Fail: Sea Shepherd

[LBD]

I finally get to see the Vid. The one at the start of this thread has been removed for one reason or another but still on you tube. I do the footage from the Bob Barker that appears to be a turn to stbd and may be....It could be down to two things, neither I would call deliberate intent to ram by the Jap skipper...
1) Footage from the Bob Barker is questionable moving back and forth accross the bow to give the illusion....The protestors are on a campaign after all and would not let the truth stand in the way of a good set up in their favor.

2) While some say the Jap skipper turned to stbd in an apparent attempt to ram the Gill....I would suggest there is enough eratic manouvering by the Gil, that the jap skipper considering a collision was on the cards, took the text book turn to stbd to avoid.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ9HlEFOk94

What is very obvious from this footage, looking at the increasing prop wash from the Andy Gil seconds before collision, is the Andy Gil deliberatly accelerating under the bow of the Jap ship..... IMO, suicide in the name of publicity.

[jonbuoy]

Or they flapped and went ahead instead of astern I have no idea on the engine control layout although I doubt that size boat would have separate throttle and gear levers?

[Ronin]

What is very obvious from this footage, looking at the increasing prop wash from the Andy Gil seconds before collision, is the Andy Gil deliberatly accelerating under the bow of the Jap ship..... IMO, suicide in the name of publicity.

If you watch the footage from onboard the Jap boat, there is a moment where the stern of the Ady Gil is clear of the water. You can see the rudder hard to starboard.

NOTE: they are both still in the wrong.

[Ronin]

Or they flapped and went ahead instead of astern I have no idea on the engine control layout although I doubt that size boat would have separate throttle and gear levers?

Props designed for high speed/efficiancy are very poor at reverse. His best best at avoidence would have been to do what he did.

[kwaka_crasher]

No where in my posts have I supported the deliberate fouling of another vessel on the high seas.

Yet you refuse to condemn that action. You know that Sea Shepard idiots have no right to be there doing it whereas the Japanese have every right to be there catching whales.

[LBD]

Props designed for high speed/efficiancy are very poor at reverse. His best best at avoidence would have been to do what he did.

Definatly agree with prop design statement.....Best avoidence is not to have been in such a position in the first place.

[Ronin]

Definatly agree with prop design statement.....Best avoidence is not to have been in such a position in the first place.

Ok... 2nd lol

[jonbuoy]

Props designed for high speed/efficiancy are very poor at reverse. His best best at avoidence would have been to do what he did.

I've no idea on the prop design of earth race but looking at the video I'm not so sure ahead was the right move- even if he didn't make much progress it would have slowed the impact and definitely not added to it., they never stood a chance of making it around the bow. But then we can't see it from their angle. Either way they had plenty of time before impact to get out of the way.

[awayatc]

If you don't like the slimy little c**ts,
don't buy their products.....

Harley Davidson
Aprilia
Landrover
Saab
Saab

[Skyryder]

Yet you refuse to condemn that action. You know that Sea Shepard idiots have no right to be there doing it whereas the Japanese have every right to be there catching whales.

As you equally do in your refusal to condemn the deliberate ramming of another vessel.

As for your statement that Japan has every right to be in the Antarctica catching whales. Not according to the IWC.


Japan supposedly accepts the commercial ban, but kills even more minke whales than Norway for "scientific" purposes. It just so happens that whale meat also ends up for sale in the market! Japan continues to kill whales even in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary around Antarctica, in defiance of the IWC.
From

http://www.animalliberation.org.au/whalehist.php

Do some research before you harpoon ya self in the foot.


Skyryder

[puddytat]

Seems pretty obvious to me that the apparant forward motion of the Ady Gill would be caused by the Nips hitting the port side outrigger bit first, something you dont see from the Jap boat as it is obscured by the side & the bow...
Hitting that first & cutting it off in the process ,would cause the Ady Gill to surge forward.....dont think you need a lot of theory to understand that.

SAVE WHALES...EAT MORE JAPS!!

[kwaka_crasher]

As you equally do in your refusal to condemn the deliberate ramming of another vessel.

I reckon my position on that matter was made pretty clear, wouldn't you agree?

If I was the Japanese Captain, I'd not only have run the fuckers down on purpose if I could get close enough but I'd have taken a piss over the side onto them just for the dragging of lines intended to foul the propellors of my vessel. Fuck the sea terrorists.

Not really a lot of room for misinterpretation of my position there... so speak up... what's yours?

As for your statement that Japan has every right to be in the Antarctica catching whales. Not according to the IWC.

Japan supposedly accepts the commercial ban, but kills even more minke whales than Norway for "scientific" purposes. It just so happens that whale meat also ends up for sale in the market! Japan continues to kill whales even in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary around Antarctica, in defiance of the IWC.
From

http://www.animalliberation.org.au/whalehist.php

Do some research before you harpoon ya self in the foot.

Newsflash, moron: animalliberation.org.au IS NOT the IWC's website.

But this is.

A major area of discussion in recent years has been the issuing of permits by member states for the killing of whales for scientific purposes. The use of such permits is not new. The right to issue them is enshrined in Article VIII of the 1946 Convention. Whilst member nations must submit proposals for review, in accordance with the Convention, it is the member nation that ultimately decides whether or not to issue a permit, and this right overrides any other Commission regulations including the moratorium and sanctuaries. Article VIII also requires that the animals be utilised once the scientific data have been collected.

What was it you were saying about not researching and harpooning yourself in the foot?

Y'all come back now, y'hear!

[LBD]

cause the Ady Gill to surge forward.....dont think you need a lot of theory to understand that.

SAVE WHALES...EAT MORE JAPS!!

And you do not neet a lot of practical marine experience to know the difference between a wake and a prop wash...the water boil from the rear of the Any Gill is unmistakably prop wash.

Last Jap I tried left a bitter after taste....

[Skyryder]

Newsflash, moron: animalliberation.org.au IS NOT the IWC's website.

But this is.



What was it you were saying about not researching and harpooning yourself in the foot?

Y'all come back now, y'hear!

The IWC has allowed the member state Government to make this decision. The moratium of the IWC still stands. My statement that Japan is operating illegalyy is still valid.

The measure passed by 25 votes to seven, with five abstentions.[14] Seems pretty clear to me.

Further to this

Commission Review

In the discussion of these permits in the Commission, an additional factor raised is that the catches take place within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary declared by the IWC in 1994 (to which Japan lodged an objection with respect to minke whales). If a Sanctuary is in place, it can be argued that information on improving management of whaling in that region is unnecessary. On many occasions, the Commission has (by majority vote) passed a Resolution urging Japan not to issue a permit for these catches.

At best youcould argue that japan is operating under Japanese Law as it is the Japanese who allow the whaling and have the final l say but to suggest that they are operating with IWC approval on the basis that the IWC allows member nations the decision to whale or not defies all the resolutions legely passed by the IWC.

As for your statement that Japan has every right to be in the Antarctica catching whales. Not according to the IWC. This still stands


Skyryder

[kwaka_crasher]

The IWC has allowed the member state Government to make this decision.

Allowed? The member state has the right in law. So, NOT ILLEGAL.

The moratium of the IWC still stands. My statement that Japan is operating illegalyy is still valid.

The moratorium is still valid as far as the IWC powers go, but that is irrelevant. Your assertion that Japan is operating illegally has never been valid except in your non-functioning mind. Once again, for the stupid:

the member nation that ultimately decides whether or not to issue a permit, and this right overrides any other Commission regulations including the moratorium and sanctuaries

The measure passed by 25 votes to seven, with five abstentions.[14] Seems pretty clear to me.

A swing and a miss. Again. And put those guns down or you'll shoot yourself in the foot again.

Further to this

Commission Review

In the discussion of these permits in the Commission, an additional factor raised is that the catches take place within the Southern Ocean Sanctuary declared by the IWC in 1994 (to which Japan lodged an objection with respect to minke whales). If a Sanctuary is in place, it can be argued that information on improving management of whaling in that region is unnecessary. On many occasions, the Commission has (by majority vote) passed a Resolution urging Japan not to issue a permit for these catches.

See that 'urging' bit? That means the IWC cannot tell them to stop because the Japanese are operating wholly within the law so the operation is NOT ILLEGAL.

Is it sinking in yet?