Google analytical

Monday, May 31, 2010

Sinking of South Korean naval ship MYSTERY explained?

   The sinking of South Korean ship is turning into a mystery with North steadfastnessedly  refusing to accept the findings of US led experts. China is not convinced as the original report and statements of some of the survivors was pointing to a leaky warship and some sort of huge explosion. See the original MSNBC report of 27th march below
MSNBC report on the sinking of the ship
   Then came the investigation by a team led by some US experts and they have blamed it on North Korean torpedo fired by a submarine. They have also shown some parts of the recovered torpedo from the seabed..
This report is not accepted by China and Russia and the Russian team has reached South Korea for investigation. The following MSNBC link shows the politics involved in the investigation.
China is still NOT convinced.
    Now as I was seeing some SOG videos of Pakistani special operations group the following YOU tube video    of 2009 interested me. Is there an answer to the sinking  of South Korean warship in this video? I donot think the explosion shown is NUCLEAR. But then is it a new type of conventional weapon developed by whom? Why Pakistan is being shown as the exploder of this device? Did Pakistan get this device from North Korea? Or is it a propaganda film by some arms manufacturer? Only an expert can tell?
    Is it a NUKE or a NEW EXPLOSIVE DEVICE?

  Will some naval officers enlighten on this?
  The comments by Shri .Vishnu mathur are very knowledgable and should be read along with the post.

5 comments:

captainjohann said...

Comment--1
I got some expert comment advice from one Shri Vishnu Mathur. I have quoted him below.I do not know his source.
"""I would also like to bring up a technical point here, which I think that the world should and must know when it discusses about how North Korea belligerently carried out this unprovoked attack on the Cheonan.

A rising mine, which is effective only in shallow waters, rests atop a small platform on the sea floor under a camouflage of sand and gravel. Its detection system uses acoustics and magnetic readings to pick up enemy ships and submarines.

When activated, jets of compressed air or solid-fuel rockets lift the bomb, which self-guides toward the magnetic center of the target. The blast rips the keel, splitting the ship or submarine into two neat pieces, just as was done to the Cheonan.

A lateral-fired torpedo, in contrast, ”holes” the target’s hull, tilting the vessel in the classic war movie manner.

The South Korean government displayed to the press the intact propeller shaft of a torpedo that supposedly struck the Cheonan.

Since torpedoes travel between 40-50 knots per hour (which is faster than collision tests for cars), a drive shaft would crumble upon impacting the hull and its bearing and struts would be shattered or bent by the high-powered blast.""
His comments about the Nuke video.
is below in next box

captainjohann said...

Comment --2
""Hi Captain,

First, let me tell you the facts behind this video.

1. This is indeed an underwater nuclear device explosion.

2. This was not carried out by Pakistan.

3. This was carried out by the United States on 8 June, 1958 in the Eniwetok Atoll in the Marshall Islands of the central Pacific Ocean. This was a shallow depth underwater shot (150 ft.)

4. It was a part of the series of 72 nuclear tests conducted by the United States in 1958 code named Operation Hardtrack I and Hardtrack II.

5. All nuclear tests in the atmosphere, underwater and outer space are now banned under the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963.

Second, let me tell you the two theories behind the sinking of the Pohang-class corvette Cheonan of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) Navy near the sea border off Baengnyeong (pronounced Pyongnang) Island in the Yellow Sea with Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) on 26 March 2010.

The report of an investigation carried out by a team of international experts was released on May 20, 2010, concluding that the corvette had been sunk by a North Korean torpedo fired by a midget submarine.

To corroborate their claims the mainly Western investigators displayed residuals of what appeared to be a torpedo with North Korean markings, the kind typically used by North Korea.

But, in the recent US-China strategic talks in Shanghai and Beijing, the Chinese side dismissed the official scenario presented by the Americans and their South Korean allies as not credible.

This conclusion was based on an independent technical assessment by the Chinese military, according to a Beijing-based military affairs consultant to the People Liberation Army (PLA).

The first telltale sign of an official smokescreen involves the location of the Choenan sinking – Byeongnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. On the westernmost fringe of South Korean territory, the island is dominated by a joint US-South Korean base for anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations.

The sea channel between Byeongnyeong and the North Korean coast is narrow enough for both sides to be in artillery range of each other.

Anti-sub warfare is based on sonar and acoustic detection of underwater craft. Since civilian traffic is not routed through the channel, the noiseless conditions are near-perfect for picking up the slightest agitation, for example from a torpedo and any submarine that might fire it.

North Korea admits it does not possess an underwater craft stealthy enough to slip past the advanced sonar and audio arrays around Byeongnyeong Island.

The sinking took place not in North Korean waters but well inside tightly guarded South Korean waters, where a slow-moving North Korean submarine would have great difficulty operating covertly and safely, unless it was equipped with AIP (air-independent propulsion) technology.

The Cheonan sinking occurred in the aftermath of the March 11-18 Foal Eagle Exercise, which included anti-submarine maneuvers by a joint US-South Korean squadron of five missile ships. A mystery surrounds the continued presence of the US missile cruisers for more than eight days after the ASW exercise ended.

Also, a reporter Joohee Cho of ABC News, picked up the key fact that the Foal Eagle flotilla curiously included the USNS Salvor, a diving-support ship with a crew of 12 Navy divers.

The lack of any minesweepers during the exercise leaves only one possibility: the Salvor was laying bottom mines.

Apart from a North Korean torpedo, a US mine can be very well responsible for the sinking of the Cheonan.

So, it is your pick on what or who sunk the Cheonan depending upon whose side you wish to take."""

If the nuclear explosion was carried out by USA in 1958, how is it surfacing now in YouTube and Pakistan is being made the scape goat?

captainjohann said...

I got one more comment and I thought this should be available here.

Captain Johann:

After reading what Vishnu Mathern told you about the Youtube film of the underwater blast, l did a quick Google search for "8 June, 1958 Eniwetok Atoll Marshall Islands," which led me to this webpage:

http://wikimapia.org/157728/Eniwetok-atoll-US-atomic-test-site

The webpage has a thumbnail-size still photo of the very same underwater nuclear test blast at Eniwetok that is shown in the Youtube film. By pressing your Shift key and left double-clicking your mouse, you can enlarge the thumbnail photo to see a larger image. For your convenience, I have also included that image here:





The above still photo of the 8/6/1958 Eniwetok nuclear blast appears to have been taken from approximately the same location as the Youtube film. Note the breakers and rocks (coral?) in the foreground of the still photo, which was probably taken from the inner beach on Eniwetok Atoll. The breakers and rocks are missing from the Youtube film, which also shows a closer view of the ship and the blast, probably due to the use of a telephoto lens for the film.

In the photo, aerial vapor trails pass across the waterspout of the blast horizontally. I've seen similar vapor trails in the still photos and films from many other US nuclear tests. Rockets containing devices to measure temperature, wind speed, radiation levels, and other indices were always fired at the rising nuclear blast cloud. The vapor trails are too high to be seen on the Youtube film, which focuses on the blast effect at sea level.

A few years ago the US government declassified the film records of the approximately 1200 nuclear tests it had conducted, and many of those films were included in documentary DVDs about the US nuclear test program. I purchased copies of a few of those DVDs, which is why I am familiar with some of the facts surrounding the US nuclear tests.

Captain Johann, you wrote: "If the nuclear explosion was carried out by USA in 1958, how is it surfacing now in YouTube and Pakistan is being made the scape goat?"

I'm wondering the same thing myself. Your friend Vishnu Mathern presented a cogent and revealing analysis of the Cheonan sinking. The USA has been exposed for committing 'false flag' attacks many times before. It is always important to ask in these situations, "Cui Bono?" -- "Who Benefits?" Just like the non-existent WMDs that the USA used to justify its invasion and occupation of Iraq, the USA wants to 'demonize' North Korea and to create an excuse for continuing or escalating US hostilities against North Korea.

The same applies to Pakistan, which the USA and some of its allies may want to 'demonize', destabilize, and ultimately rule. The USA has a long history of arming and supporting the Pakistani dictatorship; I do not believe that the many Pakistani aggressions against India would have continued without US permission. I believe that the USA has been pursuing a long-range strategy of supporting Pakistan's dysfunctional behavior in order to set Pakistan up for a fall. That is exactly what the USA did with Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

The USA sold arms (including chemical weapons) to both sides during the Iran/Iraq War, which killed more than a million people and badly weakened both Iran and Iraq. I believe that the USA and some of its allies (UK, Israel) are conducting a covert program, including false-flag terrorist attacks, to incite hostilities between India and Pakistan. The US citizen and CIA-connected David Coleman Headly has confessed to his role in planning the Mumbai attacks and Pune German Bakery bombing. The USA has refused permission to Indian investigators to interview Headley. Is the USA protecting its 'asset' Headley because he knows too much?

Regards, Gregory

captainjohann said...

I got the following article from a south Korean paper and it is very informative on the subject.

"""The joint civilian-military investigation team on Thursday presented propeller fragments from a North Korean torpedo as conclusive evidence as to the cause of the sinking of the Cheonan. A number of questions remain, however, such as why no North Korean submarine was discovered after the Cheonan was attacked.

Stealth Submarine?


The investigation team said that a North Korean Sango Class Submarine and Yono Class Submarine had left a naval base on the West Sea some two to three days prior to the attack and returned to base two to three days after the attack. They determined that the Yono Class Submarine carried out the attack.


A Sango, Shark Class Submarine, weighs 300 tons, while a Yono, Salmon Class Submarine, weighs 130 tons.



Until now, military officials have been saying they did not detect any unusual military movements from North Korea.


“From March 24 to 27, the military detected two North Korean Sango Class Submarines, but the likelihood of their connection to the sinking was judged to be weak.” said Defense Minister Kim Tae-young before the National Assembly on April 2.


“We have not detected any unusual movements from the North Korean military,” said U.S. Combined Forces Command Commander General Walter Sharp through a press release on March 28, two days after the sinking.


In other words, at the time, the Sango Class Submarine that was detected around the time of the sinking was not believed to be directly connected with the sinking, while the Yono Class Submarine was not detected at all.


The investigation team confirmed that around the time of the attack, they had been unable to clearly identify the submarines that had left the base. A military intelligence official said later, through comprehensive analysis of all sorts of intelligence material, including communication intercepts, video footage and human intelligence, they belatedly learned that a Yono Class Midget Submarine had left with its mother ship.


This explanation, however, failed to clarify all questions. A joint South Korean-U.S. naval exercise involving several Aegis warships was underway at the time, and the Cheonan was a patrol combat corvette (PCC) that specialized in anti-submarine warfare. The question remains whether it would be possible for a North Korean submarine to infiltrate the maritime cordon at a time when security reached its tightest level and without detection by the Cheonan.


“If the North Koreans were to try an ambush in revenge for the Daecheong Island naval clash, they would have done so only after they were certain of success following several infiltration exercises in the waters off Baengnyeong Island,” said a former Navy admiral. “The investigation team announcement basically stated that North Korea had planned an attack with a low probability of success on paper and successfully carried it out on one attempt, but that assessment lacks military credibility.”


In fact, if things transpired as the investigation team announced, then a North Korean submarine penetrated the South Korean-U.S. surveillance net, waited precisely where the Cheonan would be approaching, sank the Cheonan in one shot, and then leisurely disappeared after completely avoiding a naval anti-submarine net that included the Naval ship Sokcho and Linx helicopters.
By ENGLISHHANI

captainjohann said...

By ENGLSIHHANI Continued part II

"Some have stated that while it was possible the Cheonan was unable to detect the submarine, it remains difficult to understand how it could not detect the torpedo launch.


“A submarine is supposed to be difficult to detect military, but most torpedoes can be detected,” said Kim Jong-dae, editor-in-chief of defense journal D&D Focus. “It is doubtful they would have been completely unable to detect the launch.”


One military official explained they were unable to detect the torpedo since the one used in the attack had a different audio range from those ascertained by the South Korean military, but some respond that it is difficult to understand why they would not have the audio information contained even in brochures regarding a torpedo that has been produced since the 1980s. Accordingly, in order to clear up these doubts, some are calling for the military authorities to release the communication intercepts to show the North Korean submarine‘s intent to attack. The investigation team, however, has reportedly been unable to secure intelligence data that would confirm clearly the circumstances of the attack besides the fact that the Yono Class Submarine left its base in North Korea.


Torpedo Fragment?


There are also some questions regarding the North Korean torpedo fragment, which was presented as conclusive evidence. First, some experts stated that the marking 1 beon, No. 1, presented as key evidence that it was a North Korean torpedo, is different from typical North Korean markings.


“North Korea does not frequently use the term beon,” said one North Korea expert. “Instead, they use the term ho, as in Daepodong 1-ho, Gangnam 1-ho, etc.”


In fact, a North Korean training torpedo obtained by the South Korean military seven years ago was marked “4 ho.” In light of the fact that the beon discovered on the torpedo fragment and the ho found on the training torpedo are different, the investigation team could not have conducted a precise handwriting analysis. The team said it would consider a plan to determine the similarity through ink analysis, but it is uncertain whether a clear answer will result.


Both appear to have been written by hand inside the torpedo for organization and maintenance purposes, but why one is beon and the other ho is a question. ""