Burning Tankers, the Strait of Hormuz situation 6/2019

solarz

solarz

Brigadier
TerraN_EmpirE said:
video, imagery, a magnetic base and hopefully more on the way

It would be a major stretch to say we have heard any eyewitness account.
What we have is the statements from the President of the Shipping company in his home office Thousands of miles away. Statements that I think pretty well layout an excellent case for how someone could have confused a mine blast for a projectile.
He states. The second blast not the First.


The Human brain responds faster to sound than sight. So they heard the first event and looked then saw something and the second event.
First where were those who saw it? No idea.

Second they saw something well perspective comes into play. Since this is stated as the second blast the two holes are quite some distance apart so depending on where they are standing they could be seeing debris flying and then the second event.
In a panic tunnel vision, heat effects smoke, water perspective moving ship.

So yeah I disrespectfully disregard the claim. Because it’s flimsy enough to drive the tanker through it. In the adrenaline rush of the situation not everything is what it seems.

And the emphasis of this report is the same thing we see that happened in the recent Indian Pakistan flare up where India claims to have shot down an F16 and Pakistan claims to have downed a Flanker.
The same as MA17.
This is the same kind of report that spawned a million 9/11 conspiracy theories.
An early report that is reiterated over and over to be viewed a fact despite being counter factual, and if challenged becomes proof of conspiracy.

So yeah I am looking for forensics. First forensics report has been released now it should be reviewed by others.
Click to expand...

No Terran, they said very clearly that they saw something flying toward them first, *then* heard an explosion. Not the other way around.

This isn't some rumor spawned after the event, this is an account from first-hand eye witnesses.

You can try to spin it to fit the US narrative, but it doesn't pass the smell test.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
No @solarz , I reposted the Whole original article on page one post #2 of this thread.
There were Two blasts and the reports says

The president of the Tokyo-based shipping firm Kokuka Sangyo says its tanker was hit by an incoming projectile. He says several crew members witnessed the source of the second blast.
Click to expand...
Unless you have video with the actual FIRST hand testimony from the crew. Its third hand at best. This is the Report of the Shipping firms President report of what was reported to the Company by radio from the crew.
It’s not Eye witness.

The Smell test doesn’t count for a lot if you don’t get your details right.
 
Last edited:
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
TerraN_EmpirE said:
No @solarz , I reposted the Whole original article on page one post #2 of this thread.
There were Two blasts and the reports says


Unless you have video with the actual FIRST hand testimony from the crew. Its third hand at best. This is the Report of the Shipping firms President report of what was reported to the Company by radio from the crew.
It’s not Eye witness.

The Smell test doesn’t count for a lot if you don’t get your details right.
Click to expand...

This is the actual quote:
Yutaka Katada, president of Kokuka Sangyo said, "I've received reports that they saw something come flying toward them, then there was an explosion, and then there was a hole in the vessel."

He denied that the tanker was hit by a floating mine, torpedo or an attached explosive as had been previously reported. He said the damage was way above sea level.
Click to expand...

It says clearly that they saw a projectile coming towards then, then heard an explosion.

You chose to interpret that as hearing the first explosion, then seeing something flying away from them.

How do you even know what the duration was between the first and second explosions? If it was anything more than a few seconds, why should anyone believe they'd confuse the two?

You are just dismissing those testimonies without any actual evidence while asking everyone else to believe a US-led investigation that has every reason to manipulate the results to their advantage.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
It clearly says he (Second Hand) got reports of not that they did.
You choose to emphasize this as if it’s first hand reports not a report of a report of a claim.
Using again the original news report, it’s one then the other. Again the Second Blast not the first. The report says that some of the crew saw the second blast. The second blast.

I am dismissing interpretation of a report of a report. Until the crew is actually interviewed on camera and the details of where they were and the timing events the “Flying attack” is unreliable and full of gaps.
And thus far used to spin narrative of false flag because “it doesn’t pass the smell test”.

The smell test being that the US must be spinning a war.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
TerraN_EmpirE said:
It clearly says he (Second Hand) got reports of not that they did.
You choose to emphasize this as if it’s first hand reports not a report of a report of a claim.
Using again the original news report, it’s one then the other. Again the Second Blast not the first. The report says that some of the crew saw the second blast. The second blast.

I am dismissing interpretation of a report of a report. Until the crew is actually interviewed on camera and the details of where they were and the timing events the “Flying attack” is unreliable and full of gaps.
And thus far used to spin narrative of false flag because “it doesn’t pass the smell test”.

The smell test being that the US must be spinning a war.
Click to expand...

I'm not making any claims about any false flag, so that's quite irrelevant.

Yes, I choose to emphasize the eye witness reports because they're first hand accounts, and unlike the US-led investigation, do not have a reason to falsify their testimony. I think your insistence on dismissing those reports because they came from the president of the company is rather strange. It seems beyond reasonable belief that the president would mangle the testimony of his employees, or would insist that it was not a mine attack when his employees did not make such an insistence.

I also find it hard to countenance your belief that the reported timing of events is "full of gaps". What gaps are there in seeing an incoming projectile and then hearing an explosion?
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
solarz said:
, I choose to emphasize the eye witness reports because they're first hand accounts,
Click to expand...
But it is not First a first hand report. You are spinning it as one.
It’s a report from a news reporter,
repeating parts of what he heard from the President of the Ships operator,
probably briefed by some employees.
Who in turn are reiterating what may or may not be from the ships crew via phone, Radio or internet thousands of miles away and hours earlier.
I am not saying they are lying I am saying that the degrees of separation and issues of human

You find it hard to countenance my not placing validity in it? Come on! This is three degrees of separation easily.
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
TerraN_EmpirE said:
But it is not First a first hand report. You are spinning it as one.
It’s a report from a news reporter,
repeating parts of what he heard from the President of the Ships operator,
probably briefed by some employees.
Who in turn are reiterating what may or may not be from the ships crew via phone, Radio or internet thousands of miles away and hours earlier.
I am not saying they are lying I am saying that the degrees of separation and issues of human

You find it hard to countenance my not placing validity in it? Come on! This is three degrees of separation easily.
Click to expand...

Yet you have no problem accepting something a reporter wrote about what a US military spokesperson said is the findings of a local investigation team thousands of miles away, which may in turn actually be the interpretations of an official based on the actual report of the investigators which in turn is based on the investigators' interpretation of the actual forensic evidence?

That's like six degrees of separation, easily!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top