【中文标题】天安号沉没事件：我们被忽悠了
【原文标题】The Sinking of the Cheonan: We Are Being Lied To
【登载媒体】无
【来源地址】http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-we-are-being-lied-to/The Sinking of the Cheonan:
【译者】AlterEgo
【翻译方式】人工
【声明】本翻译供Anti-CNN使用，未经AC或译者许可，不得转载。
【原文库链接】http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-we-are-being-lied-to/The Sinking of the Cheonan:
【译文】 The Sinking of the Cheonan: We Are Being Lied To
天安号沉没事件：我们被忽悠了
UPDATE – please see the follow-up article posted 5/27/2010 11pm EST – PCC-772 Cheonan: An Unacceptable Provocation by the United States of America and the International Community has a Duty To Respond.
消息更新——请看于美国东部时间2010年5月27日晚11点发表的后续文章——PCC-772天安号：一次美国发动的令人无法接受的挑衅行为，国际社会有责任予以回应。
UPDATE 2 – Mr. Shin, whose work I included in a recent article listed above, is now “under investigation” for disagreeing with the official South Korean story about the sinking of the Cheonan. PCC-772 Cheonan: Probe member summoned on false rumor allegations - May 29, 2010.
消息更新2——Shin先生的调查成果在上面我最近的一篇文章中有所收录，现在他因为对韩国官方就天安号沉没事件的说法持有异议而“接受调查”。PCC-772天安号：由于虚假流言的指控，调查小组成员被传唤。-2010年5月29号。
UPDATE 3 – PCC-772 Cheonan: Photographic Evidence that “No. 1″ Written on Top of Rust - May 29, 2010.
消息更新3——PCC-772天安号：图像证据显示鱼雷锈蚀表面上标有“1号”字样—2010年5月29日。
UPDATE 4 – GOOD NEWS - Looks like China rejected Hialry Clinton’s fraudulent “investigation” results… China will not support sanctions or the claim that North Korea is responsible for the sinking of the Cheonan. PCC-772 Cheonan: China and Russia Seem to Reject the Conclusions of the U.S.-Led “Objective” Investigation May 30 2010.
消息更新4——好消息——看起来中国似乎不承认希拉里·克林顿那份虚假的“调查”结果报告…中国将不支持制裁行动，不支持有关朝鲜方面对天安号事件负有责任的说法。PCC-772天安号：中俄两国似乎不承认由美国主导的关于此次事件“客观公正”的调查结果。——2010年5月30号。
There is no doubt about it, there is no longer any reason to hold back, I have looked at the “evidence” and have concluded that we are being lied to, again, by our “leaders” in the White House in order to fabricate a measure of moral justification for yet another “regime change” campaign or an all out war with North Korea. 无须怀疑，也无须遮遮掩掩，我通过仔细研究这些“证据”得出的最后结论是我们再一次被欺骗了，被我们那住在白宫里的“领导者”们欺骗了，他们企图通过编造道德方面的正当理由来发动又一次的“政权更迭”或是与朝鲜的全面战争。
There simply is no “perfect match” like the recent unsigned report claims there is. 然而证据完全没有像最近那份未署名报告所宣称的那样达到了“完全吻合”。
The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama “fully supports” the South Korean president and his response to the torpedo attack by North Korea that sank a South Korean naval ship. MSNBC 白宫于周一表示奥巴马总统“完全支持”韩国总统及其对于朝鲜用鱼雷击沉韩国海军舰艇这一行为所采取的措施。微软全国广播公司报道。
South Korea’s president said Monday his nation will no longer tolerate North Korea’s “brutality” and said the regime would pay for a surprise torpedo attack that killed 46 South Korean sailors. ABC News 韩国总统于周一表示韩国将不再容忍朝鲜的“暴虐行径”，并表示朝鲜政府将为这次造成46名韩国海员罹难的鱼雷袭击行为付出代价。美国广播公司报道。
North Korea has denied responsibility for the sinking of the South Korean warship, the Cheonan, on March 26, which left 46 sailors dead.A growing body of evidence assembled by the South has suggested a North Korean torpedo sank the ship. New York Times 朝鲜拒绝为3月26日发生的韩国舰艇天安号沉没事件负责，此次事件造成46名海员罹难。韩国收集的大量证据表明是朝鲜鱼雷击沉了天安号舰艇。纽约时报报道。
The Growing Body Of Evidence
累积的大量证据
Clinton told reporters the evidence announced Thursday that North Korea sank the Cheonan “is overwhelming and condemning.” … Daniel Pinkston, a North Korea expert with the International Crisis Group, a multinational not-for-profit organization, said Friday that evidence that North Korea caused the sinking is “pretty irrefutable.” Stars and Stripes 希拉里对记者表示于周四发布的关于朝鲜击沉天安号的证据是“完全令人信服并带有谴责性的。”…Daniel Pinkston是非营利组织国际危机小组的一名朝鲜籍专家，他于周五表示有关朝鲜击沉天安号的证据是“无可辩驳的” 。星条旗报报道。
The International Crisis Group was founded by World Bank Vice-President for External Affairs, Malloch Brown and isfunded by other globalist institutions. Their stated mission is to “prevent” international conflict yet somehow or another they always seem to come up with suggestions involving invading other nations or imposing strict sanctions like the kind that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. Oh yeah, the nations they target usually have a state-owned central bank system… till we invade that is.
