Did I say claim? No. I said insinuated. You referenced the circumstances of your dad’s service to insinuate that he (and therefore you) had special knowledge about a historical incident, and that your assertion should be given weight by virtue of your vicarious association with MacArthur through your father (which, as it eventually turned out, was at best a very weak association).
The infamous post on the day of infamy would appear to be this one:
So, again, it’s not your dad’s service that I consider suspect, but rather your retelling of it. Sometimes the reason there is excessive chloride content downstream of the filter isn’t on account of some excess in the influent, but rather a defect in the filter itself. (Sorry, water treatment reference—one of my jobs in the Navy involved water chemistry for a propulsion plant).
You are the filter. Stop acting like you’re providing us with pure, unadulterated history through your stories and we’ll have far less cause to doubt the circumstances of your father’s service as you’re relaying them to us.
Just “my dad served on the periphery of MacArthur’s staff for portions of the Pacific Campaign, and there was a suspicion among many—but never any proof—that he might have had muddled orders to take the first hit if war broke out” would have been just fine.
Not that it would give much weight to the conspiracy theory it represents, but then that’s kind of the point. It’s that you try to give it undue weight by implicitly overstating your father’s connection to MacArthur that causes problems.