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: 25
0
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
then the forth ship not the third




posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Why Hermes is with Invincible in those photos??

Hermes returned to UK 3 months before Invincible



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Is true !!
The Bristol, the Invincible and the Hermes in the same photo !!

Excuse me, in two diferents photos !!

To the experts in Falklands war, this situation is impossible.

The Bristol came to Malvinas the 23/5/82...


Lies, and more lies....



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
this photo´s date is the 5/4/82 or the 6/4/82

All the ships are going to Ascension in these photos.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
this photo´s date is the 5/4/82 or the 6/4/82

All the ships are going to Ascension in these photos.



More lies - that picture is from august 1982 - on the task force returning back to the uk , and once again your supposed picture of `Hermes` is photoshopped.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   
No Harlequin
Are not a photoshoped photos.

There three sisters ships Class Sir Galahad, ahead to Hermes.
Three ships for disembarkation of soldiers.



Argentines are not liers.

Ward, cut and edit this photo.
The original Invincible never return to UK
And he (also we) know it

Ward, Tatcher, Woodward, Black and others ...they lay to the british people.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck

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.

BY the Way I AM A WOMAN!
And they never hit the Invincible and it never sunk right!
They did hit a cargo vessel with an exocet but they missed both the Invincible and the Hermes right! they were never hit, do I want to ring the pilots - don't have too OK! met someone off the ship when it sailed home! and guess what !! YES IT WAS IN ONE PIECE!
-
It never got hit and I have seen lots of footage on the Falklands War!

L



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
So if you think you are right, why Ward is a lier??????



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
This is just getting stupid. You've been proven to be lying by showing photos that don't apply and your excuse is that they are actually a different date.

Riiight -has it occured to you that you are either

a) confused and lying
b) mentally ill and delusional
c) just wrong

Look no one is going to hold it against you if you admit you were wrong. All you need to do is admit you didn't hit or sink Invincible despite the best efforts of your pilots (who were very brave nonetheless).

If you're so right, produce one piece of solid evidence to show Invincible being hit or on fire. I note that you have so far relied on no evidence at all to make your claim.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jim30
This is just getting stupid. You've been proven to be lying by showing photos that don't apply and your excuse is that they are actually a different date.

Riiight -has it occured to you that you are either

a) confused and lying
b) mentally ill and delusional
c) just wrong

Look no one is going to hold it against you if you admit you were wrong. All you need to do is admit you didn't hit or sink Invincible despite the best efforts of your pilots (who were very brave nonetheless).

If you're so right, produce one piece of solid evidence to show Invincible being hit or on fire. I note that you have so far relied on no evidence at all to make your claim.



No evidence?

i showed link, books, photos...

only the photo of the book of Ward is enough to you, cause you couldn´t answer why did he lie.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
The photos were photoshopped or were taken after the war and you claimed they were taken before.

You've not shown a single photo of Invincible under attack, damaged or sinking.

You've shown a photo taken post war with 2 escorts that hadn't joined till late June and claimed it was taken in April

You've ignored every single argument put before you and refused to address numerous points.

You're delusional.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
You may be confuse me with "55heroes", all the photos i posted i explained why, who, where and how.

And nobody could say i was wrong.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
The third ship in pic 2 is Invincible not Bristol.


And after you are completely annihalated and shown to be a liar, this is the best you can do?

HMS Bristol is clearly visible in both pictures and as stated above, she did not sail for the Falklands with the TF, but arrived late. So your pictures cannot be of the fleet leaving, as she was never there.

Now bugger off.



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
The third ship in pic 2 is Invincible not Bristol.


And after you are completely annihalated and shown to be a liar, this is the best you can do?

HMS Bristol is clearly visible in both pictures and as stated above, she did not sail for the Falklands with the TF, but arrived late. So your pictures cannot be of the fleet leaving, as she was never there.

Now bugger off.



Exactly L



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jim30
This is just getting stupid. You've been proven to be lying by showing photos that don't apply and your excuse is that they are actually a different date.

Riiight -has it occured to you that you are either

a) confused and lying
b) mentally ill and delusional
c) just wrong

Look no one is going to hold it against you if you admit you were wrong. All you need to do is admit you didn't hit or sink Invincible despite the best efforts of your pilots (who were very brave nonetheless).

If you're so right, produce one piece of solid evidence to show Invincible being hit or on fire. I note that you have so far relied on no evidence at all to make your claim.