国际危机小组是由世界银行外务部副主席Malloch Brown建立的，由其他一些全球型机构提供资金。他们声称自己的使命是 “阻止”国际间的冲突，然而却似乎总是想方设法地给出一些涉及到军事入侵或严厉制裁他国的建议，比如他们的建议有次竟导致了成千上万的伊拉克儿童被杀害。得了吧，明眼人谁不知道，它们针对的那些国家往往采用着国有央行体制…起码在我们军事入侵这些国家之前是这种体制。
So let’s take a look at all the “overwhelming” and “irrefutable” evidence. 1. Someone wrote “number 1.” on one single piece of the salvaged torpedo… 2. they claim the torpedo remains are a “perfect match” of a North Korean type of weapon, a “CHT-02D” torpedo. This conclusion was reached via an international research team from US, the UK, Australia, and Sweden. Here is their May 20th, 2010 report. In the report, they make the following conclusion; 那么让我们来看看这些所谓“完全令人信服”和“无可辩驳的”证据吧。1.有人在打捞上来的一片鱼雷残骸上写下“1号”…2.调查小组声称鱼雷残片与朝鲜使用的“CHT-02D” 型鱼雷“完全吻合”。这个结论是由美英澳瑞四国组成的国际调查小组得出的。下面是他们2010年5月20号发布的报告。在这篇报告中他们得出了以下结论；
The torpedo parts recovered at the site of the explosion by a dredging ship on May 15th, which include the 5×5 bladed contra-rotating propellers, propulsion motor and a steering section, perfectly match the schematics of the CHT-02D torpedo included in introductory brochures provided to foreign countries by North Korea for export purposes. The markings in Hangul, which reads “1번(or No. 1 in English)”, found inside the end of the propulsion section, is consistent with the marking of a previously obtained North Korean torpedo. … 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. Investigation on the Sinking of the Cheonan 打捞船于5月15号在爆炸地点打捞出的鱼雷残片包括：5*5规格叶式对转螺旋桨，推进发动机和转向装置，这些残片与朝鲜为出口而向他国提供的介绍手册上关于CHT-02D型鱼雷的简图完全吻合。这些用韩文书写的标号“1번（英语中表示1号）”是在推进发动机的尾端内部发现的，这与此前获得的朝鲜鱼雷上的标号相一致…基于所有这些相关事实和归类分析，我们得到清晰的结论：韩国天安号舰艇是由朝鲜制鱼雷对其造成水下外部爆炸冲击造成的。这些证据无可辩驳地证明了鱼雷是由朝鲜潜艇发射的。除此之外没有其他的合理解释。天安号沉没事件调查。
That’s it. That’s all their “evidence” that the international investigators presented in their UNSIGNED report. That’s right, no one knows who the “investigators” were since they didn’t take the time to sign their work!
就这，这就是国际调查团在他们未署名的报告中出示的“证据”。当然，没人知道这些“调查人员”是谁，因为他们都未曾在报告上署上自己的大名。
A Perfect Match?
完全吻合？
This is the presentation refered to in the paper linked above. They mention that during a presentation of their findings, they showed the schematics of a CHT-02D torpedo in relation to the evidence they found. They claimed in their investigation that these are a “perfect match” and that claim is being repeated endlessly on both sides of the fake political divide. (please click on image for a larger view)
这就是在报告中提到的证据。调查小组在展示他们的调查结果时谈到他们同时出示了与发现的证物有关的CHT-02D型鱼雷的简图。在调查过程中他们宣称这些证据是“完全吻合”的，此项调查结果被貌似对立的左右两派政党没完没了地重复着。（点击看大图）
This is by no means a “perfect match”. No wonder they didn’t want to sign that “investigation” of theirs. (please click on image for a larger view)
这根本算不上是“完全吻合”。怪不到这些调查组成员都不愿在调查报告上署名。（点击看大图）
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.
