This is pure spin.
Sure, they probably can’t establish exactly were the radio signal came from, but what’s the probability of the boats being there, them dropping things into the water, the radio transmission happening at the time it did, in that place, in that language......?
The fact that they can’t locate the source 100% does not reduce the significance of the transmission; it simply does not add that additional incriminating (for a lack of better words) aspect to it. The media loves to distort. The Commander is not retracting or changing any aspect of the events as they unfolded. He’s simply stating a technical fact; in this case he was not able to direction find the source of the emission. Does that change anything?
Think about it this way. An analogy- A person is murdered at an ATM. The culprit is caught. We have DNA, motive, witnesses, a functional timeline, a sworn confession; BUT, the camera on the ATM did not get a picture of the murderer. Does not having a face shot of the murderer equate to the police not having a case? Does the chief of police stating to the media that he didn’t get a camera shot mean he’s changing his story? Does that cast doubt about what happened?
Key phrase in this article: “casting doubt on the earlier US version of Sunday’s confrontation.”
No it doesn’t. Only in the mind of some idiot that wants to interpret it that way.