Lifeboats

[robbo180265]

Originally Posted by applesthecat

I never said Steve is refuting the massacre. .

Originally Posted by applesthecat

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

[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]

[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]

Originally Posted by applesthecat

Then it just becomes a childish pissing contest

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

[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.

[robbo180265]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

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

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]

Originally Posted by applesthecat

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

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by applesthecat

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]

Originally Posted by applesthecat

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]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.