• 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:
You guys are claiming that the Japanese conspired to attack Pearl Harbor [...]
Click to expand...


The Japanese didn't know we were going to drop a couple of atomic bombs on them, either. How does that implicate the Japanese in the United States' "conspiracy" to develop and use nuclear weapons?
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
The Japanese didn't know we were going to drop a couple of atomic bombs on them, either. How does that implicate the Japanese in the United States' "conspiracy" to develop and use nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...


It's obvious isn't it?

The Emperor LIHOP to further his previous agreement with Roosevelt.

Or it was because the Emperor knew that Toho studios needed this to make the Godzilla movies more realistic.

Take your pick.
 
SpringHallConvert said:
Ha, ha, ha!

Another government truther "I'm ignoring you!" post!

You didn't get your way, so now you're going to ignore me! I'm crushed! Truly I am!
Click to expand...
The old, nah, nah, na, nah, nah… caan’t hear you ploy to cover-up your zero evidence stand.

There is nothing left to try to get your evidence out in the open; logic says you have nothing but your calling people Government Truthers, a fictional group you fear and battle with nah, nah, na, nah, nah… caan’t hear you anti-intellectual attack. How many people have you labeled with your Government Truther cry because you have no evidence to support your claim.

At least you are efficient! You use the same evidence for your crazy claims here as you do for 911, JFK, Chemtrails, Bigfoot, Flat-earth, and more. The zero evidence game of nah, nah, na, nah, nah… caan’t hear you!

How does your take on Pearl Harbor fit with the attack on the Philippines in the following hours? How many military actions did Japan take within hours of December 7th, and where did they take this action?

What was Japan up to? How long were they at war before they made the big mistake?
 
SpringHallConvert said:
False. You guys are claiming that the Japanese conspired to attack Pearl Harbor and managed to keep it an airtight secret from our government. This qualifies as a 'theory about a conspiracy' and makes you conspiracy theorists.
Click to expand...
This isn't a conspiracy theory, this is historical fact. And you're done nothing to refute it



SHC said:
While you groundlessly claim that our government didn't know about this attack. So we're even.
Click to expand...
objection.jpg

Technically the government did know about the attack... after it was carried out.



SHC said:
Not really, no.
Click to expand...
Really now? Perhaps you could point out to your posts where you did, indeed, make your case?

Specifically: Why did the government allow the attacks? Why do you think the government was so intent in entering the war? How did the government 'learn' of the attacks before hand? And (this is important here) where is the evidence supporting your claims?
 
Gawdzilla said:
True. Also, there has been no plausible reason put forward as to WHY the Roosevelt Administration would LIHOP. CTistas flee from this question or simply lie.
Click to expand...

And lets think about the alternative - Roosevelt is in a position to hand Japan a can of whoop-ass. Win an entire war in one battle - become the greatest American president of all time.....and he didn't take the opportunity?

CT people can be funny sometimes
 
MG1962 said:
And lets think about the alternative - Roosevelt is in a position to hand Japan a can of whoop-ass. Win an entire war in one battle - become the greatest American president of all time.....and he didn't take the opportunity?

CT people can be funny sometimes
Click to expand...
You just have to see the inner-FDR to understand:

2493449134
 
jaydeehess said:
As I stated earlier, all you have is circumstantial evidence but no real hard evidence. From this you extrapolate based and biased by your personal politcs

You claim that we do the same but cannot seem to grasp that there is not going to be a docuement dated Dec 06/41 or earlier stating that FDR did not know the Japanese would attck the next day at PH
while otoh if FDR did know and did order stand down there would HAVE to have been docs to that effect. Although it may be possible that all of these were destroyed, hidden suchh thatt not even the CiC/POTUS would ever see them, or rewritten , this is the least likely and an assurtion such as that is the more extrordinary and REQUIRES the more extrodinary evidence.
You have utterly failed to make your case, your egotistical proat nouncements notwithstanding
Click to expand...
thus, given the bulk of docuementation supports the assumption that FDR was unaware of the dec 7 attack and, the fact that while it is ridiculous to demand any doc dated prior to dec 7 1941 thatspecifies FDR did not know of that specific fact, and the complete lack of docuementation to the contrary
certainly none suppplied by you
supports the commonly held view

please review JU's posts concerning null hypothesis
 
On top of the above we have several warning messages sent to Hawaii, Army and Navy, telling them that Japanese forces may move "in any direction". There were misunderstandings, nobody's perfect, but there's very little excuse for Short and Kimmel to be caught flat-footed.
 
I was of course refering to perhaps having the US carriers positioned south of the ilands out of reach of the Japanese but within easy distancefor US carrier fighter, of PH. Put an ambush patrol up to destroy the Japanese planes as they arrive.
or any similar operation

the CTs exhibit a form of affirmimg the consequent logical fallcy by assuming that the suprise part of the attack had to take place
 
Gawdzilla said:
On top of the above we have several warning messages sent to Hawaii, Army and Navy, telling them that Japanese forces may move "in any direction". There were misunderstandings, nobody's perfect, but there's very little excuse for Short and Kimmel to be caught flat-footed.
Click to expand...