这些武器在设计上有四处明显的不同，其中一处不同是不容置辩的，可以作为关键证据来证明他们的差异性。 * “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. *“A”处和 “D”处——这里我们可以清楚地看到螺旋桨中心轴处在设计构造上有一些重大的不同。在上半部的简图中可以看到中心轴体积较小，而下半部证物上的中心轴则较大。
* “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. *“B”处——螺旋桨本身的形状也有很大不同。在上半部的简图中，螺旋桨的中心轴处有一个切口，而下半部的证物上却没有。无论是从螺旋桨的前部还是后部组件来看，两者螺旋桨叶片的整体形状都相去甚远。
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”.
如果要对这一切进行辩解的话，那你可以认为是螺旋桨被调换过了。这或许是可能的，但不要忘了这些都是精确调整和设计的武器系统；一个人不可能“随随便便地”像在自家小艇上那样更换掉这些配件。不过除此之外，虽然这枚鱼雷有可能被安装了不同类型的螺旋桨，但这确实算不上是“完全吻合”。
Now, the last point proves they are not the same torpedo.
现在我们来看看最后一项可以证明它们是不同类型鱼雷的证据。
* “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) * “C”处——我们可以清楚地看到，当上下图表中的分隔板对齐来看时，上半部简图中的减震装置（或推进装置？）明显是在分隔板的前方。然而，下半部鱼雷实物的减震装置（或推进装置）却是在分隔板后面（分隔板用来分隔开鱼雷躯干主体和鱼雷尾部）。
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.
这项重大的不同是不能用某种售后改装来解释的。因为这一部分是这类武器操作运转中的关键设计结构，是不能被改装的。这项不同点清楚地显示了他们是完全不同的武器。
there are other differences that have been pointed out to this researcher; “Jan” noticed that the axle shape is tapered on the evidence and straight on the diagram. A good point. There are probably others as well (I noticed a difference in the shape of the “fin” in the guidance section in the back as well…. clearly there is no way to say these are a “perfect match”).It is no wonder the “investigators” chose not to sign their work.
对于这项调查结果还有人指出其他的不同点；“Jan”注意到鱼雷实物的主轴形状是逐渐变窄的，而简图上的主轴形状则是粗细均匀。这是很有说服力的例证。或许还有其他的不同（我还注意到尾部导航装置上 “鳍”形部分有些不同…这明显不能说两者是“完全吻合”）。怪不到“调查组成员”没有在调查报告上署上自己的名字。
The Forgotten Investigation
被遗忘的调查报告
On May 6th, 2010 a report came out conducted by South Korea and others that said the torpedo’s metal and explosive residue indicated that it had come from a German origin.
2010年5月6日，韩国及一些其他国家完成了一份报告，声称鱼雷的金属爆炸残片表明鱼雷来自于德国。
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
韩国及他国调查人员组成的调查组在沉没舰只的多个部位发现了炸药残留物以及鱼雷上的复合金属残片，韩国联合通讯社援引一位高级政府官员的话说…这些金属化工残片似乎与德国制的某种鱼雷型号相一致，这表明了朝鲜或许通过避免使用同盟国中国或俄国制造的武器来掩饰自己在天安号事件中的行为，韩联社援引这位官员的话说。路透社新闻。
This report has been all but forgotten by the media and the Clinton led state department as they press for crippling sanctions and perhaps more. But there is a confirmation of sorts in the May 20th unsigned “investigation”.
当媒体和希拉里领导的国务院不断要求实施更多严厉的制裁时，这篇报告几乎已经被他们给遗忘了。然而这样做的根据却只是那份于5月20日发布的让人难以信服的未署名的“调查报告”。
The first thing they should do, rather than attempt to convince the people that the two are “perfectly matched” in design (when they clearly aren’t) is a chemical and metallic debris analysis of the evidence. The May 20th “investigation” does not make mention of this crucial part of the investigation at all… they don’t mention it at all.
他们首先要做的是对证物的残片进行化学性质和金属性质方面的分析，而不是力图使人们相信两者在结构设计上是“完全吻合”的（何况它们明显不吻合）。5月20日的“调查报告”却完全没有提及这一至关重要的分析过程…他们是只字未提。
The reason for that is clear; if they were to address these two key scientific points, they would have to have admitted that the science shows these pieces of evidence are of German construction and therefore not of North Korean origin.
这样做的原因很明显；如果他们完成了这两个科学性质方面的分析，他们就不得不承认根据科学分析证明，鱼雷残片来自于德国制的鱼雷而非来自于朝鲜。
By ignoring these two important parts of the investigation, the May 20th paper confirms the earlier work of the May 6th study… the torpedo is of German origin.
