[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.