To me the ISSUE (related to the article) is DID THEY LIE or did they not ?

FACTS. (what I saw)

1/ Large, long ship (the Japanese one) is at right angles to the much smaller greenwar ship...
2/ The Greenwar ship MUST have had ample time to pull back or to swerve because of the distance the LARGER ship had to travel across the path of the Greenwar ship.
3/ The Greenwar ship struck the larger ship at 90deg not even a HINT of avoidance.
4/ The distance from the impact point to the front of the Jap ship was considerable suggesting an avoidance strategy would have been successful by changing course.

CONCLUSION
Based on the evidence, the claim 'Jap ship rammed us' was an outright LIE, and not supported by the observable facts.
Had they said "The Jap ship took a part directly in front of ours, and we found it impossible to avoid ramming them" they might almost have come away without guilt. But they didn't. So they won't.

Greenwar seems to be of the view "Any publicity is good publicity" and that the actual lie will fade as the bigger issue of whaling takes the forefront

Shabby.. very shabby I say.

The Japanese video shows the full side of the Artic Sunrise, so nearer a 45 degree angle leading up to the collision. After colliding, the Sunrise yaws towards 70-80 degrees. The first photo shows the boats about 3m apart, but the Sunrise moves relatively 20m or so down the side of the Nisshin Maru before they hit. A few seconds after the collision, looking at distant clouds vs the superstructure, the whaler seems to be turning or yawing. The Sunrise drifts behind and to the port side of the Maru.

The Greenpeace video shows the two boats getting closer, but the moments before the collision, the Sunrise is close to being dead in the water. The relative speed is provided by the Maru. This is why there were two collisions (not one), about 30m apart. The first collision is a swipe, the second a longer scratch.

Overall the greenpeace boat is drifting along 3/5 the length of the Maru, 130m long. Either the Maru is picking up speed OR the wind is affecting the Sunrise (we can see Sunrise's smoke in the same direction)

It's fairly easy to make sense of the three videos. The Greenpeace video shows the position of the two Japanese videographers. The photos come from the one closest to the stern (sternist?)

What David Boaz said, proves the ambiguity of the evidence. It is a very different account. For example, he sees that there was no attempt by Sunrise to avoiding the collision. He says they struck at 90 degrees and that manouverable distances where involved.

If he would like to propose new collision prevention regulations, then he needs to go through the International Martime Organization. He could start by writing to the Maritime Safety Committee.

I think both Greenpeace and ICR were wrong to say the collision was deliberately caused by the other. But the rules say the Sunrise had the right of way and the conditions were OK, so it will be very hard for the Maru to place the blame elsewhere.

Perhaps David Boaz can get his new rules to be retrospective?

Well, yes GY if you want to call it a day because it's light outside, then it is a day. Just because someone says it is 7am is using someone else's definition of 'day' to determine a fact - if you were in Norway in winter, you'd both be wrong. Okay, that is a little existentialist, but there are no real facts just interpretations of reality especially when there is air-time to be sold. People choose to believe what they want to believe.

Though Swilkie makes a very valid point - so I'm calling it a day on this one.

Rainer,you said that I was an actual member of One Nation.It was an out and out lie and you still think that your behaviour is justified.You were asked for proof and none was forth coming.I have never been or am a member of any political party.If you cannot see that it is wrong to lie,then what does that tell us of your ilk's leftist mentality?

I'm just glad that you didn't get banned indefinitely since your behaviour speaks for itself.You will be treated with the contempt that you deserve.

Arjay, we've had that argument between you and Rainer, now can we move on? He didn't raise it this time, you did. Can you give him a bit of space rather than provoking him?

Audrey, if that's your attitude, why bother with coming to a site where people debate things?

Because people like Audrey come here to lecture, not debate. It makes them fell good about themselves that they are morally superior to the rednecks.

t.u.s.