- Messages
- 254
- Reaction score
- 61
- # of dives
- I'm a Fish!
Counselor,
John Yurga, Richie Kohler and myself wrote three articles in this series for Joe Porter and Wreck diving Magazine. But, it seems like you are getting way ahead of us here, are you not counselor? I mean, don't we have two more articles to go? We have not even mentioned the different hypothesis yet, much less tried to draw any conclusions?
Regardless, you have already categorically stated the most likely cause for the sinking, what the evidence does and does not support, and "In fact" the evidence supports your conclusion, which is really someone else's conclusion. Really? And the readers can only "judge" for themselves if they buy some self published, print on demand, paperback book for $19.99 plus S&H? Again, really? All very lawyerly, yet with a touch of cheesy infomercial.
Let's talk facts for a second, which you seem to have glossed over. You did not argue a single fact? In the article above, where have we misspoken? Be specific, if you can? In what we have written above, where are we in error? Where is it that we have tried to mislead the readers? If you have read all of the three part piece for WDM, you know that we do address all the various hypothesis in the coming articles. So, either you did not read the articles as you imply, you read the articles but you have issues with comprehension, or you are intentionally misleading the readers for some other kooky agenda? Which is it, councilor?
In your comments you link me to words like, biased and doubtful, while using quotation marks on words like "based" and "fact". Wow!! Don't you think that seems to unfairly undermine my credibility, and the credibility of my fellow authors? Where is your evidence, counselor? At the same time, you claim to offer the reader, what....... "reality"? Sweet! What I say is doubtful, while you have the real story? Isn't this what you do for a living, undermine people's credibility when you can't argue the facts?
I can't say if we have ever met, because you are attacking me from behind a screen identity? However, you are implying to the reader that you know me well enough to fairly evaluate my credibility, and I am simply not credible? Is that the case? You know me, and you know enough of the facts about this submarine, and the diving I have done on it, to authoritatively comment on my lack of credibility, on a public forum, without a single fact? Seriously? Also, I can't help but see some irony in a lawyer attacking me, on the issue of....... credibility????
Anyway, I don't think you know me, and I don't think you don't know Jack.
Have a nice day in court, counselor.
JC
John Yurga, Richie Kohler and myself wrote three articles in this series for Joe Porter and Wreck diving Magazine. But, it seems like you are getting way ahead of us here, are you not counselor? I mean, don't we have two more articles to go? We have not even mentioned the different hypothesis yet, much less tried to draw any conclusions?
Regardless, you have already categorically stated the most likely cause for the sinking, what the evidence does and does not support, and "In fact" the evidence supports your conclusion, which is really someone else's conclusion. Really? And the readers can only "judge" for themselves if they buy some self published, print on demand, paperback book for $19.99 plus S&H? Again, really? All very lawyerly, yet with a touch of cheesy infomercial.
Let's talk facts for a second, which you seem to have glossed over. You did not argue a single fact? In the article above, where have we misspoken? Be specific, if you can? In what we have written above, where are we in error? Where is it that we have tried to mislead the readers? If you have read all of the three part piece for WDM, you know that we do address all the various hypothesis in the coming articles. So, either you did not read the articles as you imply, you read the articles but you have issues with comprehension, or you are intentionally misleading the readers for some other kooky agenda? Which is it, councilor?
In your comments you link me to words like, biased and doubtful, while using quotation marks on words like "based" and "fact". Wow!! Don't you think that seems to unfairly undermine my credibility, and the credibility of my fellow authors? Where is your evidence, counselor? At the same time, you claim to offer the reader, what....... "reality"? Sweet! What I say is doubtful, while you have the real story? Isn't this what you do for a living, undermine people's credibility when you can't argue the facts?
I can't say if we have ever met, because you are attacking me from behind a screen identity? However, you are implying to the reader that you know me well enough to fairly evaluate my credibility, and I am simply not credible? Is that the case? You know me, and you know enough of the facts about this submarine, and the diving I have done on it, to authoritatively comment on my lack of credibility, on a public forum, without a single fact? Seriously? Also, I can't help but see some irony in a lawyer attacking me, on the issue of....... credibility????
Anyway, I don't think you know me, and I don't think you don't know Jack.
Have a nice day in court, counselor.
JC
While Shadow Divers is a "good read" the reality is that it is a dramatized account "based" on a true story - not an unbiased documentary like the author and Chatterton and Kohler would have you believe. While the idea that a "circle-run" torpedo sunk the U-869 is possible, the physical evidence does not support that conclusion. Before anyone cites Shadow Divers and these articles as "fact" you should read Gary Gentile's book, Shadow Divers Exposed. While Gentile's book is not as well written or polished, and he could be viewed as having his own axe to grind, the points he make cast considerable doubt on the conclusions in the WDM article and Shadow Divers itself. Don't take my word for it, read both books and judge for yourself. The most likely cause for the sinking is two direct depth charge hits - one near the conning tower and one above the rear torpedo room. In fact, the illustration by Dan Crowell at the beginning of Shadow Divers shows just such damage and the existence of the giant "blast hole" at the rear of the U-869 is almost totally ignored in Shadow Divers.