Watson's Andy Gil deliberately scuttled by SSCS?

[kristopher]

I just reviewed two videos - one released by SSCS and the other by the Japanese Institute for Cetacean Research.

The SSCS video is not informative as to who did what - the camera and both involved vessels are all in motion relative to each other and it would require more than casual viewing to make sense of what vessel did what.

However the video put out by the ICR suffers no such drawback.

Its wake clearly shows the AG sitting at idle off the beam of the Japanese vessel while the Japanese ship approaches. With the AG clearly out of the path of danger, at the 15 second mark of the video its engines are engaged and by the 19 second mark the disturbance from the prop is extremely pronounced. The AG darts forward placing its nose in the path of the whaler and impact occurs between 21-25 seconds.

I find it very difficult to interpret this an anything short of a deliberate scuttling of the Andy Gil.

Good luck to whoever tries to file an insurance claim on the Andy Gil.

I'd previously downloaded the vids so I don't have specific links, but here is the google news feed for the story:
http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&cf=all&topic=w&ncl=dTBIkEQzpwVulMM7I_UbmD6jOjUcM

[thunder rising]

1. Then we saw two different videos .. cause I saw the the SS attack and ram the AG

Complete with attempting to injure and/or kill the survivors with water cannons.

[kristopher]

5. Did you pay attention to the wake of the Andy Gil?

It couldn't be more clear that they deliberately ran in front of the Japanese ship.

[XemaSab]

2. Interesting....

n/t

[S_E_Fudd]

3. Beyond Stupid!!!

nuff said

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. He doesn't need insurance...

... as much as he needs more suckers donors.

[flvegan]

6. Congrats!

Dumbest OP of the week.

And on edit, it's the ADY Gil. Jesus.

[kristopher]

7. And back at you for the dumbest reply of the week.

The evidence is undeniable - it is obvious as hell from the prop wake that the "Ady" Gil was deliberately run INTO the Japanese ship.

I'd guess that is why the Japanese were so quick to release the video.

[flvegan]

8. I particularly enjoyed how those fucking cowardly whalers tried

to hose the crew OFF of their boat with their water cannon.

Deliberately ram a very small boat? Check.
Deliberately try to send crew into waters in which they couldn't survive? Check.

Fucking cowards and their shitbag apologists.

[S_E_Fudd]

9. And how courteous the Ady Gil Captain was....

In warning his crew that he was about to destroy their boat in the middle of the freezing ocean so they could get below and brace themselves....oops...wait...I guess that didn't happen!!

[flvegan]

10. I doubt he could have warned them before the Japanese rammed them.

I doubt he suspected that the captain of the whaling vessel would attempt to kill them. It was also nice for the whalers to ignore the first distress call. Fucking cowards.

[S_E_Fudd]

11. Yeah I know...

I was being sarcastic...

I have watched the video numerous times...

The Japanese ship deliberately turned into the Ady Gil while it was idling...

It hit them with water cannon before, during and after the attack...

It is possible the Ady Gill throttled up at the last second to try and turn away when it realized the the Japanese ship was about to hit it...but there is no doubt that the Japanese deliberately rammed the Ady Gil...the video, particularly from the Bob Barker is clear...

[flvegan]

14. If you watch the Japanese video, you'll hear the LRAD being used as well.

Nobody on the Ady Gil would have been able to do much of anything THAT close to that device. I think they tried in desperation to throttle out of the way, to no avail.

[S_E_Fudd]

16. Yes...I agree...

And I think the video...even that from the Japanese ship is pretty conclusive on that point!

Obviously the notion they were deliberately trying to destroy their boat is beyond ludicrous!

[kristopher]

17. They ran in a straight line - the wake is undeniable.

They accelerated at high power in a straight line INTO the path of the ship.

The video is obvious, in-your-face proof.

[flvegan]

20. Trying to get out of the way while being assaulted by the LRAD.

Spin it all you want, though.

[kristopher]

23. The AG sat and waited - timing the impact precisely.

It was a deliberate scuttling just like the sham that Watson tried to perpetrate when he claimed the Japanese shot at him.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. If the Bob Barker was moving perpendicular in relation to their the other vessels

it would appear that the whaler was turning hard when it may not have been. Its called relative motion and its quite deceiving. The only scientific way to determine what course vessels were on is to take all available footage and the other data available from the ships themselves including voice recording, location, speed, and bridge camera and integrate into a simulation. Anything else is unsubstantiated opinion, regardless of source.

This has also got a great deal of play on various maritime discussion boards. They are uniform is saying that at a board of inquiry the Ady Gill will be held responsible. They were the one playing chicken with a larger and less maneuverable vessel. There may be some amount of liability attached to the whaler if it can be determined that they should have seen the Ady Gil and had the time to do more to avoid the collision or if the collision was intentional. Even if that is a finding, the majority of fault will lie with the master of the Ady Gil.

The real issue with the above is that there will never be a board with full access to all the data to do independent fact finding. Despite claims from some, its really international waters and AUS has no standing. NZ has some standing since the Ady Gil flew its flag. Japan has similar standing. I can't see the SSCS being open with anyone nor the whalers if its not a Japanese inquiry.

[Violet_Crumble]

81. Wrong yet again...

Despite claims from some, its really international waters and AUS has no standing.

It's Japan, you and a few supporters of whaling that make the claim that it's not Australian territorial waters. Since when have Japan, you, and a few supporters of whaling been the folk who call the shots when it comes to sovereignty?

