• 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.

SpringHallConvert said:
OK, show it to me. Where's this evidence you are talking about?



Actually it's your problem. You made a claim and can't back it up. Now you guys are pouting because I won't accept your whining that it's too difficult.

Put up or shut up!
Click to expand...
There is no evidence it wasn't a surprise. You said this is because we are not allowed to see it. Show us this evidence. Your move.
 
DGM said:
The proof is there's no documentation indicating it wasn't. You say that's because we just are not allowed to see it. Show us this proof. Your move.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. Are you actually pointing toward non-existent documentation as proof of something?

Ah ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Now that really takes the cake!

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

I'm an airline pilot!

Prove it!

There's no documentation that I'm not!

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
 
SpringHallConvert said:
OK, show it to me. Where's this evidence you are talking about?
Click to expand...

Stop pretending it hasn't been showed to you.

Actually it's your problem. You made a claim and can't back it up. Now you guys are pouting because I won't accept your whining that it's too difficult.

Put up or shut up!
Click to expand...

Sure it has been backed up. All the evidence indicates it was a surprise. None indicates anything to the contrary. That's enough for reasonable people to conclude it was a surprise. Of course, you're not a reasonable person. Which is why you demand a burden that is impossible.
 
Last edited:
SpringHallConvert said:
Wait a minute. Are you actually pointing toward non-existent documentation as proof of something?

Ah ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Now that really takes the cake!

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

I'm an airline pilot!

Prove it!

There's no documentation that I'm not!

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
Click to expand...
Your move.

Your the one claiming there is evidence of foreknowledge.

We can wait.
 
The Dark Lord said:
Stop pretending it hasn't been showed to you.
Click to expand...

Has it? Then where is it? Why are you hiding it?

Sure it has been backed up. All the evidence indicates it was a surprise. None indicates anything to the contrary. That's enough for reasonable people to conclude it was a surprise. Of course, you're not a reasonable person. Which is why your burden is impossible to meet.
Click to expand...

"All the evidence"? Where is it? How do you know it represents "all" of the evidence? Can you prove you've seen "all the evidence"?
 
SpringHallConvert said:
Has it? Then where is it? Why are you hiding it?
Click to expand...

You've been linked to it. Pretending that you haven't only proves how dishonest you are.

"All the evidence"? Where is it? How do you know it represents "all" of the evidence? Can you prove you've seen "all the evidence"?
Click to expand...

Again with your impossible to meet burdens. No matter what you could always just insinuate that the evil Jews are hiding evidence.
 
SpringHallConvert said:
I'm an airline pilot!

Prove it!

There's no documentation that I'm not!
Click to expand...

There would be documentation if you were. So who's hiding it? The US government?

You're arguing that the evidence of a conspiracy is being concealed by the US government, but who exactly do you mean? Which actual people? The US government, whoever you think you mean by that, are certainly not the same people they were in 1941. So instead of vaguely handwaving about some sinister monolith you claim is hiding the Great Secret, how about you get down to cases and explain how this conspiracy survived multiple changes of administration.

Convince me.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
There would be documentation if you were. So who's hiding it? The US government?

You're arguing that the evidence of a conspiracy is being concealed by the US government, but who exactly do you mean? Which actual people? The US government, whoever you think you mean by that, are certainly not the same people they were in 1941. So instead of vaguely handwaving about some sinister monolith you claim is hiding the Great Secret, how about you get down to cases and explain how this conspiracy survived multiple changes of administration.

Convince me.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume that a change in administrations represents a change in how the U.S. government operates?
 
SpringHallConvert said:
Why do you assume that a change in administrations represents a change in how the U.S. government operates?
Click to expand...

I only assume that a change in administration means a change in the actual people in-post. And a change of party in power means the new incumbents have no interest in defending the actions of their outgoing opponents. Quite the reverse, in fact.

So I'm still waiting for you to convince me.
 
PS I'm still waiting for you to tell us whose permission the President of the United States needs to obtain to be allowed to see Top Secret documents.

Is this some other part of your conspiracy theory that you haven't told us yet?
 
Jack by the hedge said:
PS I'm still waiting for you to tell us whose permission the President of the United States needs to obtain to be allowed to see Top Secret documents.

Is this some other part of your conspiracy theory that you haven't told us yet?
Click to expand...
That information is kept in America's Book of Secrets. Nick Gage is the go-to man for that.
 
SpringHallConvert said:
OK, let's get back to business here.

You government truthers suck.
Click to expand...

Your idea of "business" is playground name-calling?

You've asked for proof that FDR didn't know something. I'm asking you what you would accept as proof, from a third party, of just such a proposition. Can you at least explain why that's an unreasonable request?

Or if that's too difficult, I've asked you to do it by example: I've asked you to prove I don't know your birthday. By constructing an argument for that simple equivalent, you can demonstrate what kind of evidence you would expect for a similar claim from FDR.

Is there some reason why you won't participate in the intellectual process?
 
SpringHallConvert said:
False. A preemptive strike would have made the United States the aggressor since Japan sending a fleet toward Pearl Harbor could not, in and of itself, be considered an act of war.

You're just spouting nonsense.
Click to expand...

Um no, warding off an attack is a defensive measure even if the attack has yet to be launched or landed. Japan would be the aggressor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom