posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 05:13 AM
Some Problems With The Official Version of Events:
1) The Arctic Sea was boarded on 24th July 2009, by "10 to 12" armed men, dressed in black, (US special forces style) military uniforms with
Why then, are there now only "EIGHT" hijackers, all clearly shown to be wearing T-shirts / Jeans / casual & workwear?
2) The Boarders of 24th July were reported as speaking English (with an accent).
The Hijackers have now "officially" been identified as being Russian, Estonian and Latvian. The crew were all Russian... Why would the boarders
speak English?? And why would this be described as having an "accent" when the crew and boarders are all apparently from the same part of the
3) The Arctic Sea was in contact with Dover coastguard (England) on 28th July, and reported at that time that they had been boarded 4 days earlier,
assaulted, tied up and held prisoner for 12 hours, and that several of the crew had been seriously injured, but that the boarders had then left
in an inflatable boat.
Who exactly was in contact with the coastguard?
If it was the crew, then why didn't they report the boarding earlier, and head for the nearest safe port after some of their party were "seriously
If it was the boarders, then why draw attention to themselves by mentioning the boarding?
Why did UK coastguard not immediately send investigators to the vessel? They had just been told that it had been boarded by armed raiders, and then
sailed through the English channel, in UK waters, along the busiest sea route in the world.
Also, where exactly did the "inflatable boat" come from? The Arctic Sea at this time, was near the middle of a 45mile wide channel between the
Swedish Islands of Oland and Gotland. Was it launched from another vessel in close proximity at the time? Or Was it launched from Oland or Gotland?
Could it have been launched in some other way? (e.g. from a chinook helicopter?)
4) The Swedish authorities indicated that they had received written statements and photographs of the injuries suffered by the crew, it
was by no means clear at the time, where this information had come from, since officially all communications equipment on board the vessel had been
damaged. They later clarified that they had received this information by email.
It was officially indicated that the boarders had disabled all communications devices on board at the time of the alleged boarding. Did they miss the
computer/internet connection?? One single bullet or firm strike with a boot or heavy weapon would easily damage a computer beyond repair.
If the crew was "free" to compile statements, photos etc. and send these via emails, then how could they not have reported the boarding, assaults
etc. much sooner?
If the boarders were still on board, then why would they prevent any other communications, but allow the crew to send emails, photos and written
5) The AIS transponder signal was lost / switched off on 29th July, at the western end of the English Channel, midway between Plymouth England, and
Brest France. The vessel itself was seen by French authorities off the coast of France, heading into Bay of Biscay, on 30th July.
Again, if the crew were in charge at this point, why turn off the AIS transponder? If the boarders were in charge, then why turn off the transponder,
drawing attention to the vessel, only to continue along the original route, down the north coast of France, heading into Bay of Biscay, en-route to
(Continued on next post)
[edit on 22-8-2009 by Gordi The Drummer]