[1]
By David O’Brien, Boston
The mainstream media (MSM) lie constantly.
Writers in the alternative media work hard to expose these lies as they appear each day. But there is only so much they can catch in real time. Sometimes, looking back at an old story can give you a better understanding of exactly what happened, especially since you can include events that occurred after the initial story disappeared from the headlines.
I did this for a story that took place in October of 2014, when Sweden’s military conducted a massive search for what they were convinced was a Russian submarine lurking in their territorial waters. The story was headline news for a week straight, and people who follow the news most likely remember it to this day.
Reuters [2] broke the story in the US on Saturday the 18th.
[3]
They quoted the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet (SvD), who, quoting anonymous sources, [4]said [4] [5]that [5] [5] the sub hunt began when a radio transmission in Russian was picked up on an emergency frequency, along with encrypted radio traffic coming from Russia’s Kaliningrad territory. This was pretty convincing evidence that Russia did indeed have a sub in Swedish waters, and it sounded like it might be having some difficulty. The only issue with this story, though, is that when Rear Admiral Anders Grenstad, who at the time was Deputy Chief of Operations of the Swedish Navy, was [6]asked [6] [6]about it, he “rejected that they had [received] informationabout any emergency call in Russian”.
I only found this minor detail about the Swedish Navy rejecting the entire SvD storyline in a single report from [7]CBS [7]. [7]
What was not reported at all in the US was that a week later, the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, citing freedom of information requests and sources within the military, [8]published [8] [8] an [9]article [9] [9] saying that
neither of these events ever happened.
Not only did the US media not report that the whole SvD storyline was a lie, they [10]continued [10] [10] to tell the lie after it was shown in the Swedish media to be a lie.
The Swedish military, on the day before the fabricated SvD article was published, [11]said [11] [11] that the sub hunt started based on information from a “ [12]credible [12] [13]source [13]“ [13], which turned out to [14]be [14] [15]a [15] [16]private [16] [4]citizen [4]. [4] They would not even confirm [17] [17]that the “information” they received was a submarine sighting! What could a private citizen say to a nation’s military that would initiate a [18]3 million dollar [18] [18] submarine hunt? I can’t think of anything other than a sighting of a Russian submarine. But there was no photo involved, so I guess they just took somebody’s word for it.
One tidbit of information the Swedish military gave out was that the “event” (I can’t call it a sighting) happened in [19]Kanholmsfjärden [19] [19] Bay. Strangely enough, the very next morning, some elderly Swedes were crossing a bridge at the edge of Kanholmsfjärden Bay and they [20]saw a submarine [20]! [20] It turns out that at the base of the bridge is a resort called [21]Djuronaset [21], [21] and they happen to own a submarine that had been retired from the Swedish Navy, and they use it to [22]give rides [22] [22] to [23]tourists [23]. [23]
The elderly Swedes saw the tourist sub.
Here is where the home of the tourist sub is located relative to where the “event” occurred that started the whole submarine hunt:
[24]The “event” that started the sub hunt occurred very close to where the tourist sub operates. Many people in Sweden assumed the entire submarine hunt was based on a sighting of the tourist sub.
Let’s talk about other submarine sightings that occurred during the sub hunt. There were [25]5 of these [25] [25](outof over [14]250 total [14]) [14] that the Swedish military deemed “credible”. The first was the one that started the submarine hunt, which we discussed.
The second sighting was made by a fisherman, and also did not involve a photo. It was reported by a local [26] [27]newspaper [27], [27] but nowhere else. The reason for this is likely that the fisherman is a [28]convicted [28] [28]pedophile [29]. [29] I guess they didn’t want to parade him around in the media.
The third sighting included a photo!! [30]Here [30] [30]it is:
[31]This, as it turns out, is the best evidence ever produced by this propaganda masterpiece. It shows nothing, and is nonsense. This is known as the “Ornö” image.
The [32]fourth [32] [33]and [33] [34]fifth [34] [34]“credible” sightings involved no photos, and went relatively unreported.
There were 250 submarine sightings during the submarine hunt, and the photo above is the only one that was taken. You probably didn’t realize that Sweden is a poor country where nobody has cameras, or telephones with cameras.
A week after the sub hunt officially ended, there was another [35]submarine [35] [36]sighting [36] [36] which was [37]made [37] [37]by a retired Swedish naval officer. Luckily, he is a rare Swede who has a camera, and he took a picture of the sub. The photo was deemed by the Swedish media to be a much better quality image than the “blurry and difficult to decipher” Ornö image. [38]Here [38] [38]it is:
[39]The Swedish military [40]investigated [40] [40]this sighting for 6 months, and decided that the dot you see in the photo was a Swedish [41]fishing [41] [42]boat [42] [42]named the Time Bandit. I looked up this boat [43]online [43]. [43] Here it is:
[44]The photo taken by the retired Swedish naval officer was a much better quality image than the Ornö image, and the Ornö image was a much better quality image than whatever started the submarine hunt, because the Ornö image was at least an image, whereas whatever started the submarine hunt did not involve any image.
The $3 million dollar submarine hunt, then, was based on something that had much less substance than what turned out to be a small fiberglass fishing boat.
There was also [45]a [45] [46]storyline [46] [46] about a [4]Russian [4] [5]oil [5] [47]tanker [47] [47]that was drifting back and forth in the Baltic Sea. Western media speculated that it might have transported the Russian sub to Sweden, and it was waiting for it to return. In the [5]Swedish media [5], [5] however, the president of a Swedish tanker company, the head of the Finnish Transport Agency, and the head of Sweden’s [48]coast guard [48] [48]for the [49]Stockholm [49] [47]area [47], [47] all said that what the tanker was doing was normal. This went unreported in the US.
There was also a [50]storyline [50] [51]about [51] [52]a [52] [52]“suspicious man in black”. [53]Here [53] [53]is the picture of him shown in the media:
[54]The media in the [50]US [50] [51]speculated [51] [52]endlessly [52] [52] that he might be a member of the Russian special forces who had abandoned the damaged submarine (even though the story about the emergency distress call was a lie), swam ashore (after rigging his sub to explode), and was searching for his Swedish “sleeper agent”.
It turns out that the person was [55]Ove [55], [55] a local [56]retired [56] [57]Swede [57] [57]who was fishing for trout.
This part of the story went unreported in the US. Actually, after the story came out that the man in the picture was Ove, the New York Times [58]continued [58] [58]to bring up this [59]storyline [59] [59]without mentioning Ove. Liars.
So what did the Swedish military do after all these truth-defying stories? Claim victory, of course. They held a press conference [60] [60]assuring everyone that a Russian submarine had [61]violated [61] [61]their waters. They presented 3 [62] [63]pieces [63] [63]of “supporting” evidence, and one “crucial” [64]piece [64] [64]that was “vital” in their determination that the Russians were guilty.
The first piece of supporting evidence was the Ornö image, which is nonsense. The second piece was another sighting that had not been discussed previously. As you might have guessed, there was no photo involved in this sighting, either. Poor Swedes, remember. The third piece of evidence was this sonar image [65] [65] showing a groove on the ocean floor:
[66]The problem with this picture is that submarines don’t crawl on the ocean floor. They move through the water above the ocean floor. Even Pavel Felgenhauer, a steadfast anti-Russia propagandist and member of the Jamestown Foundation, a neocon think-tank, [67]could not lower himself [67] [67]enough to endorse this ridiculous story. It is nonsense.
And what about the “ [64]crucial [64]“ [64] / “vital” information that really nailed the Russians? What was that about?
It’s a secret! You are not allowed to know what it is. But trust the Swedes, it’s pretty good stuff.
Honestly, that’s what they said.
Then, almost a year later, the Swedish government [68]released [68] [68] their final report. In it, [69]they [69] [70]said [70] [70]that the“crucial” piece of secret information might not be what they thought it was. That interesting story went unreported in the US. Then, in June of 2016, nearly 2 years after the sub incident, the Swedish government finally told the truth. The “crucial” piece of evidence, which was a sound that had supposedly come from the Russian sub, had actually come from a “ [71]Swedish source [71]“ [71]!!!
This, of course, went unreported in the US.
The Swedish [72]media [72], [72] however, had enough at this point. One [73]article [73] [73]said that “this whole situation is striking and has damaged the Armed Forces and the government’s credibility and confidence in Sweden’s security policy.” In Sweden, the whole thing is becoming a joke, and people are starting to [74]write [74] [75]books [75] about it.