i deep fried some chicken mcnuggets in pancake batter... twas very good ... stupid, but smart. but stupid.

Helluva story. Here's the whole thing from Wiki:

The Christie Pits riot occurred on 16 August 1933 at the Christie Pits (Willowvale Park) playground in Toronto, Canada. The riot can only be understood in the context of the anti-semitism, Swastika clubs and parades and resentment of "foreigners" in Toronto, and the rise of Hitler and the Nazis in Germany in 1933.[1]

The riot, which lasted six hours, broke out after a quarter-final baseball game at Christie Pits Park between two local clubs, Harbord Playground, predominantly Jewish, and St. Peter's, a baseball team sponsored by a church at Bathurst and Bloor.[2]

The riot occurred soon after Adolf Hitler took power in Germany and in the midst of the Great Depression. The Toronto papers, including the Telegram and the Toronto Star, as well as the Yiddish journal, Der Yiddisher Zhurnal, reported on how Jews were being dismissed as lawyers, professors, teachers, etc. in Germany, as well as incidents of violence against them. Thus to Jews the swastika represented degradation and physical violence against Jews, and was inflammatory.[3]

At that time, the Jewish community in Toronto was predominantly poor and working class. They were also the subject of discrimination and were excluded from summer resorts outside of the city. Jewish families and youths in particular would therefore cool off during the hot summer months by staying in town and going to the predominantly Anglo Beaches area in order to swim. This resulted in complaints and resentment from some local residents. Some of the locals formed "Swastika Clubs", which openly displayed the Nazi symbol to express their displeasure and make Jews feel unwanted.[4] The leaders of the Swastika Club initially insisted that the swastika had nothing to do with Hitler. They said they merely wanted to keep the Beach clean. After a meeting with Jewish leaders backed by City officials, the Swastika club agreed to drop its symbol and its name. At that point, several of the members joined the Swastika Association of Canada that was much more open about its links to Hitler.[5]

The night of the riot was the second game between Harbord and St. Peter's. Two nights earlier, at the first game of the series, a swastika had been displayed. Police were warned that there could be trouble at the second game, but those warnings were ignored. After the final out of the second game, Pit Gang members displayed a blanket with a large swastika painted on it. A number of Jewish boys and young men who had heard about the previous Swastika incident rushed the Swastika sign to destroy it, supporters of both sides (including Italians who supported the Jews) from the surrounding area joined in, and a fight started.[6]

The Toronto Daily Star described the event the next day:
“ While groups of Jewish and Gentile youths wielded fists and clubs in a series of violent scraps for possession of a white flag bearing a swastika symbol at Willowvale Park last night, a crowd of more than 10,000 citizens, excited by cries of ‘Heil Hitler’ became suddenly a disorderly mob and surged wildly about the park and surrounding streets, trying to gain a view of the actual combatants, which soon developed in violence and intensity of racial feeling into one of the worst free-for-alls ever seen in the city.

Scores were injured, many requiring medical and hospital attention... Heads were opened, eyes blackened and bodies thumped and battered as literally dozens of persons, young or old, many of them non-combatant spectators, were injured more or less seriously by a variety of ugly weapons in the hands of wild-eyed and irresponsible young hoodlums, both Jewish and Gentile".[7]
”

No one was killed in the riots. There was criticism of the police for not being ready to intervene, as they had been during previous potential problems in the Beach area.[8] After the riot, Mayor Stewart warned against displaying the swastika and there were no further riots.[9]

The riot revealed the xenophobic attitudes toward Jews and other non-Anglo immigrants among Anglo Canadians. Jews represented the largest minority in Toronto in 1933 and were thus a target of xenophobic residents.

In August 2008, a Heritage Toronto plaque was presented to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the riot.

holy extraovercomplicatedness batman!

1 egg
1 cup self raising flour
1 cup milk - (just add a little more if you want them thinner)
turn em when they bubble, butter em as you stack em, sweeten em as you eat em.
my 6 year makes them for us on the weekend.

as reggie watts says "why shit so crazy?"

i hope i'm not disrespecting americans knowledge of all things pancake. after all they did come up with the microwaveable jimmy dean pancake and sausage on a stick. sausage wrapped in pancake. microwaveable. with choc chips. on a stick. and microwaveable.

