Page By Category
Forum - Pearl Harbor, FDR foreknowledge
Tags: Pearl Harbor, FDR, Foreknowledge, conspiracy, bait, provoked [ Add Tags ]
| [ Return to General Conspiracy Stuff | Reply to Topic ] |
| Geo | Posted: May 15, 2010 - 13:31 |
| ||||
 Level: 1 CS Original | What do you guys make of this? http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl/www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html</p> How to respond? | |||||
| #1 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Muertos | Posted: May 15, 2010 - 14:19 |
| ||||
 Paid Disinformation Blogger Level: 14 CS Original | Doubt it. I haven't researched the issue thoroughly, but the vast majority of what is presented on that page does not indicate FDR had advance knowledge of the attacks. CTs love to point to missed warnings as "evidence" of a LIHOP scenario, look at how often they cite the "Bin Laden Plans To Attack In US" memo about 9/11. But their "evidence" of foreknowledge always comes down to a supposition which is, "Well, there's no way they could have ignored X, Y and Z, so they MUST have known!" which is not evidence at all. All the "missed warnings" mentioned here are equally explainable through bureaucratic incompetence--which is exactly what every single one of the 10 thorough investigations of Pearl Harbor found. There is no evidence that FDR ever saw this "McCollum Memo" that this page flouts as a "smoking gun." I'm always very skeptical when CTs present anything as a "smoking gun." | |||||
| #2 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Geo | Posted: May 15, 2010 - 15:14 |
| ||||
Level: 1 CS Original | Yes, but how would you prove that FDR did see such a memo if he was trying to ignore it? What would likely surface in your opinion, if this were true? I think a lot of their 'evidence' is not as (dis)provable as both camps would like, because, as cover ups, people usually don't just admit to doing wrong while they are doing it. A lot of documents stay classified and people in high power such as presidents aren't put on trial as suspects like an ordinary person would be at a criminal investigation when as much motive is established. They bring up not just one point, but many, and claim that given so much indirect evidence and motive makes a strong case that their conclusion is at least very possible if not very likely. They then use multiple such events to support theories about a new event like 9/11, to which they also establish inside motives and questions about the investigations - in this case they point out that the investigators are already saying that the 9/11 Commission investigation was a sham, but that is another topic. I'll post a thread to resolve that. | |||||
| #3 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Muertos | Posted: May 15, 2010 - 15:55 |
| ||||
Paid Disinformation Blogger Level: 14 CS Original |
This is a neat little example of how conspiracy theorists try to shift the burden of proof. You come up with a total supposition--that FDR saw the McCollum Memo, which there is zero evidence to support--and then ask me to DISPROVE it. Sorry, Geo, but that's not the way it works. Ten investigations of Pearl Harbor found no evidence whatsoever that foreknowledge of the attack was received and deliberately ignored. However, those same ten investigations DID find extensive evidence of bureaucratic inefficiency and numerous failures to act on information that was discovered. You can't wave a piece of paper around and say "Wow! Look! There's no way he could NOT have known about THIS!" as a means of casting the burden of proof on me to disprove that he didn't see it. Where is the evidence that FDR saw this memo and was acting behind the scenes in accordance with it? That's the question you should be asking. Furthermore, even if he did see it, what does this prove? The McCollum Memo was a policy proposal. It contained no information about the Pearl Harbor attack. How many thousands of memos proposing policy actions do you suppose FDR looked at during 1940? How many did he act on? What makes this one so special, other than the fact a conspiracy theorist discovered it decades later? | |||||
| #4 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Geo | Posted: May 15, 2010 - 16:00 |
| ||||
Level: 1 CS Original | Thanks, great response! | |||||
| #5 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Ed | Posted: May 15, 2010 - 16:02 |
| ||||
Level: 10 CS Original | Geo, I would also recommend the James Randi forum: | |||||
| #6 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Edward L Winston | Posted: May 15, 2010 - 18:13 |
| ||||
 President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho: porn star and five-time ultimate smackdown wrestling champion! Level: 150 CS Original | This is like the FDR/spring rolls analogy I often use on this site. Prove to me FDR didn't like spring rolls. Sure, there's no mention in any literature for or against him liking it, and there's no evidence he ever had them at all, but that doesn't mean they weren't his favorite food. Similar thinking here with most conspiracy theories and LIHOP scenarios. Whatreallyhappened.com should change it's domain to Whatprobablydidnthappen.com | |||||
| #7 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Geo | Posted: May 15, 2010 - 18:52 |
| ||||
Level: 1 CS Original | LoL | |||||
| #8 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||
| Sil the Shill | Posted: May 15, 2010 - 20:24 |
| ||||
Level: 9 CS Original | I love it when geocities sites are non-ironically used as evidence. | |||||
| #9 | [ Top | Reply to Topic ] | |||||