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: 27
0
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:27 AM
link   
I'm still waiting to see what you have to say about the fact that I've proven that the Invincible was the smallest of the three, and the other two were the same length. So how did they suddenly cut down the carrier in your previous pics and make it shorter?

As was pointed out to you they are NOT transferring crew in that picture. They are rendering honors as they pass each other. It's very common in the Navy.

Normally, the vessel initiating the salute will organize her not-on-watch crew to "side the decks", with sailors arrayed at the lifelines, regularly spaced, standing at parade rest. As the ships pass, the saluting ship will dip her ensign to half-mast for about four seconds, then smartly raise it to the top of the standard.

That's all fine if the ship being saluted knows ahead of time if honors are to be rendered, (which is usually agreed to via radio beforehand). But if unprepared, the sound of the Watch Officer's voice ringing over the 1MC system, the sprinting of crew in every direction and a hurried "side the decks" in order for the saluted ship to return honors....it's much like General Quarters, but for peaceable purposes.
smokeonthewater.typepad.com...




posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Yes of course, the Lusty is only coming in honour salutation...


Invincible lenght: 194 meters (second short hull)
en.wikipedia.org...

Illustrious lenght: 210 meters (first long hull)
en.wikipedia.org...

Ark Royal lenght: 210 meters (second long hull)
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
As the British cannot oppose ideas or arguments to balance the debate,


You are actually serious, aren't you?

You have signally failed to answer any questions put to you, you have come up with no credible argument to refute said questions, you have ignored eywitness testimony, you have impugned the honour of men who served their nation and flew in the conflict and yet you have the gall, temerity, possibly balls, or, more likely, sheer ignorance, to say your ideas have not been opposed.

55heroes, it is my professional opinion that you are 9 years old.

And when I say my professional opinion, I should point out that I am working pro-bono when I say that, I am taking money from no source and have not compromised my integrity or created a conflict of interests.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:47 AM
link   
EXACTLY! But in your picture you claim that it wasn't the Invincible, because it was shorter than the other one. But if Ark Royal and Illustrious are 210 and Invincible is only 194, the how can that NOT be Invincible.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
Yes of course, the Lusty is only coming in honour salutation...


Invincible lenght: 194 meters (second short hull)
en.wikipedia.org...

Illustrious lenght: 210 meters (first long hull)
en.wikipedia.org...

Ark Royal lenght: 210 meters (second long hull)
en.wikipedia.org...



55heros you can't escape the facts

R05 (Invincible) was designed & built to b 194m long

Both R06 and R07 were designed as 210m long

Thus for R06 to replace R05 they must have chopped of 16m off the end overnight on the way down to the Falklands. Because this would have meant a lot of work including removing and refitting the entire propulsion system (engines driveshaft etc) kind of impossible.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 06:01 AM
link   



Do you know anything about the propulsion system on Royal Navy ships? They have Rolls Royce gas turbines, there is no soot and almost no smoke. The last RN ships to produce soot were probably a pair of Yangtze River gunboats in Hong Kong 60 years ago and then only if they never received a heavy oil (deisel) conversion from coal.

Next you'll be telling us about the soot from Nimitz class carrier...


Actually HMS Fearless was the last heavy oil/steam powered vessel in the fleet, she was in the Falklands so maybe she blew smoke up invincibles pipe?????



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   
The Royal Navy say:
There are only one Invincible "long hull", the R07. Lenght 210 meters
The others two sisters are "short hull" Lenght 194 meters

The RN say that The Illustrious is a shorh hull, batch.
But yn reality is a long hul batch...
Why?

Because the actual Illustrious is the original R07 hull (long)
The new Invincible is the original R06 hull (short)
The actual Ark Royal is a new hull made in secret in the lapse 1982-1985, is a long hull R08

The original R05 short hull sunk in Falklands.

The "argentine theory of the sisters" is very very simple.
And it has a lot of evidency to background it.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
And its time to demolish yet another non existent piece of evidence - HMS Hermes crew. If you bothered to search you'd have noticed that the stats for the Centaur class carrier are the wartime build stats for the light version. The Hermes was extensively modified prior to entering service and her final crew total is 2100

Carrier name HMS Hermes (ex Elephant) Sold and renamed INS Viraat 1986 (India)
Class (Modified Centaur Class)
Type Light Fleet Aircraft Carrier
Ships in Class Albion, Centaur, Hermes, Bulwark, Elephant, Monmouth, Arrogant & Polyphemus
Launched Laid down June 1944. Launched February 1953. Laid up until 1957. Completed November 1959.
Tonnage Displacement: 23,000 tons standard ; 27,800 tons full load
Engines Propulsion: 4 Admiralty 3-drum boilers, 2 shafts, Parsons geared turbines, 76,000 shp
Speed in Knots Speed: 28 knots
Armament Armament: 5 twin Bofors 40 mm ; 4 single 3 pdr saluting guns
Crew Complement Complement: 2100 (including air group)
Range Range: 5,040 nmiles at 20 knots ; 3,500 tons fuel oil
Length (ft/inches) Dimensions: 774.75 oa x 147.9 x 27.8 feet
Beam (ft/inches)
Draught (ft/inches)
Flight Deck length (ft/inches)
Flight Deck width (ft/inches)
Armour Armour: 1 to 2 inch flight deck
Number of aircraft carried Aircraft: up to 28
Fate of carrier Paid off April 1984. Stricken July 1985. Sold to India April 1986. Commissioned into Indian Navy May 1987, formally commissioned February 1989.
Notes Due to differences in completion and refits, the technical details for Centaur and Hermes are listed individually.
Eight ships of the Centaur class were ordered during the second world war as enlarged follow-ons to the Majestics, with more powerful machinery allowing fleet speeds. Four ships (Hermes, Monmouth, Arrogant & Polyphemus) were cancelled in October 1945, the first two of which had been laid down and were broken up on the slipway. To maintain the famous carrier name, one of the ships to be completed, Elephant, was renamed Hermes. Of the four ships completed only the first, Centaur, was completed to the original design with an axial flight deck although a small extension was soon added to allow an angled landing area.

Paid off for conversion to amphibious-assault helicopter carrier at Devonport Dockyard 14 July 1970. Conversion similar to Albion and Bulwark. Recommissioned at Devonport 18 August 1973, replacing Albion.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Look here 55heroes, you're going to have to do more than insert laughing icons and links to geocities sites to get people on your side. I want to believe you since this would make a really interesting story, but I have yet to see any real hard facts on your side. If the HMS Invincible was actually sunk in the Falklands, then how do you explain the one that is sailing around now? It would take 5-7 years to build a new one. Where is the evidence of another short carrier being constructed in a shipyard?

If you could produce some construction information for this "new" Invincible then you might win over some converts to your point of view. If you can't pony-up, then you might as well yell at the wall, because no one here is going to believe you.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
The UK buildshipers and the USA buildshipers can made a Invincible class in 2-3 years, very easy.

The ship who was in trails in 1984 and comisioned in 1985 was very very diferent than the ship launched as the R07 in june of 1981.
There are a lot of diferentes (but both are long hull batch)

The more inexplicable diferent is a grey end of the hull (te part who sail under the water) (in Argentina this part underwater is called "obra muerta")

Is ridiculous that a ship who was launched with a black "obra muerta" was repainting to gray in 1984 and after 1985 again returned to black...

The ship who was launched in 1981 ys very different than the ship who was commisioned in 1985.

Our hypothesis is solid.
Very , very solid.

With or without smilies.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Has it not occurred to you she was refitted in this time? Refits blast the paint to steel and it gets painted on again - likely a new type of anti fouling paint.

If paint colour is your best evidence then you are a sad little person arent you



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
The UK buildshipers and the USA buildshipers can made a Invincible class in 2-3 years, very easy.

The ship who was in trails in 1984 and comisioned in 1985 was very very diferent than the ship launched as the R07 in june of 1981.
There are a lot of diferentes (but both are long hull batch)

The more inexplicable diferent is a grey end of the hull (te part who sail under the water) (in Argentina this part underwater is called "obra muerta")

Is ridiculous that a ship who was launched with a black "obra muerta" was repainting to gray in 1984 and after 1985 again returned to black...

The ship who was launched in 1981 ys very different than the ship who was commisioned in 1985.

Our hypothesis is solid.
Very , very solid.

With or without smilies.

