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: 21
0
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 03:08 AM
link   
You STILL haven't answered any of my questions. How do you keep everyone on board the ship, in the ship yards, and in the US Congress quiet about the fact that they diverted part of the shipyard, that was in full swing to produce the USN 600 ship fleet at the time, to build a carrier for the RN. A carrier that the US had no experience in building.


[edit on 10-9-2005 by Zaphod58]



M6D

posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   
In fact, an answer to all of the questions would be nicer...instead of slective answering.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 03:27 AM
link   
The survivors of the Invincible, go inmediately to Hermes.
They no see yuoy ship sunking in the night.

In July, in the impossible cross they change to the Illustrious.
And return to UK in the same Illustrious or in the R07.

UK and USA are historic alied.

If UK has a secret, USA not publish it.

For Usa Shipbuilders a Class Invincible carrier is a toy.
With adecuate british managers, they can made this mini-carrier in 18 or 24 months without problems.

A class Essex (double ton, than Invincibles) was made in 24 months.
Non aluminium carriers, more complicated and in 1940.

In the 80¨s the USA build shippers, can made a Invincible in 24 months, working only the week ends
(is a trick
)

The secrets archives of falklands War was closed for 90 years.
It has very important data:
-The lost of Invincible
-The real number of human losses
-The real cost of the corporate operation (that begin as a little pearl harbour and end as a british Vietnam)



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   



The secrets archives of falklands War was closed for 90 years.
It has very important data:


this is priceless...




doh ..i only gone and done it again..please dont feed the trolls



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 03:34 AM
link   
And I thought that the statment about the US workers being fast was the most insane thing I've ever heard. You just topped that. It takes a year to build a DDG, 5 days a week, probably 12-14 hours a day minimum, and you're claiming that they can work weekends and build an Invincible class carrier?! I'm at a total loss for words. What are they gonna do, put it in the drydock on Friday afternoon, and pull it out and put it somewhere else on Monday so they can use the drydock for something else?

As far as keeping quiet, you're also talking journalists, and upwards of 15 THOUSAND people in the shipyards. And now 23 years later NOT ONE OF THESE PEOPLE has said a word about this. NOT POSSIBLE. The crew of the ship, MAYBE, the US Congress, POSSIBLY. The journalists and shipyard workers, NO WAY.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
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]


Dude, I am sure there is something in there that I should respond to...

I just can't understand what you are saying...

what the hell is "platform pope babor"?

I know that the Illustrious and Invincible started out with Phalanx. Invincible had them replaced in 1986 with Goalkeeper and the Illustrious in the early 90's.

Ark Royal hasn't had them replaced.

What I am trying to illustrate is that the position highlighted in your photo is wrong. Where the circle is, is where the Sea Dart was, there never was a phalanx/goalkeeper in that position on any of the three ships, it would be sitting in front of the Sea Dart!!!

So, in short, you are talking twoddle.

Unless you can articulate yourself sufficiently, then I am afraid you are wasting your breath as I cannot understand a bloody word you are saying!



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   
This thread is still alive - wow!!

You say that the crew go to Hermes - and yet Hermes was full for the whole war (all 40 odd days of it)

where do the aircraft go? to the beach? There was no airstrip available for use for operations - and yet the next day , several aircraft were downed , they couldn`t have got them from hermes - no space on theflight deck , and couldn`t get thtme from teh beach as they`re was no operational strip (of any size) nor logistics for the aircraft.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   
You must study a lot, about the history of the Invincible Class light carriers.
And about history, politic, war, missiles and buildshipers.

We give us, excellent data.
But you are a simply trolls about this.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
You must study a lot, about the history of the Invincible Class light carriers.
And about history, politic, war, missiles and buildshipers.

We give us, excellent data.
But you are a simply trolls about this.



Understand I do not, fear to the dark side leads.

And to follow my Yoda impression

"Argentina leads to the Falklands, Falklands leads to arse-kicking, arse-kicking leads to resentment, resentment leads to dillusional fantasies about a victory that never was"

Seriously, I appreciate English might not be your first language, but this is an English language board and it is proving difficult if not impossible to debate with you.

Please...please....try and articulate (or get someone to do it for you) your arguments in an understandable sentence.

I mean this as no offense, but how can you/we try and prove our point when there is no understanding? I am sure you find it as frustrating as we do when trying to get a point accross.


M6D

posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Even worse he calls US trolls! haha gawd damn, i could make a pound or two sellin this topic...



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Ohhh my god !!

Paul Silverstone, said the Illustrious si the R05 !!

No, Paul the Illustrious is the R06 !!

The R05 ??
sunked in 1982...




[edit on 11-9-2005 by 55heroes]



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
Ohhh my god !!

Paul Silverstone, said the Illustrious si the R05 !!

No, Paul the Illustrious is the R06 !!

The R05 ??
sunked in 1982...




[edit on 11-9-2005 by 55heroes]


>puts underpants on head and pencils up his nose<

There we go, I am now almost as stark raving bonkers as you.

Despite numerous proofs to the contrary and a failure on your part to answer questions directed at you, which would pull apart your case, you just continue spouting this ill-thought out rubbish..

Thats it, I'm done here...I refuse to feed the troll anymore. He can bugger off and starve.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I can't believe this thread has over 400 replies that is crazy!



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   
exactly 412, and adding....

Prepare many tea cups because still I did not present but of 20% of the information.

You have something can shot down my simples proof?

I have not seen any still...



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Its going to get many more..
These guys won the ashes..
They're on a high now..



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heratix



The secrets archives of falklands War was closed for 90 years.
It has very important data:


this is priceless...




doh ..i only gone and done it again..please dont feed the trolls



Yup it is priceless..in more ways than one..
You may have just stumbled upon a temporal paradox..
call the ATS experts!!


[edit on 13-9-2005 by Daedalus3]


M6D

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Guess what buddy.....we HAVE shot down your proof, time and time again, learn how to read if you havent realized this small fact by now, you say its only 20 percent of your evidence? guess what, we're only on 5 percent of OUR evidence to refute you.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Here is a model of a Impossible Invincible

-Black towers, and black end chimnes (as the original, lost R05)
-Two Phalanx !! (as the Invincible clon, with grey towers and end chimnes)
-Original R05 position of grua (elevator)
-R05 Number in the first chimne
-Original position of the lifeguard boats

that ship never exist!!

The bristish modeler..isa a lier or a stupid or both ??

external image

The only similar ship with 2 phalanx and black towers, is a R06 Illustrious after 1985.

The two postwar clones after war, had grey towers before 1986.

*adjusted pic size*

[edit on 13-9-2005 by dbates]



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
exactly 412, and adding....

Prepare many tea cups because still I did not present but of 20% of the information.

You have something can shot down my simples proof?

I have not seen any still...


Actually, come to mention it, you have provided your own rope my friend.

See where you have labelled as a Phalanx on the forecastle of the R05...

Well....

Its not a bloody Phalanx you numpty.

That is the Sea Dart mount. Where the Phalanx would be (when fitted) is at the bow, not next to the ski-ramp.


M6D

posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Sinking so low as to using a model for evidence now?!
models are HARDLY 100 percent accurate, not really gonna count as hard proof.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join