Hacker News Reader

Comment by computerfriend | Hacker News Reader

No it doesn't.

>>That proves the explosion was deliberate.

>No it doesn't.

No one denies that the explosions are an act of sabotage. How do you imagine non-deliberate explosions happening approximately at the same time and of such power as to cause seismic sensors to reliably detect them?

I personally believe that it was sabotage. But this doesn't prove it.

Ah, sure. It could've been swamp gas from a weather balloon trapped in a thermal pocket, which has reflected the light from Venus.

Uncle Dave?

Man in Black.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TgSGylIw2A

That in turn were quoting usual explanations from the Blue Book Project era.

The thing is, the prime suspect(s) of this operation have means to do this much more stealthily. Why send a 95 to 130 meter ship to do that?

I believe this is sabotage. I have no idea who did it and why, but saying "Hey, there are two ships, miles away from the site with transponders off. It's them!" is a bit of a stretch.

I am not saying that it's proven that the "dark" ship is responsible here. I am objecting to the opinion that blowing up NS/NS2 is somehow not an obvious act of sabotage.

With all the rhetoric from the US about not allowing NS2 using any means, I think that it's quite possible that charges were planted long before the explosions and were activated remotely.

> I am not saying that it's proven that the "dark" ship is responsible here. I am objecting to the opinion that blowing up NS/NS2 is somehow not an obvious act of sabotage.

Then you completely misread the comment you originally responded to, and this entire thread is a waste of time. All they said was that the dark ship evidence does not prove sabotage. And you say the same thing, that the dark ship may or may not be responsible.

The thing is, the prime suspect(s) of this operation have means to do this much more stealthily.

Maybe they didn't expect to get caught. It seems we're assisting to a recalibration of what's possible in several fields.

Because passing merchant vessels attract less attention from ASW assets than submarines?

At a wild guess, there'd be multiple merchant vessels travelling past the point where the pipes were attacked. Who would notice if a group of divers happened to leave a ship as it transited?

And of course, those vessels could be flagged under many a convenient jurisdiction. Liberia used to have the world's largest merchant marine, theoretically.

Whereas if you go in with a submarine, and it gets detected in the vicinity, it's far harder to plausibly deny that your country wasn't involved.

TL;DR - you're assuming a submarine would be stealthier, but there's a lot of stealth to be had from hiding in the crowd.

Did you make that up on the spot or was it recycled?

Video images (taken after the removal of the debris from the site) apparently show that at least one pipe was vertically driven into the ground over a length of about 50 meters. Provided that this rift seen in the video is not manufactured evidence, this seems to hint at an external force, probably applied at two separate points, something like mines.

Exactly. I feel absolutely certain that it was sabotage. But the presence of unknown military ships doesn't prove it. That is very strong evidence but technically it could be a freak coincidence. The stronger proof is the condition of the pipes, obviously sabotaged. That's evidence strong enough to reasonably call "proof."

There have been stranger coincidences

Also, a lot of explosives was used. A lot more than what would have destoyed the pipes. So not only were the pipes sabotaged, whoever did it wanted to make it obvious.

No, we don't know that. It might just have been easiest. It would be obvious anyway.

This is correct; Circumstantial evidence, which is a clue, not a conclusion. We need to keep collecting information.

I think the obvious conclusion is a false flag operation, but again, all evidence is circumstantial.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com