Yesterday I blogged about that case of the disappearing underwater German laboratory, and suggested that something may be "up" on the oceans and seaways of the world. Well, there are a couple more strange sea stories out there to add to the mix, if indeed it is a "mix." To be sure, all this could just be amazing coincidence, and hence, great data for those who might want to probe into the structure and architecture of coincidence theory.  But you know me, I have to indulge in some high octane speculation along the lines of "what if it is not just all coincidence?" Then we're left with some disturbing questions.

For example, consider this story found by C.M. on Zero Hedge concerning a capsized cargo ship off of the coast of the American state of Georgia:

Large Cargo Ship Capsizes Off Georgia Coast; Crew Members Still Missing

Doing a little digging brought up a few interesting things, like a map of ship accidents and capsizes around the world. It's certainly not a common occurrence, but happens more often than one might think. Admittedly, I'm certainly not the slightest bit familiar with naval or maritime architecture, but the design of modern cruise ships and cargo ships has always disturbed me; with their very high freeboards and very shallow keels they seem, well, "top heavy" and therefore prone to capsizing. Or to put it into maritime architecture terms: the metacentric height of these ships looks like it would be very low, and hence the ships prone to capsizing. But that's just a guess based on what my eyes tell me.

A further check into this story revealed that the lack of details in the Zero Hedge article is pretty much the standard fare; not much is being said in other articles either. The ship left port, then, for some reason - we're offered nothing in most articles by way of any data or speculation - the ship just capsized, and then caught fire. Again, not much information on where on the ship the fire was, nor how it started. In all the pictures in all the articles that I examined, the waters appeared calm, and hurricane Dorian had long since moved out of the area. One article noted that this incident occurred shortly after that diving boat caught fire off the coast of California and killed 34 people.

And speaking of cargo ships and strange incidents, remember that collision of an oil tanker (the Sola)  with a Norwegian navy frigate (HNoMS[His Royal Norwegian Majesty's Ship] Helga Ingstad)? Well, the transcript of the minutes prior to the collision were leaked to the press, and they're somewhat - disturbingly - revealing (thanks to P.A.I. for spotting and sharing this one):

Radar Images & Audio Log of KNM Helge Ingstad Frigate — Sola TS Oil Tanker Collision

I can't help but think of the similarities implied by this transcript and the USS Fitzgerald and USS John McCain incidents, where two American naval vessels collided with large cargo ships in busy sea lanes. Consider this:

0:19 —Sola TS: I didn’t get the name, do you know which boat is coming here?
0:25 — Sola TS: I have it on port side.

— 10 seconds silence. At this point Sola TS starts to accelerate and maneuver starboard probably to avoid a possible collision. But the tanker is big and slow to do both, it will reach 7.2 knots at around 2:07 in 42 seconds .

0:37 — Fedje VTS: No, it’s eh… I’ve not received any information about it.
0:43 — Fedje VTS: This wasn’t reported to me.

0:45 —Sola TS: I just see it on the screen here.

Well, Fedje VTS command should also be seeing the approaching unknown ship on their screens, but they don’t seem to bother at all. (Emphasis in the original)

This seems uncomfortably like the Fitzgerald incident in the waters of Japan; the bridge crew of the Fitzgerald should have been able to see the approaching ship, not only visually from its running lights but also on radar. In this case, one has to ask why the Norwegian traffic control was not seeing their own frigate on radar. Was the radar being interferred with? or was its crew being interfered with? We'll get back to that possibility in a moment, because P.A.I. spotted the same thing in the transcript. The author of the article accompanying the leaked transcript comments as follows, ending with his own speculation:

We know that the AIS tracking of Helge Ingstad was turned of only until after the accident. Also, until the 47th second of the video (0:54) the unknown ship doesn’t have a speed vector on the radar. Only then, it appears at 0.0 knots, gradually shifting up to 17.4 knots by 1:30. The unknown ship was clearly not accelerating — it was already moving before the speed vector appeared — only that its speed became fully visible in the radar within these 36 seconds (probably a stealth navigating feature turned off).(Emphasis in the original)

After a short exchange between the tanker and traffic control, there is a 43 second gap of silence, which means

The unknown ship cruising at 17.4 knots, Sola TS now at 6.4 knots and accelerating. So the two ships are approaching each other at 23.8 knots or 44km/h. So a 43 seconds silence meant they were now around 500 meters closer to each other. (Emphasis in the original)

In other words, both ships are accelerating, and are now half a kilometer nearer each other. By one minute and fifty-three seconds into the transcript, the two ships are a kilometer apart. They should be able to see each other. By two minutes and fourteen seconds, for whatever reason, the bridge crew on the tanker Sola become aware of something, and can be heard telling the Norwegian frigate directly to turn to starboard to the Norwegian naval frigate, the Helge Ingstad:

2:14 — Sola TS: Take starboard now! [Turn right in maritime jargon.]

2:17 — Helge Ingstad: Than we go to the nearest blocks. [Shore, reef? Here in the VG video the subtitle says “Da går vi for nærme blokkene” some other sources report it as “Da går vi for nærme båkene” båkene meaning boats, it doesn’t change the substance tough, as Helge Ingstad perceives a near obstacle on its starboard side.]

The collision occurs about three minutes and nineteen seconds into the transcript, at 4:01 AM Norwegian time. But then there is a remarkable exchange a few minutes after the collision by the crew of the frigate, Helge Ingstad:

7:50 — Helge Ingstad: We’ve a situation, we ran into an unknown object.

4 minutes 30 seconds after the collision Helge Ingstad’s command is still unaware that they hit the oil tanker, Sola TS. Where exactly they think they were?

7:56 — Helge Ingstad: We’ve no propulsion.
8:22— Helge Ingstad: Still not clear here, but we need immediate assistance. (Emphasis in the original)

Now, this is beyond exceedingly strange. P.A.I. wondered the same thing in the original email accompanying the article. I don't know about you, but how does one, even at night, miss the presence of a large oil tanker within a few meters of one's own ship? I've seen cargo ships of all shapes and sizes personally - including oil tankers - and seen them both at day and night, at distance and up close and personal. I've driven, for example, years ago, across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-tunnel, and passed through Norfolk, Virginia, and done both during the day and night, and the size of these ships, miles away, is clear and unmistakable, even at night. I've seen then at night, at distance, silhouetted against the lights of shore installations and cities, with their running lights. They're hard to miss, even for a land-lubber like me. So I have to wonder: how does a Norwegian navy crew miss an oil tanker that, in maritime terms, is more or less "right next to" them? The Norwegians have been plying the seas longer than the British, French or Spanish, so it's not as if they lack experience.

Even more intriguing is that the frigate apparently turned to port, not starboard:

Now this is weird. I’m not a navigator, but simply superimposing radar course traces for both ships at 1:45 and 3:19 from the video, we see that in those 94 seconds Sola TS turns 5 degrees starboard, whereas Helge Ingstad turns 6 degrees port, instead of starboard as instructed!


Damage to the frigate being on the starboard back side corroborates to this theory. If the frigate maneuvered starboard and still collided, the damage would be on the port side.

How could this be possible? Navigation training gone bad? Seriously? Turning port instead of starboard? Or thinking they could turn port faster (didn’t accelerate) and avoid both the collision and the shore? Or were they simply blinded somehow, by something?

Even the author of the article is wondering the same thing as I, and I entertained the theory, you'll recall, way back when I was blogging about the USS Fitzgerald incident: had "something" clouded the minds of the crew of the Hegle Ingstad, making them turn to port rather than starboard? The fact that the traffic control was initially not showing the frigate on their radar does suggest that perhaps some sort of electro-magnetic interference (or cyber-attack) may have momentarily blinded them. The Wikipedia article on the incident maintains that the Helge Ingstad's crew thought the running lights on the Sola were shore installations. But I'm not buying that, because at a certain point, probably sooner rather than later, the Sola would have been apparent as a ship. Indeed, like the US Navy after the Fitzgerald and McCain incidents, the crew is being blamed by the board of inquiry, which recommended "good bridge and and sailor management practices" according to Wikipedia. But notably, there's no explanation as to why the frigate turned to port, rather than starboard. No matter how poor Norwegian naval training may have been (and I'm having difficulty believing that because the Helge Ingstad had just returned from NATO naval exercises!), I just cannot swallow that Norwegian sailors don't know the difference between starboard and port. Was the slow reaction time due to the use of digital systems, which the US Navy recently determined to replace with the "more intuitive" analogue systems, precisely because of incidents like the Fitzgerald? Maybe.

But to me, reading these transcripts, it looks like the crew of the Ingstad were, for whatever reason, in some sort of mental fog. How does one not see, either visually or on radar or both, a looming big cargo ship and do the obvious thing and steer away? How does one not see the cargo ships that slammed into the Fitzgerald, the John McCain, or the Helga Ingstad? Why does a freighter just capsize in calm waters, and then catch fire? The common element in these "weirdnesses" seems to be the crews, which seem to be responding to situations with less-than-optimal performance, as if they're in some sort of "fog of the mind".

I don't know about you folks, but it seems to me that something strange may be going on in the world's oceans. So for the moment, to all my Navy friends who are telling me that it's all just poor training or whatever, I'm sticking with my electromagnetic mind manipulation explanation. Indeed, I'm going to crawl out on the twig even further here and suggest that with all the electro-magnetic soup that a crew of a modern warship lives in, that perhaps we're looking at unintended interference or consequences of those systems to the human brain. Maybe. Perhaps. Or perhaps this is something much more deliberate going on, some sort of mind manipulation of ocean-going vessels' crews. If that be so, then who might be behind it and why?

See you on the flip side...

23 thoughts on “MORE STRANGE SEA STUFF…”

  1. This story and its comments reminds me of the 17th century Swedish frigate the Vasa, which capsized and sank on its maiden trial run in 1628.
    Why did it capsize? It was top-heavy due to an extra row of cannons loaded along each side. These extra cannons had not been part of the original design. The top-heavy problem was very clearly communicated during construction by the Dutch designers. But it all fell on deaf ears with the Swedish king who was determined to see the ship in action as soon as possible.

    In other words, the ship was put out to sea with a flawed design due to changes being made and under pressure from the king to be put into service as soon as possible (to show the power of the Swedish navy to its adversaries).
    Today, this mindset does not seem to have changed. Systems are put into production which are not properly tested and not secure.
    With some of the consequences as reported.

    Tidbit. The Vasa was actually recovered from the sea floor with its hull almost intact and is now is on display in the Vasa Museum in Stockholm. A grim reminder of what can go wrong when geo-politics take precedence over human life.
    Nothing has changed.

      1. zdb, I don’t think there was any malice on the king’s behalf, just an attempt at grand-standing and showing Swedish power to its neighbours.
        The sinking of the Vasa was a huge loss for the Swedes, not only in material terms but also loss of face. Hence they did everything possible in the ensuing investigation to deflect blame away from the king (who had demanded the extra row of cannons to be added AFTER the build of the ship had started). Instead blaming it on the Dutch designer, who had long died by then so wasn’t around to defend himself.

  2. Not one to add a flash point to your “high octane speculations,” but one has been pondering the notion of many widely dispersed programmable logic units (PLC’s), and their likeness in function, for several years and watching. They’re not the only susceptible unit within the automated manufactured world. There hasn’t been a press conference to suggest that the means to control malignant cyber activity, either. . . . Let’s see, there’s the obvious claim upon Iranian centrifuges back when (the infamous STUXNET according to some illegal nuclear weapons proliferators and their mental madness of extermination K2+, trials like AURORA sending a diesel power plant into fits and failure, assumed factory robotic strikes instigating recalls, . . . well, . . . it gets apocalyptic if one were to engage in a novella type FLIGHT fright to include big named affected. These maritime worms or rather attached computer barnacles seem only the latest to emerge not unlike your typical zero-cool or rather zero-day exploit with participating satellite friends.

    This exploitation type has many routes as well as targets right down to that make-nice household gadget watch-a-ma-call-it that contributes to ringing in the ears for those unfortunately susceptible and over zapped who thought they made their lives simpler in design. Even the household grid is a conduit to be exploited to say little what else a television antenna draws into the circuitry, especially, those flat screen TV’s. It’s more than over-the-air local station broadcasts and radio signals. Haven’t spoken to an avid HAM operator lately but was always keenly interested in the other stuff some folks prefer not be talked about openly. One is quite certain that Pandora’s Box has been repurposed without her consent. Not getting in the middle of that rising feud – Net, spaseeba ; Nad-da; Nein; No-way; taking an undisclosed walk instead.

    This business of delicate electronics and their respective exposure to effective electromagnetic frequency pulsations upon circuitry and component parts has been known for quite a while. When a Russian pilot defected to those metamorphic western shores some decades ago, bringing his version of that Sovietski era Foxbat, US engineers discovered hardened electronics that resisted external frequency pulses with old avionics in use. It was a stereoscopic eye opener in a big way. The belief that superior state-of-the-art and modernized avionics then would out-think outperform an aggressor piloted plane of old electronics was shattered. They were deliberately built electronically hardened. Saved a few rubles while exploiting a potential weakness in high tech. Practical applications from a strategic point of view. That hasn’t gone away. Strategic humiliation by any other name for the wiser tactician. Best to recycle that on board arrogant baggage when achieving the higher ranks.

    Jamming radio frequencies / any electronic frequencies took on a targeted approach when it was applied to localized instrumentation. Cleverer and cleverer them so’n’so’s. It’s not much of a hop. skip, or jump into the maritime waters of oceangoing barges, cargo ships, ships of the line, and less so submerged craft. This technique makes for quite the black mailer list of nasty toys in the commercial realm of transportation, too. Just think, to gain the upper road on the battle field one exploits intelligence (steals intellectual property) there by understanding and, more importantly, knowing the enemy from within or as Sun Tsu might have phrased it, knowing the design of the enemy one does not need a superior army (or navy, or air force, or space force, or industrial military complex) and victory will be achieved with the least amount of destruction. Clever them so’n’so’s, in their not so innocent games of domination when there’s more than a nosebleed inflicted from getting too close. Unfortunate that the human psyche is also a target.

  3. Take your pick mind control or the crew lost control of their ships. An outside force took control of these ships then the navies of the World must find out who they are a deal with them as soon as possible.

  4. I don’t suppose that my suggestion that cowbells be fitted on all big ships would not fall upon deaf(ened) ears?
    Perhaps reinstate Morse Code training so that in the event of a ‘failure to communicate’ electronically, they can clang wrenches on the steel hulls so that port knows about starboard, like in the Poseidon Adventure movie ‘open the hull bay doors HAL’.

    ( Trump sacked Bolton – see or

  5. If this relates to some sort of increased – or at least more noticeable – USO activity, let’s see how THEY will manage to keep things quiet and “muzzle” thousands of seagoing personnel of every nationality on all the world’s sealanes, who unlike mariners in the past all have a handy device to make videos and photos.

  6. I live a short distance from the Georgia coast and fish the pier off Jekyll Island quite often. You can stand on the pier and see the ship capsized, it’s quite close, even closer to the St. Simon’s pier across the bay entrance, where the ship ran aground. They pass close by both piers (Jekyll and St. Simon’s) as they enter and exit the bay.
    They are saying they believe the cargo (cars and trucks) shifted which lead to the ship capsizing. I have a hard time believing that, personally. The people who load the vehicles do this on a daily basis, and have done so for years. You would think that they know what they are doing. These ships come and go on a daily basis.
    What is more likely is the ship turned too wide and ran aground on the channel edge as it was turning toward the bay exit channel. These ships naturally list toward the opposite direction they are turning due to centripetal force and their high center of gravity. If they run aground while this maneuver is underway, their inertia would cause them to tip over due to the sudden stop and the weight of the cargo above their center line. If the crew failed to compensate for that tilt by transferring ballast during the turn (which explains the four crew members caught inside the ship, Korean engineers) this would be a more plausible explanation. The ship currently rests on the channel edge.
    They have a dredging platform facility set up in the bay at this time and are preparing to deepen the channel; which is done from time to time to keep it clear and deep enough for these ships to have maneuvering room, as they need a lot of room to do so.
    This particular incident is most likely due to the ship simply steering too wide and running aground and a channel that, at this time, is a bit shallow due to lack of maintenance. It’s hard to say if this was due to a lack of experience on the bridge officers part, the port authorities lack of providing a pilot vessel (common if the ship has never visited the port before), or any number, or combination, of other reasons.
    The ship is currently leaking fuel into the bay. This could turn into a environmental disaster, which is unfortunate, as some of the best Red Drum fishing on the East coast is in the area effected by this as well as some of the best shrimping grounds in the state.

    1. The Port Authority has closed the port, as of today. This will also have a economic impact on the City of Brunswick and the surrounding area until the vessel is removed.

    2. WD, thanks for the first-hand reports. Your analysis sounds about right. Also, if there was a ‘jar’ as the ship scraped or collided with the channel edge, that might have shifted the cargo. It is one thing to secure cargo against waving/heaving motion and another to have an impulse ‘jolt’ to same.

      There was that 2012 debacle where the Italian cruise ship Costa Concordia struck an underwater rock just off Isola del Giglio, Tuscany, lost power, ran aground, and then overturned. Even longer ago in 1950, the battleship USS Missouri (BB-63) ran aground while sailing out of Chesapeake Bay due to buoy changes. All it takes is the right unfortunate combination of circumstances and neglect…

      1. Inertia is very unforgiving. The vehicles aboard those ships are secured against heavy seas, but possibly not against horizontal jars. I know a few who work there and they don’t understand why they are being blamed. The do their jobs well every day.
        That ship was way out of position in relation to that section of the channel, which had just been dredged, leaving a sharp drop off that wasn’t there before. The bridge may have thought they were in safe waters if they were watching their depth sounder until it was to late to avoid running aground.

  7. I have to wonder about a new cloaking technology as much as something that attacks the mind of the crew.

    In the traditional telling of the story, the Philadelphia Experiment was supposed to be about making ships or planes invisible and whatever the true story is there, obviously that has been a “holy grail” for militaries since nearly forever.

    If you can’t see something and it isn’t picked up on radar, it isn’t there; until suddenly it is, think “Klingon Cloaking Device” in Star Trek as a fictionized example.

    On the other hand, turning the wrong direction does tend to suggest either something going wrong with/taking over the actual equipment and/or some sort of confusion on the part of the crew.

    I suspect that pretty soon these incidents will no longer be possible to “cover up” as “crew errors” etc.

    1. That looks like a plausible explanation together with the interference technolgies of the radar systems. They might even be able to move the ship from one side to the other side via holograms??? Hence the reason why the bridge is giving the command to steer from their views away from the ship but in reality steer towards the ship. Just a thought as over the past years we have seen so many mind boggling TV shows with tricks we cannot comprehend.

  8. The randomness of these incidents in the oceans of our world have a data sampling quality to them in some respects. How do you conduct an operation to sample the technology of a civilization? Would you not pick targets of opportunity at random? Examine and interfere the wave-form signatures emitted from the craft along the electromagnetic spectrum? Take a random biological unit or two for study? Steal a few underwater laboratories, probs or components from larger craft? This looks more like the work of someone collecting data rather than piracy or covert operations within asymmetrical warfare. The tactics suggest a preface to the development of an effective strategy to deal with a “hostile” presence.

    One does not need to embrace the UFO abduction hypothesis for any of this, for there are at least two possible candidates of modern break-away civilizations available to consider. When one adds to the mix some ancient accounts, there may still be survivors of past break-away civilizations remaining here and minding their own business–most of the time. Those that may dwell deep within the planet’s oceans may have grown tired of the surface dweller’s contamination and disruption of the ocean’s ecology and are taking the first steps to remedy the problem. I apologize if this seems not very original, but the “sampling” explanation seems to be the best fit among several competing explanations at the moment. Maybe someone else has a better idea.

    1. OC, that is quite an interesting observation. “Data sampling” indeed. I know that big firms or agencies require a ‘proof of concept’ test before considering something ready to be fielded. We may be looking at a more-global view of that. If so, whomever is doing the testing has minimal value for human life. That should also be factored into the equation…

  9. Crazy news:

    The two missing optocouplers in the Baltic Sea have now mysteriously been located inside the teapot, where they are measuring the plant swamp level, in the upcoming nanny speech.

    Presumably, a rogue faction of breakaway Brexiteers have become environmentalists, using German technology, to litmus test the plant swamp level in the teapot.

    It is rumored, that Captain Jack Sparrow is now involved in this operation. Allegedly, he is going to snatch the crown jewels, presumably to pronounce himself king.

    1. When using the same nautical template, while measuring day, year and life, we arrive at the “discarded image” of C. S. Lewis.

      It is noteworthy, that the original definition of kingship is a derivative, from this ancient template. This knowledge is banned by papacy.

      Think, what rogue kingships could arise, if power of definition would fall into hands of privateers. Presently, all kingships in Scandinavia are being disputed.

Comments are closed.