosevelt had no foreknowledge whatsoever of the Pearl Harbor attack.

In other words, none of the documents or statements or other evidence have anything even remotely close to the words "We know the IJN will attack at this place on this date and time," since you can't write or talk about having foreknowledge of something you don't actually have foreknowledge of.

However, since you can write or talk about having foreknowledge of something you do have foreknowledge of, if you could just find where someone in the Roosevelt administration did that and show it to us, that'd be great.

That's exactly my point. You guys don't really know what Roosevelt was aware of prior to December 7, 1941. You're hoping and believing he didn't allow Pearl Harbor to be attacked, but you don't actually really know.
Click to expand...

Wrong. We know what he was aware of, because the knowledge and actions the administration took in response to that knowledge are very well documented.

If you think there's something which contradicts the existing evidence, find it and show it to us.
 
SpringHallConvert said:
It's a common sense/deductive reasoning thing.

You wouldn't understand.
Click to expand...

Sherlock Holmes would laugh at what you call "Deductive Reasoning".

In Addition to "At Dawn We Slept" Gordon Prange's "Pearl Harbor;The Verdict of History" is a very useful book aimed directly at the Pearl Harbor Conspiracy Kooks.
I have to put in a plug for Walter Lord's "Day of Infamy". Although only slightly concerned with the events leading up to Pearl Harbor, as a minute by minute account of the attack, is a great read.
 
SpringHallConvert said:
Presidents don't get to just rifle through classified stuff whenever they feel like.
Click to expand...
Whose permission do they need to obtain?

Maybe because George H.W. Bush and Franklin Delano Roosevelt shared the same general interests and served the same types of people who got them elected?
Click to expand...
Which interests and which people did George Bush serve that you think forbade him to reveal the discovery that Roosevelt let Pearl Harbor be attacked?

...it would have been the kind of crime that the perpetrators would have spared no expense in covering up. It would either be destroyed or classified top secret.
Click to expand...
Whose special permission does the president require in order to be allowed to see Top Secret documents?

...even if they had access to it, it does nobody in the current government any favors to release such information.
Click to expand...
The current government, perhaps not. What about previous Republican administrations?
 
Gawdzilla said:
No, because intent is not admissible. "He just wanted too!" is not evidence.
Click to expand...

I mean that it would require reading Roosevelt's mind and seeing that he in fact did not know it was going to happen. That's the only thing that could ever convince SHC. Otherwise the troll could always say, "how do you really know that Roosevelt was without foreknowledge."

Of course, this is not a reasonable burden of proof. And thankfully, the world does not work like that.
 
SpringHallConvert said:
False.

You claim Roosevelt had no foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack. That's an affirmative claim. You need to prove it. If you can't, you're only speculating on incomplete evidence.

That makes you a conspiracy theorist, as you are theorizing about a conspiracy that either did or didn't happen. If you don't like that, tough. But don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger, pal.
Click to expand...
Wrong again.

There is really no such thing as proof anywhere outside of mathematics. You can't prove the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Hell, you can't really prove it rose in the east today. But that's the way to bet. Any other move is a fool's game.

And this is why your arguments seem so childish next to others who are obviously informed: they know the difference between good evidence, even when it comes up short of proof, and NO evidence. And they know that it isn't a 50/50 shot which is correct.
 
ANTPogo said:
No, we're looking at all the evidence that does not indicate in any way, shape, or form that Roosevelt had foreknowledge of the Pearl harbor attack, and is completely consistent with the idea that Roosevelt had no foreknowledge whatsoever of the Pearl Harbor attack.
Click to expand...

Correction. You're not looking at ALL the evidence, you're only looking at the evidence that the U.S. government has allowed you to see.

There's a difference.

In other words, none of the documents or statements or other evidence have anything even remotely close to the words "We know the IJN will attack at this place on this date and time," since you can't write or talk about having foreknowledge of something you don't actually have foreknowledge of.
Click to expand...

Correction. None of the documents THAT YOU'VE SEEN has that evidence.

However, since you can write or talk about having foreknowledge of something you do have foreknowledge of, if you could just find where someone in the Roosevelt administration did that and show it to us, that'd be great.
Click to expand...

Just as soon as you are able to find someone in the Roosevelt administration who can prove they had no foreknowledge of the attack.

Wrong. We know what he was aware of, because the knowledge and actions the administration took in response to that knowledge are very well documented.
Click to expand...

False. You believe you know what he was aware based on what he told you, but that doesn't necessarily represent what he was really aware of.

People lie.

If you think there's something which contradicts the existing evidence, find it and show it to us.
Click to expand...

I don't really need to. All I need to know if that you guys can't prove your Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory, all you can do is speculate on it.

Mission accomplished.
 
SpringHallConvert said:
Show that he didn't.
Click to expand...

Describe the process a rational, skilled investigator would use to prove, from the evidence, that the President did not know specifically that Japan would attack Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. Please tell us what such a proof would look like and how it would be constructed so as to reach a reliable conclusion.

If you can't, you're only speculating, just as I've been saying all along.
Click to expand...

You've been shifting the burden of proof all along. There's a reason it's upon you, and you don't seem able to appreciate the reason. Allow me to help you.
 
JayUtah said:
Describe the process a rational, skilled investigator would use to prove, from the evidence, that the President did not know specifically that Japan would attack Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. Please tell us what such a proof would look like and how it would be constructed so as to reach a reliable conclusion.
Click to expand...

It's not my responsibility to help you prove your case.

You've been shifting the burden of proof all along. There's a reason it's upon you, and you don't seem able to appreciate the reason. Allow me to help you.
Click to expand...

You can't help me until you can help yourself. The burden of proof is on you just as much as it is on me. You believe FDR had no foreknowledge based on the evidence the FDR administration and U.S. government has allowed you to see. You don't know he had no foreknowledge, you believe, based on limited evidence.

That's not good enough for me and won't ever be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom