Replies

All of which leads to Stinnett's text, the paperback edition, in its Afterword section - which obviously you are au fait with.

Oh, the last sentence of same is "We knew." ... and we did.

As Toland, and Beard before him, as well as Flynn and Barnes, ... , etc. have led in pointing out those oddities ...

So it goes ... do read a bit more and do stay curious - perhaps not.

I have..

You seem to have some difficulty distinguishing between possibility (1 + infinity-1) and probablity ( 50%+1)

All the irrelevancies in the world do nothing to further your assertion. If you believe that the total weight of the tomes or the volume of strident voice furthers your assertion then you will be sorely disappointed.

All the theories, inferences, speculations, mean nothing if they only result in further theories, speculations, and inferences. It merely becomes a grand tautology.

Is is possible that FDR knew. Yes. There is nothing in the record that excludes the possibility. Is it probable that FDR that The Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor?..No. There is nothing in the record that would indicate that probability. There is a mountain of strained inference, goofy speculation, and grossly misinterpretated data that has been debunked by cryptanalysts.

Now the diffrence between possibility and probability is the difference between looking at Mount Everest and climbing Mount Everest. Any one who says they have climbed mount Everest by looking at it is intellectually dishonest.

The key to the Pearl Harbor issue is the earnest desire to understand the events as they happened not as you want to see them. Anything else is merely a variant of the well know phenomenom of the Texas Sharpshooter Effect.

ONe day perhaps some one will fine definitive evidence of Roosevelt's prior knowledge of the attack at Pearl Harbor. I know that as of this date that hasn't happened. Stinnet's book has been roundly and deservedly bashed by intelligence professionals as the kind of shoddy and intellectually dishonest interpretation of data that results form either incredible sloppiness or willful fraud. ( Intelligence professionals believe it is the later)

I can have some sympathy for Toland in that his error was understandable and explainable.

Stinnett?...can't say as much for him. To many glaring inconsistencies between the actual record and Stinnetts tortured prose. To make that many errors of fact and interpretation would appear to me to fall well beyond the level of accident and coincidence.