>> ^shponglefan:

My tried-and-tested pancake recipe:
2 cups all-purpose flour
1/2 cup rolled oats
3 teaspoons baking powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
1-2 tablespoons brown sugar (depending on desired sweetness)
1 tablespoon of maple syrup
1 3/4 cups milk (I use Vanilla-flavored soy milk)
1 egg
2 tablespoons light olive oil
1 tsp each of nutmeg and cinnamon
Mix dry and wet ingredients seperately, then whisk together until lump-free, let stand until thickened, and then cook on medium heat. After about 30 seconds in the pan I add some sort of fruit combination into the pancake including blueberry, raspberry, pineapple, strawberry, apple, etc. I then cover the fruit with some more batter. Blueberry & pineapple is an especially delicious combo. Cook until golden on each side, then top with maple syrup or whipped cream (or both).

My tried-and-tested pancake recipe:

2 cups all-purpose flour
1/2 cup rolled oats
3 teaspoons baking powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
1-2 tablespoons brown sugar (depending on desired sweetness)
1 tablespoon of maple syrup
1 3/4 cups milk (I use Vanilla-flavored soy milk)
1 egg
2 tablespoons light olive oil
1 tsp each of nutmeg and cinnamon

Mix dry and wet ingredients seperately, then whisk together until lump-free, let stand until thickened, and then cook on medium heat. After about 30 seconds in the pan I add some sort of fruit combination into the pancake including blueberry, raspberry, pineapple, strawberry, apple, etc. I then cover the fruit with some more batter. Blueberry & pineapple is an especially delicious combo. Cook until golden on each side, then top with maple syrup or whipped cream (or both).

>> ^dag:

Next year it's crack cocaine on a stick.


as long as the encapsulating fried batter will do its job and hold in the vaporized inhalants from the crack rock !!

I like the logic.

Butter on a stick sounds gross...so lets coat it in batter and deep fat fry it! That's sure to make it palatable!

>> ^ridesallyridenc:

I think that may be a balk?


Nah, with no runners at the bases it should be ruled a ball. But since there's no batter at the plate I guess it would just be a comical first pitch? Then again I don't know the first thing about baseball, I just Googled all that shit...

heh, if you think that's a long post to make a point, you should see my discussion with SDGundamX under this video http://videosift.com/video/Sam-Harris-on-the-error-of-evenhandedness

In reply to this comment by smooman:
if only it didnt take so many words to make the point =P

rambling is my curse

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Very well said.

In reply to this comment by smooman:
if i may divulge in a bit of an embarassing story:

a few years back i had the cops called to my apartment on a domestic disturbance investigation. I was playing an online game and, as a hardcore gamer, i get into it and, often times, too much into it. I was frustrated and, like a mature adult, decided to punch out my living room furniture and curse and scream. about 20 minutes later i had two cops knocking on my door. i stepped outside and politely conversed with the officers who explained that they had a domestic disturbance call and asked me some questions, namely if i lived alone (i did) and if they could search my apartment. I politely refused consent without a warrant which they then asked me to stay there (outside) while they went to speak with the "witness". after that they came back down, sternly told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. I aggressively voiced my disgust but complied (more on this in a minute). they cuffed me, sat me down, and searched my apartment, inevitably finding no one else in the house at which point they came back outside, stood me up, uncuffed me, apologized for the inconvenience, explained to me the situation (the "witness" swore she heard a womans voice), gave me a card with their sheriffs number should i have any more questions and kindly left me to video gaming nerddom.

now my point is this: when they came back down and ordered me to turn around and cuffed me, i complied because i knew why it was necessary. From their point of view, theyve received a domestic disturbance call of a lot of yelling and banging around and a womans desperate pleas for help (thats the story they got from the dumbshit "witness"). As officers of the law and keepers of the peace it is not only their duty but their obligation to fully investigate. So they arrive to the place, where the suspect comes outside, refuses consent (as is his right) so they move to the next manual bullet: get a sworn statement from witness that would make a no warrant search permissible, which, they did. Now at this point, for all they know there is a woman inside who could be battered and bruised, unconscious, or even dead, and given the context of the investigation, the suspect is a perceived threat. This makes their detainment of the suspect not only necessary to continue the investigation but fully justifiable not only for their safety, but for the suspects own safety and the safety of the neighbors.

now put yourself in the officer in this videos perspective. He's doin a routine stop: crooked license plate whatever, he's gonna give him a hand and fix it, write him a ticket, or just warn him about it so he could fix it at his earliest convenience. But as soon as the driver pulls over, he immediately gets out of his car and approaches the officer hand in pocket. this has now just become a stop that is anything but routine, even tho some of you would insist it is, and as such the officer escalates to protect not only himself, but the driver and anyone else that may be on the road or vicinity (although it appears to be quite isolated, which if thats the case would make for a more vulnerable situation for both the officer and the driver).

TL;DR: any attempt to make a martyr out of the driver and demonize the officer in this particular scenario is misguided at best and retarded at worst

if only it didnt take so many words to make the point =P

rambling is my curse

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Very well said.

In reply to this comment by smooman:
if i may divulge in a bit of an embarassing story:

a few years back i had the cops called to my apartment on a domestic disturbance investigation. I was playing an online game and, as a hardcore gamer, i get into it and, often times, too much into it. I was frustrated and, like a mature adult, decided to punch out my living room furniture and curse and scream. about 20 minutes later i had two cops knocking on my door. i stepped outside and politely conversed with the officers who explained that they had a domestic disturbance call and asked me some questions, namely if i lived alone (i did) and if they could search my apartment. I politely refused consent without a warrant which they then asked me to stay there (outside) while they went to speak with the "witness". after that they came back down, sternly told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. I aggressively voiced my disgust but complied (more on this in a minute). they cuffed me, sat me down, and searched my apartment, inevitably finding no one else in the house at which point they came back outside, stood me up, uncuffed me, apologized for the inconvenience, explained to me the situation (the "witness" swore she heard a womans voice), gave me a card with their sheriffs number should i have any more questions and kindly left me to video gaming nerddom.

now my point is this: when they came back down and ordered me to turn around and cuffed me, i complied because i knew why it was necessary. From their point of view, theyve received a domestic disturbance call of a lot of yelling and banging around and a womans desperate pleas for help (thats the story they got from the dumbshit "witness"). As officers of the law and keepers of the peace it is not only their duty but their obligation to fully investigate. So they arrive to the place, where the suspect comes outside, refuses consent (as is his right) so they move to the next manual bullet: get a sworn statement from witness that would make a no warrant search permissible, which, they did. Now at this point, for all they know there is a woman inside who could be battered and bruised, unconscious, or even dead, and given the context of the investigation, the suspect is a perceived threat. This makes their detainment of the suspect not only necessary to continue the investigation but fully justifiable not only for their safety, but for the suspects own safety and the safety of the neighbors.

now put yourself in the officer in this videos perspective. He's doin a routine stop: crooked license plate whatever, he's gonna give him a hand and fix it, write him a ticket, or just warn him about it so he could fix it at his earliest convenience. But as soon as the driver pulls over, he immediately gets out of his car and approaches the officer hand in pocket. this has now just become a stop that is anything but routine, even tho some of you would insist it is, and as such the officer escalates to protect not only himself, but the driver and anyone else that may be on the road or vicinity (although it appears to be quite isolated, which if thats the case would make for a more vulnerable situation for both the officer and the driver).

TL;DR: any attempt to make a martyr out of the driver and demonize the officer in this particular scenario is misguided at best and retarded at worst

Very well said.

In reply to this comment by smooman:
if i may divulge in a bit of an embarassing story:

a few years back i had the cops called to my apartment on a domestic disturbance investigation. I was playing an online game and, as a hardcore gamer, i get into it and, often times, too much into it. I was frustrated and, like a mature adult, decided to punch out my living room furniture and curse and scream. about 20 minutes later i had two cops knocking on my door. i stepped outside and politely conversed with the officers who explained that they had a domestic disturbance call and asked me some questions, namely if i lived alone (i did) and if they could search my apartment. I politely refused consent without a warrant which they then asked me to stay there (outside) while they went to speak with the "witness". after that they came back down, sternly told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. I aggressively voiced my disgust but complied (more on this in a minute). they cuffed me, sat me down, and searched my apartment, inevitably finding no one else in the house at which point they came back outside, stood me up, uncuffed me, apologized for the inconvenience, explained to me the situation (the "witness" swore she heard a womans voice), gave me a card with their sheriffs number should i have any more questions and kindly left me to video gaming nerddom.

