[jamaksin]

Um ... probability as in Bayesian analysis, or "fuzzy logic" as in yes/no/maybe or even better Borel sets. Maybe the simplier "confidence interval" from ANOVA is your plateau - perhaps not, however.

Are those to same "intelligence professionals" from the firm of Martin and Mitchell? More than a tad of the patina is gone there ...

Stinnett's prose might be a bit tighter - agreed. But, then this is so-called "popular history" and he did name names (viz., radio operators), show documents for the first time (e.g., TESTM reports), ... point to the wealth of documents still in US Navy hands and beyond FOIA rules, ... and those lead in only one direction. As Costello, Hoehling, ... also lead in that direction.

Now, on that "peer review" side ... your impression of Wilford's thesis is? Award winning thesis, you know. His article in the Northern Mariner also won an award ... yes, a refereed journal ... my, my.

The only "strident" voices I hear/see are those in the form of a bi-polar disorder.

Consider means of resoution here - just two instances for example:

A. Phil has in his latest missive (See December 2003 issue of Naval History) several uses of "probably" as in frequency ... well, why not open that still classified file and see the raw message - communication headers, at. el., You'd think Phil would actively advocate this approach - well, actually no, he would very likley not.

B. Stinnett shows SRN 116643 - aka the "famous" Tanpan Bay/Hittokapu Wan message - that is located at 45.0 N,147.66E (to help you find it). He shows two variants on pages 50-51, these are each annotated " ... spelled out, not from single code group." Agreed so far- perhaps not?

This particular message is vouchsafed by Duane Whitlock as not having it spelt out; LS and others point to this as a Stinnett fax paux ... (So, if in a given code book there is no nameplace for your location ... what do you do ... I'll give you a hint - See Hinsley and Stripp "Code Breakers - The Inside Story of Bletchley Park" - page 275.)

Now why not release that raw intercept with its communications informations ...

So simple, just two instances - yet no joy ... Why is that? So many oddities ... easliy resolved ... so why not after sixty plus years ... ?

On FDR ... has documentation ever been found that Hitler attended or knew or signed off on the Wannsee Conference? Are you expecting that? Perhaps the same with FDR - perhaps not. Or, for that matter, where was Marshall the night of December 6/7, 1941?

Again, you were saying ... what, exactly?

[Perhaps to stress the point - the US government would never have admitted to the contraband on the SS LUSITANIA until it had to (and the very essence of her as an example) ... Pearl Harbor will likely be the very same ... intelligence professionals nothwithstanding.]

Oh, yes, you were saying ... ?

[tcuoohjohn]

Let us try to be reasonable men. Since were are both interested in this subject lets try an experiement.

Give me your best explanation of FDR knew and the supporting evidence behind that assertion. Please try to avoid irrelevancies like the Lusitania, Liberty et al.In sum a clear , concise, and compelling argument supported by evidence. Avoid should haves, must haves, would haves, and could haves. Deal only in evidence. Avoid the weight of tome argument (eg there have been 19 books " proving" FDR knew etc..all this proves is 19 books have been written) Avoid the fallacy of reference arguments ( eg "Prove that FDR didn't know." I made no assertion. You are making the assertion therefore it is your assertion to prove. Proving the nonexistence of some thing is a classical fallacy) Please try to avoid what I call the OOOOoooWWwwwEeeeeOOOOo Method, in which thin tenuous connections are made between equally nebulous data in a general spirit of 'conspiracy'thinking.

Best of luck..

I will respond to your precis with close attention provided it is a clear, logical, and unambiguous analysis.