Incendiu de iaht grecesc: Pot fi adevărate trei afirmații? | SY News Extra

34 thoughts on “Incendiu de iaht grecesc: Pot fi adevărate trei afirmații? | SY News Extra”

1. I think the fact that you get so many comments is not necessarily a bad thing, although so many comments are BS, maby 1 in every 60 viewers comment on the video, are you that concerned about a few negative opinions?

2. Focus needs to be on Guests.

3. Ignore the bad comments it's obvious you always try to be correct and when you aren't call it out to make sure people have the right information. Just keep on with your best efforts and let the haters hate.

4. You’re still speculating on why the people involved did what they are supposed to have done (if you believe any of the public statements that have been made).

5. There’s no reason to dispose of expired signal flares, in US waters there are minimum requirements for the number of current flares/signaling devices to have on board, but you can still use the expired flares/signals should an emergency arise (having more is better than just the minimum required).

6. We are so thoroughly used to news being biased and skewed that a channel like eSysman comes across as more of the same. We are simply unable to recognize journalism, because journalism has gone the way of the dodo. eSysman may be the only actual news channel in the world, presenting stories as they happen, with down-to-earth commentary that is amazingly balanced and objective. What an achievement.

7. Hey up mate professionally done video thank you

8. When did the captain check for the flares on his yacht? He would have had no reason to do so BEFORE the testimony of the other boat IF their crew/guests didn't use any themselves.

9. The guest statement did not say,, "No guest started a fire."
   Did any of the guests smoke ?

10. Great job on this follow-up video. Look, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Having spent many years as an investigator, when people start learning of possible prison time, they start talking. That, combined with the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony will bring this case to a close. Keep up the great work! Love your videos. Ps. I was keeping an eye out for you in Monaco, but sadly no sighting. lol Cheers

11. thought you did a thorough job of reporting all 3 sides of the story . again mice job

12. Funny greedy Greeks are always ready to point a finger.
    No money to share they see money floating by near an accident that money pot will be claimed.

13. 🙋‍♂️THANKS A MILLION ESYSMAN,FOR BEING AS OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE, AND TIME WILL TELL…THE REST OF THE STORY 💚💚💚

14. You do an excellent job and your presentations are first rate. When the arson investigators determine what type of pyrotechnics started the fire, we’ll know who is at fault. We all know that some charterers sometimes do what they please, regardless of crew instructions or local norms. It seems this was a preventable accident and we’ll soon know the guilty parties.

15. The guest's statement was written by a lawyer. Does not mean he did anything wrong.

16. Partial truths are not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

17. All 3 of those statements could be true – if none of them had any connection to the fire and it was started by someone else.
    Whenever I replaced my flares/handheld extinguisher I always fired them off – this way, can't be used by accident. Just having them on board is technically a violation I believe. But you don't do that on a guest charter.

18. The guests seemed to have skedaddled out of town rather quickly did they not? Really don't blame them. If I have nothing at all, and knew it, to do with what happened, in a foreign country like Greece? I'd book out quickly as possible. The authorities are looking for heads to swing at that point, any heads at all. It's quite surprising the guests left so quickly but, a pocket full of cash can make magical things happen all the time, especially there. This is how the real world works for people of this economic scale.
    Besides, truth is, pines recover quickly from fires, and actually benefit from it. It's not like they were 1000 yr old redwoods.

19. What about the possibility that the "Eyewitness" started the fire and decided to blame the other boat for it.

20. I wonder if the authorities are looking at the "eyewitness" too.

21. From an investigatory perspective all three statements can in fact be true while at the same time represent something less than all the known facts. Assuming honesty, one must take each of the three statements as that source’s “understanding” of the situation. Understanding is the product of cognitive processes which attempt to form a coherence of perception. The process of forming understanding can, and often does, de-emphasize and even exclude from consciousness, perceptions, memories and facts that are outliers, that are not consistent with the overall coherence. This is why eye-witness testimony is so often unreliable. The purpose of the investigation is to gather all available facts from these sources as well as others, determine and counter effects of any witness bias (conscious or unconscious), and objectively arrive at the most probable explanation of what occurred.

22. That's not how you spell persephone

23. To make a reasoned determination for purposes of charging someone; How did fire start, When did it start, Was there any evidence of other parties if the fire was the result of human action, what did eyewitness state, Who has a motive of lying to authorities, will parties who have left country return if charged? If party on boat get charged and they will not come back for trial, there is your answer.

24. THATS NOT HOW YOU PRONOUNCE THAT BOATS NAME! It’s not “purse-a-phoney” it’s “per-sef-ony” Jesus Christ 😅😅

25. Just want you to know how much we all respect you and your ethical and moral journalism. Thank you again … We love you man😊

26. It's probably not the case, but it would be consistent with all 3 stories if: 1) they saw the fire. 2) Sent people into the shore to fight the fire. 3) realized it was too big. 4) retreated to the boat and then 5) were picking up items that they had dropped in that retreat (when they were seen by the other crew.) It seems like they would have better explanations/evadance if this were the case , but this would be consistent with all three statements.

27. Plot twist – it was the “eyewitnesses” that did it and blamed the other crew/guests.

28. You are very correct the expiration of pyrotechnics. On my small cabin cruiser we kept the old flares on board as a backup just in case. There is a lot to be said for redundancy. You are very correct and opening the possibility of expired pyrotechnics being set off. You are also very correct about three different stories. There is a slight possibility that each of them is true from that particular perspective. I believe your first report was generally accurate with the information you had at that time. People who might be arguing with you typically have an interest in protecting a particular party. Keep up the good work. You are very typically fair and balanced and try to get as much factual information as possible.

29. I believe that this event needs to be left to the appropriate authorities to finalised before you continue your commentary. Speculation about what may or may not have occurred will not have any effect on the outcome. When the investigation and possible court proceedings are finalised is the time to provide commentary. Bruce 12:29

30. Maybe they didn’t use the new/old flares of Persefoni, but newly purchased fireworks (as for new years eve). If so:

    1) investigators will find physical evidence spent on the beach
    2) accountants will find them in the books of the management company in charge of Persefoni
    3) guest preference sheets and charter docs will also show if such fireworks were ordered by the guests.

    Cheers and thanks again for the thorough reporting

31. Beach BBQ fire, cigarettes. Not enough information yet. Keep us informed with any additional data that comes too light.

32. is it possible "they" (people on the yacht) saw a fire on the shore and went to try and put it out? Realizing it was too much to handle, had the Captain radio authorities about the fire? Just curious? Thanks for the good info your are reporting. Really like the channel!

33. What about teenagers on shore doing it?

34. Getting your fire fighting team dressed with gear ready on standby is probably a terrific idea if your huge vessel is parked directly next to a gigantic, raging forest fire. Fires and wind (large fires can create wind as well) can spread embers and hot ash all over the area. One hot ember in just the right place is all it takes and you may get hundreds or thousands of embers starting multiple fires. It’s a large vessel and it can take time to identify, locate, and fight a fire. If everyone is prepared they can stop any starting fire immediately. Additionally, the crew may see someone on shore or another vessel that might need to be rescued or require medical attention. If everyone is dressed and all of the gear is turned out the crew can respond to any emergency immediately and time matters in many emergencies.

    I would actually expect the captains and crew to prepare for a fire and stand by if they were in the vicinity of any active fire or close to anything that might cause a fire. There should be a fire response plan for this type of incident, but I would expect the same type of response even if they had no plan for this in particular. It can take a long time to get a large ship moving and it is usually much more restricted in its options for maneuvering close to shore and close to other vessels. If there is any nearby uncontrolled fire the crew should be ready until there is no more risk to the ship, crew, and passengers.

    Anyways, that’s all to say that I don’t think that the fire fighting team being seen onboard is evidence of anything except being close to a huge, uncontrolled fire. Also, if anyone needed to go on shore for any reason they should have all of the required gear for encountering a fire. It does seem weird to send the tender out to collect things close to a large fire as objects are not worth any risk to the rib and crew. If any witness says they saw someone using fireworks right before a large fire it immediately frames the situation in a different light, especially compared to not having any explanation. That’s something that will instantly draw the attention of investigators and the media and propagate like a fire in its own way. I’m curious if the witness said they saw the fireworks well before the fire or a couple of minutes immediately before the fire. A forest fire can make sparks and sound like fireworks. If the witness couldn’t see the actual fire, maybe due to the hills and trees their view being obstructed from their boat, then they might mistake the sounds and pops of the fire for fireworks and then later noticed the actual fire. It’s a long shot due to the smoke usually being a dead giveaway, but who knows. I hope they recorded what the witness actually said and how they said it.

Comments are closed.