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.

Again, specifics please. Show exactly where I've said any of the things you just claimed I'm saying.

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.

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.

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.

Close enough for government work. :D

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/a3...e/g259446a.jpg

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


No, this thread wondered if it was possible for a player to do that in the game. You added the rest yourself.

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'.

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!

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

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.

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.

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

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

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...

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