by Scott Creighton
Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made this statement in South Korea just one day ago on the subject of the March 26th sinking of the PCC-772 Cheonan a vessel belonging to the people of South Korea …
“… The international, independent, investigation… was objective. The evidence… overwhelming. The conclusion… inescapable. This was an unacceptable provocation by North Korea and the international community has a responsibility and a duty to respond.” Hilary Clinton, 5/26/2010
This is simply … untrue. It is… a lie. And the evidence is… overwhelming. The conclusion… inescapable. My own government is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today… and my silence would be betrayal.
“... and I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government.” Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. April 4, 1967 (one year to the day before his assassination on April 4, 1968)
South Korea is staging anti-submarine exercises in coastal waters as we speak. They are talking about continuing with the propaganda broadcasts across to North Korea that were halted 6 years ago. If they do that, North Korea has promised to destroy the broadcast towers and or loud-speakers. Trade agreements have been halted, workers from North Korea who had been employed by South Korean companies have been forced to stop. All of this just a few years after serious re-unification talks between the two countries and merely a week since the “international, independent, investigation” named North Korea as the nation responsible for sinking the Cheonan and killing 46 of her crew.
In one short week, years of progress on the Korean peninsula has come to a grinding halt with two nation states poised to take up arms against one another. Seventy million lives lie in the balance and at the center of the political decay and growing instability, is the sneering, lying Secretary of State of the United States of America who delivered her speech, on foreign soil, with the pompous arrogance of a dictator daring anyone to disagree.
Well, let’s get to it…
“The international, independent, investigation… was objective.”
The investigation that was made public on May 20, 2010, which Hilary Clinton was referring to, was anything but objective and for that matter you can seriously question whether or not you can even call it an investigation.
The Investigation Report on the Sinking of the ROKS “Cheonan“, the official report that Hilary Clinton is speaking of is a 5 page, unsigned report prepared by 25 South Korean members of the Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group with assistance from “24 foreign experts constituting 4 support teams from the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Sweden“.
The three nations selected to assist in this “investigation” are about as “objective” toward the United States as we are toward Israel and considering the fact that the United States was participating with South Korea in the war games that were taking place at the time the Cheonan was sunk, it would seem that the “objective investigation” was a little stacked on the side of one of the possible culprits. The report makes no mention of these war games or the US vessels that were involved.
March 26th 2010 – “The Foal/Eagle US-South Korean joint exercise is currently underway in the West Sea as US Aegis ships arrived May 25 at the Pyongtaek Naval Base where the Second Fleet is headquartered“.
… Failure to discuss the presence in the war games on the fateful March 26 night of four Aegis ships, the USS Shiloh (CG-67), a 9,600-ton Ticonderoga class cruiser, the USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG-54), a 6,800-ton Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer, the USS Lassen, a 9,200-ton Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer and Sejong the Great, a 8,500-ton South Korean guided-missile destroyer, most probably supported by US nuclear and South Korean German Type 209 and 212 AIP submarines. Asia Times, May 26 2010
This “investigation” was hardly objective in any stretch of the imagination. Ironically, North Korea has requested access to the evidence in order to conduct their own investigation into the matter but the South Koreans have refused their request on the grounds that it would be inappropriate to allow a suspect to investigate the scene of the crime, or something like that. The irony being that is exactly what the South Korean government did when they allowed the United States to take over the “objective” investigation with the help of 2 nations who were members of the Coalition of the Willing and a third whose financial ties to the US run as deep a our very own central banking system.
” The evidence… is overwhelming.”
Depends on what your definition of “is” is.
The evidence supplied by the independent investigation is scant at best and probably fraudulent (which may explain why the report remains unsigned).
The report in no way proves the conclusions that it reached:
Based on all such relevant facts and classified analysis, we have reached the clear conclusion that ROKS “Cheonan” was sunk as the result of an external underwater explosion caused by a torpedo made in North Korea. The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine. There is no other plausible explanation. The Investigation Report on the Sinking of the ROKS “Cheonan
Flaw #1 - The first flaw in their conclusion comes from the idea that only a torpedo could have caused the recorded damage to the PCC-772 Cheonan. This is simply not true and the official “international” report does not provide enough substantive evidence to prove that the damage could only have come from the detonation of a torpedo directly under the hull of the ship.
A reader here provided this researcher with some very interesting alternative causes for the damage by way of linking me to the work of Mr. Shin. Though I am certainly not qualified as a nautical engineer to assess the validity of his claims, Mr. Shin is qualified. He also happens to be South Korean and also just happened to have been one of the three investigators recommended by the Korean National Assembly to work on the very report Hilary Clinton is citing.
The mans name is S.C. Shin and he wrote a letter yesterday to Hilary Clinton trying to explain to her why he felt the findings of the “investigation” were flawed.
I am S.C. Shin, a civil investigator recommended by Korean National Assembly for the sinking of Cheonan and I’m writing this letter to let you know the truth exactly here in Korea.
I have graduated Korea Maritime University in 1982, served 2 years in Navy as a sailing & gunnery officer, worked for Hanjin Shipping on a containership regular line between Far East & West coast of U.S as a navigator for several years and experienced shipbuilding inspect affair for 7 years in Major Shipyards in Korea such as Hyundai, Samsung, Daewoo and Hanjin Heavy Industry.
I have built 3 bulk carriers of 136,000 tons and 10 container ships of 2,000~4,000 teu in charge of hull structure, shipping machinery and outfittings, paint and nautical equipments including navigation system.
… I didn’t agree with the conclusion of the Korean military administration and now sued for libel by them.
… So I want to talk to you about my oppinion and I think this might be a meaningful information to lead you to the truth of the unfortunate accident in Korea.
… The Military Administration made a conclusion that Cheonan had torn in two and sunken by the ‘Explosion of Torpedo’.
But my oppinion is quite different from it because I could not find even a slight sign of ‘Explosion’ but could find so many evidences of grounding in/out of the vessel.
I want to ask you fully understood that a tiny voice for the truth may prevent unexpected disaster and assure the safety of 70 million people in Korean Peninsula. S.C. Shin, May 26,2010
Mr. Shin goes into great detail to provide Clinton evidence of his claims. It is Mr. Shin’s conclusion that the Cheonan grounded at some time in the evening of March 26th 2010 during manuevers in a very tight and shallow area off Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea.
Any vessel coming out of the Narrow Strait has no choice but to keep her course steady due to shallow water both right and left. Vessels can easily face dangerous situations in this kind of unique area and fallen in the status of ‘Running aground’ or ‘Collision’. S.C. Shin, May 26,2010
The information that Mr. Shin provides is compelling when you consider that grounding of the vessel was the official story for a very long time after the accident.
The first call from 772 to Headquarter was “Grounded !”
The first call from HQ to Korea Coast Guard was “Grounded !”
The first report to the Administration was “Grounded !”
Naval administration and the survivals gave a briefing to the families of victims on Mar. 27th – the next day of accident, showing a mark of the exact position of grounding on operation map on which the time of tidal current and the depth of water commented on the top-left corner. S.C. Shin, May 26,2010
Mr. Shin also provides excellent photos of the damage to the Cheonan which seem to support his conclusion, that the Cheonan ran aground in shallow waters and then managed to limp off. But it is what is suggested after that by Mr. Shin that probably got him in the most trouble… Mr. Shin suggested that his findings led him to conclude the Cheonan ran aground then afterward at some time, collided with another vessel, probably military, and THAT is ultimately what sank the Cheonan.
His findings should be an important part of what is quickly becoming the international narrative of the Sinking of the Cheonan, but they aren’t. Mr. Shin was brought in by his own National Assembly to add his experience to the important investigation of this event and he was subsequently removed and silenced when he didn’t report back with the agreed upon fabricated story that blamed North Korea.
Mr. Shin proves that there is certainly another “plausible explanation” to what happened and he was as close to the investigation as anyone else so his conclusions must be considered along with the rest.
Flaw #2 - As the Asia Times reported, the idea that a North Korean sub could have snuck up on the Cheonan and gotten off a shot in waters that shallow, is absurd. The Cheonan itself was well equiped with sonar equipment and it was engaged in war-games with several other vessels that were equally if not better equiped. The idea that the North Korean sub was able to get in, sink the Cheonan, and then get out undetected, is beyond plausible.
The investigation team did not prove at all the presence of a North Korean submarine at the scene of the sinking at the time of one of the world’s greatest military exercises, as illustrated by telltale failures:
… Failure to discuss the manner in which the suspected slow-moving North Korean submarine managed to penetrate South Korean waters, operate in shallow waters (depth of less than 30 meters) without being detected by the state-of-art radar and sonar-mounted US and South Korean ships and get away scot-free after the corvette sank in an explosion with a column of water so high (about 100 meters), so flashy and so noisy that a sentry on the shore of the Island of Baekryon witnessed it. Asia Times
This is by no means a small issue. By implication is that a small, older North Korean sub could sneak past the joint operations of the South Korean Navy and the U.S. Navy, undetected, and sink a major target in shallow waters. By comparison it is the equivalent of the “lone gunman” theory where a crazy lone individual can somehow defeat the entire shared efforts of the Secret Service and law enforcement in order to assassinate a president. Well, we all know what the “lone gunman” story is. My guess is this “lone sub” story is somehow very similar indeed.
Flaw #3 - The killers sign their work. The discovery of the North Korean writing is way too convenient for anyone to believe. The writing looks like it was done after they brought the “evidence” up from the floor of the ocean and they might as well have written “Yes We Did It! Ha Ha Ha… signed North Korea” on the thing. It’s so blatantly staged one has to laugh at it when anyone here in the States mentions it on tv.
Well, guess what? Its even funnier than that. Apparently they couldn’t even get the “fix” right, as is pointed out in the Asia Times article…
The investigation team produced what it termed “conclusive evidence”: the eye-catching hand-written Korean markings “ilbon” or “No 1″ in English found on the propulsion section of the used torpedo allegedly recovered from the sea bed.
This turns out to be most inconclusive and counter-productive, calling into serious question the credibility of the findings. The use of “ilbon” in Korean script – not in Chinese characters – may look like North Korean writing, which is distinctly different from what is written in South Korea.
But native North Koreans use “ilho” for the English “No 1″. “Ilbon” is what South Koreans would use, although North Korean street addresses more often than often not do contain numerals like “ilbon“.
A likely theory for this blunder is the sense on the part of the investigators that there was an absence of hard evidence to impress a skeptical South Korean and world audience. Asia Times
A commenter here just made the same observation. He lives in South Korea and he said that the usage of the word is common in his country as well. This would be laughable if only it weren’t evidence that someone is attempting to drive two nations to war.
As I stated before, this fact in itself may explain the fact that this “independent investigation” remains unsigned. Might not be that difficult to compare handwriting samples to find out just who in fact signed the “#1″
Flaw #4 - The evidence drawn from the bottom of the sea and the image of the North Korean torpedo are not, as they claim, “a perfect match”. In fact they are far from it. The following is from my first article on the subject of the sinking of the Cheonan…
There are 4 clear differences in the design of these weapons and one is without a doubt, the key to proving these are not the same.
* “A” & “D” – Here you can clearly see major differences in the design of the hub of the propellers. In the diagram above you can see it has a smaller hub whereas in the evidence below it, the hub is larger.
* “B” – The actual shape of the propellers is very different. You can see a notch in the diagram above that doesn’t exist in the actual evidence propeller below. The overall shape of the blades are vastly different as well, both the front and the rear propeller sets.
All of this might be explained away by suggesting that these propellers were switched out. Thought it might be possible, remember that these are finely tuned and designed systems; one just can’t switch these hub designs “willy nilly” like one would on their John-Boat. But, that aside, though it may be possible to have put different kinds of propellers on this fish, it is certainly NOT a “perfect match”.
Now, the last point proves they are not the same torpedo.
* “C” - As you can plainly see, the stabilizers (or propulsion system?) in the diagram above are clearly shown IN FRONT of the separation plate as it is lined up in the display with the evidence below. However, the torpedo below houses that same stabilizer (or propulsion system) BEHIND the separation plate (separating the body and the tail section of the torpedo).
This is a major difference that cannot be explained by saying it was some kind of after market modification. This is part of a key design of the workings of these weapons and can not have been changed. This difference clearly indicates these are different weapons altogether. American Everyman
These are not small differences that can be explained away by some kind of after market upgrades like MTVs “pimp my torpedo”. These differences have a major effect on the operation of the weapon, the harmonics, the drive, the propulsion system. In fact, the differences are so obvious, I don’t the tail end of the two torpedos would even look similar at all.
The fact is, they are not a “perfect match” by any stretch of the imagination. That is obvious to even a casual observer.
