Ady Gil Rammed (Synched PiP)

[Devil_Fish]

Run time: 00:48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vVRcCas0o0   Posted on YouTube: January 06, 2010 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 08, 2010 By DU Member: Devil_Fish Views on DU: 2373

 
I wish we had footage of the 1 minut preceeding this.

[Richard D]

1. Before and after

For sure this was done on purpose

http://www.americablog.com/2010/01/better-video-footage-of-japanese.html

[Common Sense Party]

2. Anyone speak Japanese well enough to translate?

[MercutioATC]

3. Hard to tell without a complete analysis, but it looks like the crash might not have happened

had the Gil not surged forward.

[baldguy]

4. It surely wouldn't have happened if the attacking Japanese ship hadn't turned into it.

[MercutioATC]

8. Which surely wouldn't have been an issue had the Gil chosen not to "stop and squat".

The Gil was harassing the Shonan Maru. The pilot chose to "stop and squat" on her course. That's definitive.

There's no conclusive evidence that the Shonan Maru tried to run down the Ady Gil, and the video suggests that had the Gil either 1) not been harassing the Shonan Maru or 2) not been idling on an intercept toward the Shonan Maru's course, or 3) not, at the last moment, flung herself under the Shonan Maru's bow, that this collision would have never happened.

[baldguy]

10. The Ady Gil did not "stop & squat". She did not "fling" herself into the path of the Shonan Maru.

The Ady Gil was not moving and it was not blocking the course of the attacking Shonan Maru. The Shonan Maru changed it's course to ram the Ady Gil, the changed it's course again once contact was made. The apparent movement of the Ady Gil from starboard to port on the tape is not due to the powering of it's engines (in an obvious, if unsuccessful attempt to get away), but due to the maneuvering of the Shonan Maru starboard, toward the Ady Gil.

The overwhelming evidence shows:

1) The Ady Gil's intent was to harass - not damage or sink the Shonan Maru.

2) The Shonan Maru initiated the attack on the Ady Gil with sound & water cannons with the intent of damaging the vessel & injuring the crew.

3) If the Shonan Maru had not altered it's course, there would have been no collision.

[MercutioATC]

12. Look at the Shonan Maru video again.

The Ady Gil WAS moving forward at steerage speed, as evidenced by her prop wake.

Regardless of whether the Shonan Maru changed course or not, video evidence seems to indicate that there would have been no collision had the Ady Gill not throttled up and moved forward, directly into the path of the Shosan Maru.

Paul Watson was quoted as claiming that the Ady Gil had reversed engines to attempt to avoid the collision...something that is clearly disproven to video evidence. Do you care to comment on this?

[baldguy]

20. Again: THE ADY GIL WAS NOT BLOCKING THE SHONAN MARU'S COURSE UNTIL THE SHONAN MARU TURNED!

Why did the Shonan Maru turn into the Ady Gil starting at 0:17? Any maneuvering done by the Ady Gil was to avoid the collision. What did the Shonan Maru do to avoid the collision?

[baldguy]

23. Well, well, well. Will ya look at this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvR4u1IscdY

In the few minutes leading up to the ramming of the Ady Gil, they were NOT moving - in fact they weren't even paying attention to the Shonan Maru threat until the sound cannons started. There was no preposterous "stop & squat". There was no absurd "fling" into the path of the whaler. The crew of the Ady Gil were commiserating with each other after a long, hard & in their mind successful day. What we see after is an unprovoked attack by the Shonan Maru on the Ady Gil.

[bertman]

5. You're right, MercutioATC. Check out the turbulence from the Gil's engines about four

seconds before the crash. It looked like they were idling and goosed it just before the contact.

[rtassi]

11. Hey bertman ... just my thoughts as a professional sailor ... You are right that

the video shows forward thrust. My initial reactions after viewing both video clips, were that both Captains placed their respective vessels intentionally in proximity of each other that invites danger, and to that extent both Captain's share equal responsibility for the collision IMO. I wouldn't be surprised if both Captains ended their careers that day ... It is the most basic rule of seamanship, and I've never heard the "playing Chicken" defense working in a maritime court marshal! Not being an international maritime lawyer, I don't know how the last incident involving Sea Shepherd's contact with a vessel played out. As far as the thrusting forward, I agree he did ... but it's important to remember that vessels steer from astern ... like a fork lift does. If the Gil was attempting to turn to starboard, or right, in an evasive maneuver, based on the closeness depicted in the video, I think they would have collided anyway ... again IMO. A large thrust in reverse would have driven the transom of the Gill under water and may not have provided the distance fast enough to avoid a collision. Hard to say ... I read some posters conjecturing about the desire on the part of the Gill to force a collision intentionally, though that is very much a possibility ... It is very dangerous and unpredictable as to the outcome. The entire crew could have just as easily been killed engaging in such a calculated risk. Also, in the footage yesterday showing the Whaling vessel turning into the Gil from port to starboard .. If that angle is depicting actual proximity, the moment the Japanese helmsman turn toward the Gil, in spite of his then steering to port, or away from the Gil, collision was unavoidable IMO because of the "ark" of travel ... again because the ship steers from astern ... before the bow can move to the left ... the stern travels to the right, and then has to track its way back to a new course. Anyway this is all just my opinion based on very inconclusive video footage.
rt

