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: 24
0
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 04:41 PM
link   
please dont feed the trolls..it interfere`s with the keepers food and upsets there stomach`s




posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You always seem to ignore the question about how they hid the money, and kept thousands and thousands of people quiet about building a new ship.



That´s too easy to do.

Money??? uk have lot of money, your quesion is just stupid.
And with money you can solve all your problems, and you can pay that "thousands of people" you mention.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by vinciR05
The Invincible was never SUNK in Argentina, She sailed back from the Falklands in 1982 and I was there to see it. She was in tact, and she had been fired at in the WAR! but was never hit. She does still have the number R05 (believe me) and I was only on board six weeks ago. WE built the ship HMS Invincible and I can tell you that there has only been ONE Invincible which is a through-deck Cruiser and one with RO5!

Not sunk Never! and I should know for sure.
L



No way man!!! it was hit!!!!!!

do you want the telephone of the pilots who atacked it?, i can give them to you to ask them.


After it was hit, it sunk.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
britains-smallwars.com...



30th May 1982.
1331 hours.
Two Super Etendards and four A-4C Skyhawks from FAA Grupo 4 attack task group from south. Two A-4s destroyed probably by Sea dart fired from HMS Exeter. HMS Avengers 4.5inch gun also claimed one of the aircraft. Both pilots, Lt. Varquez and Lt. Castillo, are killed.


Your attack , which you claim to have sank the carrier , was intercepted and destroyed.

I have also spoken to an Able Seaman who served on invincible in 1982 , and he just simply states that what you spouting is complete rubbish.

There is enough evidence , on reputeable websites (and the multitude of books) to completely refyte what you say.






Look this link...

THE ATTACK TO THE HMS INVINCIBLE



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   
How do you explain this?...


Arrivals to Porstmouth, this are the last ships in ariving there after the war:

CV Invincible; DD Bristol; FR Avenger, Andromeda, Penelope; MCMS Brecon, Ledbury and support ship St Helena; Ambulance ship Hydra
www.naval-history.net...


Can you see in this photo the ships i ´d put at the top?




external image


No, because this photo is not of the arriving, in this book they lie. The photo show us when the Task Force went to the Falklands not when they were coming from the war.

the author of the book, Ward (member of the tripulation of the Invincible) is a big liar.
Why did he lie?





Why a hero of the Falklands War is a big lier?








And here we have...




IF YOU SEE WELL (BE CAREFUL POPEYE), HERMES IS BEHIND.

HERMES AND INVINCIBLE ON SEPTERMBER 17 1982???
What did you smoke Ward???hahaha







What a lier!!!







posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Know what is funny?
This is simply 2 pilots vs some 1000 plus crewmen....
Tell me if I said that 2 harrier pilots took out the entire argentinian fleet with 2 J-Damms and 1 Exocet, then it would be the same arguement.

That picture shows only 1 carrier, those behind it are supply ships or something larger, superstructure is wrong, look at them.

If it was a carrier you would see the deck, also you can see the superstructure on the ships quite clearly on that nice zoomed in image.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Know what is funny?
This is simply 2 pilots vs some 1000 plus crewmen....
Tell me if I said that 2 harrier pilots took out the entire argentinian fleet with 2 J-Damms and 1 Exocet, then it would be the same arguement.

That picture shows only 1 carrier, those behind it are supply ships or something larger, superstructure is wrong, look at them.

If it was a carrier you would see the deck, also you can see the superstructure on the ships quite clearly on that nice zoomed in image.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]


No man is the Hermes.
And if you can´t see it who cares!!

in the first photo Ward is saying it returning and is not.

He is a lier.

And any of the argentines pilots would write a book like ward has wrote.
They are heroes not liers like Ward.





posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
No man is the Hermes.

Hermes is a diffrent design and size of the invincible, there are no carriers except invincible there.


And if you can´t see it who cares!!

Yes who cares, its not me YOU I am trying to convince, its anyone who might be ignorant enough or even mistaken believe you.


in the first photo Ward is saying it returning and is not.

How not?
I see no proof otherwise.


He is a lier.

Says you, and I say those 2 pilots are liars.


And any of the argentines pilots would write a book like ward has wrote.
They are heroes not liers like Ward.

They would , I have 0 doubt of this.
They are heroes I agree, but so is ward and any serviceman in the falklands.





Ignorance is bliss....

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   
if you say which FAA pilots liars...
Ward never write the book... was an UK troll...
lier troll with too much money to edit and print the book, and silence communications media for 23 years.
Our FAA no have money in 1982 and much minus today...
but ever was honourable people. these dead as little birds... but no lies



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   
TheIrishDuck and 55heros i suggest you leave devilwasp to rant byhimself.

He has a tendency to lead people off-topic and stuck you in with dis-information



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
TheIrishDuck and 55heros i suggest you leave devilwasp to rant byhimself.

He has a tendency to lead people off-topic and stuck you in with dis-information

With respect china, thats your opinion....as I have said before everything I say is truthful.
Look at the photos...you can see with your own eyes if you dont believe mine.
BTW, if you have a problem with me take it up with me by U2U, dont come and hijack a thread.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Here this the original photo of the convoy in April of 1982.