I agree,
Why don't you just admit it. I mean the war was 23 years ago now and the Invincible did sail back into Portsmouth after the War.
Like I said, there was a cargo ship that got hit, but none of the carriers were hit (thank the lord) There is no pictures of the Invincible being hit in the Falklands War, but at least have the guts to admit that you are wrong here as we all know the truth


L



posted on Sep, 18 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
No way men!!
The two photos are of 5/4/82

No way
Ward is a lier.

Why?



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Ohhhh my god !!

Here we see one more famous promotonal photo of Royal Navy...




The Lusty sees more lenght....

And is very logical !!!

The NEW Lusty is the original R07 with the mask of the R06 (L, boats, etc)
Retrofitted o camouflage. Of course.


But the length overall of the ship could not be shortened. The camouflage has been incomplete and quite easy to deduce.

The Royal Navy say:

The fifth vessel to bear the proud name. Ark Royal was built by Swan Hunters Ship Builders’ yard at Wallsend in December 1978 and launched by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. HMS Ark Royal was accepted into service on July 1 1985.

HMS Ark Royal is larger than her 2 sisters, Invincible and Illustrious, at 210 metres (683 feet) long. She has a maximum beam of 36 metres (117 feet) and a displacement of 20,000 tonnes.

The link is:
www.royal-navy.mod.uk...

Thank you very much to Miguel, Jorge and Norberto the leaders of ar.groups.yahoo.com...
to give them me to this enormous amount of evidence about the collapse of the Invincible and later multiple spare part of sisters.

[edit on 19-9-2005 by 55heroes]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 02:20 AM
link   
I love all these photos with no way to prove when they were taken, except your word, and the way that your story changes as your arguments get shot down. First it was Illustrious becoming Invinvible, then when that got shot down, it was Ark Royal, despite the fact that when Ark Royal suppsedly became Invincible she didn't have crew quarters, engines, elevators, etc. Now they managed to secretly build all these "spares" to replace them. What happened to the spares? How could they keep so many thousands of people quiet for 23 years? And don't even try that "they paid them to keep quiet" argument. There is no way that EVERY SINGLE PERSON would accept money to keep quiet. I guarantee there would be people that either wouldn't accept it, or would accept it and then turn around and say something anyway. This argument keeps getting funnier and funnier, the more I read. Oh, and I'd still like to see you explain how a ship that didn't even get to the Falklands until after the Invincible was "sunk" could be in the picture with her.

[edit on 19-9-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Sorry. The irish duck, an the leaders of MSG said the final changes were:

New Invincible (R06 renamed), lenght 194 meters
New Illustrious (R07 renamed) lenght 210 meters
New Ark Royal (R08 renamed) lenght 210 meters


I supposed tha the New Invincible was the R07, but in this promotional photo, the L ship have more lenght than the N.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
No way men!!
The two photos are of 5/4/82

No way
Ward is a lier.

Why?


I wonder what Sharky Ward would have to say if he read the number of times you've called him a liar? I realise he's getting on a bit now, but I'm sure he'd snot you one just for the hell of it.

I can only assume the reason you are repeating these mendacities ad infinitum is because you are actually trying to create an internet rumour/urban legend.

The single best argument you can come up with is that the UK is rich and can afford to a) build a carrier in secret, or have the Yanks do it for them. And b) The Uk is rich and can afford to pay off all the people involved in the construction of said carrier to keep them silent.

If the carrier was built in the UK then why was there not a sudden increase in spending in a single UK port city following this massive injection of cash in 1982. Those port cities are the most economically depressed regions of the UK. They are now and they were then.

If the carrier was built in the US and the people were paid off to buy their silence why has this never appeared in US media? Ever? The US is the home of conspiracy theories. The US gave us the X-Files. The US gave us Area 51, Hangar 18 and Roswell. The US also have a constitutionally guaranteed right to Free Speech. The US is also the home of Deep Throat and Watergate.

And why have you refused to answer any question to do with money. If your wild claims are true then be a REAL investigative journalist, follow the story, the money and the people and write a book.

Still, all of this is coming from a bargy Argie and Ken Lukowiak told us all about them.

After arriving in Port Stanley and proceeding to the temprorary prison area he was confronted with a smug, self-important Argentine green beret. Now Luke was a Para, hates anything in a green beret, especially RMs. He's not taking crap from an Argy green beret, not even an officer. He snatches the beret off the officer's head and finds a 9mm bullet sewn into the lining.

Luke: "What's this for?"

Argie: "It is for honour. When I run out of ammunition, that is so I will not be captured."

Luke: (In total disbelief) "Then what are you doing here?"



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join