[bertman]

13. rtassi, I agree with everything you have said. I'm only an avid boater/fisherman, not

a nautical engineer, so I'm only guessing. But I think the Gil was idling in the path of the whaler, but far enough to the side to avoid a collision. But, when the whaler veered to starboard my guess is the whaler's captain was just ramping up the game of chicken to show the Gil he wasn't going to put up with them.

What would the motivation be to give the Gil the gas? 1) maybe the captain was trying to rev the engines and swing to starboard to avoid the collision; although, the bow does not turn to the right as would happen with a boat as nimble as the Gil. 2) maybe the captain panicked and hit the gas. 3) maybe the captain saw an opportunity to create a media sensation by "being rammed" by the whaler.


My money is on #3. The Gil is a very seaworthy craft and must have an incredible amount of flotation built into it. This is obvious from the way it stayed afloat despite having its bow torn off. The captain would have known that his vessel would survive a strike on the bow section only. That would explain why the Gil was idling so close to the path of the whaler. Had he been moving forward the entire time, it is likely that the Gil would have been hit broadside and cut in half near the cockpit, killing the crew (or some of them) and sinking the vessel on the spot.


It pains me to say this, but I think it's true. I contribute to Greenpeace and will continue to do so, but this looks like the Gil's fault. Of course, I could be wrong.


[Celtic Merlin]

6. Take a close look at the video.

The Sea Shepherd video of the incident shows this: When it first opens, you have the Japanese ship dead-on to the camera. You can not see the sides of the whaler as its bow is pointed directly at the camera lens. Before the collision, you begin to see the whaler's port (left) side as it executes a shallow turn to starboard (right) - toward the smaller boat. This is unmistakable. Once the collision occurs, the whaler executes a very sharp turn to port (it makes a hard left away from the smaller craft), and you can then see its starboard (right) side.

This shows two facts. First, the whaler did indeed turn toward the smaller boat. Second, these whalers are very highly maneuverable ships. With that degree of maneuverability, they could easily have turned themselves away from (instead of toward) the Sea Shepherds' boat. The laws governing the movement of craft at sea would demand this action of any ship which has a hazard to its starboard side.

In the Japanese video, what APPEARS to be the Ady Gil moving into the path of the whaler is a misperception due to frame of reference. With the Japanese cameraman keeping the Ady Gil in his frame, you can't tell that the whaling vessel is executing a starboard turn since the camera is on the ship which is turning. It's like when they attach a camera to a race car - it doesn't look anything like when you're watching the race from a fixed position because the camera is moving along with what it is attached to. In this case, the camera IS moving toward the Ady Gil, but you dont' perceive the turn because the camera is on the vessel executing the turn. Hence, in the Japanese video the Ady Gil appears to move toward the whaler, but this is only because the camera is actually moving toward the smaller craft and you don't have fixed lines (like on a roadway) or non-moving landmarks (like buildings and trees) to help you determine who is moving which way.

The Sea Shepherds' video clearly shows the larger ship turning toward the little black boat - which I assume the pilot did in order to get or keep his water cannons within range of their target. It was a mistake on the part of the Japanese pilot. He screwed up big time. As soon as he knew he had hit the other boat he turns hard to port in an attempt to avoid any further damage. He's very lucky that he didn't kill anybody.

Watch the vids again with these facts in mind.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[BeFree]

7. Exactly

You nailed it Merlin. This was clearly an attack by the whalers.

Sure, it was provoked, but the whalers showed their true colors by attacking.

[Celtic Merlin]

26. Thank you, sir.

I endeavor to be accurate. Critically and brutally accurate at times, but accurate nonetheless. :0)

My apologies in advance if I've been incorrect regarding your gender.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[MercutioATC]

9. Did you watch the video on your computer or on a really big TV?

If you didn't watch it on a really big TV, your opinion is worthless.

[1monster]

24. A maritime expert disagrees with you. Check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9zuJUC-hvg

[Celtic Merlin]

28. NICE CATCH, 1monster!

I believe that the expert shown in the video to which you linked seems to agree with my assessment of the event - at least on the point that one is required by the rules of seamanship to give way to vessels to starboard of your own and on the point that the whaler did indeed turn into the smaller craft.

