The death throes of a conspiracy theory.

[JimOfAllTrades]

If the Roosevelt administration did sacrifice Pearl Harbor to enter the war, it would have been the kind of crime that the perpetrators would have spared no expense in covering up.

And the enemies of the administration would have spared no expense in exposing it.

You talk like "the government" is some monolithic entity. There are almost as many factions as there are people in it. And many of those factions hate each other to the extent they wouldn't stop to piss on the other one if they were on fire, let alone balk at revealing some dirty secrets.

Same goes for the news agencies, the various governments of the world, and pretty much every other classification of people you can come up with.

It would either be destroyed or classified top secret. Some incriminating stuff might fall through the cracks, but not much.

So surely you can cite just one?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

So we're back to me having evidence and you having none. Fair enough.

Where is it then? Why are you hiding it?

Where is your evidence of FDR having no foreknowledge?

 

[JayUtah]

...you're only looking at the evidence that the U.S. government has allowed you to see.

What evidence are you looking at?

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

Have you seen documents that others have not?

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

How does one go about proving the lack of knowledge on someone else's part?

False. You believe you know...

Putting words in people's mouths again.

People lie.

How does this affect a researcher's ability to determine what someone knows or doesn't know?

I don't really need to.

Abrogation of your burden of proof.

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.

Even if true, how would this prove your contention? You seem to believe that if you can show any amount of weakness, uncertainty, or inductive leap on the part of your opponents, that your specific affirmative claim is thereby proven. How does that work? How does that relieve you from proving your affirmative claim from among the infinite number of affirmative claims that can be made?

 

[SpringHallConvert]

The surprise nature of the attack proves he didn't know.

The "surprise nature of the attack"? Surprise to whom?

How do you know it was a surprise to Roosevelt and his henchmen?

 

[The Dark Lord]

I

That's not good enough for me and won't ever be.

So what. You're not a reasonable person. And your religious beliefs on the subject make no difference whatsoever to the real world.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Where is it then? Why are you hiding it?

Where is your evidence of FDR having no foreknowledge?

Sorry, we went past intentions way back there. You have to show that the established position is incorrect. Trot out that proof or be laughed at. More.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The "surprise nature of the attack"? Surprise to whom?

How do you know it was a surprise to Roosevelt and his henchmen?

Because there were many things they could have done to blunt or cancel the effects of the attack and didn't do them. Now either EVERYBODY in Washington was a stupid as your average CTer, or they didn't know.

 

[The Dark Lord]

I see that the troll was asked to describe what sort of proof could persuade him. Of course, he flatly refused to do so. Because, short of time travel and psychic powers, he could not be convinced.

 

[JayUtah]

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

It is your responsibility to elaborate your standard of proof in enough detail to let some person attempt to satisfy it. it is also your responsibility to justify that your standard of proof is reasonable. Until you are willing to do that, no one is obliged to indulge you.

The burden of proof is on you just as much as it is on me.

I couldn't ask for better evidence demonstrating that you have no idea what "burden of proof" means and why such a concept must exist. Thank you for playing.

You believe...

Putting words in my mouth again. You have no idea what I believe or why.

That's not good enough for me and won't ever be.

You refuse to tell us what would be good enough for you. You ask for "proof" or "evidence" but you won't go any further than that.

 

[JayUtah]

I challenge SHC to prove that I don't know his birthday.

( bump )

 

[kookbreaker]

With SHC comments all that comes to mind is the tagline from "Plan 9 From Outer Space" where they say "Can you prove it didn't happen?".

Mind you, the movie Plan 9 was done with much greater skill and believability than anything SHC has come up with.

 

[kookbreaker]

Hey, nice straw man! It would look great in a corn field!

Yeah... a 'strawman' that just happens to represent exactly what you are saying and doing.

 

[Mudcat]

Why, this is even dumber than some of the other things you government truthers have suggested. A preemptive strike? Then it's the United States who fires the first shot and it's the United States who becomes the aggressor.

No. It's a legitimate strategy that's time honored and since it striking at a military target in route to strike at our resources Japan would still be aggressor.

 

[BazBear]

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



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.

He doesn't have to prove his case. You're the one claiming FDR knew, or could have/should have known, or something like that. The burden of proof is all on you, and you've shown us no evidence he did know. Even if we could do the impossible and prove a negative, it's not our responsibility.

That's not good enough for me and won't ever be.

I seems you're saying no amount of evidence would convince you, ever. I'm not surprised. And you assert that we're the closed minded robots?

 

[A'isha]

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.

Only in the minds of the clinically paranoid. Especially when it comes to doubting historical evidence for no reason other than that sense of paranoia.

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

So show us a document that says otherwise. Bring us the black swan that you say is real, to prove us wrong when we tell you that no black swans exist.

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.

The only way you know someone lied is to have actual evidence that they lied. Such evidence usually consists of some other document or statement proving a fact that stands in contradiction to what is being asserted, thus showing the assertion to be a lie. It happens in courtrooms all the time.

So, show it to us. Show us the evidence that contradicts the existing documentation. Show us the evidence that you think contains the truth.

Gawdzilla has shown you a whole archive of documentation. What've you got?

 

[tsig]

The "surprise nature of the attack"? Surprise to whom?

How do you know it was a surprise to Roosevelt and his henchmen?

He told me last night. Prove me wrong.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I will now invite the reader to re-read the OP. Then I'm going to ask Randy for my check.

 

[Kid Eager]

I will now invite the reader to re-read the OP. Then I'm going to ask Randy for my check.

I can only conclude from your foresight that SHC is in fact yourself. Of course, I won't mention that to anybody, for a 10% cut. Oh wait.....

 

[A'isha]

I can only conclude from your foresight that SHC is in fact yourself. Of course, I won't mention that to anybody, for a 10% cut. Oh wait.....

That just means he has to pay us all off now.

 

[SpringHallConvert]

Sorry, we went past intentions way back there. You have to show that the established position is incorrect. Trot out that proof or be laughed at. More.

False. You have to show that the established position is correct. Trot out that proof or be laughed at. A lot more.