Article: The Fate of The U-869 Reexamined, by John Chatterton, Richie Kohler, and John Yurga

[Chatterton]

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

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.

 

[Diver4121]

Mr. Chatterton:Hey, nice to hear from you – I guess that got your attention. Don’t hold back, tell me what you really think! You must really hate lawyers – lose one too many Admiralty claims or something? Seriously, however, I do appreciate and value your comments, as angry as they are. My goal in posting my comment was not to attack you personally or undermine your credibility on the subject – you are a world renowned wreck diver who has personally dove this wreck many times – I am not and have not. My goal, rather, was to state my opinion and point out some other information regarding the U-869 that is out there and see what people had to say. As an author you should expect that people may disagree with what you write or even say unkind things about your work. Those people may not know “jack” in your view, but don’t forget, you are the one postulating the idea and should welcome debate. When I stated the “reality” of the book I was stating my opinion after having reviewed everything I mentioned; perhaps I should have made that more clear. While I did not support my statement with any “facts,” I did tell everyone to read both books (where the “facts” are contained) and judge for themselves. To be more accurate, my comments were really directed at the Shadow Divers book, since that is what the previous posters were talking about – not the WDM articles. I read all three WDM articles when they first appeared in the print magazines and just re-read the third article to make sure I “comprehended” it fully! In YOUR defense, the WDM articles are written in a far more balanced and scholarly manner than the book itself. You are correct that I got “ahead of myself” since what I mentioned is not discussed until the third WDM article, which is not online yet. However, the circle run torpedo is cited as “almost certainly” causing the sinking in Shadow Divers. The WDM article does address a possible cause for the damage to the aft torpedo room, but (spoiler alert) still finds the circle run torpedo theory most probable.As stated, I have never dove the U-869, but I have dove the U-853 which is used by the WDM articles (and Gentile) as a reference point for a comparative damage analysis. So, I do have some first hand observations of what you are talking about.You flame Gentile’s book and that is understandable – he flamed you! It got personal and ugly. I don’t know either of you, but you are both well known in the wreck diving community and there is obviously bad-blood there. As you note, his book is indeed self-published, and IN MY OPINION, is certainly not an unbiased work. As I disclaimed, Gentile certainly seems to have an axe to grind too; reader beware. Let me say I respect your work and thank you for all your contributions to the sport. I have enjoyed all the articles you have written. If I personally offended you (or Kohler), with my comment, my sincere apologies. Feel free to contact me directly if you like.
Bradley Manning | Facebook
Brad Manning

 

[TonyParkinson]

Well John I for one enjoyed the artical and the book, as have many of my freinds both divers and non-divers. It makes interesting reading (for that alone it should be comended!) as for the "facts" the efforts you and your colleagues made to establish to true facts should also be comended, if someone! wants to question this (god knows why???) surely the real question is why would you go to such efforts (lots of dangerous dives:shocked2 just to make it up!!!!!! I suppose some people just like to rubbish other peoples efforts, easier than making any themselves! ATBTonyP

 

[Chatterton]

Councilor,

I don't hate lawyers? I even have a lawyer friend, honest. I am 50/50 on my only two Admiralty claims, so I am okay there, too. What I did not like was your post. I felt that it was lawyerly, inaccurate, disparaging, overtly offensive, and unfair to me and my fellow authors.

In our article, we only made a cursory reference to Shadow Divers and the Nova documentary, Hitler’s Lost Sub, as that was the way this submarine came to the attention of military historians. We never talked about the content of either the book, or the TV program. We tried to completely leave personalities out of what we wrote, so we could focus on the facts, on the history.

Specifically, you start out your post by mentioning Shadow Divers is not an “unbiased documentary as author Chatterton and Kohler would have you believe.” First, this is total BS. Second, Shadow Divers is a non-fiction work by Rob Kurson. It rose to #2 on the NY Times Bestseller List, and it is not a documentary of any sort. It has sold roughly a half million copies in paperback, and a quarter million in hardcover, and that is not counting the audio book, digital sales, and the 27 foreign language versions of the book.

Rob is an incredibly talented writer, and he did an unbelievable job. It was a huge opportunity for Richie and me to work with him, but we did not write the book, Rob did. All of it. Please tell me who could be more unbiased, than a third party, a writer, and a guy who can’t even swim?

News Flash………….. I do not necessarily agree with everything Rob wrote in the book!! Guess why, councilor? Because Rob interviewed everyone associated with the story, not just Richie Kohler and myself. He interviewed everyone, with the exception of Paul Skibinski and Barb Lander, who he could not find. He interviewed my ex-wife! Do you think my version of events and my ex-wife’s version of our relationship were the same story? Don’t you deal with this sort of thing daily in your work, councilor?

It is not my story, it is Rob Kurson’s story, I just happen to be in it. It is not fictionalized, it is not dramatized, it is not made up, it is not fake, it is his story after extensively interviewing the principles. This is what real authors do, they try to get to the heart of the story by collecting information and putting all the pieces together. They talk to the people involved, and they ask questions, lots of questions. For the help I provided Rob, I get a piece of the book’s revenue as does Richie. That is it. I only wish I was talented enough to write a bestseller.

