It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

HMS Invincible sunk in 1982

page: 20
0
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Thanks for proving our point. Look at the bows, they're not similar to each other. The Invincible doesn't have a Phalanx in that picture. I even blew it up in Paintshop, and there's nothing there.




posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Of Course, the R06-HMS Illustrious had a lovely Phalanx in estribor/proa




But, the HMS-Invincible82 (original R05)had not a Phalanx before a end of 1982 refit.

And then...why this phantom ship had a Phalanx in estribor/proa??




Please. help us.
Wich ship, is the phantom ship?
The R06 or the R07 ??

It looks as a new carrier, not a carrier with more than 3 month after the end of teh war...


A carrier 90 days sailing with more than 1000 tripulants, withouth commision (The R05 Invincible, never was a admiral ship) is a stupid and non presentable argumentation.

The original carrier was sunked the 30/5/82...the lier Tatcher made a stupid history.
Because the british citizen, can´t support other lose ship.
The lier tatcher and woodward, never admit sunked carriers.

For this reason, the sister of HMS-Hermes, the HMS-Bulwark was peraparing in secret, for replace the Hermes if UK lose the Hermes.

The same case for the R05, but in this case, there were two sister, the R06 and the R07.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Once again, please explain how somewhere around 20,000 people would know about this ship being built and NOT ONE OF THEM say a word about it for over 20 years please.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   
This is a official photo of 17/9/82
It is in a lot of british web pages.
Books and magazines.
Everybody can zoomed the official photo, and see the phalanx.

everybody arround the world, can zoomed and see the other phalanx in proa.

Everybody can see that tacher was a lier, and see that the R05 HMS-Invincible never returns tu UK.
Because an exocet and three 250kg bombs destroyed that ship, who was burning for more than 5 hours in the afternoon and night of the 30/5/82 and sunk later.

is the true history
no the tatcher´s reelection history.

We can expulse the stupid and lier dictator galtieri in 1982
But you, can´t expulse the stupid and lier Tatcher.

The political situation was the same, than the 1/4/82.
The brits losed thousand of millons of dollars, 8 ships, copters and harriers.
A lot of ships, were destryed but they can return (as glasgow, glamorgan, sir tristan, and others)

In the war, nobody win.
The lie win.

Not in the case of the R05 HMS-Invincible


M6D

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:06 AM
link   
Answer the damn questions, and stop avoding them, your simply trying to use the same come back again adn again, and it isnt working because that come back DOESNT answer our questions, answer them or youve lost the argument and you can get lost.


M6D

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
This is a official photo of 17/9/82
It is in a lot of british web pages.
Books and magazines.
Everybody can zoomed the official photo, and see the phalanx.

everybody arround the world, can zoomed and see the other phalanx in proa.

Everybody can see that tacher was a lier, and see that the R05 HMS-Invincible never returns tu UK.
Because an exocet and three 250kg bombs destroyed that ship, who was burning for more than 5 hours in the afternoon and night of the 30/5/82 and sunk later.

is the true history
no the tatcher´s reelection history.

We can expulse the stupid and lier dictator galtieri in 1982
But you, can´t expulse the stupid and lier Tatcher.

The political situation was the same, than the 1/4/82.
The brits losed thousand of millons of dollars, 8 ships, copters and harriers.
A lot of ships, were destryed but they can return (as glasgow, glamorgan, sir tristan, and others)

In the war, nobody win.
The lie win.

Not in the case of the R05 HMS-Invincible


Id still like you to answer how wed pay for a new carrier exactly genius?

by the way, the genius was heavily encrusted in sarcasm just if you wanted to know.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
The brits losed thousand of millons of dollars, 8 ships, copters and harriers.
A lot of ships, were destryed but they can return (as glasgow, glamorgan, sir tristan, and others)

In the war, nobody win.
The lie win.

Not in the case of the R05 HMS-Invincible


All the Argentines lost was the war and Galtieri lost a country. You still haven't recovered from the fiasco.

Oh, wait, now I see why you're belaboring the point. Duh! Stupid me.

When the Ottoman Empire lost WW1 they kicked out the government and founded modern Turkey. The annual ANZAC Day service is attended by three nations, Turkey, Australia and New Zealand (with some Brits) and three major faiths, Islam, Christianity and some Jews. That's called reconciliation based on a recognition of history.

Read Ken Lukowiak's book. The Argentine's are still trying to blame the UK for what happened to them. It was your own damn fault. Your men died because of Argentines. Your airforce was shot down without a victory to its credit because of Argentines. Your cruiser was sunk because of Argentines and your conscripts were killed at Goose Green, Longdon etc because of Argentines.

You're like the Japanese, successive governments have refused to face the truth or force the people to face the truth.

No wonder you can go on like this.

...and "expulse"?

Wasn't that an RN Battlecruiser?



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:45 AM
link   
There is a new scientific report regarding radiation levels in BA (after the bomb) - so if you live in BA be prepared to be shocked.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
Of Course, the R06-HMS Illustrious had a lovely Phalanx in estribor/proa




But, the HMS-Invincible82 (original R05)had not a Phalanx before a end of 1982 refit.

And then...why this phantom ship had a Phalanx in estribor/proa??






The second picture is Invincible's Sea Dart mount, by the way objects in black and white photos show up as white not grey blobs

Thus it proves it is Invincible

[edit on 9-9-2005 by Popeye]



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   
No, the Sea Dart SAM Plattform was in the center of the ship, and behind the platform of the canon Phalanx.

Is very easy to see, the protector (radomo) of the radar's phalanx.

Both photos are shooting in the same angle, and you can see that is a Phalanx.

But, please, help us...


Which ship return to UK the 17/9/82?
The R06 o the R07?

In more than 90 days, the Royal Navy can change the set-ups of the carriers, several times.
Setups as position of lifeguards boats, position of elevator (grua), paint "N" in pope and others minimal details.

If this phantom ship was the R07, give my congratulations to the Buildshipper Swan Hunter!!
They has made a very rushed work, to finish a transport ship.

But if this ship is the R06, it´s no return to Swan Hunter (as says the official tatcher´s history) It returns to fallklands.
And returns in november as R06.
There was a lot of time to made changes in the set-ups

But the stupidity that return with Phalanx...


M6D

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   
And yet again, i ask you, to answer how britain would be able to afford a new carrier, bout time you answered the question hmm troll? in fact, its TWO questions youve failed to answer, it looks like your avoiding the questions if anything, so give us an answer a 100 percent foolproof, because your argument still has no ground.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
An Invincible Class is a micro-carrier for USA.
Onli comparable with the discontinnued Clas Iwo Jima.

In the Falklands war, USA plays a double game.
One as member of the TIAR (tratado interamericano de asistencia reciproca)
The second rol was as historycal alied (for culture, blood and other reasons)of UK.

Malvinas was planned for tatcher and reagan, a little Pearl Harbour.
They knows our plain to recuperation of our Islands.
But nothing were made.
They think that the reusurpation will be easy, a picnic.
A easy propagand to Royal Navy, and the impopular Tatcher (ultra right conservator as Reagan)
But the history was other.
In the end of may, UK loss hundred of soldiers an a lot of ships.
innaceptable for englishmen and engliswomen.
She was crazy and without control.
And decides to nuclear attac to argentine civil citys, to win a war at this cost.

Reagan as american country (and as coautor that plain for a new little Pearl harbour) can not acept thata choise.
The pape Juan Pablo II intercept as mediator.

USA offer a Iwo Jima class to replace the lost Invincible.
But this was inaceptable for Tatcher, that wil be lose the reelection in this situation.
The strategy of both alied USA and UK made a change.
And here is the explication of the base of the "Teoria de los gemelos".

UK not accept the dammage and loss of the Invincible, rush teh completion of R06 and R07, New Invincible and New Illustrious renamed.
And USA build in secret the fourth class Invincible the Ro8 or new Ark Royal
(very different than the UK Class Invincible R05 sunked and R06 and R07)

The R08 had for example upgrades in 1984, that the R07 had not, and the colour is diferent.
Thiis upgrades for example was in the 1991 refit of the New Illustrious, 7 years later, out of a logical sequence.

For USA-UK 300 millions of dolar, are a misery money in comparation with the costs of a nuclear war or the damage in the honor of the OTAN.

This honor was very affect after the sunk of HMS-Sheffield and are in total crisses after the lost of Invincible (Sheffield-Ardent-Antelope-Coventry-Atlantic Conveyor, was losed before)

The replace of sunked Invincible was a plain B, of USA-UK an other fabricants of armament and promotors of conflicts in the North Hemisfery.

The cost was nothing against the risk.

The mini carrier ASW-Vstol, was a toy in comparative with USA supercarriers.
Or supercarriers sovietcs.
Or inclusive a half displacement of the France Clemenceay Class or DeGaulle Atomic Class.
Or inclusive in comparative with the porta helicopters and assault ships USA Tarawa and the new Class WASP.

A little porta helicopter, cheap and easy to made.
For USA a play of children.

And this is the true history.

For more evidences you can register an read this site (an expert group of historical investigation)

ar.groups.yahoo.com...

The leader of the historical investgation is the son of the official of the Argentine Navy (ARA or Armada Argentina) who was found and was the first chief of the "Taller de armado de misiles de la ARA in Puerto Belgrano"in 1968/69
The same taller who put in combat the AM-39 Exocet ASM and the MM-38 Exocet SSM (who destroy the HMS-Glamorgan, launched in a improvised terrestre platform in malvinas).

In this gruop are a lot of experts that confirm the lose of the Invincible and replace for sisters, after 3 years of exhaustive investigation.

The group is very famous in Argentine, and have a radial program in AM and the web (www.AM650.com.ar)

And I recomend thar you read all the abrumators arguments in this site.


