Lifeboats

[Sgt_Raa]

stop arguing please guys
(http://img293.imageshack.us/i/boat1.png/)

[frau kaleun]

Enjoy Nuremburg, I hear the firing squads are beautiful that time of year. :dead:

[Herr-Berbunch]

how do i make the lifeboats so i can kill the crews in them?... coz im mean like that lol:arrgh!:

You big meanie... I think they are classed as an environment like the lightships and cannot be destroyed, you'll just have to stick with leaving them adrift in the Atlantic in the middle of a storm :help:

[frau kaleun]

:sign_yeah:

[Madox58]

Now who would place a damage zone on a base node for the Survivors
that would allow them to be destroyed and then replaced with a dead body by useing a custom zone in the zone.cfg?
:hmmm:

[papa_smurf]

I noticed you sunk mainly neutrals, expect your career to end once you get back to port:arrgh!:

[Herr-Berbunch]

the other thing i want to know ... green ships and ports.... are they nutral?... i sunk 6 ships hesded into new york october 16 1940.... they never fired on be but they did start evesive manouveres.... im comfused... anyone?


Hey, that's cheating, editing your OT when you've started gettin answers, it makes us look like we're only half-caring about your questions.

In my experience, a neutral is just that until YOU start war with them, not Doenitz, not Kesselring's Luftwaffe, not the Furher himself, but when you start firing! Although compared to the experienced RN their navies aren't great so if you stay submerged and silent you can get away easily - but not in places like Gib :nope:

[Herr-Berbunch]

I noticed you sunk mainly neutrals, expect your career to end once you get back to port:arrgh!:

Unless you've edited your renown configs...?:o

[Sgt_Raa]

You big meanie... I think they are classed as an environment like the lightships and cannot be destroyed, you'll just have to stick with leaving them adrift in the Atlantic in the middle of a storm :help:
yeah i tried to destroy a lightboat too..... when i got closer to the new york harbour the land emplacements destroyed me...lol:damn::fff:

[Sgt_Raa]

Hey, that's cheating, editing your OT when you've started gettin answers, it makes us look like we're only half-caring about your questions.

In my experience, a neutral is just that until YOU start war with them, not Doenitz, not Kesselring's Luftwaffe, not the Furher himself, but when you start firing! Although compared to the experienced RN their navies aren't great so if you stay submerged and silent you can get away easily - but not in places like Gib :nope:
sorry i left the page open while i ews editing it... sorry

[Herr-Berbunch]

yeah i tried to destroy a lightboat too..... when i got closer to the new york harbour the land emplacements destroyed me...lol:damn::fff:

Now, now, play war nicely :up:

[Sgt_Raa]

Now, now, play war nicely :up:
LOL... i might stop stuffing around now and do some real war!.... what confused me is i thought the us was at war with germany by oct 1940... i should brush up on my history lol

[Herr-Berbunch]

LOL... i might stop stuffing around now and do some real war!.... what confused me is i thought the us was at war with germany by oct 1940... i should brush up on my history lol

I believe David Cameron (Brit PM) made the same mistake with Obama last week. Pearl Harbour wasn't until Dec '41... then they decided to help with more than just the loan/lease of a few boats/personnel. :know:

[frau kaleun]

what confused me is i thought the us was at war with germany by oct 1940... i should brush up on my history lol

:doh:

And I thought our educational system was in a shambles. :O:

P.S. Yeah, if a port or ship is green on your map, that's a neutral country/vessel. You are not war with them, period. Although if you fire on a neutral vessel at any time, its nation will consider themselves at war with you for the next 24 hours of game time.

[Sgt_Raa]

:doh:

And I thought our educational system was in a shambles. :O:

P.S. Yeah, if a port or ship is green on your map, that's a neutral country/vessel. You are not war with them, period. Although if you fire on a neutral vessel at any time, its nation will consider themselves at war with you for the next 24 hours of game time.
There is still much for me to learn:cool:

[Sgt_Raa]

Now who would place a damage zone on a base node for the Survivors
that would allow them to be destroyed and then replaced with a dead body by using a custom zone in the zone.cfg?
:hmmm:
Someone should make this mod for the homicidal ones like me... lol
im not that good yet... i can install mods but not make em!
it is known im sure that german uboats wouldnt take prisoners alot so they would just kill em off...
correct me if im wrong

[Madox58]

it is known im sure that german uboats wouldnt take prisoners alot so they would just kill em off...
correct me if im wrong


Stand by for the Broad Sides you're gonna get.
:haha:

[Sailor Steve]

Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941 - my dad's 14th birthday. On that day you can start shooting American ships.

[Sgt_Raa]

Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941 - my dad's 14th birthday. On that day you can start shooting American ships.
And italian?... coz the 6 nuterals i sunk were italian?

[Herr-Berbunch]

Someone should make this mod for the homicidal ones like me... lol
im not that good yet... i can install mods but not make em!
it is known im sure that german uboats wouldnt take prisoners alot so they would just kill em off...
correct me if im wrong


Towards the front-end of the war, uboots did rescue survivors. Then one day they started getting attacked whilst doing so... to me it's a no-brainer, don't pick up survivors, and that's what happened. Occassionally a uboot commander would sail some distance away and radio in clear the last position of the sinking vessel. I guess as allied air cover increased in the Atlantic this also reduced... :damn:

[Herr-Berbunch]

And italian?... coz the 6 nuterals i sunk were italian?

Italian, well why didn't you say so... Italy really depends what dates as they changed side on an almost daily basis :har:


(Sorry Regio if you're reading this!)

[Madox58]

In GWX 3 they become Axis on 6/9/1940

[frau kaleun]

Someone should make this mod for the homicidal ones like me... lol
im not that good yet... i can install mods but not make em!
it is known im sure that german uboats wouldnt take prisoners alot so they would just kill em off...
correct me if im wrong

Just because they did not take prisoners doesn't mean they simply shot survivors in the water. This would have been considered WAY outside the established rules of conduct, even for unrestricted submarine warfare.

In many cases they would come near enough to any lifeboats to talk to the survivors and get a positive ID on the ship they'd just sunk and any other info her men were willing to give them. There are accounts of u-boat crews passing over some basic supplies if needed as well as giving survivors their position and a course towards the nearest landfall, even charts and navigational aids if they had them to spare and the survivors had none. Also accounts of u-boat commanders finding and hailing neutral ships in the area and sending or bringing them back to pick up survivors of enemy ships they'd sunk.

Even the Laconia Order, which officially forbade u-boat crews from picking up or rendering extensive aid to survivors of their attacks, was only issued after an Allied plane attacked a u-boat that was attempting to rescue the Laconia's survivors.

Also you have to remember that the men on board u-boats were themselves sailors who might at any time be left at the mercy of the open sea and the elements of nature, and who were very much aware of this fact. To turn one's weapons on a helpless castaway already in that situation would be, for lack of a better phrase, a huge karmic no-no.

And of course there was also the possibility that one might be found out and held accountable for the killing of essentially helpless survivors, as was the case with Heinz-Wilhelm Eck. He ordered his men to machine-gun the wreckage of a sinking Greek ship, thereby killing some of her surviving crew. A coupla months later he was a POW in the hands of the British, who recovered his boat's war diary which contained a record of the incident. Eck and two of his officers were tried and convicted of war crimes and subsequently executed in 1945.

[Sgt_Raa]

Just because they did not take prisoners doesn't mean they simply shot survivors in the water. This would have been considered WAY outside the established rules of conduct, even for unrestricted submarine warfare.

In many cases they would come near enough to any lifeboats to talk to the survivors and get a positive ID on the ship they'd just sunk and any other info her men were willing to give them. There are accounts of u-boat crews passing over some basic supplies if needed as well as giving survivors their position and a course towards the nearest landfall, even charts and navigational aids if they had them to spare and the survivors had none. Also accounts of u-boat commanders finding and hailing neutral ships in the area and sending or bringing them back to pick up survivors of enemy ships they'd sunk.

Even the Laconia Order, which officially forbade u-boat crews from picking up or rendering extensive aid to survivors of their attacks, was only issued after an Allied plane attacked a u-boat that was attempting to rescue the Laconia's survivors.

Also you have to remember that the men on board u-boats were themselves sailors who might at any time be left at the mercy of the open sea and the elements of nature, and who were very much aware of this fact. To turn one's weapons on a helpless castaway already in that situation would be, for lack of a better phrase, a huge karmic no-no.

ah ok..... i didnt know about that...... makes me look at it in a different way..... i had never leaned that... google hear i come!
thx frau:salute:



http://www.uboataces.com/battle-laconia.shtml

[Herr-Berbunch]

Just because they did not take prisoners doesn't mean they simply shot survivors in the water. This would have been considered WAY outside the established rules of conduct, even for unrestricted submarine warfare.

In many cases they would come near enough to any lifeboats to talk to the survivors and get a positive ID on the ship they'd just sunk and any other info her men were willing to give them. There are accounts of u-boat crews passing over some basic supplies if needed as well as giving survivors their position and a course towards the nearest landfall, even charts and navigational aids if they had them to spare and the survivors had none. Also accounts of u-boat commanders finding and hailing neutral ships in the area and sending or bringing them back to pick up survivors of enemy ships they'd sunk.

Even the Laconia Order, which officially forbade u-boat crews from picking up or rendering extensive aid to survivors of their attacks, was only issued after an Allied plane attacked a u-boat that was attempting to rescue the Laconia's survivors.

Also you have to remember that the men on board u-boats were themselves sailors who might at any time be left at the mercy of the open sea and the elements of nature, and who were very much aware of this fact. To turn one's weapons on a helpless castaway already in that situation would be, for lack of a better phrase, a huge karmic no-no.

Much better to die either in a blazing inferno, or slowly drifting through the Atlantic for days than a simple (?) shot to the head... Glad it's not my choice :down:

[Madox58]

http://www.uboat.net/articles/55.html

[Sgt_Raa]

Quote from uboataces"Donitz stood trial for war crimes and the Laconia order was used as a basis of indictment against him. Most surprisingly, he received support from some of the most respected figures in the US Navy, Admital Chester Nimitz who came to his defense and said that the United States had operated under the same engagements of unrestricted warfare. Despite the evidence of allied practice, Donitz was convicted of war crimes by the Nuremberg Tribunal and sentenced to 11 and a half years in prison. The U-boat crews deeply resented this action and felt that they were being prosecuted for the threat they had posed to the allies rather than for war crimes."

thats pretty bad that happened!... he tried to save all those people and went to jail for it!:cry:



this guy did machine gun survivors

http://www.uboat.net/articles/index.html?article=18&page=2

[frau kaleun]

http://www.uboat.net/articles/55.html

Wow, excellent article! :yeah:

NB:

Other than the Eck case (http://www.uboat.net/articles/id/18) there is no proven intentional machine-gunning of survivors by a U-boat during the entire war

Edit: I confess I'm still woefully underinformed about Onkel Karl's trial and conviction, but I do wonder if things would've been much different had he NOT ended the war as Hitler's chosen successor as head of state. I mean, they couldn't put Hitler on trial because he was already dead (the bloody coward).

[sergei]

this guy did machine gun survivors

Yes he did.
But bear in mind that the Allies investigated extensively after the war looking for this sort of thing, and this is the only documented case they could find.

[Sgt_Raa]

Edit: I confess I'm still woefully underinformed about Onkel Karl's trial and conviction, but I do wonder if things would've been much different had he NOT ended the war as Hitler's chosen successor as head of state. I mean, they couldn't put Hitler on trial because he was already dead (the bloody coward).
thats another completely different story.... they never officialy found his (Hitler's) body... it was supposedly burned and buried!

[maillemaker]

As was said, with the Lifeboats and Debris mod you cannot harm the lifeboats or the people in them. You can even run them over with your u-boat - they will pass right through you. Gunfire has no effect on them.

Neutrals will treat you as hostile if you fire on them. That country will treat you as hostile and fire upon you and take evasive maneuvers for 24 hours after you fire on them.

You will lose renown for sinking neutral ships. Lose enough renown and it can end your career.

Rule of thumb: If its lights are on it is definitely neutral. Lights off it could be neutral or not - check the flag.

Steve

[Sgt_Raa]

As was said, with the Lifeboats and Debris mod you cannot harm the lifeboats or the people in them. You can even run them over with your u-boat - they will pass right through you. Gunfire has no effect on them.

Neutrals will treat you as hostile if you fire on them. That country will treat you as hostile and fire upon you and take evasive maneuvers for 24 hours after you fire on them.

You will lose renown for sinking neutral ships. Lose enough renown and it can end your career.

Rule of thumb: If its lights are on it is definitely neutral. Lights off it could be neutral or not - check the flag.

Steve
thank you :salute:

[Madox58]

Someone should make this mod for the homicidal ones like me... lol


I'll see if I still have a little something hanging around.
:hmmm:

I never got around to adding bodies but you can shoot them.
They just disappear.
And no! You get no renown or lose renown.
They don't work that way.
(Someone would mod a billion points renown as a cheat!)
:har:

[Sgt_Raa]

(Someone would mod a billion points renown as a cheat!)
:har:
that would be easy done...lol

[Kimmers]

ahahaha green ships :cry:
you're lucky all you lose is renown.

[applesthecat]

I know that in the Pacific, Mush Morton machine gunned Japanese survivors in the water and actually got a medal for it. In fact, this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6gFQH54k0M&feature=player_embedded#%21) shows that gunning survivors in the water was considered legitimate policy.

Then there are the H M S Torbay incidents in which Capt. Miers ordered the shooting of German survivors in rafts on two separate occasions. He entered both incidents into his log. The Admiralty sent him a strongly worded letter afterward but nothing else.

[HW3]

I know that in the Pacific, Mush Morton machine gunned Japanese survivors in the water and actually got a medal for it. In fact, this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6gFQH54k0M&feature=player_embedded#%21) shows that gunning survivors in the water was considered legitimate policy.
That is because the Japanese survivors had a nasty habit of trying to kill their rescuers.

[Sailor Steve]

I know that in the Pacific, Mush Morton machine gunned Japanese survivors in the water and actually got a medal for it. In fact, this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6gFQH54k0M&feature=player_embedded#%21) shows that gunning survivors in the water was considered legitimate policy.

Then there are the H M S Torbay incidents in which Capt. Miers ordered the shooting of German survivors in rafts on two separate occasions. He entered both incidents into his log. The Admiralty sent him a strongly worded letter afterward but nothing else.
We've had that discussion several times before. Morton could be culpable, but he claimed they shot at his boat first. The video is edited, and is proof of nothing. Yes, we see guns shooting. Yes, we see people in the water, and some footage of people apparently being shot. But there is no accompanying explanation. Was it malicious, or was there a reason. We don't know, nothing is explained and claiming that it was undeserved, or deserved, or that it was considered policy to wantonly shoot survivors in the water. Proof would be actual orders showing that it was considered policy. Anything else is speculation.

[applesthecat]

IF they were in the water, why not just leave them there? What threat is a man floating in the water to a ship, or even a some survivors in a life boat? It was a war crime by our own standards. Eck was executed for doing the very same thing to survivors in a life raft.

[maillemaker]

I know that in the Pacific, Mush Morton machine gunned Japanese survivors in the water and actually got a medal for it. In fact, this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6gFQH54k0M&feature=player_embedded#%21) shows that gunning survivors in the water was considered legitimate policy.

Pretty damn cold.

IF they were in the water, why not just leave them there? What threat is a man floating in the water to a ship, or even a some survivors in a life boat? It was a war crime by our own standards. Eck was executed for doing the very same thing to survivors in a life raft.

Eck's side didn't win the war.

Steve

[robbo180265]

thats another completely different story.... they never officialy found his (Hitler's) body... it was supposedly burned and buried!


I hate to rain on you parade once more but:

"Red Army troops began storming the Chancellery at approximately 23:00, about 7 hours and 30 minutes after Hitler's death. On 2 May the remains of Hitler, Braun and two dogs (thought to be Blondi (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Blondi) and her offspring Wulf) were discovered in a shell crater by a unit of SMERSH (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/SMERSH) which had orders to find Hitler's body.
The autopsy, contrary to public reports authorized by Stalin in 1945, recorded both gunshot damage to Hitler's skull and glass shards in his jaw. However, Stalin was wary about believing his old nemesis was dead.[15] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-kershaw-14)[16] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-15) The remains of Hitler and Braun were repeatedly buried and exhumed by SMERSH during the unit's relocation from Berlin to a new facility in Magdeburg (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Magdeburg) where they, along with the charred remains of propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels) and those of his wife Magda Goebbels and their six children, were buried in an unmarked grave beneath a paved section of the front courtyard. The location was kept highly secret.[17] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-timesbattleskull-16)
In 1969 Soviet journalist Lev Bezymensky's book on the SMERSH (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/SMERSH) autopsy (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Autopsy) report was published in the West but because of earlier disinformation (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Disinformation) attempts historians may have thought it untrustworthy.[18] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-17)
In 1970 the SMERSH facility, by then controlled by the KGB, was scheduled to be handed over to the East German (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/East_Germany) government. Fearing that a known Hitler burial site might become a Neo-Nazi (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Neo-Nazi) shrine, KGB director Yuri Andropov (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Yuri_Andropov) authorised an operation to destroy the remains. A Soviet KGB team was given detailed burial charts and on 4 April 1970 they secretly exhumed and thoroughly burned the ten bodies, after which the ashes were thrown into in the Biederitz river, a tributary of the nearby Elbe (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Elbe) river.[17] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-timesbattleskull-16)[19] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-18)"

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Adolf_Hitler

:03:

[maillemaker]

I hope they pissed in the ashes before chucking them in the river.

Steve

[Sailor Steve]

IF they were in the water, why not just leave them there? What threat is a man floating in the water to a ship, or even a some survivors in a life boat? It was a war crime by our own standards. Eck was executed for doing the very same thing to survivors in a life raft.
As I said, the video doesn't tell the whole story. If these were soldiers, did they fire on the sub? We don't know. Judging an action without all the facts is speculation, nothing more.

A video only shows you what the editor of that video wants you to see.

[applesthecat]

IN what possible context could shooting at those sailors in the water be justified? You can see helpless men being gunned down. It's plain to see. There is no room for nuance here. Trying to see that as being something other than what it is requires a highly convoluted logic.

Morton himself admitted to doing the very same thing as we see in the video so it not as if this video must be "edited".

[Sailor Steve]

IN what possible context could shooting at those sailors in the water be justified? You can see helpless men being gunned down.
2:13 We see a man in the water.

2:17 We see a close up of the same man, holding out his hand for help.

2:20 We see a US sailor with a sub-machine gun, shooting level, which implies his target is fairly far off. We don't see what he is shooting at.

2:23 We see three men in the water. There is a splash near them, which closely resembles the splash of a bullet.

2:25 We see several men in the water.

2:27 We see an AA crew firing a heavy machine gun.

2:29 We see splashes at a distance in the water. There is no obvious target.

2:32 We see what appears to be a body floating in the water, with no indication of how it got dead.

2:37 We see a close up of a man in the water.

2:43 We see a man firing a submachine gun at a closer target.

2:45 We do see a man in the water being shot.

2:48 We see an officer shooting a man in the water with a pistol.

There is one scene of a gun actually being fired at the men in the water - the rest is all cut.

Where do you see that they are helpless?

It's plain to see. There is no room for nuance here. Trying to see that as being something other than what it is requires a highly convoluted logic.
Convoluted logic? How so? There is nothing plain at all. I could just as easily argue that you are only seeing what you want to see, or what someone else wants you to see. I'm not, because I don't know any more than you do.

Morton himself admitted to doing the very same thing as we see in the video so it not as if this video must be "edited".
Not "must be edited", "IS edited". There is no question that none of the scenes are directly connected. It may be all sequential and edited just for time, or it may be maliciously edited to "prove" wrongdoing. My point is that we don't know one way or the other.

As I said, Morton also claimed that he was fired on first. Truth? Lie? Hero? Criminal? I'm not saying it didn't happen, or defending anybody. I'm just saying that the 'evidence' of that video is no evidence at all.

[HW3]

This is the description of the film.

1945. A US Navy submarine in action in the Pacific. The orders, due to the many cases of suicidal attacks with the use of explosives or hand grenades, were "to avoid and prevent with any means" the approaching to the US ships of shipwrecked Japanese sailors. Another (untold) reason for the killing was to avoid that the shipwrecked Japanese may reveal the submarine presence and position, in case they would be rescued by enemy ships.
To explain the "nonchalance" of the U.S. sailors in being filmed while committing what nowadays could be considered a war crime, all one need to do is watching some of the U.S. WW2 propaganda films and cartoons, portraiting Japanese like sub-human monsters deserving only to be killed (The key phrase of a major War Bonds Campaign theatrical ad was: "Have You Killed your Jap Soldier Today?!", over chilling pictures of piles of dead Japanese). These propaganda films appear unbelievable nowadays... but they're real!
U.S. Combat Camera Unit 16mm original color film.

Linn Productions Media soundtrack (something went wrong with the uploading and only one of the stereo channels is working... not my fault!) added (Demo Only) in 2008 by ROMANO-ARCHIVES, available on:
http://www.linnproductionsmedia.com/

Editing by ROMANO-ARCHIVES.

"SUBSCRIBING to this Channel is a MUST for researchers and RARE HISTORICAL FOOTAGE fans!!!"
V. Romano

This is a clip from the ROMANO-ARCHIVES' new website "Unknown World War 2 in Color"-"Japan & Pacific" section.
At:
http://www.webalice.it/romanoarchives/
Visit also:
http://romanoarchives.altervista.org/
Or:
http://digilander.libero.it/romanoarc... (http://digilander.libero.it/romanoarchives/)
A Hi-Res silent version of this clip is available.
Hi-Res videos from our Collections are available on DVD, CD or directly in your inbox. Clips and movies can also be downloaded from our servers using a PW or uploaded by us to your FTP.

You will notice that the film was edited by ROMANO-ARCHIVES. You will also notice that "The orders, due to the many cases of suicidal attacks with the use of explosives or hand grenades, were "to avoid and prevent with any means" the approaching to the US ships of shipwrecked Japanese sailors."

[applesthecat]

We clearly see men in the water being shot at. I don't know why you insist in arguing that it could be something else, when we see a man being shot in the water, and other sailors shooting hand held guns into the water. We even see bullet splashes near the men. Are you going to suggest that those splashes could be bird droppings? This is what convoluted means. In order to remain in denial, one needs to resort to ever more convoluted reasoning to explain away what is actually happening.

As someone who has served in the US Navy, you may not want to admit that this took place, and more than once. Morton gunned down men in the water. It is a well documented incident. And he was not punished for it because at the time, shooting at Japanese survivors was not considered a war crime especially if one of them was stupid enough to fire a bullet from a raft at a US ship. This also explains why this massacre was allowed to be filmed. At the time, this was not illegal.

[applesthecat]

"The orders, due to the many cases of suicidal attacks with the use of explosives or hand grenades, were "to avoid and prevent with any means" the approaching to the US ships of shipwrecked Japanese sailors."


This is correct and what I meant by policy. At the time, because of previous incidents of Japanese survivors fighting to the bitter end, the US Navy allowed the massacre of all survivors in the water. Sailor Steve is trying to say that what the video shows may not be that at all. But this is exactly what we are seeing. We are seeing this policy in action.

[iambecomelife]

Erm...aside from the political stuff, FYI I have been thinking about making destructible survivors. I have a rough idea of how to do it - I managed to make destructible crewmembers on surface ships by replacing ventilator nodes &c.

Not that I would machine gun survivors myself, but lifeboats could (and did) suffer damage from burning oil slicks, secondary explosions, and stray deck gun rounds. The Allies [rightly] did not investigate German commanders after the war for these incidental casualties - IIRC only the captain who sank the "Peleus" was ever prosecuted.

I may try to include this feature in my WWI mod; if I am successful (big if) it will be easy to port it over to standard Silent Hunter 3 installations.

[Sailor Steve]

We clearly see men in the water being shot at. I don't know why you insist in arguing that it could be something else, when we see a man being shot in the water, and other sailors shooting hand held guns into the water. We even see bullet splashes near the men. Are you going to suggest that those splashes could be bird droppings? This is what convoluted means. In order to remain in denial, one needs to resort to ever more convoluted reasoning to explain away what is actually happening.
Please answer my point-by-point second-by-second examination rather than make accusations. Did I suggest they were bird droppings? You now accuse me of denial and fall back on your convoluted reasoning argument. I said I agreed, with the premise - bad things were done. Why do you keep avoiding that? Point-by-point please.

As someone who has served in the US Navy, you may not want to admit that this took place, and more than once.
Where did I ever say it didn't take place? Specifics please, not accusations.

Morton gunned down men in the water. It is a well documented incident. And he was not punished for it because at the time, shooting at Japanese survivors was not considered a war crime especially if one of them was stupid enough to fire a bullet from a raft at a US ship. This also explains why this massacre was allowed to be filmed. At the time, this was not illegal.
One more time - Morton claimed he was shot at first. I don't know if he was telling the truth or lying. I've said that repeatedly. My only point is that you don't know either, and the video is not sufficient evidence to make the claim.

Again, if you want to keep this up, stop claiming I've said what I never said and stop accusing me of denial and bad argument. Please examine the video point-by-point and counter what I've said, specifically - not what you want me to have said.

[Sgt_Raa]

why did i start this thread?... it seems everyone is arguing now!:cry:

[robbo180265]

why did i start this thread?... it seems everyone is arguing now!:cry:

It was a very emotive theme, I could see it coming a mile off lol.

That said , I prefer to call it a heated discussion.:03:


Now - where did I put my popcorn?

[STEED]

It was a very emotive theme, I could see it coming a mile off lol.

That said , I prefer to call it a heated discussion.:03:


Now - where did I put my popcorn?

Time for a cold frosty cider.

[Sailor Steve]

why did i start this thread?... it seems everyone is arguing now!:cry:
The only way you'll ever avoid that possibility is to never start a thread. You don't want to go down that road - it's even worse than things like this.

On the other hand, you didn't really think a thread expressing a desire to murder people in lifeboats was all that innocent, did you?

[Sgt_Raa]

The only way you'll ever avoid that possibility is to never start a thread. You don't want to go down that road - it's even worse than things like this.

On the other hand, you didn't really think a thread expressing a desire to murder people in lifeboats was all that innocent, did you?
yeah thats true... i just wanted to add to the game a little..... i retract my want to murder survivors in lifeboats:03:

[Sgt_Raa]

I hate to rain on you parade once more but:

"Red Army troops began storming the Chancellery at approximately 23:00, about 7 hours and 30 minutes after Hitler's death. On 2 May the remains of Hitler, Braun and two dogs (thought to be Blondi (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Blondi) and her offspring Wulf) were discovered in a shell crater by a unit of SMERSH (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/SMERSH) which had orders to find Hitler's body.
The autopsy, contrary to public reports authorized by Stalin in 1945, recorded both gunshot damage to Hitler's skull and glass shards in his jaw. However, Stalin was wary about believing his old nemesis was dead.[15] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-kershaw-14)[16] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-15) The remains of Hitler and Braun were repeatedly buried and exhumed by SMERSH during the unit's relocation from Berlin to a new facility in Magdeburg (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Magdeburg) where they, along with the charred remains of propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels) and those of his wife Magda Goebbels and their six children, were buried in an unmarked grave beneath a paved section of the front courtyard. The location was kept highly secret.[17] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-timesbattleskull-16)
In 1969 Soviet journalist Lev Bezymensky's book on the SMERSH (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/SMERSH) autopsy (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Autopsy) report was published in the West but because of earlier disinformation (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Disinformation) attempts historians may have thought it untrustworthy.[18] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-17)
In 1970 the SMERSH facility, by then controlled by the KGB, was scheduled to be handed over to the East German (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/East_Germany) government. Fearing that a known Hitler burial site might become a Neo-Nazi (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Neo-Nazi) shrine, KGB director Yuri Andropov (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Yuri_Andropov) authorised an operation to destroy the remains. A Soviet KGB team was given detailed burial charts and on 4 April 1970 they secretly exhumed and thoroughly burned the ten bodies, after which the ashes were thrown into in the Biederitz river, a tributary of the nearby Elbe (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Elbe) river.[17] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-timesbattleskull-16)[19] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-18)"

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Adolf_Hitler

:03:
WOW... didnt know they went into it that deep.
i learned different in school.... guess my school taught thousands of kids wrong history info!
i can accept whe im wrong.
thanks for the info robbo

[Sgt_Raa]

@2:42.... i think he is blowing himself up to avoid capture the splash is too big to be bullets., a grenade maybe?
didnt japs prefer to commit suicide instead of being captured and bringing dishonor to their families?

[Sailor Steve]

WOW... didnt know they went into it that deep.
i learned different in school.... guess my school taught thousands of kids wrong history info!
i can accept whe im wrong.
thanks for the info robbo
I have a friend who says that he didn't fall in love with history until he was in this thirties (somewhat like myself) and at that time he was suddenly possessed by a desire to find his old high-school history teacher and beat him bloody for making it so boring!
:rotfl2:

Some people complain about schools and school boards having special agendas for teaching things a certain way. I feel the greater likelihood is that they have a limited amount of time, and can only present what they think is most important.

Do you want to know more about a specific piece of history? Read several books that discuss the same subject, preferably from different points of view. Want to know more about a specific person? Read every biography you can find on that person, or else ask someone who has read many to recommend the one he things is best if you don't have time for more than one.

Never trust what any single person says about a subject. The more footnotes provided the better, but even then you need to assume the chance that they might be slanting the story one way or another.

And going into a discussion always assume you may be wrong, and don't state what you can't actually prove. The person who assumes he's right is the person who can't deal with what happens when it turns out he's wrong. And sooner or later every one of us is wrong about something.

[applesthecat]

You now accuse me of denial and fall back on your convoluted reasoning argument. I said I agreed, with the premise - bad things were done. Why do you keep avoiding that? Point-by-point please.

You are trying to say that the film doesn't show what it shows, and what the description says it shows. Yet in several instances we can see men being shot in the water. You say splashes that "resemble" bullets. C'mon. What else can they be? That has to be denial. What about the scene where a japanese sailor got shot at point blank at the side of the sub?

The film documents what the film documents. That is what I'm saying. You're saying it may be documenting a leisurely day at sea, the men may be shooting at fish, the bullet splashes may be something else, the men in the water may be going for swim, the sailors shooting hand guns into the water may be just practicing, and the guy who gets shots in the head may have been, I don't know - a mannequin, and on and on. You're saying there is no proof that any massacre took place in this footage. That is denial.

I don't now why you insist on suggesting the film is possibly not what it is considering that preventing Japanese sailors from approaching by shooting at them was in fact policy.

[Sgt_Raa]

I have a friend who says that he didn't fall in love with history until he was in this thirties (somewhat like myself) and at that time he was suddenly possessed by a desire to find his old high-school history teacher and beat him bloody for making it so boring!
:rotfl2:

Some people complain about schools and school boards having special agendas for teaching things a certain way. I feel the greater likelihood is that they have a limited amount of time, and can only present what they think is most important.

Do you want to know more about a specific piece of history? Read several books that discuss the same subject, preferably from different points of view. Want to know more about a specific person? Read every biography you can find on that person, or else ask someone who has read many to recommend the one he things is best if you don't have time for more than one.

Never trust what any single person says about a subject. The more footnotes provided the better, but even then you need to assume the chance that they might be slanting the story one way or another.

And going into a discussion always assume you may be wrong, and don't state what you can't actually prove. The person who assumes he's right is the person who can't deal with what happens when it turns out he's wrong. And sooner or later every one of us is wrong about something.
You make a great point!.... thanks :)... thsats why i love this forum... so many different points of view:yeah:

[Sailor Steve]

You are trying to say that the film doesn't show what it shows, and what the description says it shows. Yet in several instances we can see men being shot in the water. You say splashes that "resemble" bullets. C'mon. What else can they be? That has to be denial. What about the scene where a japanese sailor got shot at point blank at the side of the sub?
And you seem incapable of addressing a direct question. I mentioned that scene, specifically because it is the only one that is uncut. You say "several instances". Please stop making the same accusation over and over, and comment on the specific cuts I mentioned. You say I'm in denial, but I've never denied anything.

The film documents what the film documents. That is what I'm saying. You're saying it may be documenting a leisurely day at sea, the men may be shooting at fish, the bullet splashes may be something else, the men in the water may be going for swim, the sailors shooting hand guns into the water may be just practicing, and the guy who gets shots in the head may have been, I don't know - a mannequin, and on and on. You're saying there is no proof that any massacre took place in this footage. That is denial.
Again, specifics please. Show exactly where I've said any of the things you just claimed I'm saying.

I don't now why you insist on suggesting the film is possibly not what it is considering that preventing Japanese sailors from approaching by shooting at them was in fact policy.
And again, where have I said that it wasn't policy. You now claim I'm saying it didn't happen. I was in Viet Nam. Remember My Lai? Nothing to do with me, but I know very well what people are capable of, especially in wartime. I know what I'm capable of, and it ain't pretty.

The only thing I've claimed is that that particular video suffers from heavy editing, and we don't know exactly what was edited or why. That makes it suspect as evidence, much less absolute proof. I'm not in denial about anything, but you seem not to be able to address the facts.

Sailor Steve is trying to say that what the video shows may not be that at all. But this is exactly what we are seeing.
So you can't see the cuts and splices? All you need to do is look at the list I made, but you don't seem to be able to do that. All you are doing is saying the same things over and over again, hoping they'll come true.

Again, please look at what I've pointed out AND USE SPECIFICS.

[robbo180265]

We clearly see men in the water being shot at. I don't know why you insist in arguing that it could be something else, when we see a man being shot in the water, and other sailors shooting hand held guns into the water. We even see bullet splashes near the men. Are you going to suggest that those splashes could be bird droppings? This is what convoluted means. In order to remain in denial, one needs to resort to ever more convoluted reasoning to explain away what is actually happening.

As someone who has served in the US Navy, you may not want to admit that this took place, and more than once. Morton gunned down men in the water. It is a well documented incident. And he was not punished for it because at the time, shooting at Japanese survivors was not considered a war crime especially if one of them was stupid enough to fire a bullet from a raft at a US ship. This also explains why this massacre was allowed to be filmed. At the time, this was not illegal.

I think the point that Steve is making (and I assume you are missing) is that yes you can see the men being shot at, and yes in other scenes you can see men shooting. What you can't see however, is the men on the sub shooting at the men in the water all in one scene.

At no point is Steve denying that this happened , he is however pointing out that the film may have been edited to imply the massacare, and because of the way it's cut it doesn't actually show it all in one scene.

Am I right Steve?

Now back to my popcorn - nom, nom, nom.

[Sailor Steve]

I Am I right Steve?
Close enough for government work. :D

Now back to my popcorn - nom, nom, nom.
I'm sure we're all glad you're entertained. :sunny:

Just to address the "denial" charge a little, I will bring up my own evidence, which I think is a bit more solid than that video:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/g259446a.jpg

[Jimbuna]

Got as far as #36 then thought....."Oh no not this flawed footage again" :nope:

[applesthecat]

So your defense is that the film is edited? Well of course. Every film is edited. If they shot 20 minutes worth of film, if it took 20 minutes to gun down all the men in the water, you expect 20 minutes of youtube video? Or 30 minutes. It also showed a sub torpedoing a ship. But we didn't see hours and hours of film. We saw the torpedo explosion. Does this mean that what we witnessed may not have actually been a torpedo attack because it was edited? What is the logic of that argument?

You're saying the film proves nothing because it is not one unedited scene. Well, the film of the moon landing I suppose, by that logic, proves nothing either. It too was edited. A scene here, a scene there. And what of it? This film documents a massacre. And this thread wondered if such a thing was documented by the allied side. So here is a film to document that. One can either accept it at face value, or question what your eyes are showing you, and entertain the notion that maybe no sailors were shot in the water - it just sort of appeared that way.

[Sailor Steve]

So your defense is that the film is edited?
My defense of what? My claim that Americans never did that? I haven't claimed that, despite your insistence that I did. You also claimed I said a lot of other things I never said. I'm still waiting on a reply about that.

Well of course. Every film is edited.
But you didn't use "every film" to try to prove a claim. In this case the editing is critical. You say it's "obvious" what is going on, and yet the editing makes it impossible to determine exactly what's going on. I have never had a problem with your claims, even though you've accused me of being "in denial" over them. I never said that.

I'm a student of truth, and how it's presented. I don't hide from anything. But I do examine everything closely and accept nothing without absolute corroboration. My quibble was never with your claims - I can't and won't deny them, but I will discuss them. My quibble is with one video, far too tampered with to be used as evidence in any reasonable context, and you've insisted on turning it into a diatribe against myself personally, claiming I've said things I haven't, and when that didn't work becoming insulting and demeaning.

What is the logic of that argument?
The logic should be obvious. The film shows people in the water. The film shows guns being fired. There is nothing in the film that directly links the two. Editing can make anything look like anything. On the other hand at 0:30 we can clearly see a shot of AA tracers arcing over the water towards a ship. That is very obviously not edited. Can you see the difference?

And Sgt_Raa has a point as well. The scene where we definitely see an impact - the very one I was willing to concede - it does appear to be an explosion, not a bullet impact (unless the bullet was a 40mm AA round). I could be wrong here, but I doubt it was caused by the .45 the officer is holding in the next scene.

You're saying the film proves nothing because it is not one unedited scene. Well, the film of the moon landing I suppose, by that logic, proves nothing either. It too was edited.
In one sense it doesn't prove anything. Any film can be doctored. Does that mean I think we didn't really go to the moon? Not at all. You seem to be wanting to put words in my mouth again. The film of the moon landing isn't the proof - it's the combination of all the evidence, plus having no reason to not believe it.

Likewise here. I have never argued that it didn't happen (though you have steadfastly insisted otherwise), only that the video is insubstantial as proof.

This film documents a massacre.
No, this film documents people floating in the water. It documents guns being fired. It documents one person dying in the water. The scenes could have been filmed days, weeks, months or even years apart. They could even have been filmed on different submarines.

Or they could, as I said many posts ago, be one continuous scene edited simply for time. The problem isn't that you're wrong, or right. The problem is that we don't know what the situation with the film is. Until that is established claims of it as 'proof' would be laughed out of any court of law, or any school of logic.


And this thread wondered if such a thing was documented by the allied side.
No, this thread wondered if it was possible for a player to do that in the game. You added the rest yourself.

So here is a film to document that. One can either accept it at face value, or question what your eyes are showing you, and entertain the notion that maybe no sailors were shot in the water - it just sort of appeared that way.
Or one can assume, as you do, that a bunch of possibly unrelated scenes sewn together constitute documentary evidence of a massacre.

I've never claimed it didn't happen (though you base all arguments on your assumption that I think that, and you've even claimed that I said it, though you have yet to answer my request to show where I've said it). I've only said that this film has a lot of problems that keep it from being 'proof'.

[Madox58]

Oh good Lord!
:nope:

The SH5 Madness has infected the SH3 forums now.
:shifty:

Don't make me break out the PopCorn Eaters!
:stare:

This thread has strayed far and wide of the OP.
Bailiffs!

[Jankowski]

well, i think they should add destroyable life boats to the game because of the same reason game developers add civilians to other games (excluding massive civilian killing in COD) you can either be the good hero who surfaces near te survivors and pretends to save them, or you can be an evil sod who shoots them. its your choice and makes sh3 a deeper (pun partially intended) game

[applesthecat]

Again, you are twisting yourself into ever more nuanced arguments. You are saying that this film does not definitively show a massacre taking place because our eyes can not, in real time, follow the bullets from the sailors hand guns to the men in the water. That's basically what you are saying. So who is shooting at the Japanese men in the water then? The shadiest defense lawyer in the world wouldn't have the audacity to argue that. We see men being shot at, we see sailors doing the shooting, but you won't accept that the two must be connected. What we do know is that shooting at survivors in the water was allowed, we know it was done, and this film shows what appears to be exactly that. So there is no merit, intellectual or otherwise, in questioning what this film shows. Not everything is a conspiracy. And even if this film, shot by the US Navy in WW II, is all some elaborate hoax, and there is no reason why it should be, Mush Morton reported what he did on the Wahoo in his log. The veracity of that incident is not disputed.

Frau Kaleun brought up the historical angle of shooting survivors in this thread in reply # 23. It was not me. And Sgt. Raa, in reply #24 said he was interested in this topic as well. Sergie also expounded on this topic before I came to the thread. So I posted this video. The only person who took exception to what I posted was you.

[Brag]

Even the remotest inckling of shooting at lifeboats is revolting. Only one U-boat commander was convicted of such a crime.

Besides the neutrals mentioned above, hospital ships are another No No.

[Sgt_Raa]

http://www.awm.gov.au/encyclopedia/centaur/index.asp

the centaur.... An Australian hospital ship sunk by the japs

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/7796/artv09088.jpg (http://img208.imageshack.us/i/artv09088.jpg/)

[Sgt_Raa]

Pls lock this thread now:cool:.. and delete any posts after this Thx

[Randomizer]

Steve

You fight a losing battle, closed minded people believe what they want to believe because they want to believe it and comprehend only that which suits their agenda.. Once dogma sets in, rational discussion goes down the drain.

No amount of logic, no hard evidence, no logical contradictions or evidence anomalies will change a fixated mindset. You are seperated by a common language (as famously observed by one W.L.S. Churchill).

We are seeing only that which the editor or distributor wants us to see. I agree with you completely, that movie clip has no value as hard evidence the the matter of shooting survivors in the water, something which did certainly happen as you have so often acknowledged.

By the way... In before lock...

[Jankowski]

Sgt. Raa, I love your signature!:D

[Sgt_Raa]

Sgt. Raa, I love your signature!:D
thx man... i found the pic in the halarious sh3 screeshot thread.... many lols in there..... i was in stiches readin some of em lol

[Jankowski]

been sometime since i looked there, i need to check again.

[Sgt_Raa]

been sometime since i looked there, i need to check again.
it was on like page 64 or somewhere round there

[Sgt_Raa]

Plz lock this thread and delete posts after #72 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1457390&postcount=72)

[Sailor Steve]

Again, you are twisting yourself into ever more nuanced arguments. You are saying that this film does not definitively show a massacre taking place because our eyes can not, in real time, follow the bullets from the sailors hand guns to the men in the water. That's basically what you are saying. So who is shooting at the Japanese men in the water then?
When claiming an item (i.e. a video) as evidence of a crime, being able to link the pieces is absolutely vital. Otherwise it proves nothing. Period.

We see men being shot at,
No, we don't. We see men in the water. We see men shooting. As I said, the two may be directly connected, or they may be completely unrelated. Unless you can prove a direct connection, the pieces are useless.

but you won't accept that the two must be connected.
What you don't seem to understand is that "must be" and "are" are two completely different things. They seem to be connected in your mind, and that's enough for you. You want to believe it, so any possible link is proof. When extreme wrongdoing is allegated, I like my evidence to be absolutely concrete. This video isn't even close.

What we do know is that shooting at survivors in the water was allowed, we know it was done,
Which I have never denied.

and this film shows what appears to be exactly that.
Again, "appears to be" and "is" are two completely different things. You seem to believe that I think if I can show that the film is flawed then I can argue that if didn't happen. I've never said anything of the kind. I've only pointed out that the film itself is useless as evidence.

So there is no merit, intellectual or otherwise, in questioning what this film shows.
There is every merit in questioning anything offered as evidence, especially when it is unreliable. I question everything people use as proof of a claim. If you don't then you'll inevitabley accept that which is false.

Not everything is a conspiracy.
I've never said it was. You keep assuming things that I've never said.

And even if this film, shot by the US Navy in WW II, is all some elaborate hoax, and there is no reason why it should be, Mush Morton reported what he did on the Wahoo in his log. The veracity of that incident is not disputed.
You keep bringing that up, but you keep avoiding the part where he says he was fired on first.

Frau Kaleun brought up the historical angle of shooting survivors in this thread in reply # 23. It was not me.[/quote]
Actually Frau Kaleun said that the Germans in general did not shoot people in the water. She never said or alleged that it was common practice for anyone to do so.

So I posted this video. The only person who took exception to what I posted was you.
And Sgt Raa himself in post #57.
And Robbo180265 in post #62.
And Jimbuna in post #64.
And Randomizer in post#73.

You keep missing the point that I don't disagree with you. I only point out that the video shows nothing that could actually be called direct proof. It's that simple.

[Sgt_Raa]

You keep missing the point that I don't disagree with you. I only point out that the video shows nothing that could actually be called direct proof. It's that simple.
everyone you do know hes right... there is no proof... its not one complete vid it has been edited....they could be firing at mines! http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675059780_machine-gun_underwater-mine_explosions-at-water_firing-a-gun NOW PLEASE******* DROP IT!

[Sgt_Raa]

now heres a funny kitteh
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/274/jasparafterthedive.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/i/jasparafterthedive.jpg/)
:rotfl2:

[Sailor Steve]

NOW PLEASE******* DROP IT!
Not possible. Once started, an argument has to run its course. Otherwise it's like a cartoon character who has just run off a cliff - legs churning forever, but never falling.

[Sgt_Raa]

Not possible. Once started, an argument has to run its course. Otherwise it's like a cartoon character who has just run off a cliff - legs churning forever, but never falling.
lol yeah fair enough :salute:

[robbo180265]

Steve

You fight a losing battle, closed minded people believe what they want to believe because they want to believe it and comprehend only that which suits their agenda.. Once dogma sets in, rational discussion goes down the drain.

No amount of logic, no hard evidence, no logical contradictions or evidence anomalies will change a fixated mindset. You are seperated by a common language (as famously observed by one W.L.S. Churchill).

We are seeing only that which the editor or distributor wants us to see. I agree with you completely, that movie clip has no value as hard evidence the the matter of shooting survivors in the water, something which did certainly happen as you have so often acknowledged.

By the way... In before lock...

+10 this post says it all really , I can't believe that this argument is still going on. What Steve says is quite correct in that because of the editing of the video, the video proves nothing.

We all know the massacre happened and no-one is denying that fact.

The problem is the video.

[Jimbuna]

now heres a funny kitteh
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/274/jasparafterthedive.jpg (http://img148.imageshack.us/i/jasparafterthedive.jpg/)
:rotfl2:

Yeah, Neal and a few others thought so when I posted it here a few months ago :DL

[Sgt_Raa]

Yeah, Neal and a few others thought so when I posted it here a few months ago :DL
im trying to change the subject lol:yep:

[robbo180265]

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w181/robbo180265/seriouscat.jpg

[applesthecat]

Actually Frau Kaleun said that the Germans in general did not shoot people in the water. She never said or alleged that it was common practice for anyone to do so.I never said she said it was common practice to do so. Now you are putting words in my mouth. I merely provided a video on a topic that was previously discussed.


When claiming an item (i.e. a video) as evidence of a crime, being able to link the pieces is absolutely vital. Otherwise it proves nothing. Period.
LOL. It wasn't a crime. As I said, it was legal to do this. Mush Morton was not tried like Eck.

They seem to be connected in your mind, and that's enough for you. You want to believe it, so any possible link is proof. When extreme wrongdoing is allegated [sic], I like my evidence to be absolutely concrete. This video isn't even close.Again, you seem to think this is some sort of trial. You turned an innocent thread into some sort of courtroom drama for absolutely no reason. No one is arguing for anyone to be tried and convicted of a crime. So your insisting that this video can not "prove" anything is juvenile. If one does not wish to believe what it clearly shows, that is up to them.

I've only pointed out that the film itself is useless as evidence.Again with the evidence bit. What is this Law and Order?


but you keep avoiding the part where he says he was fired on first.Ah ha. Now we come to the root of your motivation for making a mountain out of molehill. You resent that video because you find what is in that video to be disturbing and wish to mitigate these actions by suggesting that perhaps they were justified. "He might have been fired on first". Wow. Now let's assume that happened. What rational person would justify massacring men in a life raft because someone in that life raft would have fired a side arm at a large vessel? Why didn't he just sail away and leave them there? There is no moral defense of that. It may have been legal at the time, but it certainly is not legal today and for good reason.


I only point out that the video shows nothing that could actually be called direct proof. It's that simple.
Again with the "proof". Where is this trial for which you seem so concerned with acting as defense attorney? It is a video that shows men in the water being shot. It is not being used in any war crime trial. It was legal to do what is described in the video. So you can forget about being a defense attorney relying on the old canard that "you can't prove it was me". lol. It is merely an interesting piece of archival footage to which you have taken great exception. This whole trial is only in your head. Nobody cares.

BTW, we can see in one scene both the shooter and the man in the water in the same frame. That is pretty hard to refute. And the reason why he was shot was because the Navy instructed its sailors to not allow Japanese survivors aboard.

[robbo180265]

Wall of text making a mountain out of a mole hill



I am seriously astounded that you just can't seem to work out what Steve is saying , a number of us have tried to get you to understand by posting it in as simplistic form as possible - but you just don't get it do you?

No - one is refuting the massacare, we are all just saying that because of the way the editing is done in the video - it may not show what it claims to. Of course it may well actually show the massacre - who knows? and to be honest - who cares?

Get over it lol.

[applesthecat]

No - one is refuting the massacare, we are all just saying that because of the way the editing is done in the video - it may not show what it claims to.I never said Steve is refuting the massacre. I just find it silly that anyone would take such exception to this piece of archival footage when there is no reason to suspect it of being anything other than what it appears. And Steve can defend himself. He does not need any proxies.

[robbo180265]

I never said Steve is refuting the massacre. .




As someone who has served in the US Navy, you may not want to admit that this took place, .

Now get over yourself - I'll add a post in a thread whenever I want to:nope:

[applesthecat]

No, he may not want to admit that it took place, but he has. The issue is not the historical reality of the massacre, but of any reason to suspect that his video does not show what was US Navy policy. What it shows is consistent with what we know was allowed at the time. Therefore, there is no merit in questioning the veracity of the film. It's very simple.

[robbo180265]

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w181/robbo180265/face.jpg

[applesthecat]

I could post large photos from photobucket, too, but what good would that do. Then it just becomes a childish pissing contest and the moderators don't want bandwidth wasted like that.

[Jimbuna]

Then it just becomes a childish pissing contest

A pretty good analogy and one it looks like some contributors on here would agree with :hmmm:

[robbo180265]

The reason I posted it is because once again you have left me completely speechless in your inability to see that there is no right or wrong here.

You are the one making Mount Everest out of a tiny molehill, quite a few people have attested to that in this very thread , and yet you cannot see this.

A situation worthy of a face palm picture methinks.


http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w181/robbo180265/Uzrco.gif

[robbo180265]

A pretty good analogy and one it looks like some contributors on here would agree with :hmmm:

I couldn't agree more...

[applesthecat]

You are the one making Mount Everest out of a tiny molehill, quite a few people have attested to that in this very thread , and yet you cannot see this.

No, it was Steve who started the argument. My sin, apparently, is for taking Sailor Steve up on that argument and not going away once he has spoken. I posted a molehill, and a mountain was made of it by one member of this board. However, that one member is a fixture here and his opinion is not to be challenged. Apparently, that is a sign of disrespect that riles some of his friends. That is not done. So I will give him the last word.

Nonetheless, I see no reason to question the veracity of the film as it is consistent with what we know was policy. We see in the end of the film a US Navy sailor shooting a man in the water, right next to the sub. In the end, the film is consistent with known historical fact.

[robbo180265]

......

Can't be bothered anymore, he's not listening and Top Gear is on.

[Sgt_Raa]

We see in the end of the film a US Navy sailor shooting a man in the water, right next to the sub. In the end, .
thats where i say its a grenade... old mate is holding a colt because they are approaching a survivor and are on guard because they knew of the kamikase threat... at which point the jap survivor detonates a grenade to avoid capture and dishonoring his family.
all in all lets drop it now please people:yeah:

[Sailor Steve]

I never said she said it was common practice to do so. Now you are putting words in my mouth. I merely provided a video on a topic that was previously discussed.
You said Frau Kaleun brought up the historical angle of shooting survivors in this thread in reply # 23. It was not me.
Which she did not do. You implied that yourself.

LOL. It wasn't a crime. As I said, it was legal to do this. Mush Morton was not tried like Eck.
No, but murdering people in the water is a crime, whether you call it one or not. It deserves a defense.

Again, you seem to think this is some sort of trial. You turned an innocent thread into some sort of courtroom drama for absolutely no reason. No one is arguing for anyone to be tried and convicted of a crime. So your insisting that this video can not "prove" anything is juvenile. If one does not wish to believe what it clearly shows, that is up to them.
Again you need to go through each of my points on the video and answer them. It shows nothing clearly.

Ah ha. Now we come to the root of your motivation for making a mountain out of molehill.
Ah ha. Now we resort to pseudo-psychoanalysis instead of answering the questions.

You resent that video because you find what is in that video to be disturbing and wish to mitigate these actions by suggesting that perhaps they were justified. "He might have been fired on first". Wow. Now let's assume that happened. What rational person would justify massacring men in a life raft because someone in that life raft would have fired a side arm at a large vessel? Why didn't he just sail away and leave them there? There is no moral defense of that. It may have been legal at the time, but it certainly is not legal today and for good reason.

I use the 'trial' reference because you claim the video is valid evidence of a certain behaviour. Evidence needs and deserves to be examined. And that particular piece is severely flawed. Yet you keep claiming that a spliced and edited piece of film that never shows a gun shooting and a person being shot in the same frame is smooth, seemless and obvious. How do you know those scenes weren't shot months apart on different boats?

First, I don't resent the video at all. I started out by simply pointing out that it is not proof of what you claim it is. You started the fight.

Second, Morton has been accused of war crimes in this same context. If that wasn't your intent in bringing it up, then I'm sorry for misunderstanding. But if it is brought out that way one hundred times (and it has been, more than that) and one person brings it up without saying why, then it's an easy mistake to make.

As for it being legal, slaughtering helpless people in the water is a crime no matter how you look at it, so you are using that context whether you admit it or not. You have accused certain people of doing something both criminal and morally reprehensible. You've used that video and you have called it 'proof'. That deserves an answer.

Again with the "proof". Where is this trial for which you seem so concerned with acting as defense attorney?
I answered that in my post immediately above. You made an accusation and you called it proof.

It is a video that shows men in the water being shot.
You had better finally answer my moment-by-moment analysis. It shows men in the water. It shows guns firing. It never once shows a person being shot. In one scene there is a splash nearby. When I mentioned you snidely asked if I thought it was a bird dropping. No, but is it possibly a warning shot to keep the people in the water from coming any closer. Or not. The point is that I don't know, and neither do you. I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything by it. You are the one who keep insisting it's obvious, when it is not obvious at all.

Then there is the 'hit'. As Sgt Raa pointed out, the splash is big enough it could be a grenade, and he was going to throw it. Did he commit suicide? Was he shot before he could throw it? Did someone shoot him with a 40mm?

Again, the point is what we don't know. It could have been any, all, or none of the above. You keep insisting that it's obvious, when there is nothing remotely obvious about it.


It is not being used in any war crime trial. It was legal to do what is described in the video. So you can forget about being a defense attorney relying on the old canard that "you can't prove it was me". lol.
You seem to think making fun of people is a valid form of argument. It's not.

It is merely an interesting piece of archival footage to which you have taken great exception. This whole trial is only in your head. Nobody cares.
I don't take exception to the footage at all. I take exception to you claiming it is an obvious example of US submariners murdering people in cold blood, when it shows nothing of the kind. "Only in my head"? Then why not answer my questions? As I said, I merely pointed out the video was flawed, and didn't show what you claimed it showed. You are the one who keeps trying to bring up personal flaws in my character and reasoning abilities. That is also the kind of argument people use when they don't have anything real to offer.


BTW, we can see in one scene both the shooter and the man in the water in the same frame. That is pretty hard to refute. And the reason why he was shot was because the Navy instructed its sailors to not allow Japanese survivors aboard.
Which scene? Which frame? As I keep saying, specifics please?

[Sailor Steve]

No, it was Steve who started the argument. My sin, apparently, is for taking Sailor Steve up on that argument and not going away once he has spoken.
All I did was point out the flaws in the video. You have done everything you could to insist that there was no editing and it was fluid and concrete, and then you switched to insisting that the editing was unimportant. As a document it is unimportant. As a backup to your statements it has to be supported or refuted.

I don't expect anybody to "go away once I have spoken". Once again you try to use some sort of psychology to make yourself right. I am often wrong, and I admit it. I even said the video's editing may only be of a few moments. It's entirely possible that every thing you point out is true. My contention is that the video doesn't show it.

I posted a molehill, and a mountain was made of it by one member of this board. However, that one member is a fixture here and his opinion is not to be challenged. Apparently, that is a sign of disrespect that riles some of his friends. That is not done. So I will give him the last word.
Now you're trying to play mind games. Nobody has said you can't say what you want, or "challenge" me all you want. You did say that nobody agreed with me, and now when some are you're trying to make them go away by accusing them of supporting me because they are friends, and not because they agree with me.

Are they not entitled to their opinions as well?

Let's get some truth in here: When I first said the video was edited and didn't prove anything, you insisted that it was not edited and everything was obvious. When I showed that that was not the case, you accused me of being so wrapped up in what I believed that for me it "had to be edited". Then you said that it might be edited, but asked what that proved, and then started off on a tangent about the moon landings.

You have accused me of convoluted logic, you've accused me of not wanting there to have been shootings (something I never said), you've accused me of all manner of things that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. All I have ever said was that the video's editing rendered it useless as evidence (and despite your insulting dismissal saying I was trying to "turn it into a trial", you tried to use it as exactly that to back up your claims). You are the one who started throwing challenges and accusations. I have never said anything negative about your character or your reasoning abilities.

Me: The video is edited, therefore does not prove anything.

You: Sailor Steve is twisting things to make it match what he thinks. Sailor Steve doesn't want to admit that it was 'policy'. Nobody agrees with me, therefore I'm wrong. If anybody does agree with me they are only helping out a friend, or being sycophants because of my "lofty position". Apparently Sailor Steve's opinions are not to be challenged.

Which is molehill, and which is mountain?

Nonetheless, I see no reason to question the veracity of the film as it is consistent with what we know was policy. We see in the end of the film a US Navy sailor shooting a man in the water, right next to the sub. In the end, the film is consistent with known historical fact.
Again:

2:38 Man swimming in water, obviously alive and well.

2:43 Man on submarine shooting a Thomson. If you'll notice, the water in the two scenes is a very different shade of blue, indicating a different time of day.

2:45 Man in water, big blast at his midriff. At least a 40mm AA gun, or more likely a grenade.

2:49 Cut (not pan) to the body in the water, and an officer on deck with a .45 in his hand.

Contrary to your ongoing allegations, at no time in that sequence do we actually see a gun fired at a person in the water. Not once.

Your answer to that?

[Sgt_Raa]

:nope::dead::/\\chop:gulp:

[Randomizer]

I think that the film is proof that the Moon Landings in 1969 were filmed on the Grassy Knoll by the Alien Autopsy film crew. If you look closely at the bridge there's Burt Lancaster and Clark Gable arguing about taking Nerka to Area 7.

Or perhaps not...

The value of an edited film as proof of anything other than that which the editor wishes to prove is somewhere between nothing and zero to any logical analysis. Some however will see exactly what they want to see, believing this spin as "fact" and no evidence to the contrary is admissable to them.

[Sgt_Raa]

I think that the film is proof that the Moon Landings in 1969 were filmed on the Grassy Knoll by the Alien Autopsy film crew. If you look closely at the bridge there's Burt Lancaster and Clark Gable arguing about taking Nerka to Area 7.

Or perhaps not...

The value of an edited film as proof of anything other than that which the editor wishes to prove is somewhere between nothing and zero to any logical analysis. Some however will see exactly what they want to see, believing this spin as "fact" and no evidence to the contrary is admissable to them.
:sign_yeah:

[Jankowski]

OK TO FINNISH OF THIS THREAD I WILL SAY THIS. MUSH MORTON WAS CLEARLY A PEN15 HEAD BECAUSE ANYWAY WHAT HARM COULD A FEW SURVIVORS DO TO A SUBMARINE, AND THE VIDEO WHILE NOT CONSTITUTING SUFFICENT EVIDENCE IS CERTAINLY SUSPICIUOS. WHY DOES EVERYONE START FLAMING AT APPLESTHECAT BECAUSE HE MADE A SIMPLE POINT??

now i expect to be flamed upon because i spelt the word suspicous wrong and for talking in caps

[Herr-Berbunch]

Oh dear, look what happens when I spend a weekend away from the forum, it decends into... well, this thread! Can we all agree to disagree - everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it is wrong/misguided/mistaken/different. :damn:

I'm finishing now and going to check over the four-word story game, and hope that it's not now in a similar state to this thread :D

Edit: Four word story game is safe, phew! Daft, but safe!

[robbo180265]

OK TO FINNISH OF THIS THREAD I WILL SAY THIS. MUSH MORTON WAS CLEARLY A PEN15 HEAD BECAUSE ANYWAY WHAT HARM COULD A FEW SURVIVORS DO TO A SUBMARINE, AND THE VIDEO WHILE NOT CONSTITUTING SUFFICENT EVIDENCE IS CERTAINLY SUSPICIUOS. WHY DOES EVERYONE START FLAMING AT APPLESTHECAT BECAUSE HE MADE A SIMPLE POINT??

now i expect to be flamed upon because i spelt the word suspicous wrong and for talking in caps


YOU SPELT SUSPI..........................Oh wait!

[Sailor Steve]

WHY DOES EVERYONE START FLAMING AT APPLESTHECAT BECAUSE HE MADE A SIMPLE POINT??
I haven't flamed him once. I showed where he was wrong, and he has attacked both my reason and my character, and the character of anyone who agrees. Who is flaming whom?

now i expect to be flamed upon because i spelt the word suspicous wrong and for talking in caps
And you would expect wrongly. You believe you have a reason to shout, and from your point of view you may well be right. I disagree. Is that flaming?

Do try to calm down and join the discussion. Everyone is always welcome.

[Herr-Berbunch]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSE28-d7GEuyUlQJP_wcAvNWJpRCWrXu4BRhh4cq6-03kP0ekg&t=1&usg=__lKJ5AsUZDCqRz2TKWe2-E6Uvw2s=:D

[Sgt_Raa]

Oh dear, look what happens when I spend a weekend away from the forum, it decends into... well, this thread! Can we all agree to disagree - everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it is wrong/misguided/mistaken/different. :damn:

I'm finishing now and going to check over the four-word story game, and hope that it's not now in a similar state to this thread :D

Edit: Four word story game is safe, phew! Daft, but safe!
wheres that?.... sounds like fun!...lol

[Randomizer]

4-Word Story Game is in General Topics. Jimbuna started it some time ago and it's up to 4500+ replies last time I checked. It's a hoot, enjoy.

[JScones]

Can we all agree to disagree - everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if it is wrong/misguided/mistaken/different. :damn:
I don't think it was deliberate, but the irony in this statement is head exploding! :haha:

[Jankowski]

why cant we all be friends, sorry if i offended anyone!

[robbo180265]

why cant we all be friends, sorry if i offended anyone!

I wouldn't worry we are all friends here (least I hope so) And I understood your post for the joke it was - see my reply.

[Jankowski]

yeah I laughed out loud when i read it:yeah:

I love you guys!

[Jimbuna]

yeah I laughed out loud when i read it:yeah:

I love you guys!

WTF! http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/3782/shockedvi81.gif

I'm not like that....honestly http://www.btsmods.com/Smileys/classic/Ah_fooey.gif

:03:

[Herr-Berbunch]

I think it's a compliment Jim, take it like a man!



:nope:

[Jimbuna]

I think it's a compliment Jim, take it like a man!



:nope:

No pun intended I hope.

Observe the final winking smiley.

[Herr-Berbunch]

WTF! http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/3782/shockedvi81.gif

I'm not like that....honestly http://www.btsmods.com/Smileys/classic/Ah_fooey.gif

:03:

No pun intended I hope.

Observe the final winking smiley.

Then is that wink meaning all written before it was just, ahem, tongue in cheek? And that middle emoticon is looking a tad limp-wristed?


:arrgh!:<--Jolly Roger, name or instruction?

[Jimbuna]

Then is that wink meaning all written before it was just, ahem, tongue in cheek? And that middle emoticon is looking a tad limp-wristed?


:arrgh!:<--Jolly Roger, name or instruction?

Well it certainly weren't this http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/4324/gayxy5.gif and this http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/2772/thumbsupgv0.gif over eggs the pudding some what.

Hold on a while though and I'll ask the internet copper to carry out a full investigation http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/wolfcop.gif

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/9379/webcrusader.jpg

[Herr-Berbunch]

Nice one :haha:

http://www.mocpages.com/user_thumbnails/matthew@galacticbrick.com/www.brickshelf.com_gallery_mattcorp_Kingdom-Of-Heaven_Crusader-Figs_dsci0011.jpg_SPLASH.jpg

[Herr-Berbunch]

Sorry, there appears to be the letter 'J' missing from the third line...:har:

edit: Sorted in post #126
http://blog.geekboy.fr/public-img/2006/09/internet_police.jpg

[robbo180265]

Continuing the theme.....


http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w181/robbo180265/fromtheinternet.jpg

[frau kaleun]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OCwBevNH3x0/SHK-QdqGDTI/AAAAAAAAAgo/slHjmHYyUmM/s400/intercat.jpg

[Herr-Berbunch]

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4120/4857351384_c50ee73146_b.jpg

[robbo180265]

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w181/robbo180265/from1.jpg

[robbo180265]

Like the doctored one Herr-Berbunch:har:

[Herr-Berbunch]

Like the doctored one Herr-Berbunch:har:

:D Thanks, so do I - and I'm also grateful that Jim has a good sense of humour (so far...!)

[Jimbuna]

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/4454/subsim2008074.jpg (http://img836.imageshack.us/i/subsim2008074.jpg/)

[Sgt_Raa]

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/4454/subsim2008074.jpg (http://img836.imageshack.us/i/subsim2008074.jpg/)
Where do i get these shirts?

[Jimbuna]

Where do i get these shirts?

A small sgnwriting shop in Westoe Road, South Shields.

[Sailor Steve]

Where do i get these shirts?
A small sgnwriting shop in Westoe Road, South Shields.
Jim was kind enough to have them custom-made for the Grey Wolves who attended the 2008 Houston Subsim Meet, plus a few honorary members.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/SteveStuff/SteveJimJason.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/SteveStuff/Wolveswithguests.jpg

[Jimbuna]

Where'd I go? :o

I'm missing from that bottom picture :hmmm:

[frau kaleun]

I think Herr Kaleun's cap is stealing your thunder.

[Herr-Berbunch]

More like he saw a pickernick basket :har:

[Jimbuna]

I think Herr Kaleun's cap is stealing your thunder.

Wey the bigheaded bugga :haha:

[Jimbuna]

Where do i get these shirts?

Jim was kind enough to have them custom-made for the Grey Wolves who attended the 2008 Houston Subsim Meet, plus a few honorary members.


This is what is on the back of them
http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/6199/1aallyouneedfull1.jpg (http://img535.imageshack.us/i/1aallyouneedfull1.jpg/)

Here we have Privateer sitting at his laptop looking at some porn whilst his missus is out shopping.

TarJak is clearly shocked at the realisation and here is further evidence of the infatuation Kaptain Lehmann has with coffee makers
http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/598/img0484b.jpg (http://img594.imageshack.us/i/img0484b.jpg/)

Finally, here I am special guest and stand-in entertainment at Neals house teaching mookiemookie, Rebel and his wife the age old British custom of drinking beer...3 bottles at a time
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/5025/1house2.jpg (http://img245.imageshack.us/i/1house2.jpg/)

[Madox58]

:hmmm:

Do I detect an infatuation with 3's?
http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n12/privateer_2006/IMG_0498.jpg
:D

[Jimbuna]

:hmmm:

Do I detect an infatuation with 3's?

:D

You should post the audio with TarJak speaking :rotfl2:

[Sgt_Raa]

You should post the audio with TarJak speaking :rotfl2:
Do you like our Aussie Accents?..lol:yeah:
Just dont make us say Squirrel...lol

[Herr-Berbunch]

@Sgt_Raa;Tarjak

SAY SQUIRREL :D


Pleeeeeease!:doh:

[Sgt_Raa]

HAHAHAHAHA.... squirrel... can i post audio anywhere?... il say "squirrel"
what is it with you americans liking aussies saying squirrel with our accents?

[Jimbuna]

Us Brits prefer beaver :03:

[Herr-Berbunch]

HAHAHAHAHA.... squirrel... can i post audio anywhere?... il say "squirrel"
what is it with you americans liking aussies saying squirrel with our accents?

One musn't confuse Herr-Berbunch as being an American cousin, Herr-Berbunch is as English as the Queen (if you take out the German...), don't you know! Now for a nice cup of Earl Grey tea and a lovely slice of cake. Well Sgt_Raa, it has been the most wonderful experience communicating in this fashion. Ta-Raa!


(WTF :nope:)

[Sgt_Raa]

Us Brits prefer beaver :03:
YEH!:yeah::03::rock::rotfl2:

[Sgt_Raa]

One musn't confuse Herr-Berbunch as being an American cousin, Herr-Berbunch is as English as the Queen (if you take out the German...), don't you know! Now for a nice cup of Earl Grey tea and a lovely slice of cake. Well Sgt_Raa, it has been the most wonderful experience communicating in this fashion. Ta-Raa!


(WTF :nope:)
well put the Kettle on then!

[robbo180265]

well put the Kettle on then!


Is it wrong to be from the UK and prefer coffee?

[frau kaleun]

Is it wrong to be from the UK and prefer coffee?

Yes. Please surrender your passport at the nearest government office, where a specially appointed constable is waiting to escort you to the international airport of your choice. Cheerio, ta-ta, and enjoy your new life abroad!

:O:

[danzig70]

You might want to retain a barrister from your bailiwick to save your bahookie.

[Sgt_Raa]

Is it wrong to be from the UK and prefer coffee?
i like tea!...and beer... COLD BEER!!!:rotfl2:

[Pebble Monkey]

Is it wrong to be from the UK and prefer coffee?

Yes. Please surrender your passport at the nearest government office, where a specially appointed constable is waiting to escort you to the international airport of your choice. Cheerio, ta-ta, and enjoy your new life abroad!

:O:

Can I have my new life abroad in Hawaii please?

[frau kaleun]

Can I have my new life abroad in Hawaii please?

Yes, but then you have to eat poi.

[robbo180265]

Can I have my new life abroad in Hawaii please?

poi or no poi - I'm with him!

[Herr-Berbunch]

Is it wrong to be from the UK and prefer coffee?

Not at all, I haven't drunk tea in the last 20 years, coffee and beer (not together) is the way, oh, and red vino (must be correct temp and aerated!) :doh:

[robbo180265]

Not at all, I haven't drunk tea in the last 20 years, coffee and beer (not together) is the way, oh, and red vino (must be correct temp and aerated!) :doh:

Good Lord I think I've found my long lost brother^^:O:

[Sailor Steve]

Yes, but then you have to eat poi.
Eating poi with the hoi polloi - what a joy.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Good Lord I think I've found my long lost brother^^:O:

Mum says "Hello Robbo" :03:

If I ever venture down that way we'll have to have (in this order...) red wine, some beer and finish off with coffee :()1:

[Sgt_Raa]

!!QUICK WHATS THE BEST res for a 24 inch tv!! one night only!!!!! lol:up:

[Herr-Berbunch]

!!QUICK WHATS THE BEST res for a 24 inch tv!! one night only!!!!! lol:up:

TV or monitor? LCD?

My 24" monitor is 1920x1200 if that's any help, TVs are much lower...

[Sgt_Raa]

TV or monitor? LCD?

My 24" monitor is 1920x1200 if that's any help, TVs are much lower...
nah its a tv... might b a little bigger than 24...30 maybe?... its big i tells ya!!!:D... 1h ave just left it syck at my default 1024x768...... its not the best telly.... not what i\d prefer to plug my krud 2.0g p4 into
only 2 gb ram ... umm 128 9800 raedon or somethibg (its crap) card in it... need new hardware!!!:cool:

[Sgt_Raa]

1280x960... OMG!!! looks so frealin good just on the menu screen!!!!... yay for one night!!!
...(took my pc to a mates 4 a night)
takes 10 mons to load into the game st but its sure worth it... look sgr8

[Mataf]

Hi everybody.:yeah: I was gone for a while, but now i'm back for the hunting and ready to go.
I've just downloaded GWX3 :up: :up: (many thanks to that wonderful team and to all of you who have worked on SH3) plus everything which goes with, and erased the old game (I did'nt play with for a year)...:zzz:
Now everything is ok except the resolution which is not satisfactory.:cry:
I would like to turn it in 1600x1200 but I don't remember how to do so.:-?
Could any captain back to harbor tell me how to do that?
Thanks a lot and good hunt to all of you.:salute:

[Herr-Berbunch]

Hi everybody.:yeah: I was gone for a while, but now i'm back for the hunting and ready to go.
I've just downloaded GWX3 :up: :up: (many thanks to that wonderful team and to all of you who have worked on SH3) plus everything which goes with, and erased the old game whith (I did'nt play with for a year)...:zzz:
Now everything is ok except the resolution which is not satisfactory.:cry:
I would like to turn it in 1600x1200 but I don't remember how to do so.:-?
Could any captain back to harbor tell me how to do that?
Thanks a lot and good hunt to all of you.:salute::cry:

Stock resolution is 1024x768, there is a res-fix taking it up to 1280x960 but that's all.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=1092

[frau kaleun]

Stock resolution is 1024x768, there is a res-fix taking it up to 1280x960 but that's all.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/downloads.php?do=file&id=1092

I use this "fix" to run at 1400x1050 so higher resolutions are possible - however it should be noted that a lot of folks do report issues with the mod that I've never had, and I'm clueless as to why my luck's been so good... so YMMV.

[Synthfg]

I hope they pissed in the ashes before chucking them in the river.

Steve

Sorry going back to this You do realise that 6 of those 10 bodies were children, murdered by there mother because she didn't want them growing up after germanys defeat

[Mataf]

Thank you all for your quick answer:up::yep: and thank you Frau kaleun for your warning.:hmmm:
I will try that one and tell you...;)

[frau kaleun]

Thank you all for your quick answer:up::yep: and thank you Frau kaleun for your warning.:hmmm:
I will try that one and tell you...;)

The most commonly reported problem with the Res Fix mod seems to be with taking in-game screenshots. Installing the mod changes the screenshot "command" to the PrintScreen key on your keyboard. I don't have any problems using it, but for a lot of people the game crashes when they use the mod and then try to take a screenshot.

Best advice if you use the mod is to install it and then load a single mission or "test" career and try out a screenshot and see what happens before you risk a crash in the middle of a career patrol. :up:

Also be aware that if you use the Mission Editor, this mod will interfere with that - you can still open the program and relevant files, but because of the altered resolution the display will be awful. The workaround for this is to temporarily rename the d3d9.dll file that the mod has you copy to your game folder, then open Mission Editor and do your stuff. Just remember to change the name of the file back to d3d9.dll before reloading the game itself.

[Mataf]

Concerning the screenshot command, it's written and explained on the ".doc" page: once installed, "print screen", PRTSCR ,becomes the new command. (Already downloaded and read but I have to wait this evening to install...:DL).
About "Mission editor ", i did'nt try that one for now, but if, I will remember your advice...:yep:

Vielen dank frau kaleun

[frau kaleun]

Concerning the screenshot command, it's written and explained on the ".doc" page: once installed, "print screen", PRTSCR ,becomes the new command. (Already downloaded and read but I have to wait this evening to install...:DL).
About "Mission editor ", i did'nt try that one for now, but if, I will remember your advice...:yep:

Vielen dank frau kaleun

Gern geschehen.

Be aware, though, that even using the PrintScreen key as noted in the mod's instructions has resulted in crashes for some users when taking screenshots. That's why I would advise testing it out first before using it while playing your "real" career or chosen mission, just in case you do have problems. :DL

[robbo180265]

Mum says "Hello Robbo" :03:

If I ever venture down that way we'll have to have (in this order...) red wine, some beer and finish off with coffee :()1:

Sounds like a darn good plan to me:up:

[Sgt_Raa]

lol this thread is still alive lol:haha:

[Herr-Berbunch]

Thread is very much alive, off topic ever so slightly, but alive :woot:

[frau kaleun]

lol this thread is still alive lol:haha:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_zqFoq3qej2c/Sa814_u6sSI/AAAAAAAAmxs/PifnQMT9Wn0/s400/youngfrankenstein.jpg

[Jimbuna]

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2010/02/340x_hawkmen.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4SA2peIqZmQ/Sj0NvAhsapI/AAAAAAAACo4/i_uC9QTpvsw/s400/Flash+Gordon+Prince+Vultan+of+the+hawkmen+flash12. gif

[Herr-Berbunch]

I'M BRIAN BLESSED, AND SO'S MY WIFE :har:

[Herr-Berbunch]

As promised in the Are We Tough Enough thread from yesteryear - a necro-reboot of this wonderful read :yeah:

[frau kaleun]

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/10/4/452fdcd9-7071-45bb-a855-ebe1a539a4c2.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

I don't get it. :-?

[Randomizer]

Thread necrophilia, the dead elephant in poor Neal's Internet living room, where we are mere guests...

[frau kaleun]

I don't get it. :-?

Just doing my part to avert the zombie apocalypse. :O:

[desirableroasted]

Thread necrophilia, the dead elephant in poor Neal's Internet living room, where we are mere guests...

His guacamole is looking a little old, too.

[Randomizer]

His guacamole is looking a little old, too.
Won't some PLEASE think of the cheese dip...

[Jimbuna]

Just doing my part to avert the zombie apocalypse. :O:

http://pics.livejournal.com/caffienekitty/pic/001w4097.jpg

[frau kaleun]

http://pics.livejournal.com/caffienekitty/pic/001w4097.jpg

http://chzgifs.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/funny-gifs-monday-morning.gif

[Randomizer]

http://chzgifs.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/funny-gifs-monday-morning.gif
http://www.celebrityfreakshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/osama-bin-laden-zombie-indian-ocean-jihad.jpg

[Jimbuna]

http://chzgifs.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/funny-gifs-monday-morning.gif

Love it :DL

[JazzJR]

Love it :DL

Thats harmless :O:

Thats how it is done:DL
http://dc213.4shared.com/img/q6kgDt5U/s7/WWETheBash2009John_Cena_vs_The.gif

Or maybe this ^^
http://flinters17.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/slap.gif

[Sgt_Raa]

hi everyone im back

[Fish In The Water]

hi everyone im back

Not quite sure what's happening with your thread, but welcome back! :sunny:

[Sailor Steve]

hi everyone im back
Interesting timing. :sunny:

[Herr-Berbunch]

hi everyone im back

Welcome back :woot: some sixth sense must've alerted you!

The arguments on the previous pages aren't over yet, people are just taking a breather and having a cup of tea.

[Sgt_Raa]

Welcome back :woot: some sixth sense must've alerted you!

The arguments on the previous pages aren't over yet, people are just taking a breather and having a cup of tea.


lol yeah... my old thread that i thought would have been killed or locked by now.:rock:

[Herr-Berbunch]

In every other post of your in this thread you've asked for it to be locked. You should know by now that's not the way of GT. :03:

I think I've only known of one in my short time here...

[Sailor Steve]

You should know by now that's not the way of GT. :03:
This isn't GT. Still no reason why this thread should ever have been locked.

[Herr-Berbunch]

This isn't GT. Still no reason why this thread should ever have been locked.

You have a good and valid point there, Steve! That'll teach me to double-check what I type, I could've sworn it was GT by the constant too-ing and fro-ing of the same arguments over many pages.

Let's return to the point that Sgt Raa wanted to murder people in lifeboats and take the heat off me. And Privateer knows how to commit the crime in game! :hmmm:

[Madox58]

It's not that hard to mod in the ability to gun down the Life Boats.
And just as we debated long and hard about even adding survivors?
Maybe it is time to go ahead and add that feature?
:hmmm:

One would not be required to use that type Mod but it would bring up a whole new slew of interesting threads and screen shots!
:haha:

There would be the ones who do whole sale slaughter of Life Boats.
Then those who would jump in and demand a 'Subsim War Crimes Trial' of them!!
:har:

[Sailor Steve]

Then those who would jump in and demand a 'Subsim War Crimes Trial' of them!!
:har:
Better to mod a war crimes trial into the game, or at least have your career end if you did it. :sunny:

[Randomizer]

Better to mod a war crimes trial into the game, or at least have your career end if you did it

Sink a hospital ship in GWX and you could lose your command with the implication that it just might prove fatal. Learned that lesson the hard way.

Hobson's Choice, pistol in the cell with a single bullet or shot at dawn with a severe reprimand to follow on the next performance evaluation.

[Sgt_Raa]

You have a good and valid point there, Steve! That'll teach me to double-check what I type, I could've sworn it was GT by the constant too-ing and fro-ing of the same arguments over many pages.

Let's return to the point that Sgt Raa wanted to murder people in lifeboats and take the heat off me. And Privateer knows how to commit the crime in game! :hmmm:

hey it wasn't like that.
it..... never mind....... (drifts off):zzz:

[Sgt_Raa]

:up:It's not that hard to mod in the ability to gun down the Life Boats.
And just as we debated long and hard about even adding survivors?
Maybe it is time to go ahead and add that feature?
:hmmm:

One would not be required to use that type Mod but it would bring up a whole new slew of interesting threads and screen shots!
:haha:

There would be the ones who do whole sale slaughter of Life Boats.
Then those who would jump in and demand a 'Subsim War Crimes Trial' of them!!
:har: