Whalers Attack Small Boat

[BeFree]

Just watched the videos of the whalers aiming for and hitting the SS small boat.

Saw it on a 42 inch Tv and replayed it 5 times. Two different videos: one from the attack ship and one from a point about 1,000 feet in front of the attack.

The whaling ship, a ship built for maneuverability, (it tracks and hunts down whales) clearly turns in two different directions aiming for the small boat which was sitting off the starboard (right) side of the fast approaching whaler. The whaler could have easily turned away from the small boat, but it did not, it aimed for and turned into the small boat.

The whalers must be getting a bit miffed at SS to physically attack and use violence against a small boat in the middle of the ocean.

Good work Sea Shepherds! You will destroy the whalers in due time.

[derby378]

1. The whalers also used an acoustic cannon on a Sea Shepherd helicopter

That is seriously reckless. The whalers didn't give a damn if that chopper crashed or not.

[Coventina]

2. Don't you know that Sea Shepherd is guilty of "cultural terrorism"

against the Japanese?

What kind of liberal are you, anyway? Off to the re-education camp you go!!

[Iggo]

3. "Cultural Terrorism"

Good one. Almost as if the War On Xmas has taken to the high seas. The whale-killers are being oppressed, I tells ya. Their traditions are being ignored and their right to do "research" is beng trampled upon.

Stupid no-good do-gooders should just leave 'em alone.

[Moochy]

5. The Japanese Whalers are the oppressed here!! poor guys!

What the fuck kind of liberal are you to suggest in jest that others should be sent to re-education camps? sounds like a suitable joke for the red-baiters at FR....

[Coventina]

38. What the what?

I don't understand your post.
Are you calling me a FReeper?

[Moochy]

90. Freepers love that line about re-education camps.

If it squawks like duck.

[Coventina]

144. Darn! My cover is blown! And after 8+ years! Good job!

I suggest you alert the admins immediately!!

:rofl:

[Moochy]

147. No I wont for fear of being sent off to re-education camps

Cuz that's how us progressives roll, baby.

[Coventina]

148. Thanks, I appreciate you keeping my secret on the down-low

:eyes:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Remember this the next time some one defends abhorrent behavior as "its their culture"

and that all cultures are in essence equal. I see lots of uproar about whaling and not other "cultural practices" like FGM and honor killings.

[Coventina]

41. I can't speak for DUers in general, but I have never thought

that "culture" is an excuse for abhorrent behavior.

As a woman, I completely oppose any form of FGM. (FWIW I don't approve of circumcision either, although I don't generally participate in the circumcision threads). And, "honor killing" is an oxymoron.

Killing endangered species, moreover, species that science has indicated have high intelligence, self-awareness, etc., for a population that has no interest in eating them (hence, warehouses full of unwanted whale meat in Japan) is just plain stupid, and cannot be protected under the fig-leaf of "culture".

[ProgressiveProfessor]

86. Some here clearly use the cultural equality crutch, though not with whaling

On campus its used damn near everywhere. When I toss in FGM, honor killings, and some of the sharia related items, they meltdown and claim that those aren't the same. Yes it is.

The ICR is not taking endangered species. Its one of their concessions in the IWC, so its not something I use to argue against whaling. The stockpile though is a good one. To end whaling the key is to end the demand. Also remember that whale is consumed in the US and Europe, not just the Far East so the social stigmatization needs to be pressed there as well. Greenpeace and the IWC are moving that way. Watson and the SSCS are actually hurting that process.

[Coventina]

145. Whale is eaten in the US? Wow, that's news to me!

In what sort of quantities?

I go to Japanese restaurants quite a bit (and I don't mean Benihana's) and I've never seen it offered on a menu.

[jmowreader]

151. The Makah in Washington state have whaled recently

They took two gray whales--one in 1999, one in 2000--before their treaty-guaranteed hunt (they wanted to kill as many as five per year) was suspended. Makah whaling is done from log canoes.

There are Alaskan tribes who whale, and they have formed the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission. These guys hunt bowheads, which are one of the Right Whales. I have mixed feelings about the AEWC. They whale, which is almost justifiable for Arctic peoples because of the nature of an arctic diet but it's still reprehensible. They also protest all the offshore oil exploration around Alaska, which everyone here should like.

[Coventina]

152. I have much less of a problem with tribal people using log canoes

taking whales that they will fully utilize as part of their pre-industrial lifestyle. I don't *like* it, but I can understand and tolerate it, providing the whale populations can sustain it.

That sort of whale consumption is not what I understood the poster to mean.

I also don't think that the Japanese whaling industry can use that sort of "cultural" justification for their activities.

[jmowreader]

153. It's possible they can justify it culturally

Japanese people started eating beached whales in 4000BC. They were harpooning them from shore in the 12th Century, and were going to sea to hunt them as early as the 1570s. In other words, at the time we in the advanced, civilized Western World had condemned Galileo for the horrific heresy of believing the earth rotates around the sun, the Japanese had been catching whales from boats for 60 years.

I don't know what the motivation is for Japan to continue whaling, except that Japanese people will eat anything that comes out of the ocean. (Let's get down to basics: no one in his or her right mind would have eaten the second puffer fish since the guy who ate the first one died from it.)

[Coventina]

154. Not really, when most Japanese no longer eat it & the industry has

a hard time selling the stuff that is caught for "scientific research".

It may have been part of Japanese culture at one time, but it is no longer.

[Ignis]

63. You've never seen DU up in arms over FGM?

Well, look harder, then. Try the search function. Search the archives.

The problem that you're conveniently ignoring, of course, is that whaling gets much more MSM press than FGM does, and that's why we're discussing it today on DU.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

88. I certainly have. I use it to argue against the concept of cultural equality

Here and a lot on campus there are those big on cultural equality. To counter that I use examples like FGM, whaling, honor killings, sharia, etc. The internal conflict that ensures is at times fun to watch. You can not be a true supporter of cultural equality without tacitly supporting some pretty horrific stuff. That was my point.

[Ignis]

97. Ah.

Well, I've certainly used the examples of FGM, Shiara, and whaling myself when discussing the perils of a carte blanche, non-anthropological, "feel-good" approach to the adoption of cultural relativism.

But I'm not suggesting that we throw the baby out with the bathwater, either. Cultural relativism was/is absolutely necessary as a transitional tool from an imperialist and/or racist mindset that was prevalent in the social sciences until the 70s? 80s? 90s? Well, let's just say that it's still an important tool, provided that one doesn't stretch its application beyond its roots.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

103. Like newtonian mechanics, its a useful tool in its place

However some social science types especially on campus like to make sweeping generalizations and do not understand the concept of limited applicability. They also do not perform thought experiments or use test cases. They make easy pickings when it comes to straight up debate, though as a prof in the geek area, it rarely comes to that.

[Ignis]

108. I can go along with that analogy.

Here's another I like to use: Most psychoanalysts practicing today are not strict Freudians, but without Freud's initial analysis, they would be unable to do what they do today.

The core problem here, I think, is that the social sciences have suffered a dearth of people willing to tackle the harder, more philosophical issues that were raised in the 60s-80s, so we're stuck using outdated terminology that doesn't have a contemporary body of knowledge upon which to draw for support.

[bridgit]

119. In a sense that is true - sushi eaters should wake up: Top U.S. Sushi Company Linked...

ENVIRONMENT: Top U.S. Sushi Company Linked to Whaling

BROOKLIN, Canada, Apr 11 (IPS) - An investigation has revealed that the U.S. supplier of sushi to more than 6,000 restaurants is associated with a Japanese company that sells millions of tins of whale meat.

Despite a global ban on killing whales, Japan's Kyokuyo, a multinational seafood conglomerate, sells between 10 and 20 million cans of whale meat a year, according to an Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) report released Tuesday.

"Kyokuyo is breaking international laws," said Alan Thornton, president of EIA, an environmental group based in the United States and Britain.

"Since the 1930s, Kyokuyo has been profiting from the deaths of an estimated 130,000 great whales," Thornton told IPS.

There has been a global ban on whaling since 1986. However, the Japanese claim the 1,000 or more whales they hunt each year in the Antarctic Ocean are for scientific research. Whale meat is found in leading Japanese supermarkets, and Kyokuyo is perhaps the leading distributor, he says.

"To be clear, whale meat is not being sold in the U.S.," said Kitty Block, director of Treaty Law, Oceans, and Wildlife Protection at the Humane Society International (HSI).

"What we want is to make sure no U.S. company is involved in any way with killing whales," Block said in an interview.

Kyokuyo recently partnered with True World Foods of New Jersey, a leading seafood and sushi distributor with 280 million dollars in annual sales, to market frozen sushi under the brand name "Polar Seas Frozen Sushi". The product is slated to hit grocery stores here as early as this summer.

Block and other activists are asking grocery stores to "think twice before placing Polar Seas products on their shelves".

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37307

[Coventina]

146. Great info on Polar Seas! Thanks! Buyer Beware!! n/t

[MercutioATC]

4. "The whaling ship, built for maneuverability"?????????

Oh yeah, those 450-ton whaling ships are nimble as all hell :eyes:

That said, the Ady Gil placed itself in the path of the whaler (by Watson's own admission) and actually accelerated forward under the bow of the whaler immediately before the collision (as evidenced on video).

The pilot of the Ady Gil put his ship and crew in danger...and accomplished nothing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. Some people must thinking about the movie Moby Dick and Nantucket sleigh rides

[BeFree]

9. Yeah

It is built to chase whales. It has to be able to maneuver as well as whales do if it wants to follow them. And then harpoon them.

[MercutioATC]

11. Right. Because fishing trawlers that catch tuna are as maneuverable as tuna.

It doesn't work that way.

[BeFree]

15. Horseshit

Catching tuna and harpooning whales are so different I can't believe you would honestly even write such horseshit.

[MercutioATC]

16. Neither are whaling ships "as maneuverable as whales".

Another tip: They can't submerge like whales do, either (except, maybe, for the Ady Gil).

[BeFree]

18. Watch the video

Side to side the ship is designed and built to follow whales. If it didn't they would never be able to get close enough to harpoon the magnificent creatures.

And whales have to surface to breathe. Sonar tracks the whales while the whales under water.

Again you make light of this action and deliver horse shit by the boat load.

[MercutioATC]

20. The Shonan Maru is 171 feet long and weighs 491 tons.

Sorry, but there is no way it can change direction quickly.

[BeFree]

21. Watch the video

It turns to starboard directly toward the AG, then as he AG moves forward from a dead stop to get away and pass in front, the whalers turn to port to cut it off.

It's all right there, on the two angles.

[slackmaster]

26. Trying to pass ahead of the larger vessel at that moment would not have been the right move to avoid

A collision. AG should have steered hard to the right. It was driven into the path of the Japanese vessel intentionally, or just stupidly.

Two vessels on the high seas are supposed to keep each other at a safe distance. Ady Gil was deliberately harassing the Japanese ship. They were essentially playing a game of Chicken, and lost.

[BeFree]

29. Still

You have said the AG was still. So why did the whaler come so close?

Your bs about whalers not being agile on the water is pure bs. The video clearly shows the whaler turning quite rapidly. As designed.

[slackmaster]

33. No, I have never said the AG was sitll. I said it was obviously under power just before collision

Your bs about whalers not being agile on the water is pure bs

Where did I say that? It's agile as large vessels go, but not nearly as agile as Ady Gil.

[BeFree]

98. Yer right

It wasn't you that said it was still. Professor did. "Sit and squat".

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. You are missing a number of important points

- Relative motion of the all of the vessels, including the Bob Barker.
Moving vantage points could explain some of the perceived apparent turn.
- 4 foot seas which makes detail navigation difficult. Look how much hull is exposed prior to "the turn".
In seas like that no boat can maintain a truly straight course
- It is quite clear that Ady Gil drove under/in front of the security vessel just before the collision and backed away later
- The Ady Gil is not a small boat (The RIBs are small boats)
- Reduced visibility due to 4 foot seas, water cannon, lasers etc
- The security vessel is not nearly as maneuverable as you think. 450 tons does not turn, stop, or accelerate that quickly.

The only accurate way to analyze what happened is to take ALL the footage from multiple sources with other data from the vessels like location, speed, helm settings and build a analytical model. That requires full disclosure from all parties to a single board of inquiry. I very much doubt that is going to happen. Some are claiming that the SSCS video was edited, or at least clipped for time and several important factors are not displayed. I am sure that the ICR has more video and are not releasing it either.

Then there is who has authority for an investigation.
- AUS has SAR responsibility in that part of the world, but it did not happen in their territorial waters.
The latter is important since with it, they would be the controlling authority. As a result, AUS has very
limited authority at best.
- NZ has more authority, since the Ady Gil flew its flag
- Japan has the same authority as NZ since the security vessel is Japanese flagged.

From the maritime side, the Ady Gil is clearly the at fault vessel. It was playing chicken with the security vessel and was doing a stop and squat. Watson himself has said as much. That means under maritime law the Ady Gil owns the collision. The only question is whether or not the security vessel could see them prior to the collision and if there was enough time to do anything about it.

[BeFree]

10. What a bunch of crap

I saw the two videos on a 42 inch screen. Not a small computer screen.

The ship headed straight for the Andy Gil, which was sitting still. When it became obvious that the ship was bearing down on the AG, the AG started forward.

Hoping that rule 15 would be followed, and the ship pass to the rear, the AG moved forward. The ship then turned to port cutting off the forward motion of the AG.

As you said, the AG was stopped. A stopped vessel has to be steered away from.

The whaler is built to follow whales. It has to be able to turn as quickly as a whale. It does. It turned directly into the AG and cut it off.

Those are some doggone brave sailors with the SS, and we should all wish them the very best. They will destroy the whalers. The sooner the better.

ETA:
“When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense”

[MercutioATC]

12. You're clearly operating under at least a few flawed premises.

...and, despite knowledgeable clarifications, you choose not to examine them.

[BeFree]

14. Son

I saw the video. It clearly shows the ship turning directly toward the AG.

There is no ambiguity about the video. You need to examine the video. On a big screen.

[MercutioATC]

17. Gramps

I don't care HOW big the screen is, it simply doesn't provide the proof you claim...nor does it show more than one angle.

That said, the video taken from the Shonan Maru disputes your description of the Ady Gil's actions.

[BeFree]

19. Saw two angles

Two. TWO. Got that? TWO ANGLES.

One from the ship, the other from about 1,000 feet in front from the SS boat.

TWO ANGLES.

[slackmaster]

23. The view from the ship clearly shows that the Ady Gil was under power and accelerating

Right before it was hit. It was piloted into the path of the Japanese vessel. It could have been steered away, but was not.

I doubt that the pilot of the Japanese vessel could see Ady Gil at that point.

...the other from about 1,000 feet in front from the SS boat.

Yes, the view from the Bob Barker, which was in motion.

In any case, it doesn't matter. Nobody was hurt, and the damage to Ady Gil is minor. It will buff right out.

[BeFree]

28. Wrong

The AG moved forward to get away from the ship that had turned to the right, directly toward the AG which was nearly still. When the AG saw it turn into them, the AG moved the only way it could - forward. Then the whaler turned to the left to cut it off and it did. Had the AG sat still it would have been hit. I am sure the captain of the AG freaked out to see the whaler turn towards them.

From the BB you can first see the left side of the ship as it turned into the AG and then the right side of the whaler as it turned right.

The whaler turns very quickly, it is designed to as it has to follow whales. If it didn't turn so well it wouldn't be worth a shit as a whaler. The videos show the turns the whaler made as designed.

Have you seen the videos on a big screen?

[slackmaster]

32. I don't need a big screen. I'm very near-sighted, so all I have to do is take off my glasses

Get really close to the screen, and squint.

The captain of the AG put his crew in potentially lethal danger. He should have maintained a safe distance between his vessel and all other vessels. The Japanese vessel didn't chase down the AG.

[BeFree]

35. It turned into the AG

Yes, you do need a big screen.

I can't believe this: "I don't need a big screen. I'm very near-sighted, so all I have to do is take off my glasses"

The best technology there is to examine the situation and you say you don't need it? That's just stupid.

[slackmaster]

46. I don't need a big screen to see that the AG was in violation of Rule 7 during the whole event

Nor do I need a big screen to see that AG was under power, strong power, just before the collision. AG could have avoided the collision. It's captain chose not to.

:hi:

[BeFree]

51. Yes. You. Do.

You need better technology. And your glasses, I guess.

The AG was powered up just as the whaler came close. If it didn't the whaler would have plowed right through the AG as it turned directly at the AG.

The whaler captain takes directions from a bow man. That's how they track whales.

So, the bow man told the captain the AG was moving forward and the cap turned hard left to cut them off. That was some coordinated move the whaler made. I'm sure they are high-fiveing themselves.

[SidDithers]

56. BS...

You're saying that a 491 ton whaler was headed right at the middle of the AG, and when it saw the AG power up, it turned faster than the AG could accelerate forward, so it hit the bow instead of the middle.

That's some pile you're peddling, big screen or not.

Sid

Edit: corrected ship tonnage

[BeFree]

74. No bs

The whaler is built to follow whales. It has to get very close to a whale in order to harpoon it. It usually closely follows a whale until the whale is exhausted. Elementary.

Tell me, does the ship weigh 491 tons? Is that what that means?

Did you even see the video? If you did you would see the whaler turn right and head directly at the AG. Then, as the AG moved forward the whaler turned to the left to cut it off. The AG appears to power down or it might have gone under the bow, as it was, it was a glancing blow. You can see the paint off the whaler on the port hull of the AG.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

67. No evidence there was a bow man deployed

And I just reviewed both videos on technology years ahead of anything you have...the relative motion problems remain.

[BeFree]

70. Had a water cannon

And bow men are standard on whalers. And after many hours you just now took in the best view? And I'm supposed to believe you, why?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

73. I had already looked at it when it first came out on a large (54 inch) display

It was clear that was well in excess of the source material resolution. Just for giggles I put it up on a 190in (I think) display with 3X or 5X better resolution than HDMI a few minutes ago. Its still no better that the source resolution.

[BeFree]

75. Did you see the paint?

The paint that was scraped off the whaler?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

89. Which video and time hack are you referring to?

I wasn't looking for it, I was more concerned about other details related to motion.

[BeFree]

100. You didn't see the paint?

How much more did you miss?

Let's see, did the whaler stay straight, or did it turn? Some of you say it turned, some of you say it didn't turn. Some have even said it couldn't turn, that it can't turn, it weighs 491 tons!!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

104. Not sure its relevant. Again which video and time hack?

I'm about to give a large presentation here (with a MASSIVE screen behind me). I'll take a look at what concerns you when I am done. For the Japanese vessels (all of them) not to have transfer would be surprising. They are working vessels. For the carbon fiber boys' toy to have any prior to the collision would not be surprising.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

76. Intentional delete

Wrong place

[slackmaster]

91. Your interpretation of the trajectories borders on insane

If AG had remained stationary there wouldn't have been a collision.

Better still, if it had been at a safe distance in the first place there would have been no collision.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

95. SM, you can't say that! After all, he looked at it on a big display

:sarcasm:

I keep pushing the relative motion issue and an integrated analysis model. A validated one may show that the Japanese vessel could have avoided the Ady Gil. However everyone knows that the key is your display size (more :sarcasm:)

[BeFree]

102. Did the whaler turn?

Are you saying the whaler did not turn at all? That it just went straight the whole time?

What I saw was two turns. First right, then left. Relative motion from 1,000 feet away over 10 seconds has little bearing on what the videos show.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

105. Not just turn, but how much and why

Its back to that pesky analytical model thing again.

Glad to see you are acknowledging relevant motion, though based on my experience and others you are discounting too heavily

[BeFree]

107. Did it turn? Or did it stay straight?

Why is that so hard to answer?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

109. Because we lack enough data

My current *personal* opinion is that the Ady Gil tried a stop and squat in the ongoing game of maritime chicken, the other vessel lost sight of it in the waves and reduced visibility, and the collision was not intentional. Neither master would have wanted a collision. There are a number of voices on both sides the other guy wanted it.

[Bonobo]

122. Prof, you are WAY too rational.

Your logic is like a cool drink of water to a throat parched from crossing the Great DU Desert.

You simply do not belong here, oh Wanderer.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. Both from platform that were themselves moving and panning

There are ways to resolve the ambiguities. Until then, its just so much hot air. Whether those steps will ever get taken is doubtful.

[BeFree]

31. Confused much?

It is clear the whaler turns as it is designed to do to track whales. A very good design. It is amazing how well that whaler turns. Must have two huge rudders and a round semi-vee bottom.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

64. Not nearly as you seem to be

- At least some of the perceived turn is due to the motion of the Bob Barker and the the panning of the camera.
- Some (elsewhere) are questioning if the AG was visible to the security vessel immediately prior to the accident.
- The sea state is something of a contributor...look how much of the security vessels hull is exposed.

An analytical model is the only thing that can resolve those and other questions, screen size will not help in the slightest.

BTW, I just popped both videos up on a massive one of a kind display...doesn't change a thing even though by your way of thinking it should have provided more insight.

Some more thoughts from another DUer found here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=420087&mesg_id=420197

[BeFree]

69. So

Some Perceived turn? Did it turn, or did it not?

The whaler has a bow man who directs the helm. Standard item on whalers, so that throws that out.

You got nothing. And you just now admit you have taken to using the best view, and all this time you didn't have the best you could have?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

82. I looked at it in a number of resolution and sizes...source material still limits resolution

Anything better than source material is adequate, but hear the Bob Barker crew in enhanced 7.1 sound was amusing. My first look at some of them was on equipment superior to what you have.

No indication a bowman was in use. The vessel was configured as a security ship with additional LRADs. Did you actually see one on your "best view".

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Screen size will not chang relative motion issues

If you don't understand how that works, go take a high school movie or physics class. An analytical model is *required* to eliminate that, its Accident Investigation 101. One can be built quite easily with the automated tools today. It will prove the master of the Bob Barker a liar as well.

The AG has a reverse thrust capability, they used it...later.

Stop and squat that the SSCS has admitted using is the dominant fact. They initiated the engagement and have to bear the consequences. Its how maritime law works.

Actually the AG was moving slightly, steerage and a bit more. Just how fast is hard to tell from either video.

Whales don't jink and there is always some distance between the whaler and the whale. Add to that control and communications lag, sea conditions, visibility and there may have indeed been nothing the security vessel could do. That is what a maritime board of inquiry will sort out, though getting a single one is very doubtful given the politics.

The SSCS is actually hurting the anti whaling movement at an international level. The emotions Watson whips up by spin and lying count for nothing.


What you are calling crap are some of the key areas a board of inquiry would look at. The security vessel could indeed get a significant share of the blame but the Ady Gill will by definition have at least 51%.

[BeFree]

37. Heh

You admit you haven't seen the video on a big screen. Well, the big screen is the best tool to use to see what happened, but you refuse to use it? BZZZZZZZt!

[MercutioATC]

39. Ok. Just watched on my 32" monitor.

Absolutely no difference.

[BeFree]

43. Just now?

All this time and you just now took advantage of the best view?

What a crock.

[MercutioATC]

44. You're WAY too hung up on this "best view" stuff.

Like I said, it made no difference. Same exact video.

Have you watched it on a 1080p hi-def 60" screen through HDMI inputs? If not, YOU haven't seen the "best view" (by your own definition).

:eyes:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

54. Best view is a meaningless concept when display size exceeds source material resolution

[BeFree]

61. Best view is meaningless?

That is the craziest thing evah.

""No. We don't want to see it the best we can, we want the worst view.""?!?!?

Plain friggin crazy. Batshit crazy.

[cherokeeprogressive]

62. There were seven words in that subject line that you obviously chose not to read. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

77. A display can not provide better than its source material. Its pretty basic physics

Given the compression used on most web videos, super sized displays don't make it any better.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

52. Actually I did. Same relative motion and the Youtube stuff is resolution limited

The limiting factor is resolution of the material being displayed. For example YouTube reduces video resolutions to save space and transmission time. Much above a 19' display adds nothing to a YouTube video.

[BeFree]

65. Now?

You are boiled down to saying that you don't have the best view but you can tell what happened because the resolution is reduced to fit on a 19'(sic) screen?

Like I say, watch it on a 42 inch screen HD from MSNBC cable feed and get back to me. Give up on your 19'(sic) screen. It really is much better in HD.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

79. I looked at it when it first came out on a 54 inch screen...its resolution limited

Today I used the monster system I mentioned earlier...still resolution limited.

HD can not show what is not there in the source material.

[11 Bravo]

72. As a matter of maritime law, the AG was in the wrong, clearly and irrefutably.

You can wish really, really, really, really hard for that not to be the case, but wish in one hand and shit in the other, then let us know which one fills up first.

(And how many fucking threads are you going to start about this?)

[BeFree]

78. 11 hundred if need be

The AG was nearly still in the water. The whaler could have turned away, and under maritime law, should have turned away. Instead it turned right directly toward the AG. It is plain as day.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

80. Still don't get the relative motion issue, eh?

[MoonRiver]

13. My husband and I will now be contributing to Sea Sheperd!

What wonderful heroes, fighting abusers of these magnificent sentient animals!! :thumbsup:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Greenpeace is a more productive option with some hope of actually changing things

[eShirl]

40. Agreed!

[onestepforward]

85. They also have some great T-shirts and other merchandise too.

Their T-shirts are made from 100% organic cotton and are super soft. I got one for my husband's birthday and he loves it. :)

http://shop.seashepherd.org/store/default.aspx

[MoonRiver]

101. I saw them on their website.

I'm going to order one.

[proteus_lives]

27. South Park.com

Watch the episode, "Whale Whores".

[jmowreader]

30. The videos damn the Ady Gil

Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dXCR9LX-Kc&feature=related and look at the stern of Ady Gil. A few seconds before the impact, her drive impeller pumps and her raw water pump all start putting out a LOT of water. Forget the meme that Ady Gil was dead in the water; ships that are dead in the water are not at full throttle like Ady Gil was. It almost looks like Ady Gil rammed Shonan Maru rather than the other way around.

In http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbuq0YEIPNU it looks like Ady Gil moved forward into the path of the Japanese vessel. This was shot from Bob Barker.

And in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHCT2A4BPjA&NR=1 (turn down your audio; the accompaniment is some hideous hip-hop song) Ady Gil steered so close to Shonan Maru you couldn't see Ady Gil as she crossed in front of Shonan Maru. If Ady Gil's timing had been just a bit off, they could have been run over when they were in front of Shonan Maru and lost six sailors. As it is, they only lost their $2 million boat.

[BeFree]

34. Small screen, eh?

Watch it on the big screen.

The AG can only move forward from being still. It does not turn well. And it is relatively under powered as it is made to be conservative with energy use.

The video clearly shows the whaler steering to the front of the still AG, but then as the whaler is just @50 feet away it turns directly toward the AG. The captain of the AG must have freaked and the only thing he could do was move forward.

As the AG moves forward, the whaler turns hard to cut him off. And does.
If the AG had sat still the whaler would have plowed right thru the AG.
The captain of the AG saved the lives of his crew.

[jmowreader]

36. Define "relative"

http://www.gizmag.com/ady-gil-earthrace-trimaran-whaling/13443/

Ady Gil has two 540hp Cummins engines and goes 50 knots--faster than anything in the Japanese whaling fleet, which is why they wanted her.

Added comment: Marine transmissions have a reverse gear--in part to steer the vessel in port. Why wasn't it used? Throw both impellers in reverse and nail the gas...disaster averted.

[BeFree]

48. Underpowered

The AG is not meant to jump out of the water like small boats do. It probably takes 5 minutes to reach top speed. The AG sits very low in the water when at rest or at low speeds. It does not have the immediate power to jump out of and above the water and to 'jet' out of the way of the whaler. If it did it would have run away.

[slackmaster]

49. "If it did, it would have run away."

Unless the captain of the AG intended to provoke a collision.

[BeFree]

53. Provoke?

It was basically still in the water. No real wake until the whaler turned into them.

When the whaler turned into them they began to power up. As the AG moved forward the whaler turned to cut them off. It's right there on the video.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

58. Another weak spot in your education

The security vessel would accelerate even slower than the Ady Gil. Neither vessel was at idle.

[BeFree]

60. The AG was at idle

There was very little prop wash from the AG until the whaler turned right at the AG. It then powered up to save their lives. As it did the whaler turned hard left to cut them off.

[cherokeeprogressive]

68. "very little prop wash from the AG" is the best statement against your arguments I've seen yet

IF there were any doubt about the fact that the AG was moving forward the whole time, your comment blows that doubt out of the water. Prop wash means the screws WERE TURNING and if the screws WERE TURNING, the AG could only have been moving forward in the water.

[BeFree]

81. It was moving

You have to keep some power on a boat to have any control. The video from the whaler shows very little prop wash from the AG until the whaler turned right into it. Then a plume of prop was begins to come from the AG in order to get out of the way of the whaler. Then the whaler turns left to cut the AG's forward motion off. And it did. The cap of the AG saved his crew's lives.

[cherokeeprogressive]

87. Being that close to the path of a ship, why weren't his impellers turning in reverse JUST IN CASE?

I said it before, and I'll say it again... While I support the Sea Shepherds with both my wallet and my heart, I believe that Paul Watson puts his personnel in harm's way much too often, and sometimes only because there are cameras present.

Going back to his days ag Greenpeace, that is his modus operandi more often than not.

The captain of the AG is an IDIOT who nearly got six people killed unnecessarily.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

71. It appears to have been making steerage and then some

The unique design of the AG includes high efficiency jet pumps. Jet wake is waste as is cavitation. I have seen "no wake" speeds vary up to 10% between different jet powered craft. One can not use wake alone to determine the vector. The AG is clearly making steerage and then some. How much is undetermined until...wait for it....an analysis model is created and validated.

Looking at it on a bigger display will never change that.

[BeFree]

83. Wait for it?

If that is truly your advice, then why don't you take it?

Instead you all but decided, without even having the best view possible to you, that what you saw on a 19 inch you tube video was good enough to convict the AG crew.

And now I am supposed to believe anything you say? Why the hell should I? You got nothing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

94. What I said was I looked at it on a very large display first and then it became obvious

that the available resolution was now better than a 19in screen. That is the reality of the situation.

The action prior to the video is what "convicts" the master of the Ady Gil under maritime law. The best display in the world will not change that.

If ones credibility depends on the size of ones display...for lack of a better term...mine's bigger.

[slackmaster]

93. No, the whaler turned in order to try to pass astern of the AG as required by rule 15

It's painfully obvious.

[BeFree]

96. heh

You say it turned and other posters say it didn't turn. That it can't turn, even.

Yall need to get together and get your turns down pat.

[slackmaster]

123. I am really not sure that it turned but a right turn (which it appears to be doing) would be correct

As a last-ditch effort to avoid a collision with a vessel to your starboard that is crossing your path, per Rule 15.

[MercutioATC]

42. If your premise was true, the Gil would have lost her stern, not her bow.

What the hell are you talking about?

[BeFree]

45. Bow

The whaler turned hard to port to run down the AG as it began forward. Had the AG sat still, the AG would have been hit dead on. The videos are quite clear. The whaler attacked the AG.

[slackmaster]

47. It looks to me like the whaler turned hard to the right to avoid going ahead of AG

As would be dictated by Rule 15.

And the maneuver succeeded, if that was the whaler's intent. It did not go forward of the AG.

In any case, I doubt that the pilot of the Japanese vessel was able to see AG for the last few seconds. He probably didn't have a big enough screen.

[BeFree]

57. Heh

The AG was basically still in the water. The whaler was moving to a point ahead of the AG then it turned hard right directly into the AG.

So, you say the whaler turned right to go behind the AG. And the AG powered up to move ahead.

But the whaler went in front of the AG. Not, as you say: "It did not go forward of the AG". You are severely confused.

[slackmaster]

92. I think I figured out what your problem is

Your screen is too big.

But the whaler went in front of the AG. Not, as you say: "It did not go forward of the AG".

No, the whaler went THROUGH the AG, not forward of her.

[MercutioATC]

50. Physics obviously isn't your strong suit. Let's try another approach.

Why was the Gil where she was in relation to the whaler in the minutes before the collision?

[BeFree]

59. Why?

It was basically sitting still. Well off the right side of the whaler. All the whaler had to do was keep moving straight, but it didn't. It turned right directly at the AG.

The AG was there to harass the illegal poachers.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

66. The relative motion of the Bob Barker explains much if not all of that

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=420087&mesg_id=420197

[BeFree]

84. No.

It is clear the whaler made a hard right then a hard left. The starboard side was visible at first, then the port side was, then the starboard again, big time.

Right, left, then right sides, for those who don't get port and starboard.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

99. That is true from the perspective from a moving vessel and a panning camera

How much true movement against notionally a WGS-84 earth model is a key component in understanding the collision. So is speed, visibility, and sea state. With that much hull out of the water, how much control did the security vessel actually have? Was the Ady Gil visible from their bridge. Lots of questions that would be answered in a full up maritime inquiry. You are reaching conclusions with fairly poor data. Its intellectually dishonest at best. I would really like to see that analytical model made. I just think that it will not be possible since all sides will not come clean and will spin the data they provide.

As many others have pointed out, any inquiry will conclude that the Ady Gil has primary responsibility based on its overall actions, and not just the last 30 seconds before the collision. The SSCS might have been able to defend the master of the Ady Gil, but Watson shot his mouth off and confirmed the stop and squat as part of a game of maritime chicken.

[BeFree]

106. There you go again

Lots of questions that would be answered in a full up maritime inquiry. You are reaching conclusions with fairly poor data.

You are the one reaching conclusions with very poor data.

The AG was in a "stop and squat" mode. Sure, it enticed the whaler to make a bad move, and AG succeeded. The whaler made a bad move. The whalers were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The SS is in the right place at the right time.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

111. The stop and squat was acknowledged by SSCS and is the reason the Ady Gill

will be found at fault in a maritime inquiry. That is independent of any video footage.

A analytical model is only really needed to determine if the security vessel could have done something about the collision. I believe that is a toss up at this point, based on what has been released so far. I am not whitewashing the Japanese vessel here, it may get partial blame, though the master of the Ady Gil will get at least 51%.

They don't reward stop and squats in automotive accidents either. When a sports car passes a truck and then steps on the brakes, the truck is not considered at fault.

[jmowreader]

116. The hard starboard turn is NOT clear, sorry

To tell ya true, I've looked at that footage quite a few times. I even plugged in my larger monitor--19" flat Trinitron CRT, which has a better picture than my LCD. Obviously from the Bob Barker it looks like the Japanese whaler turned. Does SSCS have a motivation to make it look like the Japanese turned when they didn't, and do they have the ability to do so? Yes on both--if the Bob Barker was sailing perpendicular to the Japanese ship's track, it would have definitely looked like the Japanese ship was turning.

The footage from the Japanese ship shows the SSCS boat at a considerable distance from the Japanese ship. If the Japanese ship was in fact not turning, there was more than enough room for the two to pass without incident--IF the SSCS captain didn't nail the throttle and drive his boat right out in front of the Japanese ship.

If we can get some overhead coverage of this--does SSCS have any helicopters?--or positional data from the whaler's GPS, the mystery will be solved. Other than that, we're in a he said/she said situation.

[BeFree]

118. Post #47 claims

""It looks to me like the whaler turned hard to the right to avoid going ahead of AG""

My critics here are all over the place. Being that the skipper of the AG knew he wasn't going to win a collision with the whaler:

I conclude that the whaler aimed for and hit the AG.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

55. Still not understanding relative motion, eh?

[deaniac21]

110. Shonan Maru No. 2

This whaler clearly has gone beyond the pale in aggressive maneuvers. The Japanese MUST be stopped!!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

112. I suggest your read this thread and other to understand why the video alone is not persuasive

The US has no standing in this issue (the collision) and acknowledges that Japan is operating within the IWC structure. Remember that the US and Europe are also whalers and consume whale meat and other products.

I oppose whaling and support Greenpeace and the IWC approaches. Whaling will really only stop when the demand ends in Europe, the US, and the Far East. Watson and the SSCS are uniformly acknowledged to be slowing down the process and in doing so prolonging whaling. But what the heck, they have a cool TV show.

[deaniac21]

113. You don't appreciate humor, do you?

;-)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

115. This topic (more than just this thread) has emptied my humor reserves

I am up in 5 minutes for a presentation, I need to back away from the netbook, and get ready.

[1]

114. an oceanic "fender bender." a little bondo, a little paint and the ag will be back in no time...

[BeFree]

117. Yep, back soon

And another whale swims free tonight, rather than butchered and in the deep freeze!

If I were a younger man, I'd seriously be considering going down there and volunteering.
My blessings go to the men and women fighting this good fight.

[flvegan]

120. It's official. The Ady Gil has sunk.

While towing. Luckily, because they actually care about the environment (unlike the cowards on the whaling vessel) they were able to get all the fuel and oil off the boat before going down.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/sea-shepherd-lose-ady-gil-after-collision-with-whaler/story-e6frfku0-1225817238562

[1]

121. bummer...

[NYC_SKP]

126. Bummer.

Well, maybe next time they'll keep the hell away from anything over, say, 12,000 tons gross.

Boats. Holes in water that ya pour money into.

RIP, Ady Gil.

[flvegan]

128. Maybe next time a small boat getting blasted by an LRAD won't get rammed

by illegal whalers that care as much about human life as they do the whales they kill to sell.

[NYC_SKP]

131. It's not like any of this surprised them. They've collided before and the LRAD isn't new.

I just think the logic of putting a little glass boat (or Kevlar or whatever) in the path of a much larger steel ship is asking for it.

I liked their prop-fouling strategy, they should perfect that.

[flvegan]

132. I think that having an adversary is different than having someone aiming for your death.

Asking for it? Let me know when someone plows into your car on purpose in an attempt to end you. I'll tell you that you put your car in their path and asked for it. You might not like that.

[NYC_SKP]

133. No, I'd say the better analogy is me in a golfcart on the Interstate- truck lane. n/t

[flvegan]

134. Golfcart doesn't belong on the interstate, regardless of the lane.

The Earthrace went around the globe. In record time.

Fail.

[NYC_SKP]

135. fivegan, I love ya, I'm gonna quit...

...while you're ahead!

:P

Go Sea Shepherd, the Japanese whaling industry sux.

Between whales and tuna and bears' gall bladders, I don't know WTF is wrong with that culture on these matters.

:shrug:

[flvegan]

136. I'm not ahead, NYC_SKP and I love ya too.

I think that like you, I wish I knew WTF was wrong with folks, you know? "Culture" will never wash with me. I get it, but it ain't right.

Peace.

[BeFree]

129. What?

The whalers hit the AG and then just run off and leave it?

They have heavy duty cables ( to haul in whales) and a ramp up the back of the ship. They could have easily stopped to help. But they intentionally left?

There is a law on the high seas that you don't run away from a collision. But what can you expect from these criminals?

[flvegan]

130. What CAN you expect from these criminals?

They blast a small boat with military grade LRAD and then ram them, then they blast the crew with hoses in an additional bid to kill them, then ignore distress calls. Laws on the high seas don't apply to the Japanese whalers, as they've proven time and again regardless of what the apologists on DU pretend to state as fact.

[Merchant Marine]

139. You are so concerned about LRAD

It's maximum power is 146db at 1 meter, which drops off to 90db at 300m. A pair of ear plugs under a commercial headset will have 30-40db of sound reduction. $30 for ear protection and LRAD is completely useless. It funny that the helicopter pilot would complain so much about LRAD, as he regularly experiences sounds of up to 150db inside the cockpit from the engine behind his seat. That's why he's wearing a pilot's headset.

I doubt you've ever used a high-pressure hose in your life, but the 2" fire hoses on the Shonan Maru's sides are fixed to a mount on deck. They're not tracking the Ady Gil and do not track it after the crash- the Ady Gil drifts through the stream for a few seconds.

As to ignoring distress calls, all we have on this is the word of the SSCS. I'll wait for the collision report to come out, which will be great fun to review.

[sudopod]

141. Jesus, is this the only topic you care about?

Why are you even here?

[flvegan]

142. You are so concerned to rush to be an apoligist.

All you have is the rush to believe the whalers, you suspicious little thing you.

[Merchant Marine]

143. Don't want to debate, so you rush to insults

Typical of a true believer.

Care to discuss the capabilities of an LRAD, or would you rather append meaningless adjectives to it and continue to play the victim?

[Merchant Marine]

138. The only testimony we have regarding this

Is from SSCS. In the past SSCS used the distress signal from a whaling vessel to home in on the fleet, and they then proceeded to harass the whalers while they were searching for a crewman who had gone overboard.

In any case, the Japanese knew that the Bob Barker was in close proximity.

And what do you think the headlines would be if the Japanese hauled the crew of the Ady Gil onboard the SM2? "Japanese Whaler rams Ady Gil and ABDUCTS crew." They don't want to touch SSCS crew after the last "kidnapping" incident.

[madinmaryland]

124. NARWHALS! FUCK YEAH!

Uhhh... I thought it said Whales attack small boat!

:blush:

[NYC_SKP]

125. Thank you... ...·´¯`·... >-=((((º>---

FUCK YEAH!!!

[FreepFryer]

127. From the NYTimes: Japanese whaling ship clearly veered to close with Sea Shepherd.

"Sea Shepherd has released video from a distant vantage point that clearly shows the Japanese ship veering to starboard to close with the smaller protest craft."

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/anti-whaling-speedboat-wrecked-in-collision-with-whalers/?hpw

[flvegan]

137. The idiot apologists won't like that.

[SidDithers]

150. For the sake of accuracy...

that's a NY times blog, not a NY Times article. I don't think they've made a definitive comment on who was at fault.

Here's the actual NY Times report of the collision.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/world/asia/07whales.html?scp=1&sq=ady%20gil&st=cse

Sid

[lumberjack_jeff]

140. Victims, I tell you! Innocent victims!

Just like this time and this time and this time. It's those whaling boats, they go hunting for the poor hapless sea shepherd crews.

[Bonobo]

149. Turns out they were armed as well.

The Japanese found arrows floating in the water left from the wreckage of the Ady Gil.

Yup, deadly arrows floating among the oily waters where they have left their pollution.

I wonder why they left the hatches open on the Ady Gil when they were "towing" it to safety.

[BeFree]

155. No. Not innocent victims

But they were targeted and attacked by a much larger ship.

They are there to harass the whalers and they did a fine job of it.
They are brave men and to be applauded.