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

it was on like page 64 or somewhere round there

Plz lock this thread and delete posts after #72

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.

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.

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.

Which I have never denied.

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.

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.

I've never said it was. You keep assuming things that I've never said.

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.

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.

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/65...r_firing-a-gun NOW PLEASE******* DROP IT!

now heres a funny kitteh
http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/2...terthedive.jpg
:rotfl2:

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:

+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.

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:

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.

LOL. It wasn't a crime. As I said, it was legal to do this. Mush Morton was not tried like Eck.

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 with the evidence bit. What is this Law and Order?

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.

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.

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.

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.