M6D

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Only comparable to a Iowa Jima class? do you know how much those even COST?

do you have any concept of the idea that the US would NOT despite what you would love to believe pay for a new carrier....plleassee...theyyve gone behind our back many times (no ofense USA) but the friendship has never been as strong as it looks until recently, america basically almost made us cancel our TSR-2 program, (vertually) and id love for you to prove your theory, yes thats right, so far your evidence is still theory.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes

Malvinas was planned for tatcher and reagan, a little Pearl Harbour.
They knows our plain to recuperation of our Islands.
...

She was crazy and without control.
And decides to nuclear attac to argentine civil citys, to win a war at this cost.

Reagan as american country (and as coautor that plain for a new little Pearl harbour) can not acept thata choise.
The pape Juan Pablo II intercept as mediator.



This just too much in cloud cuckoo land

No way would a British leader lauched a nuke attack, the country would never have accepted such a move ... we were at the time living in a democrarcy with a vocal (especially the anti-nuke) lobby opposition. The media was free to report and opinionate asd it pleased (apart from the BBC which is bound to impartiality)

The same cannot be said of Argentina subject to military dictatorship ruining the country ruthlessly murdering any opposition and suppress any dissent in the media force feeding the population of propoganda so they did not know what the truth is ... I have friends in BA and it was known the only way to find out the truth was by listening to the BBC world service ... luckily most people in Argentina still had a questioning mind and did not buy into all the junta's BS ... as always unfortunately there were those who were that desparate they believed anything they were told.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
No, the Sea Dart SAM Plattform was in the center of the ship, and behind the platform of the canon Phalanx.


If you are correct then the sea dart is missing (which was not removed until much later as behind it is the flight deck also the scale is wrong if you look at the size of the men near the phalanx on illustrious and on invincible


M6D

posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Popeye is very right, how could you even hide a nuclear launch? russia, NATO, USA, all have satalites on orbit that would detect the nuclear blast easily, such a decision wold be suicidal against the penalities youd get, in fact, even firing a nuclear missle at such a time is a very radical move that no british goverment would make. dont forget, its not just the priminister, the millitary can still say no.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
You still haven't answered the question of how you keep ALL the media, surviving crew members, and the THOUSANDS of people in the shipyards quiet. Or for that matter, how the US had room to build one considering it was right in the middle of them building up to a 600 ship navy. Congress would have had to have been told they were diverting construction for a Royal Navy ship and if there's one thing anyone in the US knows, it's if you want a secret leaked, you just tell Congress.

You're blind if you can't tell that's a missile launcher. As crappy as that picture is, you can clearly see the long straight rails of a missile launcher, there is NO big round dome on top of it, it's nice and flat at the top. That is definately NOT a Phalanx system.

[edit on 9-9-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
Ohh my god !!

Here is a official photo of the ship the 17/9/82





And here is a official photo of the R06 HMS Illustrious




[edit on 9-9-2005 by 55heroes]


You just buggered up there, my Argie friend.

look at where you are indicating the Phalanx to be and now compare it to this picture.

You will see that you are circling the Sea Dart. The Phalanx (when fitted, I think this is the Goalkeeper in this pic) was at the bow:




[edit on 10/9/05 by stumason]


M6D

posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 02:12 AM
link   
It appears the troll is rapidly losing ground due to the fact his argument is flawed...horribly, not to mention he still hasnt come up with plasuible explanations to our question, please, america pay for a british carrier?! i think not, they would never approve.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Stumason, you are easy

In ar.groups.yahoo.com... we are experts in Invincible class VSTOL light Carriers...


You are show me the HMS-Ark Royal (R08 for us an the yankees, and R07 in the tatcher´s false history)
Before the latest refit (Sea Dart out)

The HMS-Ark Royal is different than the other sisters, because has three Phalanx (center proa, mid platform estribor and platform pope-babor).
Thsi ship was made in USA, with this configuration of canons.
The Ark Royal, never had two phalanx ort three goalkeepers (as ours sisters)

The R06 HMS Illustrious had two Phalanx (estribor -pope and estribor proa, that shows this photo) after the 1991 refit, it has thre golakeeper in replace of the two phalanx, but in the same position of Ark Royal.

The R05 had not Phalanx in Falklands.

Your replace sister had two phalanx in the same position of the original position of the Illustious, after Falklands

In the 86/89 refit change to three golakeepers in the same position, that Ilustrious after 1991 and the Ark Royal has yours phalax since 1984.

In the grey photo you can see a phalanx in proa-estribor
In the phantom ship who arrives the 17/9/82.
This phantom and new ship, is the R06 or the R07, boyh made for Swan Hunter.

The R05 Invincible82 losted in Malvinas, was made in Vickers, and never had phalanx, because the ARA and the FAA sunked the ship before the refit.

You must study a lot about Invincible Class Light Carriers, and not wash your brain with stupid tatcher´s lies.

I am saying that tatcher and woodward are stupid liers.

But I not think that the englishmen and the engliswomen are liers and stupids.
I think that you are good people very intelligent and very interesant.

As us, not better.

[edit on 10-9-2005 by 55heroes]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join