But wait! This "expert" didn't use a 75" hi-def TV screen to view the videos! Oh NOES! Mercutio shall now inform the poor man of his abject worthlessness. Thank Zeus we have Mercutio to remind us all of how worthless our opinions truly are when compared to his treasured pontifications. Thank Zeus, indeed.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[Celtic Merlin]

27. Oh you're just SO right on this point, Mercutio!

Nothing could POSSIBLY be clear enough to render an accurate description of the facts shown in the video evidence presented on these events without the use of a high-definition monster TV screen. That is a fact known by everybody here. I certainly wish that I had analyzed these vids on the state-of-the-art video equipment you possess to feed internet-based video into your 75" hi-def television monitor so that I could have created out of thin air a set of horribly-skewed "facts" which agree with your badly-warped opinion on this event.

We should all also bear in mind before we type anything onto this website that only YOUR opinions have any value whatsoever and that we should all bow to your superior perception and omnipotent intellect on any issue upon which you decide to weigh in. How silly of worthless me. I shall now whip myself into unconsciousness as penance for my overwhelming transgression.

Asshole.

[MercutioATC]

29. Psst. My post was satire.

There is another poster here who is REALLY hung up on monitor size. I was poking fun at the notion that, in this case, a huge monitor was necessary to form an educated opinion.

This poster has a couple of posts in this thread.

He also has numerous posts in THIS thread ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7413324#7415805 ) where he belittles the statements of people who didn't watch the videos on large screens.



You can climb off of that horse now.

[Celtic Merlin]

30. You took a shot at some guy, fiine. BUT . . .

You make that comment as someone who had posted these words previous to your comment to me:

Hard to tell without a complete analysis, but it looks like the crash might not have happened had the Gil not surged forward.

and

Which surely wouldn't have been an issue had the Gil chosen not to "stop and squat".
The pilot chose to "stop and squat" on her course. That's definitive.

and

or 3) not, at the last moment, flung herself under the Shonan Maru's bow, that this collision would have never happened.

And yes, I'd read your previous comments before I replied with my pointy snark. Based on those comments (quoted above), you obviously disagree with my assessment of what happened and took the opportunity to take a shot at some guy while you called my assessment "worthless". Satire my ass. Two birds with one stone. Cute. And I've no interest in some other guy's monitor opinion. It has no bearing on the event being discussed.

Now, if you'd be so kind to follow THIS link (as provided by fellow DUer "baldguy") to YouTube, you will be able to see the event from the cockpit of the Ady Gil:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvR4u1IscdY

Yes, the whaler attacked these guys. Chased them down and attacked them. The Japanese were 100% at fault on this.

I remain in the saddle upon my very long-legged horse.

[fascisthunter]

14. The Whaler Ship Definitely Rammed the Ady Gil

the defense here against the Ady Gil is ridiculous and pretty damn revealing.

[BeFree]

15. Those defenders....

....ask them if the whaler ever turned. They won't say.

It is clear to me that the whaler turned twice. First to starboard (right) then to port. But the defenders want you to believe it never turned. That's all they got. "It never turned" they even go so far to say that the whaler couldn't turn!! They got nothing. They are ridiculous.

[fascisthunter]

17. but my question is why?

why would they defend the indefensable? It's creepy and reall weird. People can see for themselves, do tey really think they are convincing people to see otherwise?

[BeFree]

18. Authoritarians?

They just don't want to believe that some 'hippies' can ever do anything right?

I dunno, it is a very good question. Why just jump to the side of the whalers?

[baldguy]

21. +1000

Because Paul Watson has been portrayed in the corporate media as an old, arrogant, liberal bastard. And some people are more than happy to enthusiastically participate in the Two Minutes' Hate against him. Forget about the fact that the Japanese are illegally killing whales.

[berni_mccoy]

16. While I believe the whaling crew definitely rammed the ship and it's definitely clear in the video

why do they have to use the word "JapCam" to denote the video from the Japanese ship?

[BeFree]

19. Shorthand?

I used the term not knowing that it wasn't PC and had a post deleted.

I don't know why it is so objectionable, but I guess it is. Maybe someone from that side can explain it? Y'know, discuss it?

[RollWithIt]

22. Old WWII slang term.... was used in derogatory ways

I.E..... kill the "Japs"

[Devil_Fish]

25. fair question. I didn't make the video, only found it and posted it. I don't mean to offend any one,

and I apologies in advanced if any one is offended. I thought it would be a valuable tool for any one wanting to see the two video's sync'ed.