Nice to see some nasties lately. Not that anything they write bothers me at all... A French film has recently tried to build a case for cover-ups and deception, implying that a US submarine sank the Kursk. That's easy to do, but I now don't believe it can be true. I had tried to keep an open mind when beginning to sift through masses of material on the internet about this disaster. Piecing together real data from here and there and adding a few new conclusions of my own, I hope that what I came up with can maybe help counter some of the widespread confusion and outright lies about this in whoever takes time to watch the whole video. Wild theories that aren't based on anything other than suspicion that simply try to ignore the real forensic evidence and verified events don't help anyone. All they do is increase mistrust and we really have enough of that already. What really must have happened becomes clearer when all the pieces of the puzzle fit together at the end. I'm hoping to translate this into Russian, if I can find time, where there is more interest in the subject for obvious reasons and where many people actually believe that a US submarine sank the Kursk for some of the reasons mentioned in the video. These people would be my main intended audience. Hopefully a Google translation would still let the main points come across. Do you think it's convincing and interesting enough to do it? Any help, comments or suggestions re this would be appreciated. Sorry, I had to cut some frames to 9 seconds, it was the only way to keep it from blowing out even further due to the complexity. Any non-classified photos of the visit of the subs in Brest or Wilhelmshaven in 2000 would also be great to have. I didn't have enough time to mention the CIA director's visit to Moscow at the time, calls between Presidents Clinton and Putin, who had only been in office for six months at the time, and the matter of the NATO communications bouy that had been seen floating by some of the 30 odd vessels in the Russian naval exercise before it was pulled in again. I also hadn't gone into the radiation aspects of the story - yes, the Kursk had not one but two nuclear reactors, both, thankfully, undamaged in the explosions, otherwise this disaster could have been far, far worse. The whole story is too complicated for only 18 minutes, but I concentrated on the so-called "evidence" allegedly "proving" involvement of the US submarine because this in particular still causes so much mistrust and pain, particularly among the relatives of the lost crew. I don't think the US Navy likes to be falsely accused either. Please contact me re any possible issues re photos used, I quoted all sources as accurately as possible at the time of sourcing although many were available from multiple sources. I do not claim ownership of these. For my regulars: There is of course one other explanation, let's call it theory number twenty, something else that can cut through 2.5" steel like butter and then explodes, which explains my initial interest in that mysterious hole in the Kursk to those following my channel, but let's stick to more conventional forensic evidence that more people can relate to. Hardly anyone understands the backwards causality of CMT yet anyway...

Be the first to comment