Absolute rubbish! you cannot built an Invincible class in 2-3 years!
it's absolute crap that! No way!!!!! not the size of the ship and also to have the vessel ready for active duty!!!! Never in a month of Sundays! is this possible and don't forget, you are trying to say that one was built to replace the Invincible from the Falklands! how long did that take eh!!!
6 months LOL!!!! what a joke.

L



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Here's a good example of a solid link. Northrop Grumman, the premier naval builder for the U.S. Navy is currently working on a new aircraft carrier (George H. W. Bush). The Keel was laid in 2003 and delivery to the navy won't be until 2008. The full construction time for this carrier is over 7 years. Carriers aren't built over night. On the other-hand, they can strip the paint off a carrier hull in less than an week. Repainting portions of a ship doesn't take much time.

Shhhh! We're building a carrier. Hopefully no one will notice all this support equipment and a whole shipyard full of stuff within the next 7 years.


Psst! Hey guys. I snuck in another piece of the ship in my lunchbox. Quick someone put it together before they notice that the other ship is missing. (Now all we have to do is rebuild the planes that sunk with it, and clone the missing sailors. No one will ever notice)


[edit on 20-9-2005 by dbates]



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Can't believe I have caved into temptation and am responding to this rubbish, but a quick question did spring to mind.

What did the Soviets have to say about this grand cover up by the British?

I mean it was at the height of the cold war and they certainly took notice of events in the south atlantic. It was afterall an opportunity for them to get a look at the RN in action, and the RN were to have had a big role in the Atlantic if the cold war ever went hot.

Sinking a ship, especially a baby carrier, produces a hell of a lot of electronic chatter. "Get us off this fecking ship!" being one of the more popular transmissions I believe. And yet nobody seems to have heard a peep from the Invincible.

So let us assume the Soviets managed to miss this big flashing sign, are 55heroes and the other troll seriously asking us to believe that the Soviets managed to miss a brand spanking new carrier being built in either the US or UK? They most certainly would have known about it. So what possible reason would they have had for staying quiet? What a propaganda coup they could have pulled off, and even if they didn't know about the alleged cover up, they would certainly have noted a new invincible class being built and there would be some reference to it in Soviet archives.

Find that and you start assembling some kind of credible argument, until then carry on trolling.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Didn't you read this thread? Nobody on the ship noticed they were hit, they thought it was a kitchen fire that was forcing the evacuation of the ship onto the Hermes.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Zaphod58, I can't believe you have just said that! I received a substantial sum of money from Her Majesty's Government, on the understanding that I would not disclose that particular fact! A particularly powerful batch of jalapeno peppers was, and still remains, the official version as far as I am concerned.






posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   
What about the Soviet ELINT trawlers and Bears that went south with the TF - don't you think they'd have noticed?



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Soviets are manufacturers and exporters of armament.
The Malvinas conflict was a North-South conflict.
No a West-East conflict.

As simple as Argentina and a small part of Latin America against the rest of the world.

UK has antecedents of concealment of damage military. And in special of concealment of aircraft carrier collapse (HMS-Dasher, 1943)

Off the record Canadian, Russian and Yankees admits that the Invincible was reached about exocet and 3 bombs of 500 lb
Off the record members of Israel armed forces admit that the invincible was sunk and replaced by a sister.

None manufacturer of arms agrees to him to to publish the real facts.

Much less still did of the Falklands to the URSS in 1982 with all of its rebellious nations submissive by the force.
It is directly against commercial and politic interests, very concretes.

No way with URSS



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
"Off the record Canadian, Russian and Yankees admits that the Invincible was reached about exocet and 3 bombs of 500 lb
Off the record members of Israel armed forces admit that the invincible was sunk and replaced by a sister. "

Would this be a case of

A) I've been contacted by a random person claiming to be Canadian / Russian / Yankee / Martian who says she was hit.


OR

B) A list of people I've just made up to conceal the fact that my case is sinking faster than the General Belgrano.

How about links / evidence / photos of the attack etc.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
The infra-red radiation which catch the satellite in the zone of impact began near the 15 hours and finalized to the 20 hours

The emission I move in Southeastern sense towards the zone of TRALA.

Source: "Malvinas, su advertencia termonuclear" by Portela, O´Connell and others.

At least 5 or 6 hours to collapse.

Gral Belgrano sunk in 1 hour.
HMS-Coventry (hit by two bombs 500 lb) sunk in 15 minutes.




top topics



 
0
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join