You say I flamed this other guy’s paperback book? Really? Where did I do that? I have not even read it? I called it categorically what it is, a self published, print on demand, paperback for $19.99. That is flaming? Really? I did not even mention the guy’s name, or the name of the book?

Counselor, you are parroting a bunch of crap that you got fed from a self published, pulp science fiction writer who did not interview me, did not discover the U-Who, did not identify the U-869, has never dived Britannic, has never hosted a TV series, has never led an expedition to Titanic, has never been associated with a bestseller, and never will be. Get it?

The thing that I find most annoying is that I assume anyone with a ninth grade education or better can see through this crap? You are an educated guy, I assume you went to college, so I expected more from you. It is not like you are a commercial diver?? Clearly, you disappointed me.

Cheers

JC

Mr. Chatterton:Hey, nice to hear from you – I guess that got your attention. Don’t hold back, tell me what you really think! You must really hate lawyers – lose one too many Admiralty claims or something? Seriously, however, I do appreciate and value your comments, as angry as they are. My goal in posting my comment was not to attack you personally or undermine your credibility on the subject – you are a world renowned wreck diver who has personally dove this wreck many times – I am not and have not. My goal, rather, was to state my opinion and point out some other information regarding the U-869 that is out there and see what people had to say. As an author you should expect that people may disagree with what you write or even say unkind things about your work. Those people may not know “jack” in your view, but don’t forget, you are the one postulating the idea and should welcome debate. When I stated the “reality” of the book I was stating my opinion after having reviewed everything I mentioned; perhaps I should have made that more clear. While I did not support my statement with any “facts,” I did tell everyone to read both books (where the “facts” are contained) and judge for themselves. To be more accurate, my comments were really directed at the Shadow Divers book, since that is what the previous posters were talking about – not the WDM articles. I read all three WDM articles when they first appeared in the print magazines and just re-read the third article to make sure I “comprehended” it fully! In YOUR defense, the WDM articles are written in a far more balanced and scholarly manner than the book itself. You are correct that I got “ahead of myself” since what I mentioned is not discussed until the third WDM article, which is not online yet. However, the circle run torpedo is cited as “almost certainly” causing the sinking in Shadow Divers. The WDM article does address a possible cause for the damage to the aft torpedo room, but (spoiler alert) still finds the circle run torpedo theory most probable.As stated, I have never dove the U-869, but I have dove the U-853 which is used by the WDM articles (and Gentile) as a reference point for a comparative damage analysis. So, I do have some first hand observations of what you are talking about.You flame Gentile’s book and that is understandable – he flamed you! It got personal and ugly. I don’t know either of you, but you are both well known in the wreck diving community and there is obviously bad-blood there. As you note, his book is indeed self-published, and IN MY OPINION, is certainly not an unbiased work. As I disclaimed, Gentile certainly seems to have an axe to grind too; reader beware. Let me say I respect your work and thank you for all your contributions to the sport. I have enjoyed all the articles you have written. If I personally offended you (or Kohler), with my comment, my sincere apologies. Feel free to contact me directly if you like.
Bradley Manning | Facebook
Brad Manning

 

[Chatterton]

tony,

I am flattered. Thanks for the nice comments.

Cheers

JC

Well John I for one enjoyed the artical and the book, as have many of my freinds both divers and non-divers. It makes interesting reading (for that alone it should be comended!) as for the "facts" the efforts you and your colleagues made to establish to true facts should also be comended, if someone! wants to question this (god knows why???) surely the real question is why would you go to such efforts (lots of dangerous dives:shocked2 just to make it up!!!!!! I suppose some people just like to rubbish other peoples efforts, easier than making any themselves! ATBTonyP

 

[Diver4121]

Mr. Chatterton:

You state that I am "parroting a bunch of crap" from "that other guy's book." Well, you are correct to an extent, I've never done any first-hand research.

However, I think the fact that you have never read that "other guy’s book" – but call it “crap” - speaks for itself!

In any event, I wish you safe diving and success in all your future endeavors.

Brad

 

[mike_s]

, I've never done any first-hand research.

well.... I think we'll agree that's pretty clear.

 

[Chatterton]

Jajajajajajajajajaja

Now Brad,

Gosh, I wonder what was said about me? I don't get out much. Let's see, luckily I have you telling me some of what is in that other guys book! Without that, I would be lost. Oh, and my lawyers told me a little more of what was in the book, but how far should I trust them, counselor?

Maybe I am totally wrong and you are not parroting anything? Maybe you are just making this crap up, yourself? You must be like an evil genius, having me blame poor old what's his name?

There, happy?

Mr. Chatterton:

You state that I am "parroting a bunch of crap" from "that other guy's book." Well, you are correct to an extent, I've never done any first-hand research.

However, I think the fact that you have never read that "other guy’s book" – but call it “crap” - speaks for itself!

In any event, I wish you safe diving and success in all your future endeavors.

Brad

 

[Diver4121]

You are right, you should NEVER trust a lawyer - even your own! There, happy?