[okie01]

My point with Makasin is that HE THINKS the cryptographers colluded to conceal the "warnings" that they knew were there, and in so doing protected FDR.

And such collusion is utterly inconceivable.

On such a rock, revisionist theory founders.

Why has history become no longer good enough for the historians. Why do some feel compelled to rewrite it?

[Scotts]

Joe A Maskin certainly has problems with his research. It also seems to be, in my humble option quite outdated (based on debates over the last year between mentioned authors). Much of his theorys come from the absence of information (documents current going through the declassification process). Another chuck of his questions have been answered by experts far better than I. The rest seem to be carefully chosen quotations to better give his idealogy some form of credence.
I for one would be interested if Joe has anything new to add since our last encounter on the pearlharborattacked boards.

[LS]

Well, we historians DO try to stop such nonsense when we can. You might see my review of Stinnett's piece of drivel, in Continuity, vol. 26, I think. Alas, I don't have a web address for it.