The consolidated Pearl Harbor mythology thread.

But of course, how silly of me. Well, it's so easy to overlook the obvious

 

After all, MTG has succeeded in impressively underpinning the correctness of Brandolini's law:

"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it."

 

Btw, the Germans could "hear" the telephone line talking between FDR and WC but never found any talk of Japanese attack between the two of them.

 

And how does one explain away the account of John Burns? In 1941, Burns was the head of the Honolulu Police Department's Espionage Bureau. Burns later became the governor of Hawaii. He was a long-time Democrat, so he had no anti-FDR political axe to grind. Years after the war, Burns came forward and revealed that on 3 December, Special Agent Robert Shivers, the FBI Agent in Charge in Hawaii, warned him that the Japanese would attack Hawaii by the end of the week (see, for example, Toland 285–286).

Burns discussed this warning in taped interviews conducted at the University of Hawaii in 1975. Incidentally, when Burns revealed this warning, he knew he was dying. Furthermore, one of Burns' deputies, William Kaina, reported in 1982 that Burns discussed the FBI warning with him shortly after Burns met with Special Agent Shivers. Kaina made this statement in an interview for a 1982 documentary produced in Japan titled Search for the Solution of the Pearl Harbor Puzzle (Toland 329).

So Burns, a long-time Democrat, gave this account when he knew he was dying, and his account was corroborated by a credible person, one of his deputies, in 1982. Burns' disclosure dovetails perfectly with several other lines of evidence that show that the FBI knew that Pearl Harbor would be attacked, such as the Hoover-Ladd memos that were released years after Burns came forward with his account.

The flimsy, timeworn "he was just mistaken" argument obviously won't work here, nor will the specious attempt to brush aside so many of these accounts with the claim that they were made for partisan reasons by FDR's political opponents.

 

Quackery, fakers, trickery, outright lies...Take your pick.

What Shivers said to Burns was that an attack could occur somewhere, possibly within a week. Shivers instructed Burns to keep an eye out for any signs from the local Japanese population for any signs...Burns, of course, found none.

Why did you purposefully misquote Burns?

 

And here are articles that debunk the arguments made in your links:

Signals Intelligence and Pearl Harbor

The Case for Pearl Harbor Revisionism

Decoding Pearl Harbor

Warning at Pearl Harbor

The Pearl Harbor Conspiracy and the Minority Report of the 1946 Joint Congressional Committee

 

Oh, Timmy, Timmy, Timmy . . . it is almost Christmas and you still spout your drivel.

Who, in the US government or military establishment, knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor at 0755 7 December 1941? Name names, be specific, leave out the innuendo.

How did that person or persons know?

How did they find out?

Where did or from whom did that information come? Be specific, name names, name sources. Please avoid circular conspiracy theory and, again, be specific.

When did this person or persons know the specific details of the Japanese plans?

Show us the evidence, not some fevered theory.

From whence did this information come?

Stop throwing around your circular conspiracy theories, all these sources quoting each other, and be specific, name names, name places, name dates, and stop throwing out would haves, should haves and could haves.

We've been around the block on this too may damn times.

How about a Christmas present for us and you run off to the conspiracy sites to spout your nonsense where you would no doubt be better appreciated rather than bother us with your nonsense . . . especially anything sourced from Wilford.

 

Obviously, you either didn't read the articles I cited or you only briefly skimmed through them. Clearly, your mind is closed shut on this issue, so it would be a waste of time to answer your posturing questions, especially given the fact that nearly all of them are addressed in the articles I linked.

You might also read my book The Real Infamy of Pearl Harbor, available on Amazon.

Let me ask you some questions:

How do you explain the Hoover-Ladd memos?

Are you saying that Admiral Ranneft was lying?

Are you saying that CIA Director William Casey was lying?

Are you saying that Victor Cavendish-Bentick, chairman of the JIC at the time, was lying?

Are you saying that Commanders Malcolm Burnett and Raymond Mortimer were lying?

Are you saying that James Stahlman was lying?

Are you saying that Don C. Smith lied to his daughter and granddaughter or that his granddaughter fabricated the account?

Are you saying that New Deal official Joseph Leib was lying?

Are you saying that Congressman Hale Boggs was lying?

Are you saying that Colonel Ketchum was lying?

Are you saying that Colonel Bissell was lying?

Are you saying that Captain Safford was lying?

And on and on and on we could go.

As I recall, you and your fellow coincidence theorists also believe that Truman was entirely, completely justified in nuking both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, even though we now know that Truman knew that the Japanese would probably surrender on acceptable terms if he would simply assure them that the emperor would not be deposed.