Shadow Divers – Exposed U 869

[H2Andy]

Alert: Continued ad hominem attacks incoming!!! :11:

you mean like this one:

You do know that the author Kurson, author of the 3 stooges cookbook, was hired to write this story by Chatterton, don't you??

what smugness... just incredible arrogance

ah well.... let's leave him to his ego .... in Gentile's own words:

Despite this preponderance of evidence, Chatterton, Yurga, and Kohler continued their explorations of the U-boat’s interior, determined to recover something that would provide positive identification - the nail in the iron coffin, so to speak. The pay off came on August 31, 1997.

exactly... what Chatterton sought was proof, from the sub itself, of its identity.
no matter what anyone may say with 20/20 hindsight, until the wreck itself was possitively identified, it was just all conjecture

conspiracy theorists (even those with a grudge) need not apply.

 

[Maule]

so happens that Kurson is a terrific writer, unlike Garry, who, unfortunately, has the writing style of a senior in high school

I fear you give Gary much too much credit as a writer....

 

[amascuba]

No axes need grinding here. Just thoughtful reflection, and an open mind.

It's so d**n inconvenient when well researched information demolishes a cherished work of fiction. I had read Shady Divers 4 times, along with Audible unabridged format. I still will cherish it as the fiction it is.

Suggest consulting with Pat Rooney and John Yurga regarding what happened.

Oops! Though they were on the dive with Kohler and Chatterton to recover 'Der Tag', Shady Divers described ONLY our 2 intrepid SCUBA heroes being on the dive. Interesting omission, kind of like Will McBeth's flashing strobe light that ruined Chatterton's 'achievement'.

You do know that the author Kurson, author of the 3 stooges cookbook, was hired to write this story by Chatterton, don't you??

You also know in 1993 it was common knowledge among the wreck diving community that the sub was U-869?

Remember the part Shady Divers crediting Mark McKellar? No?? McKellar was the historian that discovered, in 1992, the ULTRA information that U-869 was working its way across the Atlantic towards the exact area that the sub was found. McKellar's ULTRA revelations 'turned the last months of the American U-boat campaign into complete disarray' (p.61, Gentile, Shadow Divers Exposed)

McKellar gave this ULTRA information to Chatterton in 1993. Along with the Horenburg knife discovery, it was clear that the 'mystery sub' was U-869.



The author, Gary Gentile, does not come across as egotistical or sour grapes chewing. He is very quick to give credit to MANY wreck divers and researchers who were important in the discovery, exploration, and identification of U-869. His criticism includes shameless egotism and self-aggrandisement of Chatterton and Kohler, facilitated by vanity writer Robert Kurson.

Alert: Continued ad hominem attacks incoming!!! :11:

Back to Bonaire dreams, 7 months and counting....

You keep making statements based on opinions and taking them as fact from Gary. You weren't on the expeditions, Gary wasn't on the expeditions, and neither was Robert. Atleast Robert had first hand accounts of the people who were involved in the project from beginning to end.

Robert Kurson tells an excellent true story of the discovery and identification of the U-869. One of the things that Robert did very well make his readers be apart of the story was add some excellent background information on the divers as well as the crew of the U boat. It helps transform the story, unlike any of what Gary wrote.

Why don't you go back and read the preface of Shadow Divers. It explains exactly how Robert Kurson got involved in writing the book. It might also help you get your facts straight.

Just because there are omissions in a book doesn't mean that it didn't happen or is fictional. Text, sections, paragraphs, etc could have been omitted because of lack of revelence, omitted by the publisher for some reason, etc.

 

[tonka97]

h2andy: You need to look up the definition of ad hominem attack...your example is erroneous.

BTW: Using Ho Chi Minh for an avatar is obnoxious and arrogant. Maybe you don't know history.:no

I lost good friends because of Uncle Ho. Suggest you consider an alternative avatar, unless you just aim to irritate and insult the memories of 55 thousand American Heroes. Please consider skipping Castro, Mao, Pol Pot, Bin Laden, Stalin, and Hitler for your new avatar.:cwmddd:

Shadow Divers vs Shadow Divers Exposed ....It's all good!! Fiction versus NON-FICTION.






.

 

[divemaster_jim]

Robert Kurson tells an excellent true story of the discovery and identification of the U-869. One of the things that Robert did very well make his readers be apart of the story was add some excellent background information on the divers as well as the crew of the U boat. It helps transform the story, unlike any of what Gary wrote.

I wouldn't go quite that far, I personally think he over-embellished it. I suppose that if it's your story you can tell it anyway you want too. I will also say that I've only read SD and am waiting to get SD-exposed, but I have read a couple of Gentiles books and for the most part seem factual, I would expect either of them to use poetic license to a degree but I found Kursons' telling a bit over the top.

 

[The Chairman]

h2andy: You need to look up the definition of ad hominem attack...your example is erroneous.

Actually, Andy was pointing out that YOU use the "ad hominem" ad nauseum. I rather agree with him. It does nothing to further your contentions and detracts from the discussion.

I have read Shadow Divers as well as the Last Dive. I have not read Gary Gentile's expose'. Andy, unlike most of us, deals with truth and the determination of truth on a daily basis; his job relies on his ability to do so. When Andy speaks, I listen.

 

[Wayward Son]

It's been asked but so far not answered, unless I missed it:

Why is Gentile considered by you to be unquestionably correct? What is the basis for choosing one author who was not there for the events over the other?

 

[H2Andy]

h2andy: You need to look up the definition of ad hominem attack...your example is erroneous.

no it isn't

BTW: Using Ho Chi Minh for an avatar is obnoxious and arrogant. Maybe you don't know history.:no

you did it again ... another ad-hominem attack... well, three

sadly, this is what Gary's book boils down to... ad hominem attacks on others

you are not addressing the substance of my argument, but instead attacking my character

(and please, think about why Gary's character is at issue here ... it goes to credibility and bias, two relevant issues when you purport to write an "expose")

 

[ClevelandDiver]

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally argument against the person), personal attack or you-too argument, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I am with Andy on this one.

 

[divemaster_jim]