Flaw #5 - This investigation completely ignores the previous findings of the May 6th investigation which concluded that German metal and German RDX was found in traces on the evidence collected from the actual wreckage of the Cheonan and from the sea floor. This May 20th investigation never even mentions the earlier findings and attempts no chemical analysis of its own.
South Korean Defense Minister Kim Tae-young said earlier that an initial investigation indicated that a torpedo was likely to blame for the disaster. On Monday, he confirmed media reports that traces of a high explosive were found on the ship’s wreckage.
“It’s true that RDX, a chemical substance used in making torpedoes, has been detected,” he told reporters. “The possibility of a torpedo (attack) has increased, but it’s too early to say anything.”
The explosive material was detected on the ship’s smokestack and in samples of sand from the site, said joint investigation team spokesman Rear Adm. Moon Byung-ok.
“Mines use RDX as well as torpedoes so we need to investigate further to determine which was responsible,” he said. Time May 9, 2010
It said a team of civilian and military specialists confirmed that a chemical substance used in making torpedoes has been identified from residue found on the funnel, the stern, as well as the seabed, where the broken half of the ship rested.
“Each of the chemical elements of the explosives traces was confirmed as those of the RDX, a more powerful explosive than TNT,” he said
“They came to the conclusion because the RDX is used for torpedoes, not sea mines.”
RDX stands for research department explosive. It is a highly explosive compound, commonly used as a main ingredient in plastic explosives.
About four alloy fragments have also been found in the salvaged wreckage and an analysis has suggested that they were made of an aluminum-magnesium alloy used to produce a torpedo’s casing, the official said.
The government is expected to make public its findings around May 20 as an investigation is underway to determine the manufacturer of the torpedo and who fired it. Korean Times May 7, 2010
The team of South Korean and foreign investigators found traces of explosives used in torpedoes on several parts of the sunken ship as well as pieces of composite metal used in such weapons, South Korea’s Yonhap news agency said quoting a senior government official.
… The metallic debris and chemical residue appear to be consistent with a type of torpedo made in Germany, indicating the North may have been trying to disguise its involvement by avoiding arms made by allies China and Russia, Yonhap quoted the official as saying. REUTERS News Agency May 7, 2010
The Asia Times article also points this out…
Failure to refer to the German explosives found at the wreckage of the corvette despite an initial announcement. The Korea Times reported on May 7, “The multinational investigation team is also closely looking into the possibility that a North Korean submarine fired a German-made torpedo used both by the South Korean and American navies in an attempt to dodge its responsibility.”
The Blue House (presidential house) was dismayed at the multinational investigators’ May 7 announcement that they had detected German RDX in the wreckage and pressured the Defense Ministry not to accept the findings, as Yonhap reported two days later. Asia Times
By ignoring the previous findings and by failing to perform comparable tests on the evidence they found, the new investigation proved it was not “scientific” nor was it comprehensive in any way.
These 5 flaws, and the many others that are surfacing as I am writing now, prove that what Hilary Clinton said on May 26th was absolutely untrue. Hilary Clinton is trying to establish a history of credibility for the narrative they have chosen for this tragic event. By doing this with a willful intent of purpose what Hilary Clinton is doing is attempting to provoke two nation states into combat readiness in the hopes that something will happen while the tensions are at the highest level.
One of the three people asked by the National Assembly to investigate the incident has stated he does not support the conclusion that North Korea sank the Cheonan with a torpedo. Sweden even resisted that finding up till May 19th, 2010. This evidence shown here proves that this is not an “inescapable conclusion” like Hilary Clinton has claimed it is.
CBS News reported on May 19 a significant Iraq War-like split among multi-national investigators: “The US, Britain and Australia – all of which helped in the investigation – are all prepared to back up the findings. Only Sweden, which also sent investigators, is a reluctant partner in blaming the North Koreans.” Asia Times
Her involvement in the deeply flawed investigation, her inflammatory and accusatory statements, all of this represents an unacceptable provocation of the peoples of Korea by the United States of America and it is my opinion that the International Community has a duty to respond.
(I wish the peoples of South and North Korea, peace. I write to you at a time when our futures are uncertain and our prospects, grim. I write to you to condemn the words of one false American and in closing I offer to you the best of which we as a people have to offer in the words of another. A true American. I can only pray that we find our way out of this and away from those who would pleasure in seeing the worst come true.)
“… and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: “A time comes when silence is betrayal.”
The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.
And some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.” Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., April 4, 1967