Introduction, as critic the official opinion.
----------------------------
As explained in this site, it is not possible to
agree with official version as though the INS
"Dakar" sunk as result of a collision with any
great ship, because there is negations of proofs.
Also we refuse the version say as if the Israeli
submarine were attacked and sunk by enemy.
Do not were visible any proof witness that INS
"Dakar" were attacked by torpedo or were bombed.
We are refuse the must of other official opinions.
We are explaining and proved why the official
opinion was not correct. Up this time. 2001.
There is direct proves that the submarine did not
sunk immediately as it would be in collision case
We apology because of the must of the proofs that
were obtained after "Dakar's" found no were showed
because the officials watched the all as secret.
These hindrance do not got us to be more accuracy.
For the inquest the falling of INS "Dakar"
were used only the published data, as the photo
reproductions, design data and several details
that were obtained after "Dakar" found and the
circumstances were updated with veterans.
We based our assuming on the real proofs.
Click for Topics
The personal summarize version of the disaster.
The rather hypothesis of reasons of "Dakar's" loose.
----------------------------
There is two realty main versions of falling the "Dakar":
1. The INS "DAKAR" has wreck and sunk because
in the hull of submarine occurred a crack.
2. Though 1968 th version the "Dakar" was caught
in the special net, then after dismantling of the
command bridge and the added tank it were sunk.
3. The all other versions about falling the "Dakar"
that described in this site, are left as real versions
made with accordance to evidences that we got.
But the explained down version is rather of them.
4. In all cases we have not the definitely answer
for fate of the 69 men's crew of "Dakar".
The rather hypothesis based on opinion as with
"Dakar" occurred a wreck as crack in the hull of
the submarine. This version explained just down.
As explained in this site, there were several
passible reasons of causing the wreck, but we
selected for a rather version that based on the
evidences given by the submariner of "Dakar".
Upon reminds of eyewitness we know as the hull
of "Dakar" first were destroyed yet in Portsmouth,
at the time as it were raised on the building
berths for a capital repair and modernization.
As the hull got a crack, the stern teared off from
the body; then the submarines body were filled
with water. Yet, for repairing after occurred were
need several months of works, as welding of the
cracks in the hull and for other inner repairing.
We should to suppose as these cracks occurred
because at the time as the submarine were
mounting on the building berths for executing the
repairing works, because a lack in mounting of the
submarine, in the ship's hull occurred the great
inner tensions, that caused the tear of the stern.
The parts were welded together anew, but when
the works ended and the submarine were released
in the waters, the inner tenses returned.
If this version is correct, then the area of the
hull, dispocited near this welds should turn to
be an area of extremely inner tenses in the hull.
More of this: -the area of the hull, disposed
around the occurred crack, got a residual
deformation, and the hull's steel has lost it's
original structure. If these influenced area of
the hull was not changed, the hull has lost its
durability. Were watching a casually extreme
case (as this has happend in the storm) for
occurring a desaster.
The cracks should occurred just in the last
welding area, or along, or near of it, or in the
area nearst a welding of the hull with any
hard construction, as bulkhead.
The picture of this destraction is seeing on the
photo and from the repairing technology maps.
Of course, it could be a combination of all
technologic reasons, as described in this site.
I ask the men, who know or was an eyewitness
of the repairing works, to drop us to suppose
if the edge of breaking hull recognized near
area of the last welding?
The telling give suppose that the hull of "Dakar"
were weaker with comparison to other submarines.
The picture of this destroy have be seen on the
photo and from the repairing technology maps.
As the circumstances was not extremely, the hull
has stand the loading, but on extreme high wolves
the hull got a crack in the area of concentration of
extremely inner tenses, and so caused the wreck.
The character of the crack, as it seen on the
video picture, is very simple as a crack that
occurred because of the -metal fatigue.
We know that the Mediterranean in the area of
sunk were storming. The veteran, that run with INS
"Dulfin" in two days interval after, tell as a sea
wolves were so high and stark so as after one of
them the water filled several sections of submarine.
All these evidences, given by eyewitness, defined
our last choose of the rather version as the real
reason of the wreck; Although, there is other real
versions of the wreck, as it explained in this site.
All versions of occurred, that described here
before of this, also could be seen as correct
thesis of the wreck as based on real data.
We choose the last version as rather because
this version based on a supplementary witness
about the former wreck that caused with "Dakar".
* What could happen after the wreck. *
---------------------------------------------
The disposition of the ruins of submarine are
witness that from the moment of the wreck
occurring up the sinking, passed a long time.
As reminded, there are proofs that witness as the
men are fought for rescue the ship and the one
others, they released the emergency dam-buoy,
But instead of got the help on the SOS signal,
could been that to the wrecked submarine were
come an enemies ship, and the stranger men
demounted the command bridge, took the tank as
an interesting thing and torn away the dam-buoy
system. As reported in past, the submarine
and it's crew do not were armed.
After the last (September's 2000) searching
for the ruins of "Dakar" by the Nauticous
company were published as were raising the
"Dakar's" command bridge; we can suppose
that were raised more parts of the "Dakar",
but there is not found even one personal
thing of the 69 men crew !!
This report also using as evidences that support
our opinion as the "Dakar" was caught by enemy.
Becaus the occupants could to take away all
visible things, and then "Dakar" was sanking.
So also could occurring in the first version, in
a case if the submarine were caught in the net,
as it explained in this site,as a first version.
Then passible an identical final as saing before.
In the meantime we found not better explanation
for the proofs, evidences, that we got.
Maybe yet left the eyewitness that once would to
tell the absolutely truth, what occurred and what
caused the "Dakar's" sunk and the lose of 69
men's crew in the Mediterranean, 25 January 1968.
Only then we will know the truth about "Dakar".
The edge of the "Dakar's hull destruction.
The vertical edge is the line of torn the submarine hull,
it remember the metal fatigue destroying of a steel sheet.
Several remarks about the seeking after "Dakar"
In adding to described in this site I wish say as
It was perplexity the behavior of our headquarter.
Why after the "Dakar" do not have communication
in the ordering time, does not sent an aeroplane
for checking the area were "Dakar" have to run.
I can not believe as the aeroplane don't were sent.
It is perplexity as the seeking for the vanisher
submarine began in 30 hours later ?!
Is perplexity the all history of seeking for "Dakar",
because all actions and all "theoretical findings"
of them, were visible as fantasizes that absents
any logic. Always the "Dakar" were seeking in
area, where the submarine could not be coming.
It is perplexity as up this time all details
bending with the disaster with "Dakar" are
holding as actual secret, as in real the secret
is not from an enemy, but the secret hold for us.
Now we have wait for the official report and
the final opinion after the last searching
that were doing by the Nauticous Company.
It is the end of the last resume.
|