And an extra gift, the same convoy in April of 1982, at another moment.




thank you very much to the leaders of ar.groups.yahoo.com...
by to have given these forceful evidences to me.

We contributed to evidences and the british trolls...they contributes with lies, insults ridicules and absurds discriminations.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Boy you have incredible eyesight if yoiu can see Phalanx in those pictures, to prove that it wasn't Invincible. I thought *I* had good eyesight.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Can you spell "desperation"?

BRISTOL did not leave the UK until late in the war, so how can she be in a photo at the beginning of the war? - Time travel? You'll note she's been joined by a Seawolf modified Leander in that photo (I think its Charbydis, but could be wrong). There were no Seawolf leanders deployed with the initial task force and the admirals were on record as saying how desperate the situation was with only 2 seawolf equipped ships in the initial task force (Broadsword and Brilliant). `How come they didn't mention the seawolf Leander? Because the ships didnt get there till the end. Thats why the photos were taken at the end of the war.

Its actually a wonderful piece of evidence to demolish your insane argument. The picture doesnt show a single escort ship that was in the task force at the start of the war with invincible. How is that possible? Possibly because the phot was taken in about June 1982.

As for the Hermes being in the picture - impossible as Hermes had already sailed for the UK at this point. What you are seeing is a patch of water and the superstructure of a frigate merged together. If Hermes were in the picture then she would be signficantly more visible as there is no way the smoke stack of a few escorts could make her profile disspear. That and the fact that the so called carrier looks nothing like Hermes - maybe because its not a carrier.

To be fair, your total lack of ship knowledge and recognition skills is fairly typcial of argentinians. No wonder you thought you'd sunk a carrier if you can't tell the difference between water and a ship./

As for paying the locals - could you explain how the UK government kept its darkest secret when it handed out lots of money to one of the poorest areas in the UK? Did they say "We want you to be queit and not admit a carrier is missing and by the way here's £5000 for your troubles"? If so then you are insane. There were no payments as no carrier was lost. We're not some third world tinpot dictatorship who abducts people on the streets (unlike Argentina) we have democracy. In democracy secrets leak, it would be impossible to conceal the loss of a carrier in this way.

To date you have claimed that

a) The carrier was sunk
b) The entire crew did not know their ship had been hit and were airlifted off at night in one of the greatest maritime evacuations ever.
c) HMS ILLUSTRIOUS was rushed south to become HMS INVINCIBLE
d) HMS ARK ROYAL was sent to act as a helo platform.
e) A replacement was constructed in total secrecy in the USA in under 2 years.
f) LArge payments were made to over 70,000 people to keep this a secret.

To prove this you have provided the following in evidence:

a) A picture of the ships mast which was painted grey
b) Some random photos of the post war task force which you claim were taken in April
c) Err, thats it.

You have not supplied any photos of the attack, you have not provided any evidence to support your view. You have ignored every question thrown your way as you are unable to answer them.

Your arguments are as pathetic and false as your claim to the Falkland Islands.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   
`the irish duck` that photo that you claim is hermes has been edited , anyone can copy the image and put it in photo shop and you can see the pixelation of where it has added.


FAKE.


once again i state - at least 1 person has said they served on the ship in 1982 and it wasn`t sunk. The attack was shot down (gun camera footage shows this)


The 2 of you continue to reiterate the same rubbish time and again - i do beleieve you have been banned from another forum for carrying on with the same retoric which has been disproved.


So where is the wreck (if it has been sunk) as you claim? And you seem to ignore the fact that 1 exorcet and 3 small bombs cannot sink a carrier - especially since 2 of the aircraft were shot down using SAM`s (which is stated in your own archives) and the others were chased away, the mirage went to burner and the A4`s went NAPE.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   
yup it seems that these 2 trolls are creating the same argument in my beloved ATS as other similar sites..i dont think i am allowed to post links to these forums but all i need say is type irish duck or 55 heroes into google...
there on the first page is the forums they have trolled before...and watch out for some1 called arkantos(i think this might be 55heroes alter ego..he seems to have the same figerprint..lots of silly smilies)

they got slammed on all of these forums as well



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 07:59 AM
link   
I can't see the HMS-Bristol in both photos.
HMS-Bristol is a single (only one ship) class 82, cruiser.

No, there´s not edition in both photos.
Ward cut a first in your book.

Both complet photos are in a lot of magazines, books and web pages.

Both photos are relatively famous, and both were taken in april of 1982.


Money and intimidation, can buy the silence.
As in the HMS-Dasher affaire, for more 40 years.

The argentine extraofficial reclamation is logic and solid.
There are a lot a evidences.


R08 is very, but very very very different than R07.

Impossible to say ....ohhh but is the same ship!!



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Near 500 replies and near 8000 reads.
A solid reclamation, is here.

There are trolls in this thread?
Of course
British trolls, that they want hide the sun with the hands.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
I can't see the HMS-Bristol in both photos.
HMS-Bristol is a single (only one ship) class 82, cruiser.



Then you are blind:



notice the rather LARGE radar? that kind of gives it away

now look at the photos

(second ship in pic 1 and third ship in pic 2)

that is HMS Bristol



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
The third ship in pic 2 is Invincible not Bristol.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join