I wonder if people today are a little spoiled. The whole concept of the fog of war is pretty much gone. The US always thought either Pearl or the Philippines would be the target, they never guessed it might be both
 
jaydeehess said:
I was of course refering to perhaps having the US carriers positioned south of the ilands out of reach of the Japanese but within easy distancefor US carrier fighter, of PH. Put an ambush patrol up to destroy the Japanese planes as they arrive.
or any similar operation
Click to expand...
The ships could have been buttoned up and ready for battle without tipping off that they were aware of a pending attack. The fighters would have been more noticable taking off, but a call WGMB would have announced a surprise readiness drill and calmed the locals. Lexington and Enterprise had left Hawaii with deck loads of Marine fighters for Wake and Midway. If they had wanted to, the fighters could have added to their striking force and hammered the IJN planes on the way in, or attacked the Kido Butai, which had only 30 fighters in their CAP.

The Army could have had ALL their AAA ammo'd up and manned by 0700 if they had been warned by dawn that day.
the CTs exhibit a form of affirmimg the consequent logical fallcy by assuming that the suprise part of the attack had to take place
Click to expand...
It's the stupidest CT I've ever heard.
 
Mudcat said:
This isn't a conspiracy theory, this is historical fact.
Click to expand...

False. It's a conspiracy theory since you can't prove what the U.S. government really knew prior to the attack. You're assuming they didn't know the attack was coming, but you can't prove it.

Face it, you're a conspiracy theorist with a government truther bent.
 
BazBear said:
Only jackwagons base their theories on paranoia about the government, without one iota of evidence to back those theories.
Click to expand...

Let me amplify this: pointing to a specific theory and saying it must be given credence because the alleged perpetrator is characterized as generally untrustworthy simply has no basis in reason. There are any number of specific hypothetical sins to lay at someone's feet. No matter how despicable that person may be, proof that a specific thing occurred and that it was perpetrated by that person must have the same specificity as the allegation.

The example I've used before is one in which a mischievous child is accused of stealing cookies from the cookie jar while he is home alone. No matter how misbehaved the child, there is simply no crime if all the cookies are present and accounted for. Yes, you can imagine elaborate schemes in which the evidence appears to say one thing but the child really is guilty. But the problem is that no amount of general guilt compensates for contrary material evidence. If the evidence doesn't bear out that specific claim, there is no reason to hold the claim.

This is, in fact, one of the many variants of the ad hominem fallacy. We are accustomed to equate "ad hominem argument" with "personal attack," but an argument of the form "The government is wicked and untrustworthy, therefore they knew about an attack ahead of time and let it happen to further their own ends," is still ad hominem because it addresses the supposed properties of the accused party rather than the properties of the accusation.

If you can't understand why this impossible, after it's been repeatedly explained to you, that's not our fault.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he understands, but SHC -- being a relatively unimaginative troll -- relies almost exclusively on mindless turnabout rhetoric. "Foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor? No evidence of that; it's just a conspiracy theory." "No, you're the conspiracy theory!" "Do you have any evidence that anyone knew?" "Do you have any evidence that they didn't know?" It's like debating a five-year-old.

You've been directed to mountains of evidence. [...] You've presented no evidence of prior knowledge either. Nothing, zip, zero, nada.
Click to expand...

Since he rejects the burden of proof, he doesn't think it's his responsibility to present affirmative evidence. Even worse, he chides his critics for their supposedly naive reliance on only the evidence that's known to exist. He seems to place great faith in evidence that was lost or is being suppressed, which just might shed light on his claims. Of course there is no way to distinguish that case from the case where no evidence of foreknowledge exists because there was no foreknowledge.

But it really does boil down to speculation that there was foreknowledge, and further speculation that there may be some evidence somewhere that supports that specific claim. It does no good to berate skeptics for not wanting to buy into an endless chain of speculation. Skeptics don't assert that there was no foreknowledge; they simply say that it's the most tenable conclusion given the current evidence. Skeptics don't assert there can't exist anywhere any evidence establishing foreknowledge; they just say it's not known to exist. When and if any such evidence is located, skeptics will be happy to change their minds based on it. But not until then. Skepticism is not a dogged, tenacious grip on some "official" story; it is simply acknowledging what is reasonable to believe at any one time given what evidence is available.

SHC is trying very hard to pin a tighter hold on the null hypothesis than his critics are willing to accept. That's because the alternative is to admit that all he has is speculation piled on top of speculation, and that he has no means whatsoever to bear a burden of proof. The null hypothesis is still a hypothesis, but it holds until challenged by something better. It is in the success of such a challenge that knowledge proceeds, and skeptics are right there to support you -- if you can succeed with the challenge.
 
JayUtah said:
Let me amplify this: pointing to a specific theory and saying it must be given credence because the alleged perpetrator is characterized as generally untrustworthy simply has no basis in reason. There are any number of specific hypothetical sins to lay at someone's feet. No matter how despicable that person may be, proof that a specific thing occurred and that it was perpetrated by that person must have the same specificity as the allegation.
Click to expand...

I'd like to amplify something that bothers me on the "Government is untrustworthy" point. The U.S. government is far from a monolithic entity. It is a vast assemblage of human beings, gathered into suborganizations, all with their own goals and character, often even competing with one another. You cannot say "the Government knew" any more than you can say "the government took the elevator to the second floor". Individuals within the government may be trustworthy or untrustworthy. In addition, people come and go from the government all the time, administrations come and depart, it is constantly in a state of flux. The U.S. government in 1940 can not be used as a guide for the U.S. government in 2010 any more than AT&T in 1940 can be used as a guide to AT&T in 2010.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom