The Antarctic farce continues. Murray McCully tuts
"The situation is very serious. There is a chance it will get more serious. Lives are at stake here."but remains non committal.
And the war of the videos has begun, the ship bumpers have got theirs out already.
O.K., from the BB video, all 20 seconds I saw on the news...
ReplyDeleteFrom a rules POV, YM3 has right of way and may steer any course she wants, SS must keep clear.
As both vessels are under way, there is equal responsibility on both to keep clear & avoid collision.
From the limited video, it appears both vessels were on a converging course, & YM3 is maintaining course & speed as she is required to do.
What then appears to happen is the YM3 turns to starboard in a late attempt to keep clear and her port quarter swings into the Bob Barker. Here the Japanese are at fault for causing the collision by taking action too late. (Just like the crew of the Ady Gill)
But unless the Japanese have made great strides in turning one of the weakest, and most critical sections of a ship into an effective ramming design, only a complete moron would call this a deliberate ramming.
Now consider that the vessel places are the reverse of the Ady Gill incident, and while events unfolded in a similar and less catastrophic manner, somehow the Japanese still "Rammed" the SS vessel? go figure.....
*I reserve the right to modify my argument as more footage is released*
Ciaron knows whereof he speaks. KG is now waiting for Admiral Milt to give his expert (sarc) view of the incident, as he did over the Ady Gil incident..
ReplyDeletePart 2....
ReplyDeleteJust managed to get the video to load, as I was getting "turn on java" & "update flash" messages. standard windoze rectification sequence complete.
If you don't look at the YM3 and stare down the Barkers gunwale, it most definitely appears that the Barker turns to starboard, following the YM3's turn, as the vessel ahead of the Barker moves left out of shot.
This alone proves nothing, and one could speculate as to weather this maneuver contributed to the collision, but it is important in establishing the competency of the Barker crew, and their willingness to put their vessel into a contact situation.
It was the bumpee that took your video, Andrei.
ReplyDelete"Admiral Milt" has no comment on this without seeing more. Other than this - Ciaron wrote:
From a rules POV, YM3 has right of way and may steer any course she wants, SS must keep clear.
Now, if only you'd come up with such an unequivocal statement when it was Ady Gil that had right of way and YM2 that must keep clear...
And:
Now consider that the vessel places are the reverse of the Ady Gill incident, and while events unfolded in a similar and less catastrophic manner, somehow the Japanese still "Rammed" the SS vessel? go figure.....
If there's some footage that shows the Bob Barker turning starboard onto a collision course and running its bow directly into the YM3, you've got a point...
Learn to read Admiral.
ReplyDeleteFrom a rules POV, YM3 has right of way and may steer any course she wants, SS must keep clear.
Now, if only you'd come up with such an unequivocal statement when it was Ady Gil that had right of way and YM2 that must keep clear...
This was an assessment of the initial situation presented by the video, i.e. collision not imminent.
the other point you seem to have missed from our last discussion, is that the ROW vessel may assume any course she wants, as long as she gives the GW vessel room and opportunity to keep clear, the YM3 attempted this with their turn to starboard, where the AG failed miserably.
If there's some footage that shows the Bob Barker turning starboard onto a collision course and running its bow directly into the YM3, you've got a point...
This footage does show the Barker turning to starboard, And had the Helmsman of the YM3 been of the stupidity par Ady Gill the result would have been similar... the real question for you, Admiral, is if the YM3 turned to port, would BB be at fault?
This was an assessment of the initial situation presented by the video, i.e. collision not imminent.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet somehow not worth mentioning when it was the whalers who must keep clear.
This footage does show the Barker turning to starboard
I think that's a wildly over-generous interpretation, but maybe further video will back it up. I also think it's remarkable that you can discern a turn to starboard from the slight movement visible in this video, and yet fail to discern the very obvious turn the SM2 made to collide with the Ady Gil.
the real question for you, Admiral, is if the YM3 turned to port, would BB be at fault?
I'm not even going to claim to know what really happened from this few seconds of video, let alone start speculating on what-ifs. If your what-if is the "real question," its relevance is beyond me.
Admiral, you have no clue
ReplyDeleteAnd yet somehow not worth mentioning when it was the whalers who must keep clear.
Pretty sure that was one of the first things I
noted.
This footage does show the Barker turning to starboard
I think that's a wildly over-generous interpretation, but maybe further video will back it up.
Not at all, for 2 reasons, 1 read what I said (Google words you can't understand) and watch the video. 2 at the start of the video, the vessels are more or less parallel, you see the YM3 make a turn to starboard, then at contact, the vessels are again more or less parallel, this can't happen unless the BB also turned to starboard.
I also think it's remarkable that you can discern a turn to starboard from the slight movement visible in this video, and yet fail to discern the very obvious turn the SM2 made to collide with the Ady Gil.
Again, you're confused, when the onboard from the BB came out, I agreed with you about the turn, but disagreed about intent.
If your what-if is the "real question," its relevance is beyond me.
O.K. I'll rephrase. In terms of rules and obligations, I see this incident as a carbon copy of the Ady Gill collision, so my question is: If the Ady Gill was the innocent party in that incident, how can the Japanese be at fault in this one?
Seems to me, the YM3 is going about it's lawful business, whereas the BB is there simply in order to prevent that by obstructing a vessel without lawful reason.
ReplyDeleteWhich makes the greens criminals who are deliberately putting their ship in harms way and risking the lives of innocent people.
Whatever the ROW rules say the greens have already broken the law by deliberately placing their ship so close to the Japanese without good reason. (and maritime law doesn't recognise saving whales as "good reason")
Not at all, for 2 reasons...
ReplyDelete1. Yes, look down the BB's gunwale. Very slight movement to the right as the Japanese boat is about to hit it, followed by camera movement that obscures what's happening. Wildly over-generous to interpret it as a "turn to starboard" without a different angle to view from.
2. The BB's heading is slightly different after having its stern pushed portwards by another ship? Well, yeah.
If the Ady Gill was the innocent party in that incident, how can the Japanese be at fault in this one?
I haven't claimed the Japanese are at fault in this one, there isn't really enough video to say. It isn't a carbon-copy of the Ady Gil incident though, in that there's nothing in it to suggest the BB deliberately turned in to collide with them.
Now, if you're looking for someone who "hasn't a clue" and is "confused," you could fruitfully read KG's comment immediately above - there's fertile ground for correction there.
I also note from "Links to this post" that KG is pulling his usual cowardly trick of going off to throw insults from his own blog, where I don't get right of reply. How old are you, KG?
ReplyDeleteInsults? I merely point out that you're being flayed by someone who actually knows what he's talking about--so I guess you regard the description "leftbot librarian" as an insult. (I would, but then I'm neither a lefty nor a librarian)
ReplyDeleteAnd your "right of reply" is a purely imaginary construct as far as Crusader Rabbit is concerned. We make it very plain indeed that leftists don't even have a 'right' to comment there,let alone reply. Knowing that, you still whinge and moan about being banned from commenting!
I'll continue to attack you and your loathsome statist kind in CR because we regard you as the enemy and have no interest whatsoever in holding a conversation with any one of you.
How old am I? Old enough to recognise the slimy, two-faced enemies of liberty. And old enough to have no truck with them.
Andrei, I feel like this is getting to be an abuse of your comments thread. I've posted on this myself and won't comment further here.
ReplyDeletePerhaps we should point out where the abuse began:
ReplyDelete"..KG is pulling his usual cowardly trick .."
Admiral, I'm surprised you need to be spoon fed so.....
ReplyDeleteCan't you see, that from a rules & obligations POV, these incidents are identical?
Both incidents are initiated by what will become the GW vessel chasing the ROW vessel down from astern, drawing alongside to the GW vessels port side and closing gauge until the GW vessel takes evasive action?
the only significant difference is that the Ady Gill crew lost their boat, because they turned the wrong way, while the Japanese only lost some paint.
Andrei, I feel like this is getting to be an abuse of your comments thread. I've posted on this myself and won't comment further here.
running away to your own blog as you accuse KG of doing?, sorry Admiral, but I'd rather up the ratings of this blog.
And one last thing, the Idea of trying to use your stern quarters as a battering ram is as laughable as ending poverty by getting the government to simply print more money.
Link for proof of GW vessel chasing down ROW vessel.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Opdp_jYrZw&feature=related
Ciaron, you can provide all the proof, go through all the laws and prove beyond any doubt that the greenies were in the wrong but it won't matter mate. You're not talking to rational people, so they won't listen to reason, they'll just cry foul, throw a tantrum and run away to their own blog. :)
ReplyDeleteBack when that adi gay was torn apart, a Kiwi fellow nailed it on our talkback radio, he said that we Aussies are hysterical and irrational when it comes to whaling. He is right, we all tuck into lamb most weekends, but for some odd reason we go off our nut when it comes to the Japs tucking into whale. The way people were going off their heads, i was waiting for some fool to demand that the SAS be deployed or something.
In a way though i think he woke some of us up to ourselves, i didn't hear anything about this latest one on the radio, thank heavens. So i have a feeling this is well on the way to being sidelined as another one of those greenie nutjob issues.
Charming. OK, maybe I do need to comment further here.
ReplyDeleterunning away to your own blog as you accuse KG of doing?
No, offering Andrei the courtesy of not further indulging in bickering with KG on his comments thread. I think it's clear enough why I'd call it cowardly and I'm going to leave it at that.
Link for proof of GW vessel chasing down ROW vessel.
Your link shows two separate and possibly unrelated videos.
...the Idea of trying to use your stern quarters as a battering ram is as laughable...
However, the idea of coming in close in an attempt to intimidate, and misjudging, is not laughable, but entirely plausible.
"No, offering Andrei the courtesy of not further indulging in bickering with KG on his comments thread. I think it's clear enough why I'd call it cowardly and I'm going to leave it at that."
ReplyDeleteThe "bickering" was initiated by you Milt. So spare us the bullshit about courtesy. You ran away after getting your ass kicked.
Ad it's clear enough why your use of the word "cowardly" is inaccurate. But then, lies and distortions and evasions seem to come somewhat easily to you.
I'll amend that--withdraw lies and leave it at evasions and distortions.
ReplyDeleteAre you that ignorant, Admiral?
ReplyDeleteSea Shepard were running a blockade to stop the Harpoon boats (YM3) from reaching the factory ship. It does not make any sense for the Japanese to attempt to intimidate the Barker, and total sense for the Barker to be the aggressor.
If you're the ball carrier, trying to break the line, do you run at the man, or the gap?
According to Sea Shepherd, they were blockading the factory ship Nisshin Maru by holding position astern of it, preventing four whalers from approaching the stern slipway. Again according to SS, the whalers were attempting to intimidate the BB away from its blocking position when the collision occurred.
ReplyDeleteI see nothing in the BB's video to cast doubt on that version of events, and I note ICR hasn't issued any video of the incident itself.
Ha Ha, good one.
ReplyDeletewanna buy a bridge?
Some Quotes:
The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.
Every good lie must have an element of truth.
The truth is irrelevant
Guess who said the last one?
Link
Certainly they could be lying. Both sides in a conflict are prone to it. Fact remains though, "I see nothing in the BB's video to cast doubt on that version of events, and I note ICR hasn't issued any video of the incident itself."
ReplyDeleteJust as before, the only party that gains from these incidents are Sea Shepard. Do you honestly think the Japanese are so dumb they haven't figured this out?
ReplyDeleteIf we just hypothetically suppose that the Japanese are intent on ramming Sea Shepard vessels, I doubt they would go about it in such a lackadaisical manner
Conjecture is freely available to all, and has a corresponding value.
ReplyDeleteI'll remember that next time you proclaim the Shonan Maru 2 was steering a colision course.
ReplyDeleteI think we're both well aware my view that it was either deliberately or accidentally a collision course isn't based on omniscience, presence at the scene, or an in-depth interrogation of eye-witnesses... aren't we? So please do keep it in mind - but also keep in mind your own view is subject to the same caveats.
ReplyDeleteNice try.
ReplyDeleteI have endevoured to keep my argument grounded firmly in the realms of what can be seen and reconciling that with the rules as I know them.
As I have told you before, I place little stock in eye-witnesses, However the cam-corder footage lets you stand in the eye-witnesses shoes, Whilst observing dispassionately.
So, no, I don't believe your caveats apply,
only a suitable frame of reference.
The caveats that your views also are not based on omniscience, presence at the scene, or in-depth interrogation of eye-witnesses don't apply?
ReplyDeleteLet's be clear about this: you're not the dispassionate voice of authority, you're a guy on the internet making pronouncements on what happened from the evidentiary basis of a 20-second video from a single PoV. Conjecture is involved, and if you feel an urge to deny that, I suggest you go and read your first comment on this thread again.
I don't forward conjecture, I forward a dispassionate assessment of the action in relation to the rules and obligations of each vessel and make no assumptions about the legitimacy of either vessels presence.
ReplyDeleteI never claimed to be an authority, I simply claim to have an understanding of the rules and how they apply which you evidently lack.
I think the Ady Gill was responsible for her collision, and the Yushin Maru 3 was at fault here. the rules support me, I'm being consistent and dispassionate.
At the end of the day, this ones not that hard to work out.
There are a great many people firmly and yet utterly wrongly convinced of their own unflinching impartiality and expert knowledge. Perhaps you're not one of them, who knows - certainly not me. But your inability to recognise conjecture when you're engaging in it isn't a positive sign.
ReplyDeleteAs is your inability to accept applications of rules you obviously don't understand. To be honest your "I don't understand, therefore you're wrong" attitude is getting tiresome.
ReplyDeleteIf I found myself in a discussion on a topic that I claimed no authority on, I'd be asking those who do why things are so, rather than saying that doesn't make sense to me so you must be full of crap.
On a side note milton, what exactly are you doing to end the slaughter, er make that genocide, of the whales? Apart from caterwauling about conjecture, omniscience and caveats that is?
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit like the U.N. MK--probably expressions of concern, escalating to deep concern and from there to...oh, I dunno. How about the devastating profoundly unhappy with.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest your "I don't understand, therefore you're wrong" attitude is getting tiresome.
ReplyDeleteAs is your "I have more knowledge of things maritime than you, therefore you're wrong." Believe it or not, you aren't the only knowledgable person who's deigned to comment on these events, and also believe it or not, the interpretations vary.
MK: this discussion isn't about whales, but I'm sure you can find one if you go and look.
Which is probably why MK said: On a side note milton,"
ReplyDeleteI've been trying to explain the rules to you, but you seem hell bent on not listening
ReplyDeleteBTW, how's your thread working out?.
Oh, could you direct me to these other knowledgeable people whose opinions vary?
ReplyDelete"MK: this discussion isn't about whales, but I'm sure you can find one if you go and look."
ReplyDeleteSo you don't give a crap about the whales then, that's nice to know, i feel the same way, the Japanese like eating whales and they have really efficient ways of slaughtering them. I'm all for efficiency, it's progress don't you agree?
So you're only interested in whining about folks not obeying the laws of the sea, who didn't use their turn signals, tail-gating and all that?
If so, then can you point to some places where you were angrily arguing against those pirates off Africa cos I'm sure you can find some if you go and look.
"It's a bit like the U.N. MK--probably expressions of concern, escalating to deep concern and from there to...oh, I dunno. How about the devastating profoundly unhappy with."
ReplyDeleteOh yeah the dreaded 'devastating profoundly unhappy with', it's coming, i know it is, it's coming soon.
The rules aren't at issue here, only your interpretation of a video.
ReplyDeleteHow's my thread working out? I think you need lessons from KG and MK at needling people.
Re others' opinions, it's no harder for you to Google discussions of these incidents than it was for me.
MK: you remind me of a wingnut version of Millsy.
Well i'm glad you're feeling nostalgic milton. Do say hi to Millsy for me ok. Now...
ReplyDeleteSo you really don't give a crap about the whales then?
Come milton, why so coy, i would have thought a world famous(?) omniscientist like yourself would have figured out your ass from your elbow on whaling by now. After all, the adi gay and the above ship that you're so concerned about wasn't just out to take in the views down south or something.
Ciaron: if you're having trouble understanding sentences on this thread with big words in them, it would make sense to say so here rather than over at KG's place, where failing to grasp things is a specialty.
ReplyDeleteMK: If you can manage to write something that doesn't come across as childish gibberish, make the attempt and I'll see if I can dumb down an answer for you.
ReplyDelete"childish gibberish"
ReplyDeleteOh nice ad hominem milton, unless off course that's just how it looks to you, i understand that you have mental issues. I'm sorry this blog hasn't got the capability to draw colorful pictures and such for you to easily grasp milton. But from what i can see milton, it's a clear and simple question milton, requiring a clear and simple answer milton. Maybe if you concentrate really hard and try to block out all those other voices in your head, it'll be clearer. Alternatively, maybe you can put them to good use, ask them and you all can have a nice discussion, maybe even vote on it, i'm just brainstorming here milton, something i'm sure you omniscientists do frequently. So once again.
"So you really don't give a crap about the whales then milton?"
i know i can be intimidating but don't be frightened milton, just spit it out when you can son or 'dumb' it down for me, whatever makes you feel special milton. i won't hold it against you if your answer happens to be really dumb. Ok i might laugh, but i promise i'll try not to make too much of it.
Oh and if you need more time milton, to put your answer together to sound clever and all that, that's fine too, i'm happy to wait, i'm sure you omniscientists are quite busy.
The offer's still open...
ReplyDeleteGee, here I was thinking this post was all about the conduct of the parties involved, conduct which can be evaluated according to rules.
ReplyDeleteIf it's not about who's right & who's wrong (i.e. what rules were broken), exactly what is it about?
What exactly is your position, because you seem to be all over the place.
How's my thread working out? I think you need lessons from KG and MK at needling people.
So it's a rocking success then?
Re others' opinions, it's no harder for you to Google discussions of these incidents than it was for me.
No, no, no. You introduced the point as part of your argument, YOU back it up.
Are you so precious, that you cant see we were taking the piss out of you at CR?
Hippies place their boat as close as they possibly can in order to stop a whaling ship going about its business and lo and behold, a collision is the result.
ReplyDeleteThat people are even debating who might be at fault here is evidence of the way that hippidity and stupidy are closely related.
What exactly is your position
ReplyDeleteMy position remains "there isn't really enough video to say."
If it's not about who's right & who's wrong (i.e. what rules were broken), exactly what is it about?
"Right" and "Wrong" are larger issues than "What rules were broken." I haven't explicitly made that an issue in this thread, but I presume it's one reason we talk past each other. Here is what I mean by disputing "your interpretation of a video:"
1. I disagreed with your assessment that this is a carbon copy of the Ady Gil incident. This is not related to the rules that apply, but to the actions the ships can be seen to be taking in the videos of those events.
2. I considered your assessment that the Bob Barker turns to starboard "wildly over-generous," ie I don't think what can be seen in the video justifies it. Again, this has nothing to do with rules and everything to do with interpreting what can be seen.
3. I disputed your suggestion that the fact the YM3 hit smacked the Bob Barker with its rear quarter rules out ramming.
That's it. The rest is mostly mutual winding up involving third parties. While we're on the subject though, I could add:
4. it appears both vessels were on a converging course, & YM3 is maintaining course & speed as she is required to do is simply conjecture. It's hard to tell from the video whether they were on a converging course or whether the YM3 turned towards the BB and closed the distance before turning away to starboard, and the brief span of the video doesn't really provide a sound basis for assuming that YM3 was maintaining course and speed.
5. the YM3 turns to starboard in a late attempt to keep clear and her port quarter swings into the Bob Barker is again conjecture. We have no idea what the YM3 captain's motivation was. You could equally plausibly claim that the YM3 turns to starboard to deliberately smack her port quarter into the Bob Barker in order to intimidate them away from the factory ship - and Sea Shepherd do claim that. We have no basis for choosing between those interpretations, and if we decide one of them is more likely than the other, we should accept it's conjecture.
Are you so precious, that you cant see we were taking the piss out of you at CR?
It was clear that you were, I wouldn't extend that to the dim bulbs on the rest of the thread though.
No, no, no. You introduced the point as part of your argument, YOU back it up.
OK then - given that I'm not going back through everything I read about these incidents the last couple of months, I withdraw and recognise it's inconceivable that a knowledgable person could possibly entertain a different opinion of this matter than yours.
"The offer's still open..."
ReplyDeleteMore like your mouth is still open.