[Merchant Marine]

82. 4 nations support AUs antarctica claims.

4 other nations also have claims on the same water. There's a bit of a dispute.

The Japanese can take it to a Japanese Admiralty court, the SSCS to a New Zealand court. That's the flaggings on both vessels and both rulings will be equally legitimate.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

85. No, Japan is the country that disputes it...

Since when does Japan have the authority to decide sovereignty for other countries? It doesn't.

Here's some information for those who have the false assumption that this was territorial waters or isn't part of Australia's antarctic territorial waters. I'll bold the bits you need to take notice of...

Antarctic territorial claims

Australia is among seven nations that have claimed territory in Antarctica. These claims are based on discovery and effective occupation of the claimed area, and are legal according to each nation's laws. Three countries – the United Kingdom, Chile and Argentina – have overlapping claims in the Antarctic.

Some countries explicitly recognise these claims; some have a policy of not recognising any claims in Antarctica, and others reserve the right to make a claim of their own.

The Antarctic Treaty puts aside the potential for conflict over sovereignty by providing that nothing that occurs while the Treaty is in force will enhance or diminish territorial claims. Member states cannot make any new claims while the Treaty is in force.

Australian Antarctic Territory
Australian Antarctic Territory covers nearly 5.9 million square kilometres, about 42% of Antarctica and nearly 80% of the total area of Australia itself.

The Australian claim is based on a long historical association with this part of Antarctica. Australia's Douglas Mawson (later Sir Douglas Mawson) led a group of Australians and New Zealanders in the 1911 to 1914 Australasian Antarctic Expedition, which had bases at Commonwealth Bay, south of Tasmania, and the Shackleton Ice Shelf south of Perth. This expedition explored extensively along the coast near the bases.

Mawson also led the British, Australian and New Zealand Antarctic Research Expedition (BANZARE) of 1929 to 1931. During this expedition Mawson claimed what is now Australian Antarctic Territory as British sovereign territory. Early in 1933, Britain asserted sovereign rights over the claimed territory and placed the territory under the authority of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Sovereignty over the Territory was transferred from Britain to Australia under the Australian Antarctic Territory Acceptance Act 1933, which came into effect in 1936. This act stated:

That part of the Territory in the Antarctic seas which comprises all the islands and territories, other than Adelie Land, situated south of the 60th degree south latitude and lying between the 160th degree east longitude and the 45th degree east longitude, is hereby declared to be accepted by the Commonwealth as a Territory under the authority of the Commonwealth, by the name of the Australian Antarctic Territory.

http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=1295

[kristopher]

91. That isn't true.

If you have a solid position you don't need to abuse the truth.

The only countries that recognize territorial claims to the Antarctic are the countries making those claims - an act of mutual colonial masturbation.

Antarctic Treaty

Territorial claims of Antarctica according to the Antarctic Treaty: New Zealand Australia France Norway United Kingdom Chile Argentina

The Antarctic Treaty and related agreements regulate international relations with respect to Antarctica, Earth's only continent without a native human population. The treaty has now been signed by 46 countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States, and the now-defunct Soviet Union. The treaty set aside Antarctica as a scientific preserve, established freedom of scientific investigation and banned military activity on that continent. This was the first arms control agreement established during the Cold War. The Soviet Union and the United States both filed reservations against the restriction on new claims, and the United States and Russia assert their right to make claims in the future if they so choose. Brazil maintains the Comandante Ferraz (the Brazilian Antarctic Base) and has proposed a theory to delimiting territories using meridians, which would give territories to Argentina, Uruguay, Peru and Ecuador too. In general, territorial claims below the 60° S parallel have only been recognised among those countries making claims in the area. However, claims are often indicated on maps of Antarctica - this does not signify de jure recognition.

All claim areas except Peter I Island are sectors, the borders of which are defined by degrees of longitude. In terms of latitude, the northern border of all sectors is the 60° S parallel which does not cut through any piece of land, continent or island, and is also the northern limit of the Antarctic Treaty. The southern border of all sectors collapses in one point, the South Pole. Only the Norwegian sector is an exception: the original claim of 1930 did not specify a northern or a southern limit, so that its territory is only defined by eastern and western limits.<4>

The Antarctic Treaty states that contracting to the treaty:

* is not a renunciation of any previous territorial claim.
* does not affect the basis of claims made as a result of activities of the signatory nation within Antarctica.
* does not affect the rights of a State under customary international law to recognise (or refuse to recognise) any other territorial claim.

What the treaty does affect are new claims:

* No activities occurring after 1961 can be the basis of a territorial claim.
* No new claim can be made.
* No claim can be enlarged.

Articles of the Antarctic Treaty

* Article 1 - area to be used for peaceful purposes only; military activity, such as weapons testing, is prohibited, but military personnel and equipment may be used for scientific research or any other peaceful purpose;
* Article 2 - freedom of scientific investigation and cooperation shall continue;
* Article 3 - free exchange of information and personnel in cooperation with the United Nations and other international agencies;
* Article 4 - the treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;
* Article 5 - prohibits nuclear explosions or disposal of radioactive wastes;
* Article 6 - includes under the treaty all land and ice shelves south of 60 degrees 00 minutes south;
* Article 7 - treaty-state observers have free access, including aerial observation, to any area and may inspect all stations, installations, and equipment; advance notice of all activities and of the introduction of military personnel must be given;
* Article 8 - allows for jurisdiction over observers and scientists by their own states;
* Article 9 - frequent consultative meetings take place among member nations;
* Article 10 - treaty states will discourage activities by any country in Antarctica that are contrary to the treaty;
* Article 11 - disputes to be settled peacefully by the parties concerned or, ultimately, by the International Court of Justice;
* Articles 12, 13, 14 - deal with upholding, interpreting, and amending the treaty among involved nations.

The main objective of the ATS is to ensure in the interests of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord. The treaty forbids any measures of a military nature, but not the presence of military personnel.

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

[Violet_Crumble]

92. Sorry, but it is true...

Yr first comment applies very well to what you've said in this thread....

Colonial masturbation? You clearly have no idea what the definition of colonisation is or else you wouldn't be misusing it the way you just did. You haven't provided any credible evidence whatsoever that Australia doesn't have a claim to its territory in Antarctica. Did you bother reading anything that I posted? It appears you didn't. Japan does not get to decide sovereignty when it comes to other states, and those who claimed that this ramming happened in international waters are either ill-informed or outright dishonest.

[kristopher]

94. There is a simple test for who is correct

There are any number of writings on international law that explicitly state just what the wiki article does - no country except those making the territorial claims recognize those claims. Feel free to find a dozen countries outside of that group that do, and I'll be happy to concede the point. But you can't because they don't exist.

The test is this dispute and the failure of Australia to to address the issue IAW the Antarctic Treaty: "Article 11 - disputes to be settled peacefully by the parties concerned or, ultimately, by the International Court of Justice".

If the Australians believed they had a claim they would have tried long ago to have that claim enforced by the ICJ. The fact that they do not pursue this obvious course of action is because it is widely recognized that their claim has no merit under international law and they do not want that to become an official ruling.

[Violet_Crumble]

95. You do realise you can find any opinion you want when it comes to writings on international law?

So I'm sure you could go and find something written somewhere that agrees with what you want to argue. What you don't seem to be understanding is that Australia's claim to its antarctic territory is a valid one and there's no way in the world anyone can honestly claim that it's international waters. So the question is which countries apart from Japan dispute Australia's claim? As far as I'm aware it's only Japan...

Not sure at all why you think Australia needs to go to the ICJ. If another country disputes its sovereignty, then it's up to them to initiate a case...

[kristopher]

97. Japan is whaling there, and the Austalians are objecting.

Their recourse is to take the matter to the ICJ. They won't because they know they will lose.

Look I agree with your goals, but I can't condone lying, deception and violence.

[Violet_Crumble]

99. No, the Australian govt is still fartarsing around about what to do...

They've got quite a few options open to them which I strongly believe they should take, and going to the ICJ isn't one of them and I'm not sure why you think it's what they must do and if they don't do it that means they know they'd lose any case. If Japan's disputing any territorial claim, it's up to them to take it further, not Australia. I believe it will get to the point soon where the Royal Australian Navy will end up down there, which is what happened two years ago, and this will come to a head in the international community and the hunting will be shut down for good...

If you can't condone lying, why are you speaking out in support of the front group for the whalers, which lies about the purpose of its hunting?

[kristopher]

101. There you go again with false attributions

Nothing I've said could be construed by a fair minded person as "support" for the JICR. I acknowledge that they are the voice of the Japanese whaling industry and I haven't cited anything that they have said. If you are objecting to the introduction of the video footage than you aren't worth talking to.

As far as the supposed lie about the purpose of their hunting, I don't attribute that to the JIRC, but to the Japanese government and the whaling industry as a whole. I don't like it, but that doesn't mean it is a point of fixation. If it were an event in isolation, I might feel differently, but they have entered into agreement with and participated in IWC governance in good faith for decades. We are the ones who had a change of heart regarding whaling and we are the ones that acted in bad faith in an attempt to force the Japanese to agree to our revised values regarding the status of cetaceans. In their eyes they are playing by rules WE WROTE when they use a loophole to continue whaling because antiwhaling activists used a series of very similar loopholes to take the IWC in a direction that is directly contrary to the purpose for which it was created - the managed and sustainable harvesting of whales.

Unless and until you recognize that you cannot enforce your will on the Japanese, then the whale killing is going to continue. The Japanese are the only nation I know of that successfully thwarted a series of attempts by Western powers to colonize their country. The Portugese, the Dutch, the Germans and we Americans all had a try at it, but in spite of their comparatively weak military position, they kept us all out. They are not going to let us push them into doing something that will be perceived by the Japanese people as capitulating to tactics like Watson uses.

They will however, respond to direct, citizen2citizen appeals based on ethical arguments that whales' intelligence means they should enjoy a special status that exempts them from human predation; but that wouldn't be nearly as satisfying to people who enjoy being angry and having a reason to hate. I mean, you are here spreading a "you're either with us or against us" message to reject people who share your goals but see your tactics as counterproductive. Your attitude represents a fringe of a fringe and it is getting whales killed.

[Canuckistanian]

12. Don't forget the Japanese ship ignoring a distress call

They just took off, refusing aid and not responding to radio calls.

[tammywammy]

53. That's just heartless.

But then they're whalers, so I guess that goes with the territory.

[kristopher]

15. And you still haven't addressed what the video clearly shows.

Watson has made it nearly impossible for the Japanese to back down on whaling. There was an excellent window of opportunity to make progress on ending the practice when the first nonLDP government in 50 years finally won an election.

This will probably kill any chance of them taking the issue away from their hardline rightest.

[flvegan]

18. What the video clearly shows?

The video from the whalers showing them deploying the LRAD and deliberately ramming the Ady Gil and then trying to hose the distressed crew off of the boat?

Or the video from the Bob Barker showing the whalers deliberately ramming the Ady Gil?

Saying that it's Watson's fault so the Japanese had to ram a much smaller boat is like saying it's the victim's fault when he gets stabbed for his Rolex.

As for the issue? New Zealand and Australia are already beginning an investigation. Some day, the Aussie government is going to balls up and enforce their own laws. Would have been nice to have done before the whaling cowards put 50 humpbacks on their hitlist.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. I enjoyed that too.

Particularly the part where they started rag dolling.

[flvegan]

29. You would, as that's the kind of person you are.

And I say that with all sincerity.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Maybe.

But I'd rather be that kind of person than the kind that's afraid to admit the truth.

[Merchant Marine]

59. You might notice that the firehoses are fixed...

The Ady Gil drifts through the path of one. The stream does not track or follow them. Its hardly as vicious an act as you seem to want it to be.

And its a damn 2" fire hose on a mount, not a nuclear weapon. Cool your jets.

[me b zola]

68. Just because your hallucination told you that is what you saw does not make it so

FFS we all saw the videos and most of us saw the Japanese attacking the Ady Gil.

[flvegan]

75. Excuse me?

[me b zola]

117. I was responding to the author of the thread

I support the Sea Shepard.

[DefenseLawyer]

13. You solved the case Keyes!

Once I saw Barbara Stanwyck and Fred MacMurray secretly chatting about the crash in the grocery store all the pieces starting coming together.

[Lex]

19. Don't know which clip was played on Rachel, but it showed the course change

by the whaler so that it could ram the Ady Gil. I Tivo'd and watched it numerous times.

[kristopher]

21. That video camera is moving - if you don't know what its path is, you don't know

what the other ships are doing.

The JICR video is shot from the deck of the Japanese ship.

[Lex]

22. I'm saying what I saw on Rachel.

YMMV.

[flvegan]

25. Rachel showed both videos a couple times.

Only an idiot would think the Ady Gil was deliberately piloted into the path of that ship.

[kristopher]

28. Or anyone that actually watched the JICR video.

They sat waiting at idle then kicked it to full throttle and ran straight into the ship in a move timed to clip the nose off their craft.

[flvegan]

70. Like I said...

[NYC_SKP]

36. Nah, I'm not sure either craft intended to strike the other.

Sometimes shit happens, it looks like maybe the pilot of the Ady Gil wanted to power up to avoid the collision but didn't have his shit together quickly enough.

Have you seen this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8520QvZzwfw

From this point of view, it seems the for the larger craft, turning to port would be an evasive maneuver.

I agree that it looks the opposite in the other view, like an intentional turn into the Ady Gil, but still- why didn't the Ady Gil stay put or even back away a little?

:shrug:

[flvegan]

71. Maybe getting blasted by military grade LRAD f'd with them.

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. Their whole schtick is "courageously putting themselves in harms way"

Well, this is what "harms way" looks like. Glug, glug, glug.

Luckily the crew had a video crew ship on station to rescue them from their own stupidity err selfless courage.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[denbot]

27. The Shonan Maru was clearly heeled over to port has she turned in to ADY Gil

Watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbuq0YEIPNU

[AllenVanAllen]

42. That's what it looks like to me.

I think the only thing captain of the Ady Gil is guilty of is underestimating how aggressive the captain of the Shonan would become.

[petronius]

56. It's tough to say - at the beginning of the clip in post 40 we can see the Barker

moving right to left across the bow of the ICR ship. So, the apparent turn into the Gil could be a result of the Barker's relative motion (and the heel may just be a roll). What's definitely clear is that the Shonan turned to port after the collision. We can also see in post 40 that the Gil powered up just before the collision.

It looks to me like the Gil was sitting off to starboard planning another run across the Shonan's bow. The possibilities are that:

1) the Shonan maintained course, and the Gil misjudged it's run.
2) the Shonan veered toward the Gil (either to ram or for more effective spraying) and the Gil revved up in an attempt to avoid.

From these videos, I really can't decide which is more likely. I do despise the Sea Shepherd for trying to entangle props of ships at sea (especially in those latitudes), but a deliberate ramming of a smaller vessel would be more despicable...

[denbot]

77. Look at the bow wave, she turned in to the ADY Gil

I've spent a tour on a guided missile destroyer, several years as a commercial fisherman, crewed on 1 ton racing sailboat, and own a day sailor. I have staked my life on reading the movement of ships at sea. She was rammed.

[petronius]

79. What is it about the bow wave that is convincing you? It looks pretty symmetric to me,

given that there appears to be a bit of a swell. Since we don't know the speed of the camera vessel, I'm not convinced that we can conclude for certain that the Japanese vessel turned toward the Gil. It certainly could have, as I said, but that apparent turn could be an artifact of the camera movement. And, even if the Japanese ship turned toward the Gil, we certainly can't conclude that she turned at the Gil (especially since the other video appears to show the Gil accelerating pre-impact).

So, while the Gil was definitely rammed, we're a long way from knowing that that ramming was deliberate...

[Tailormyst]

105. Wow

That really looks like the Japanese Captain was trying to murder those men. I thought the audio was bizarre though. They sounded almost giddy and nonchalant........ I would have freaked if that was my friends in that boat.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dead_Parrot]

31. You got that backwards

The ICR footage is not informative because the camera is moving with the boat: The movements of the Maru are masked. The SS footage does show the movements of the Naru, quite clearly.

[hobbit709]

34. Whatever it was, it was not "scuttling" by definition.

[kristopher]

44. Scuttling is the deliberate sinking of a ship

That is what happened. Watson and the owner of this vessel appear to have planned another of Watson's publicity stunts. This sinking was deliberate and by the owners.

[NYC_SKP]

35. I also saw two videos and I'm not sure what happened. Here's another video:

I'm not sure if this is one of the two you saw, kristopher.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8520QvZzwfw

The AG is idle, then pulls forward and the white foam of it's thrust is visible.

The Shonan Maru seems to be under power throughout the videos, and takes a turn to port, consistent with avoiding collision, though in the other video, taken from a smaller craft and shaky camera, it appears to aim for the AG.

I live on the water and have owned boats most my life, and I've watched many, many unexperienced people do pretty weird things with watercraft.

The more I think about it, the more I think NEITHER craft wanted a collision and the novice skipper of the new trimaran just didn't take enough time to power up and steer clear.

How long have they had the trimaran?

How many hours behind the wheel did the pilot have?

:shrug:

[Dead_Parrot]

37. The skipper was Peter Bethune, the boat's designer.

The guy who broke the circumnavigation record (when the boat was still called Earthrace). He's spent a lot of time living and working in the deep ocean, so I don't think he can really be labeled a 'novice'

The suggestion that he deliberately trashed his masterpiece on it's first outing with Sea Shepherd is utterly moronic.

Now, who can tell me about the Captain and helmsman of the Shonan Maru?

[NYC_SKP]

38. Then it's doubtful he'd want to wreck his own craft.

But I'd also expect him to keep a greater distance.

I'd expect him to keep such a distance that it would be impossible for the larger craft to negotiate any move to strike them.

I wonder if the firefighting water guns had the trimaran disabled for a period, and/or had them disoriented.

[Dead_Parrot]

39. I think they effectivley blinded him...

And he didn't see the Maru had changed course until it was too late. He hasn't given a full account yet, but I'll be more inclined to take his word over that of the ICR (and Watsons, come to that).

[xsquid]

40. On galavision

There was just now video on galavision, spanish language television, that showed both ships from the front and the japanese ship was definitely leaning to the port. They were trying to avoid the collision. Not sure why that one is not being shown on english tv.

[cherokeeprogressive]

78. From one squid to another, I have to disagree with ya there, shipmate.

If the Japanese ship was leaning to port, that means it was turning hard to starboard. Pleasure boats lean into turns because of the way they're built, ships most definitely DON'T, and I defy you to show me a photo of a ship turning to port and leaning to port at the same time. I've added pics of a BIG ship, and a small ship just to prove the point.

[kristopher]

46. I don't think that can be assumed.

He has had this vessel quite a while and accomplished the goal he built it for, right?

If he was convinced he would end whaling by sacrificing it, I have to believe it is possible that would be a valid motive. We know by the donation of Bob Barker that people have donated more than that craft was worth so it isn't something that can be dismissed out of hand.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

41. According to another poster

The AG's designer, Peter Bethune, was in charge on the AG.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x224633#224709

Thanks for the vid reference, that was the one I referenced in the OP that I marked the timeline on.

I've looked again at the vid from the Bob Barker and now that I understand the AG was under a burst of power in the final moments before the collision, the perspective becomes much clearer. Look at it again and look for the moment of acceleration.

Together with the vid from the whaler it is obvious to me that the AG was clear of the whaler and in no danger of being hit *until* it accelerated into the path of the Japanese vessel. Think about it - the AG clearly moved strongly towards the whaler and just as clearly it only impacted the near side of the whaler with the leading edge of the outrigger(?) and the front couple of feet of the main hull. If it were already in the path of the whaler when it accelerated it would have probably have cleared the far side of the whaler totally OR it would have been hit either in the rear or broadside.

[NYC_SKP]

45. That brings up another thought...

That the AG thought they could power BEYOND the path of the whaler.

But, at the same moment, the whaler turns to port in an effort to avoid, not expecting this last minute thrust by the trimaran.

Sometimes attempts to avoid a collision cause a collision.

In 1990, my small 18' craft was struck by a larger 28' craft in their attempt to avoid me (having only seen me at the last moment).

Had they held still, we'd have missed or just scraped sides, but their foolish turn sent their stern directly into my path.

Lost a spleen to that one, boat overturned and ended up on land as I was as close to the bank as I could get.

[kristopher]

47. Why move when they were already clear?

[NYC_SKP]

49. Good point. Or, why not slowly reverse to maintain some distance? n/t

[Dead_Parrot]

51. Wild guess - maybe they weren't expecting to be rammed? nt

[Dead_Parrot]

54. Err, perhaps because the Maru was swinging hard to starboard?

What should they have done, formed a prayer circle and waited for divine intervention?

[lastliberalintexas]

48. Where in the world are some of you seeing thrust?

In every video I've watched, even from the Japanese ship, it appears as though the Ady Gil is overtaken by the wake of the Maru and then rammed by the vessel. I don't see *anything* which would show acceleration on the part of the Gil.

[NYC_SKP]

55. White water right off the tips of the sponsons of the trimaran.

Toward the end of the tape. The white water, looks like twin engines, indicate thrust.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8520QvZzwfw

[lastliberalintexas]

62. Yes, I see it in that video near the end

Still doesn't look like any acceleration was actually achieved though because she doesn't move, only the Maru does. :shrug:

[kristopher]

60. Watch the clip from the Japanese ship

And pay attention to the turbulence and froth behind the AG. The engine is clearly at idle in the beginning and then at the 15 second mark the turbulence and froth start to increase and by 19 seconds there is enough turbulence and froth to indicate hard acceleration. Impact begins 2 seconds later, it can be established best by the crunch sound.

[Dead_Parrot]

50. Here's both videos side by side

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBKYjHUUN4Q

IT should be obvious, even to you, that Gil does not accelerate until the Maru is bearing directly down upon her.

BTW, here's a fun quote for you:

Ernest van Buuren... says there is a crimes at sea act that could apply, but it is more likely it will be a matter for investigation that will ultimately only involve insurance companies.

He says initially it seems that the Shonan Maru 2 is at fault.

'Course, he's only "a maritime law expert and the deputy federal master of the Company of Master Mariners Australia", whereas as you are Kristopher the Awesome, King of the Internet, so it probably doesn't matter.

[Merchant Marine]

57. A maritime court will have no sympathy for the Ady Gil

They forced a close-quarters situation with a larger vessel. They overtook the Shonan Maru, corssed her bow and throttled down in front of her. They were not well clear and were still burdened with keeping clear of the Shonan Maru as the overtaking vessel in a overtaking situation.

They have a history of attempting to blind the crew of the Shonan Maru with a laser, and attempting to disable the vessel with a towed line. Their organization has a history of self proclaimed "piracy" and ramming other vessels at sea.

Maritime law permits vessels to defend themselves with force- it puts no limit on that force. LRAD and fire hoses are exceedingly non-lethal.

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. The vessel on the starboard side of a crossing situation has right of way.

He's "the stand-on vessel" and is supposed to maintain course and speed.

The "give way" vessel (the whaler in this case) is supposed to alter course to pass astern.

(this assumes vessels of equal maneuverability, clearly not the case here)

We don't see what happened in the minute or two leading up to the video, but it seems plausible that the AG wasn't just sitting there waiting for the whaler to arrive.

When the AG approached the whaler on a collision course, he was obliged to maintain course and speed so the whaler could choose evasive action.

The insurance company ain't paying. Luckily for the SSCS, there's an infinitely large pool of suckers to finance the next ship they intend to crash.

[jmowreader]

118. There's another video on YouTube that DOES show it

Bethune came up the port side of the Japanese ship, cut across the Japanese ship's path so closely you couldn't see the AG, motored to the starboard side, turned around...and then either sat there and waited to be run over or drove into the side of the Japanese ship.

[apocalypsehow]

58. What the Ady Gil did was a form of cultural terrorism against Japanese culture, history, and people.

The Australian Greens don't get to call the shots for another culture's ancient heritage. The people who live in and have inherited that culture do.

It really is that simple.

[lastliberalintexas]

61. So fundie Muslims get to treat women like shit because it's cultural?

Asian and Middle Eastern societies should be able to permit dis-honor killings because it's cultural? The French abuse geese for foie gras?

At least the Inuits only hunt in their own waters and stay out of a freaking *sanctuary* for their cultural kills.

[apocalypsehow]

64. Get over your obsession with "Star Trek: The Voyage Home." It doesn't fly in the real world. n/t.

[lastliberalintexas]

65. I've never watched a Star Trek episode, so I have no idea what that means

:shrug:

[apocalypsehow]

66. Then go rent it. It's fiction at its best - just like your laughable reply to me above.

:thumbsup:

[lastliberalintexas]

72. Oh, funny guy

Yes, I think "honor" killings are hilarious. Such a grand cultural tradition. Since I am not of that society I have no right to condemn their behavior, right? We Americans have a pretty decent (even though not ancient) cultural propensity towards armed conflict, so I guess the other countries of the world should just leave us be as well?

I've seen some crazy cultural things defended by "liberals" in the name of tolerance, so I shouldn't be surprised to see someone defending whaling on that basis too.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftyMom]

84. Japan is a member nation of the IWC. They had the option of objecting to the whaling ban, and didn't

Norway objected as described by IWC rules, and is permitted to continue commercial whaling. Japan did not, and is not.

Japan has also tried and failed to end the whale sanctuary status of the Southern Ocean at the IWC, so they are well aware that whaling is not permitted in those waters and are ignoring rules which they are bound by treaty to honor.

Further, while a few Japanese coastal villages have a small-scale whaling tradition, Japan certainly has no tradition of whaling in the Antarctic, nor of hunting Minke whales, nor of large-scale industrial whaling, which they didn't even begin on any significant scale until after WWII.

[Violet_Crumble]

88. Well said, LeftyMom... n/t

[kristopher]

90. That is a half assed interpretation that is wrong.

Japan agreed to go along with the *moratorium* (not a ban) because they believed that the purpose was as stated - a period of time to study the issue of sustainable whaling. When it eventually became clear that the use of the moratorium was to impose a defacto ban instead of to conduct legitimate study, the Japanese invoked their right to conduct "research whaling" as specified in the same document that authorizes the moratorium.

Your comments about the Southern Ocean are pure fiction.

The issue of traditional whaling is true, but it is now irrelevant. They made that argument as an attempt to reach a compromise with the west and it was rejected.

The whaling they are doing and where they are doing it is within their rights under the agreements of the International Whaling Commission.

[LeftyMom]

93. That's simply not correct.

Japan began "scientific whaling" in 1986, which was the year the moratorium went into effect. The moratorium has not been lifted because whale populations are still mere fractions of their historic numbers. We know this because old whaling ships kept records. Whales are slow reproducers, so populations will recover on a generational time scale. The "Institute for Cetacean Research" :rofl: certainly fucking knows that, but they're too busy researching the price of dead whale in Tokyo fish markets.

They have a right to take an occasional whale for research purposes under ICR rules. Their nearly 1,000 whales a year quota is clearly not for research, and only a complete moron would buy that excuse. For that matter, the ICR doesn't publish any data that anybody who researches whales finds useful for anything other than keeping track of how badly Japan is harming whale populations.

[kristopher]

96. That is not a true representation of events.

The moratorium went into effect in 1986, but it was enacted in 1982. You are engaged in "politicizing science" just as much as climate deniers do.

Suggest you at least read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whaling_Commission

Here is a relevant tidbit:
"Allegation of politicising science

The pro-whaling nations accuse the IWC of basing these decisions upon "political and emotional" factors rather than upon scientific knowledge given that the IWC prohibits all whaling, even though its own Scientific Committee has concluded since 1991 that quotas on some species of whale would be sustainable. They argue the IWC has swayed from its original purpose and is attempting, under the guise of conservation, to essentially grant whales an entitlement to life via an absolute protection from being killed by humans for commercial purposes.<22>

Non-IWC whaling nations have expressed similar sentiments. Canada withdrew from the IWC after the vote to impose the moratorium, claiming that "he ban was inconsistent with measures that had just been adopted by the IWC that were designed to allow harvests of stocks at safe levels."

After the moratorium came into force in 1986, the Scientific Committee was commissioned to review the status of the whale stocks and develop a calculation method for setting safe catch limits. At the IWC's annual meeting in 1991, the Scientific Committee submitted its finding that there existed approximately 761,000 Minke Whales in Antarctic waters, 87,000 in the northeast Atlantic, and 25,000 in the North Pacific. With such populations, it was submitted, 2000 Minke Whales could be harvested annually without endangering the population. Despite this, the IWC Plenary Committee voted to maintain the blanket moratorium on whaling, arguing that formulas for determining allowable catches had not yet been adequately evaluated.

In 1991, acting on the recommendation of the Scientific Committee, the IWC adopted a computerised formula, the Revised Management Procedure (RMP), for determining allowable catches of some whale species. Despite the fact that the RMP indicated that it would be possible to authorize a catch that year, the moratorium was not lifted. The IWC noted the need to agree on minimum standards for data, to prepare guidelines on the conduct of population surveys, and to devise and approve a system of measures for monitoring and inspection.

The IWC Plenary committee adopted the RMP in 1994, but decided not to implement it before an inspection and control scheme had been developed. This scheme, together with the RMP, is known as the Revised Management Scheme (RMS). Since then it has been all but impossible for the member countries in the Plenary committee to agree on an RMS.

Frustrated by this delay in the return to commercial whaling, with no sign of agreement on the RMS in sight, pro-whaling countries have accused some hard-line anti-whaling countries, such as United Kingdom and New Zealand, of not negotiating in good faith, insinuating that they are filibustering the adoption of an RMS by introducing unrealistic demands that will make the RMS unworkable. The accused countries respond by claiming that they only want to make sure best practices will be followed and that it is the pro-whaling countries that show unwillingness to compromise. These anti-whaling countries, which want the moratorium to be permanent, also face questions why they are participating in the discussions in the first place, since the whole objective of the RMS is to regulate commercial whaling. Their response is that the RMS and the moratorium are two separate issues, and should the moratorium be lifted against their will, they want the best possible management scheme in place. Thus a politically awkward situation could arise where the RMS and the moratorium co-exist.

Australia is the only member country of IWC who has officially announced its opposition to any RMS and is therefore not participating in the discussions. Anti-whaling NGOs, such as Greenpeace, are also generally against the RMS.

Ray Gambell, then the Secretary of the IWC, agreed at least in part with the argument of the pro-whaling nations: "In all reasonableness, we would have to say that a commercial catch could be taken without endangering stocks."<23> In June 1993 the Chairman of the Scientific Committee, Dr Philip Hammond, resigned in protest to what he saw as contempt of the Scientific Committee’s recommendations. The same year Norway became the only state in the world to resume commercial whaling, on the grounds that they had objected to, and thus opted out, of the moratorium."

[LeftyMom]

98. Nothing I stated was incorrect, and nothing in your overly long copypasta contradicts what I said.

Whales are slow breeders- their lifespans are roughly comparable to those of a human, and they don't breed for their first decade or so of life, then only have one calf every couple of years after that.

All of the whales which Japan targets in this hunt are both illegal to hunt commercially (and this is clearly a commercial hunt) under the IWC and protected species under CITES, of which Japan is also a signatory. Further, under IWC rules by which Japan has agreed to obey, this area is a whale sanctuary. Japan had the option to opt out of all of these rules, and did not do so. Rather they have opted to skirt the law by declaring a clearly commercial hunt to be a scientific research effort, which is about as convincing- and as legal- as when some random nutjob declares their house a sovereign nation to get out of paying taxes or registering their car.

[kristopher]

104. It absolutely contradicts what you wrote.

If you don't want to acknowledge that, so be it; but your most of your assertions were directly contradicted.

[DrCory]

100. The practice of whaling...

Is an act of terrorism against a highly intelligent mammalian species. In that regard, "culture" be dammed and it deserves no respect whatsoever. If the Japanese don't cease this barbaric and wholly unnecessary practice of their own accord, any action taken to disrupt this activity is morally defensible.

It really is THAT simple.

[kristopher]

107. Only if you are simpleminded...

You see, your tantrums really don't mean squat to the Japanese. Your friendship, however, could mean a great deal.

How do you respond to some of the threats being made lately by teabaggers? Do those ultimatums and threats of violence make you more or less inclined to try and accommodate the values of the teabaggers?

That is how you and your brash talk is perceived by those you hope to influence.

[DrCory]

115. Guess you missed this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7389760

"Your friendship, however, could mean a great deal."

I couldn't care less to befriend this modern equivalent of the einsatzgruppen

The slaughter must be stopped NOW, no time to wait for the uncertain effects of "making nice"

[Coventina]

108. Wow. That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever seen posted.

And I've been here long enough to see some really dumb things posted.

:crazy:

on edit: It is absolutely astonishing to me that I would see defense of whaling on a "progressive" board.

You know what MY cultural heritage is? My cultural heritage (on one side of the family) is to sail up and down coastlines burning and looting coastal villages, raping the women and killing the men. But hey, we Vikings have to make a living! These modern laws against such activities are acts of cultural terrorism against my people!!! Oh, and by the way, we used to be whalers too, but now we can't, so our glorious culture is dead. :cry:

[kristopher]

111. That isn't the same thing at all

As late as the 1970s the Western members of the IWC were PRO-WHALING. The PURPOSE of the IWC was to manage whale HARVESTS in a sustainable manner. The Western nations had a CHANGE of VALUES and have attempted to CHANGE that purpose with no regard for the VALUES of the nations that still think whaling is OK.

That is FORCING your cultural beliefs on others. You don't have to FORCE others to adopt practices that forbid burning and looting villages - everyone already shares those values and we have already agreed that we will not (usually) engage in such behavior.

Why can't you discuss this without creating using the "it is my tactics or you are the enemy" framing? I haven't seen ANYONE on this thread that supports whaling. Just people who disapprove of the violent and dangerous tactics of a fringe of the fringe element that doesn't care about basic honesty and integrity in dealing with people who disagree with them.

[Coventina]

112. Claiming that protesting/disrupting whaling is "cultural terrorism"

is ridiculous.

The vast majority of the Japanese are not interested in eating whale meat. There are warehouses full of the stuff that they keep trying to invent new ways to use.

It seems for the average Japanese person "whaling" is not part of their culture. In fact, there are prostests against whaling in Japan. It's really only whalers that are pro-whaling.

So to claim that trying to shut down the Japanese whaling industry will destroy Japanese culture is just silly.

[kristopher]

113. IF that were the claim it would be silly.

You are, however, totally ignoring a contrary explanation. ETA: I'm referring to your last sentence, not your headline.

[Coventina]

114. The poster I responded to made that claim. n/t

[Tailormyst]

110. "cultural terrorism"? Are you kidding me?

Second stupidest post I have read all morning.

[DrCory]

116. Whats that watery sound I hear?

Why, that would be your trumpeted "progressive" cred flushing down the toilet.

Bravo professor, bravo!

:rofl:

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

80. The ICR is a front for the Japanese whaling industry and are a pack of lying douchebags...

Lucky that we don't have to rely on yr, uh, objectivity and expertise and that AMSA is going to carry out an investigation of what happened. I suggest you wait until those findings come out before coming to any conclusions...

[kristopher]

86. Yes they are a front group for the Japanese whaling industry ..

But I've not found them to have engaged in lying. Can you provide a specific example?

In this case they have supplied a video without comment (the japanese guy in the vid is just saying that there has been a collision over and over) so I fail to see how your point about lying would apply even if true.

Even cursory study of the actual history of this dispute shows that the main problem has been a result of dishonest negotiations and coercive tactics on the part of the antiwhaling advocates. We have been afraid to admit that our opposition is based on elevating whales to the status of humans (doesn't it it smack of murder when whales are killed?) and have resorted to every trick in the book (and a couple that aren't) in order to force the "whales are just animals" Japanese to accept the consequences of our values.

I think we'd get a lot further if we just kept making the argument that we feel it *is* like murder. Friends don't like their friends to think of them as murderers; so I think that has a real chance of getting them to change their ways.


But friends also don't like to be bullied, pushed around and forced to accept dishonest scientific arguments as if they were true; and that is all that the SSCS and like minded supporters of "stop whaling at any costs" have ever done.

[Violet_Crumble]

87. They claim to be whaling for research purposes...they're fucking liars...

That's just one specific example.

I get very suspicious of the motives of those who fail to mention that the group they're citing is a front group of one of the parties involved. Also, I'd rather wait for the findings of the AMSA investigation to be released rather than rely on what someone on the internet says who looks very much like they're a supporter of whaling...

So according to you the opposition to whaling by countries like Australia and New Zealand is because they're trying to elevate whales to the status of humans? That's just total nonsense. Do you feel the same way about protected species?

The Japanese whalers are no friends of anyone with an ounce of decency, and their time is coming to an end, and sooner rather than later.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tailormyst]

102. You don't purposely scuttle a boat in artic waters......

Unless you literally have a death wish. Those men would have likely died had they gone into the water.

[kristopher]

103. The video says they did scuttle the boat

And they did not die. They had a film crew standing by to assist when they pulled the stunt.

[Tailormyst]

106. I am not seeing the same thing you are.

[kristopher]

109. It isn't in the "seeing", it is in the physics.