now my point is this: when they came back down and ordered me to turn around and cuffed me, i complied because i knew why it was necessary. From their point of view, theyve received a domestic disturbance call of a lot of yelling and banging around and a womans desperate pleas for help (thats the story they got from the dumbshit "witness"). As officers of the law and keepers of the peace it is not only their duty but their obligation to fully investigate. So they arrive to the place, where the suspect comes outside, refuses consent (as is his right) so they move to the next manual bullet: get a sworn statement from witness that would make a no warrant search permissible, which, they did. Now at this point, for all they know there is a woman inside who could be battered and bruised, unconscious, or even dead, and given the context of the investigation, the suspect is a perceived threat. This makes their detainment of the suspect not only necessary to continue the investigation but fully justifiable not only for their safety, but for the suspects own safety and the safety of the neighbors.

now put yourself in the officer in this videos perspective. He's doin a routine stop: crooked license plate whatever, he's gonna give him a hand and fix it, write him a ticket, or just warn him about it so he could fix it at his earliest convenience. But as soon as the driver pulls over, he immediately gets out of his car and approaches the officer hand in pocket. this has now just become a stop that is anything but routine, even tho some of you would insist it is, and as such the officer escalates to protect not only himself, but the driver and anyone else that may be on the road or vicinity (although it appears to be quite isolated, which if thats the case would make for a more vulnerable situation for both the officer and the driver).

TL;DR: any attempt to make a martyr out of the driver and demonize the officer in this particular scenario is misguided at best and retarded at worst

if i may divulge in a bit of an embarassing story:

a few years back i had the cops called to my apartment on a domestic disturbance investigation. I was playing an online game and, as a hardcore gamer, i get into it and, often times, too much into it. I was frustrated and, like a mature adult, decided to punch out my living room furniture and curse and scream. about 20 minutes later i had two cops knocking on my door. i stepped outside and politely conversed with the officers who explained that they had a domestic disturbance call and asked me some questions, namely if i lived alone (i did) and if they could search my apartment. I politely refused consent without a warrant which they then asked me to stay there (outside) while they went to speak with the "witness". after that they came back down, sternly told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. I aggressively voiced my disgust but complied (more on this in a minute). they cuffed me, sat me down, and searched my apartment, inevitably finding no one else in the house at which point they came back outside, stood me up, uncuffed me, apologized for the inconvenience, explained to me the situation (the "witness" swore she heard a womans voice), gave me a card with their sheriffs number should i have any more questions and kindly left me to video gaming nerddom.

now my point is this: when they came back down and ordered me to turn around and cuffed me, i complied because i knew why it was necessary. From their point of view, theyve received a domestic disturbance call of a lot of yelling and banging around and a womans desperate pleas for help (thats the story they got from the dumbshit "witness"). As officers of the law and keepers of the peace it is not only their duty but their obligation to fully investigate. So they arrive to the place, where the suspect comes outside, refuses consent (as is his right) so they move to the next manual bullet: get a sworn statement from witness that would make a no warrant search permissible, which, they did. Now at this point, for all they know there is a woman inside who could be battered and bruised, unconscious, or even dead, and given the context of the investigation, the suspect is a perceived threat. This makes their detainment of the suspect not only necessary to continue the investigation but fully justifiable not only for their safety, but for the suspects own safety and the safety of the neighbors.

now put yourself in the officer in this videos perspective. He's doin a routine stop: crooked license plate whatever, he's gonna give him a hand and fix it, write him a ticket, or just warn him about it so he could fix it at his earliest convenience. But as soon as the driver pulls over, he immediately gets out of his car and approaches the officer hand in pocket. this has now just become a stop that is anything but routine, even tho some of you would insist it is, and as such the officer escalates to protect not only himself, but the driver and anyone else that may be on the road or vicinity (although it appears to be quite isolated, which if thats the case would make for a more vulnerable situation for both the officer and the driver).

TL;DR: any attempt to make a martyr out of the driver and demonize the officer in this particular scenario is misguided at best and retarded at worst

>> ^burdturgler:

So .. Why do I think the odds of a fireman robbing my business with an axe is zero? Risk of detection. During the crime. Yes, whoever compromises the lockbox may be detected after the crime, but by then my shit is already stolen.

Detection by who? Neighbors? Easy, wear your gear, break down the door. If someone asks what's going on, say "got a report about someone smelling smoke." Stuff the baggy uniform with whatever you like, then walk out and say "false alarm."

>> ^burdturgler:
You know, police have similar methods with weapons, maintaining inventory and control over ammunition and firearms, making authorized personnel sign out for things .. yet innocent people still get shot.

Umm, I'm sure guns and ammo have been stolen from cops, but I doubt it's the leading source of guns used to commit crimes. Besides this is sorta my point, all the precautions in the world won't guarantee you won't get robbed. Even the police get robbed.

You could just as easily wind up burned alive in your house because it took the fire fighters too long to bash down your door. That seems worse than the infinitesimally small added risk that you might get robbed because there was a fire lockbox outside.

>> ^burdturgler:
Besides all that, it's my place. Seriously, do I not have the right to decide who I give the keys to my property? You're literally saying it's OK to rip my keys out of my hand because that's what's in the greater good. I just think, fuck that. It's my place. Use "one of their battering-rams designed for forcibly opening locked doors".

Well, sure, you have the right to give a key to whoever you like. But the thing is, the fire department is legally allowed to enter your home without your permission now, solely on the basis of their own judgement about whether it's warranted or not.

Giving them a key isn't some big change in terms of the limits on your rights to control access to your residence, the legal authorization for the fire department to do their job without your express consent was.

For some reason you're comfortable with them having the legal authority to damage your property and enter your home at will, but not for them to enter your home at will without the property damage.

>> ^burdturgler:
Also, banks do physical security for shit as well. Banks get physically robbed easily and fairly often. Seems like I hear way more about bank robberies than I do about 'thwarted' bank robberies anyway.
Maybe that's just cable "news" though.


Yeah, that's more of a cable news thing. The real wealth of banks is really, really hard to steal these days because it's not kept in cash or in some vault. Bank branches don't really have much of value in them at all.

I mean think about it, do you really think there are physical paper bills for all the dollars in every account everywhere in the world? For even 10%?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^burdturgler:
BTW, pass my congrats on to your banking colleagues for the bang-up job they're doing with security. Thank God there are professionals on the scene to ensure that no one ever gets their private banking information compromised. Whew. What a relief
Banks would completely not give a fuck about safeguarding anyone's personal information if it weren't for government regulations forcing them to. And I can report firsthand that the way management looks on it is something to be done as cheaply and incompletely as the law will allow.
Safeguards against things that could actually result in someone being able to commit fraud or otherwise steal money are in a completely different category, and the object of many millions of dollars worth of security.
>> ^burdturgler:
Odds of a fireman robbing my business with an axe .. zero.
Odds of my business being robbed by someone when my key is available .. greater than zero.
Of course, most crooks would sign out for keys before robbing someone, so you have a good point with the whole paper trail thing.
All jokes aside .. I do love you! .. lol I wonder if I'm slipping to the darkside tbh.

Why do you think the odds of a fireman robbing your business with an axe (or more probably, one of their battering-rams designed for forcibly opening locked doors) is zero? Trust in the fire department? False belief that your door is impervious to such techniques?
The point of the safeguard I mentioned is to make sure that if keys go missing, it's known about immediately. Plus it's a ritual that reinforces the importance of keeping that key secure. Picking supervisors as the only people authorized people who gets them protects against people getting a job at the fire department just to get access to the keys. Putting them in a safe makes sure only the authorized firemen ever have physical access to them.
Is it perfect? No. Better than hanging them on the wall in the firehouse? Absolutely.
Bank security is full of that kind of shit. Logs, log review, tracking, authentication, access control, access review, checks and balances on access reviewers, background checks, etc. Banks do physical security really well, and electronic security about as well as a big organization can, at least when it comes to protecting us against electronic theft that might hurt our bottom line...
But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Fire Department has keys into our offices and server rooms. But then that's definitely true at the Nationwide Insurance buildings downtown where I used to work years ago.
Oh, and I love you too. You've just been sounding like some sort of libertarian lately though, with the "the government is wants to take my keys so they can commit unspeakable evil with them" thing here and "amorally maximizing profit is the only way anything is ever going to work, so stop asking our Galtian overlords to behave ethically" in the other.
Kinda scary!


I was taught by Yoda (schmawy) to never let an argument from one post bleed into another.

