Breaking: US Navy destroyer takes on water after collision off Japanese coast

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Oh, I'm sorry, did I mention you in that. Re-read the thread, and you'll see all sorts of conclusions being reached with, dare I say it, less than all the evidence in.

a reply to: pheonix358
We don't know the damage that was done to the Fitzgerald at the time. And there is the minor issue of keeping the ship from sinking. That might be kind of important.

a reply to: darepairman
I called in gun fire from the New Jersey off of Lebanon in the 80's.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pheonix358

There were 280 people on a ship that had just had a massive hole ripped in it. You know what they were doing? Racing to duty stations, taking muster, and trying to save their ship and shipmates. I'm sure you have a better plan for them, but they were a tiny bit busy to send a distress call. They didn't have people standing around to get to a radio.

Yes, I get it. The military lies about everything and no one should trust anything they say. They're all liars out to save their own skin.

No! You don't get it Zaph!

A little thing called history gets in the way.

And yes, if a ship is sinking, the very first priority should always be to send a distress call. They had missing sailors so yes, right at the top of the things to do list is to send a distress call.

The pilots of the helicopters have a duty station ... manning the helicopters. So they open the hanger doors manually, launch a chopper, send a mayday and commence a search for the missing crewmen.

Am I more highly trained than that crew? I shouldn't be.

I am not ... for your information ...anti the US Military but a bit of straight up truth would be in order.

The big container ship had right of way! The Destroyer hit them. It is that simple.

P

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Oh, I'm sorry, did I mention you in that. Re-read the thread, and you'll see all sorts of conclusions being reached with, dare I say it, less than all the evidence in.

No, you didn't mention me. That's why I asked who and what.

a reply to: pheonix358

Ok, sure. You know best. This is obviously a cover up and they're already lying. Hell, they probably lied about why the ship was there too.

a reply to: ArMaP

Yes, you are being contrary (took the words right out of my mouth).

Carry on! You seem very determined to be right, even the absence of any tangible volume of data. Just bent on it!

Whatever. Enjoy.

I with ya armap on the time and position. It seems to explain the east then west movement.

Time will tell though.

originally posted by: ArMaP
I've been saying since the beginning that it looked like the collision happened at 01:30 local time instead of the originally reported 02:30, and now we are getting reports that that's what happened, that they reported the collision one hour after it happened. That agrees with the data.

NO. That's not what we are "getting."

The Navy is saying the collision happened at 2:20 a.m. Japanese authorities are/were saying 1:30 a.m.

Link

So, if you were saying 1:30 a.m., you are agreeing with Japanese officials, not the time from Naval officials.

***

ETA: The DM link posted earlier, too: 'Everyone was asleep': Japanese cargo ship was on AUTOPILOT when it collided with the USS Fitzgerald says defense expert - as the US Navy mysteriously claims the accident happened one HOUR AFTER official recorded time

"ONE HOUR AFTER," not before.

Indeed, Navy spokesman Commander Ron Flanders added to the general air of confusion when he said that the official line is that the accident occurred at 2.20am.

When asked about the Japanese position that the crash happened at 1.30am, he said, 'That is not our understanding'.

***

ETA2: In other words, but to use your precise phrasing...

"They reported the collision one hour BEFORE it happened."

a reply to: roadgravel

So, you also agree with Japanese officials that the collision happened at 1:30 a.m?

The Japanese and crew changed their time to 1:30. If you look at the track, there seems to be an oddity at 1:30. It also could explain the ship sailing east and turning around. (as seen on tracks)

Of course it could have happen at 2:30 but that makes the cargo ship return to the west (then the collision) a bit odd, doesn't it.

a reply to: roadgravel

It IS very odd.

Seems an easy thing to nail down...the time of the collision. If we don't have that much nailed down, by now, I don't understand why we are expected to feel confident in what's being reported.

(Or why anyone is all worked up by people questioning information that's being reported.)

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Seems an easy thing to nail down...the time of the collision. If we don't have that much nailed down, by now, I don't understand why we are expected to feel confident in what's being reported.

Really strange isn't it. I bet the cargo ship wasn't sure what it should do and the Navy had lack communications and a disaster going. I can see how the reporting could get quite messed up.

Wouldn't a navy sailor have checked the time. If so, it might be why the navy is sticking with 2:30 ish.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Seems an easy thing to nail down...the time of the collision. If we don't have that much nailed down, by now, I don't understand why we are expected to feel confident in what's being reported.

Really strange isn't it. I bet the cargo ship wasn't sure what it should do and the Navy had lack communications and a disaster going. I can see how the reporting could get quite messed up.

Wouldn't a navy sailor have checked the time. If so, it might be why the navy is sticking with 2:30 ish.

The board of inquiry will have the ships log to examine. This logbook is kept by the bridge watch while underway and has every important event entered into it including course and speed changes, temperature, pressure, wind, sea state, and other weather and sea related information, equipment status, and any ship emergencies among other things. The QMOW usually makes the routine entries. The board will be able to determine when the collision occurred by following the timeline of the log.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

If you've actually read and followed the thread, you'd know.

Many have already decided they know what's happened, and no information contrary to that will be allowed. True or not.

So carry on.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Carry on! You seem very determined to be right, even the absence of any tangible volume of data.

The data has been available since the beginning.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
NO. That's not what we are "getting."

The Navy is saying the collision happened at 2:20 a.m. Japanese authorities are/were saying 1:30 a.m.

That's what I was saying, we are getting reports (from the Japanese authorities) that the collision happened at 01:30. At the beginning we had either 02:20 or 02:30 from all sources (except the data).

Link

This link doesn't work, it points to a different page.

So, if you were saying 1:30 a.m., you are agreeing with Japanese officials, not the time from Naval officials.

No, they are agreeing with me, as I have been expecting the change from 02:30 to 01:30, based on the data available.

ETA: The DM link posted earlier, too: 'Everyone was asleep': Japanese cargo ship was on AUTOPILOT when it collided with the USS Fitzgerald says defense expert - as the US Navy mysteriously claims the accident happened one HOUR AFTER official recorded time

The DM article has (at least) one thing wrong, this image:


The ACX Crystal didn't return to the collision site at 02:20, at 02:20 it was not even halfway back to the collision site, as you can see in the image below.

(click for full size)

So, we have the data pointing to 01:30, the Japanese authorities pointing to 01:30 and the US Navy keeping with the original 02:30 (or 02:20).

Shouldn't the position data from both ships pin point when they were at the same spot. Guess that's going to be withheld for a while.

The US Navy might have some problems with a lot of things, but I'm pretty sure telling time isn't one of them! Frankly, if they've got a problem telling the time then the entire World is in deep trouble!!

If the Navy says the collision happened at 0230L, then I'm going with the notion the collision happened at 0230L. Period.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You mean 2:20 or 2:30...

Evidence will tell the truth, unlike humans.