他们故意忽略了调查中两项关键的分析过程，这种做法使得5月20号的报告反而证实了5月6号那份报告…鱼雷来自德国。
The “CHT-02D” Torpedo
“CHT-02D”型鱼雷
An earlier report stated that there were only 4 different types of North Korean torpedos that could have caused this damage. 早前的一份报告称朝鲜只有四种型号的鱼雷可以造成此种程度的破坏性。
Type EO-6 and ET-80A “Some experts downplayed the possibility of homing torpedoes, citing the low capability of North Korea’s Sang-O (Shark) class submarines.” EO-6型和ET-80A型。“一些专家不认为有此类自动导航鱼雷的可能性，理由是朝鲜的Sang-O(鲨鱼)级潜艇不具备这种能力。”
Russian Type 53-56
俄制53-56型鱼雷
Russian Type 53-59
俄制53-59型鱼雷 There had been no mention of the CHT-02D torpedo, and in fact, this researcher can’t find any information on this torpedo aside from links to this story. There is various info on all the other types of North Korean torpedos, but there seems to be none on this one. Why is that? According to the official unsigned report this torpedo is “listed in a brochure” as something North Korea sells, but they do not offer the brochure nor a link to where it can be found. I am still looking for other sources on this matter.
可以看到CHT-02D型鱼雷没有被提到，实际上除了与调查结果有些关联以外，调查人员没有发现有关CHT-02D型鱼雷的任何信息。关于朝鲜其他型号的鱼雷都有各种各样的信息，然而却似乎没有关于CHT-02D型鱼雷的。这是为什么？根据这份未署名的调查报告，CHT-02D型鱼雷是被朝鲜作为待售武器而“登列在册”的，但报告并未提供这份手册，也未提供获得这份手册的途径。我一直寻找着有关这方面的其他信息。
But it appears this weapon came out of no-where.
CHT-02D型鱼雷仿佛是凭空变出来的。
In a paper I wrote yesterday I questioned whether or not the German-made DM2-A3 looked more like what was found. “The DM2 A-3 version is also used by the Norwegian Ula class (German Type 210 subs) with an option for a later upgrade). The Italian Type 212 B submarines use the DM2 A-4 version. The Israeli Dolphin-class (German Type S-300) are also being equipped with the DM2 A-4 Torpedo.”
在昨天的一篇文章中我提出了找到的鱼雷残片是否更像是德制的DM2-A3型鱼雷的猜测。“具备升级改进能力的Norwegian Ula级潜艇（德国210型潜艇）也使用了DM2-A3型鱼雷。意大利制212B型潜艇则使用DM2 A-4型鱼雷。以色列的海豚级潜艇（德国S-300型潜艇）也装备了DM2 A-4型鱼雷。”
It is only a possibility but it is of German design. More investigation into the schematics of this weapon are needed before any conclusion can be reached.
鱼雷也可能仅仅是使用了德国的设计工艺。对这种武器的图表需要进行更多的调查以得出进一步的结论。 Questions Being Asked
质疑
Most MSM and “progressive” parrot websites are running with the “evil North Korea” story without any investigations what-so-ever. But questions are being asked on a few sites.
大部分MSN和“激进的”却只会人云亦云的网站没有经过任何调查就叫嚷充斥着“邪恶朝鲜”的说法。但也有一些网站正在提出质疑。
Democratic Underground has compiled a list of issues surrounding the “official story” and they deserve to be reviewed. They bring up some very good points and I would hope that someone who posts there might provide them with a link to this study of mine. “What if North Korea didn’t fire the torpedo?” Democratic Underground
地下民主网站汇编了一个有关“官方说法”的质疑列表，这些质疑都值得重新审视研究。他们提出了一些很不错的观点，我希望那些地下民主网站上的发帖人可以为地下民主网站的成员提供我对这个问题研究的链接。“如果朝鲜没有发射过这颗鱼雷呢？” 地下民主网站
They bring out many points that I have not addressed here that need to be. One such point is that North Korea vehemently denies the allegations and they have asked to see the evidence inspect it themselves and they have been denied access to it. 他们提出了一些我没有解答但亟待解答的问题。其中一个问题是朝鲜方面对指控进行了坚决的否认，朝鲜要求查看相关证据并亲自检查，但他们被拒绝了。
Conclusion
结论
It is clear that we are being lied to and manipulated into believing that North Korea is behind the sinking of the South Korean vessel, the Cheonan. It is impossible to draw conclusions at this time as to who is responsible but we can conclude based on the evidence, that the official story is yet another lie being pawned off on the American people. This lie is obvious and could be used to instigate military action against the people of North Korea.
很明显我们被欺骗了，我们被引导并相信是朝鲜造成了韩国天安号舰艇的沉没。对于谁要为此次事件负责的问题，现阶段还不能下结论，但是我们可以根据证据做出一个判断，那就是官方的调查报告又是一个谎言，美国人民则成了这个骗局中被绑架的人质，这个谎言则可以用来作为向朝鲜人民发动军事进攻的口实。 | 
狗仔卡
发表于 2010-6-5 20:12
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
楼主
发表于 2010-6-6 01:02
发表于 2010-6-8 03:26