So .. Why do I think the odds of a fireman robbing my business with an axe is zero? Risk of detection. During the crime. Yes, whoever compromises the lockbox may be detected after the crime, but by then my shit is already stolen.

You know, police have similar methods with weapons, maintaining inventory and control over ammunition and firearms, making authorized personnel sign out for things .. yet innocent people still get shot. Nothing helps much after the crime is committed.

Besides all that, it's my place. Seriously, do I not have the right to decide who I give the keys to my property? You're literally saying it's OK to rip my keys out of my hand because that's what's in the greater good. I just think, fuck that. It's my place. Use "one of their battering-rams designed for forcibly opening locked doors". Also, banks do physical security for shit as well. Banks get physically robbed easily and fairly often. Seems like I hear way more about bank robberies than I do about 'thwarted' bank robberies anyway.

Maybe that's just cable "news" though (sorry schmawy)

>> ^burdturgler:

BTW, pass my congrats on to your banking colleagues for the bang-up job they're doing with security. Thank God there are professionals on the scene to ensure that no one ever gets their private banking information compromised. Whew. What a relief

Banks would completely not give a fuck about safeguarding anyone's personal information if it weren't for government regulations forcing them to. And I can report firsthand that the way management looks on it is something to be done as cheaply and incompletely as the law will allow.

Safeguards against things that could actually result in someone being able to commit fraud or otherwise steal money are in a completely different category, and the object of many millions of dollars worth of security.

>> ^burdturgler:
Odds of a fireman robbing my business with an axe .. zero.
Odds of my business being robbed by someone when my key is available .. greater than zero.
Of course, most crooks would sign out for keys before robbing someone, so you have a good point with the whole paper trail thing.
All jokes aside .. I do love you! .. lol I wonder if I'm slipping to the darkside tbh.


Why do you think the odds of a fireman robbing your business with an axe (or more probably, one of their battering-rams designed for forcibly opening locked doors) is zero? Trust in the fire department? False belief that your door is impervious to such techniques?

The point of the safeguard I mentioned is to make sure that if keys go missing, it's known about immediately. Plus it's a ritual that reinforces the importance of keeping that key secure. Picking supervisors as the only people authorized people who gets them protects against people getting a job at the fire department just to get access to the keys. Putting them in a safe makes sure only the authorized firemen ever have physical access to them.

Is it perfect? No. Better than hanging them on the wall in the firehouse? Absolutely.

Bank security is full of that kind of shit. Logs, log review, tracking, authentication, access control, access review, checks and balances on access reviewers, background checks, etc. Banks do physical security really well, and electronic security about as well as a big organization can, at least when it comes to protecting us against electronic theft that might hurt our bottom line...

But I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Fire Department has keys into our offices and server rooms. But then that's definitely true at the Nationwide Insurance buildings downtown where I used to work years ago.

Oh, and I love you too. You've just been sounding like some sort of libertarian lately though, with the "the government is wants to take my keys so they can commit unspeakable evil with them" thing here and "amorally maximizing profit is the only way anything is ever going to work, so stop asking our Galtian overlords to behave ethically" in the other.

Kinda scary!

EXTREMELY ROUGH TRANSLATION PART 4 (FINAL)

6:68~7:33

[NARRATOR] An instant before the car sinks, Mr. Muroga fled from the vehicle, barely escaping with his life. We took this opportunity to have him watch the images and give us his thoughts.

[MR. MUROGA] Ah, right at this point. I saw the cars being swept along and thought “It’s a tsunami!”

[NARRATOR] From the left-side of the screen, cars flow past and Mr. Muroga realizes the danger.

[MR. MUROGA] The camera doesn’t capture it, but I could see in the rearview mirror that an even faster tsunami had already arrived behind me.

7:33~8:16

[NARRATOR] These are pictures Mr. Muroga took with his own camera. This picture looking out the back of the car allows us to understand the ferocity with which the tsunami behind him arrived.

[MR. MUROGA] At this time, the cars were crashing into each other with great force and my car began to be battered out of shape.

[NARRATOR] Surrounded by waves, Mr. Muroga decided it was too dangerous to try to leave his vehicle.

[MR. MUROGA] I thought about things like, “Maybe I’ll be able to escape when the water recedes.”

[NARRATOR] However, instead of receding, the water began to churn with even greater intensity.

8:16~8:55

{MR. MUROGA} At this point, the car began to be swept away. I was carried away by the current.

[NARRATOR] The tsunami flowed from the ocean between the buildings, capturing Mr. Muroga’s car like a pincer. Within only 30 seconds his car was completely afloat and slowly drifted along. But after that his car entered the faster part of the current and was dragged along by the tsunami.

8:55~9:20

[NARRATOR] This is the point at which Mr. Muroga, being swept along by the tsunami, escaped from his vehicle.

[MR. MUROGA’S VOICE ON VIDEO] Okay, now!

[MR. MUROGA] I think I jumped from the vehicle at this point. Because water suddenly began pouring inside.

[NARRATOR] Just moments before the car sinks, Mr. Muroga makes his escape through the window he had opened earlier.

9:20~9:55

[NARRATOR] Mr. Muroga’s car was swept approximately 150 meters into the wall of a warehouse before sinking. Mr. Muroga, while being swept along by the current, managed to swim to a nearby building and pull himself from the water. He visits the scene of the accident for the first time since the incident. As he approaches the area where the current was strongest, he notices something.

[MR. MUROGA] Ah, look over there, by the divider. Right there, the curb has been practically erased. Clearly the tsunami did that, no?

9:55~11:16

[NARRATOR] Even now, three months later, the evidence of the tsunami remains. What can we learn from these images? We requested Dr. Imura, a tsunami specialist to analyze them. The first thing he noticed was how quickly the water level rose.

[DR. IMURA] At this point it’s already over 50 centimeters deep and the cars are starting to float. Once that happens, the car is beyond control. The tanker truck has larger [in diameter] tires and isn’t floating yet. And then after the height reaches 1 meter, even trucks begin to float away.

[NARRATOR] Dr. Imura points out that once the water level rises above the height of the tires, the vehicle will begin to float and in a very short time be beyond driver control.

[DR. IMURA] Almost as soon as the tsunami appears before your eyes, your vehicle will begin to float. At that point you should monitor the situation and if the current doesn’t seem too strong and if there isn’t a lot of dangerous debris nearby, you should break your window and leave the vehicle as quickly as possible. Once outside, you should head for the highest area you can find, such as a fence or telephone pole—whatever is available. Grab onto whatever it is and climb as high as you can.

11:16~12:15

[NARRATOR] Also, Dr. Imura points out the difficulty vehicles pose on your ability to hear.

[DR. IMURA] It’s important to remember that the sound of the car will drown out outside sounds and make them harder to hear. The various sounds of a car may make it difficult to hear the approaching tsunami.

[NARRATOR] It is certainly true on the video that you cannot hear the roar of the tsunami approaching over the sounds the car. Mr. Muroga also had this to say about the sound.

[MR. MUROGA] In the video, I think you can see that there are many people lined up on the roof of that building. I’m pretty sure these people were screaming at us to run and get out of there. But none of us in our vehicles noticed them. We couldn’t hear them.

12:15~13:44

[NARRATOR] About trying to escape a tsunami in your vehicle, tsunami specialist Dr. Imura had this to say.

[DR. IMURA] Basically, people who can’t walk well should use a car to try to escape. Those who can walk or run should, in principle, not use their vehicles.

[NARRATOR] Cars being swept along… the might of the tsunami. Mr. Muroga told us that through these images he hopes to educate others about the awful power of the tsunami.

[NEWSCASTER, GRAY SUIT] It seems like Mr. Muroga maintained his calm in a difficult situation. In that part of the city, there are lots of buildings and you can’t see very far, making it difficult to notice the approaching tsunami. Furthermore, as we saw in the video, with the windows rolled up you can’t hear the tsunami approaching either.

[NEWSCASTER, FEMALE] It was very quiet on the video, wasn’t it?

[NEWSCASTER, GRAY SUIT] It had been an hour since the earthquake struck and Mr. Muroga was more than 1km inland, so he didn’t think there was any danger from a tsunami.

[NEWSCASTER, FEMALE] According to our tsunami specialist, it was the first time he had ever seen footage like this taken from within the tsunami.

[NEWSCASTER, GRAY SUIT] It’s very valuable footage. It would be great if many people—everyday people and tsunami specialists—could watch this footage and from it find the means of how to protect themselves and others.