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: 39
0
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
And...in the Stern?
In stern, only the base of the Phalanx.
With cover, of course.



Other photo of the Clean Clon:





posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   
that looks more like the vehicle which moves the aircraft


why didnt the RN dismantle the phalanx before reaching portsmouth if they were trying to disguise the Illustrous as Invincible and not to mention that the "new" invincible had suddenly grown by 16metres



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mojouk
is a cancelled program.... UK know which not is a good option.
the fear to lost a supercarrier is present in your minds.
some argentinian general can play to sunk your newest carrier


Does anyone understand what 55 has written above because i havent got a clue


He seems to honestly believe that the UK has cancelled the FCV project.

What a joke!

The program is going full speed with construction due to start next year! To cancel it now would mean a huge loss to the MOD, as I am sure the contracts will have been signed by now, at least in principle and to pull out would be disasterous!



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I can not see the vehicle...
I can not see photos in high resolution of the return of the clean clon.

If the clean clon is R06, is a short hull (194m ) as the Vince sunk
But if the clean clon is the R07 is a long hull (210 m)

The final replaces (after 1983) were:
R06 x R05
R07 x R06

But we cannot affirm that clone you used in the false return of the Invincible



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
55 Heroes, it appears that teh scar remains over the Falklands, and lies within you and this is why you needed to post this topic.
The war was 23 years ago now, it's time to let go and admit as we all know that HMS Invincible was never sunk.
-
I was 14 years old when I first boarded the Invincible, just like the Portsmouth skyline, the Invincible was my skyline, so much that I drew pictures from my school window. This was for 3 years and each day I watched the ship being built up. My family worked on the Invincible and my friends. In other words! they built Vinci!
There are questions on here, that you have not answered because you can't answer as you know that it's just "sour Grapes" on the Argies side!
-
The one question I have, is, how old were you when the Falklands War was on, just a child because you seem to be still young now ?????

The RN could never keep anything like this a secret and it would of hit the news BIG STYLE! IN 1982 if this had of been the case, but now to state the obvious again as we know it never happened.
There will be no crew from the Invincible to come forward who have apparently survived such a trauma, the crew that served her in the Falklands arrived back safely with the Ship!

Like others have stated, I too have no Idea what you go on about sometimes.

L



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
The FCV project has not been cancelled, I agree!


L



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
The ships are armed with a variety of weapons. As built, they had two 20 mm Oerlikon GAM-B01 guns, which they retain, and the Sea Dart surface-to-air missile mounted on the forecastle. Because of lessons learnt during the 1982 Falklands War, CIWS guns were added to the design. Illustrious having them fitted at the last minute before commissioning, Ark Royal had them added as a normal part of the building process, and Invincible had them fitted during her first overhaul after the Falklands. Initially, Invincible and Illustrious were fitted with two Vulcan Phalanx units; these have since been replaced with three Goalkeeper systems. Ark Royal on the other hand has the three Phalanx CIWS systems she was fitted with when built (she can be easily told from her sisters by Phalanx's distinctive white "R2-D2" radium). Electronic countermeasures are provided by a Thales jamming system and ECM system. Seagnat launchers provide for chaff or flare decoys. As part of upgrades during the mid 1990s, all three ships had the Sea Dart removed, with the forecastle filled in to increase the size of the flight deck.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mojouk

Originally posted by Arkantos

Originally posted by Jezza
If it was sunk well where is the proof.

Lets have the co-ordinates of the sinking and send a salvage team
to send a mini sub to take pictures.......pure and simple.

They found the titanic................



Lat. 51º 42' S, Long. 55º 30' W

Go for it!!



i see 55s alt personalty is back, if the lat and long is known why has noone dived down there or sent a robotic sub down to find the wreck



That lat and long is for the attack, the ship could moved a few kilometers, we don´t know.
The divers costs millions, can you bring them for free?



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
And...in the Stern?
In stern, only the base of the Phalanx.
With cover, of course.



Other photo of the Clean Clon:



This looks more like a dock yard! with cranes and vehicles!
certainly not the flightdeck of the Invincible!
hence the hazy look photo's that always appear
lacking the evidence as per usual!

It's obviously a bitter pill to swallow



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
And...in the Stern?
In stern, only the base of the Phalanx.
With cover, of course.



Other photo of the Clean Clon:



This looks like a Dock Yard with cranes and vehicles,
not the Flightdeck of the Invincible,
hence the fuzzy photo's as per usual
you've never produced any photo's of any significance
and please DO NOT refer to our Ship as a "Clon"
She is HMS Invincible always was and still is.


L



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
I can not see the vehicle...
I can not see photos in high resolution of the return of the clean clon.

If the clean clon is R06, is a short hull (194m ) as the Vince sunk
But if the clean clon is the R07 is a long hull (210 m)

The final replaces (after 1983) were:
R06 x R05
R07 x R06

But we cannot affirm that clone you used in the false return of the Invincible

You cannot see the vehicle
You cannot see photo's in high resolution

MMMMM!!! so therefore, you cannot tell us what you are really looking at


You just tripped yourself up there



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   
i think it is the Invincible you can see the tug in the background, but there is no way that is a phalanx gun its square the wrong colour and is not high enough to be the gun



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
As I pointed out earlier, I still stand by the fact that this was nothing more than a propaganda attempt by Argentina at the time. What's laughable is that there are still people out there who are willing to believe the propaganda of a war fought over 20 years ago. Those from Argentina who still believe the rants of the mad-man known as Leopoldo Galtieri need to wise-up.

During the war of 1982, Leopoldo Galtieri controlled all radio, televisions, and press in Argentina. No surprise since he'd already had all opposition run off or killed. Leopoldo Galtieri was very unpopular until he invaded the Falklands. He wasn't about to let something like the truth that the British were talking it back stand in the way of his new-found popularity.



Having made a good beginning, the propaganda machine then departed from the established ground rules of the game. In this it was doubtless doing its masters' bidding, for the junta's popularity soared with every success; therefore, the junta reasoned, its people should have a diet of success, while the enemy should be vilified. The Task Force was described as a pirate fleet, while Margaret Thatcher was portrayed as a Viking, a vampire and a Nazi Storm Trooper. There were endless stories of Harriers being sent tumbling in dogfights, of ships sunk, of Hermes and Invincible being damaged again and again, of soldiers dramatically repelling raids.


I don't know if anyone else has looked into this matter, but the "sinking of the Invincible isn't even the most absurd story to come out of the spin machine that Galtieri was controlling. It seems that the British were also cannibals. That's right. Once they capture you, they would cook you for supper. So all you soldiers out there better not think of giving up or you'll end up as dinner.



One of the odder aspects of Argentine propaganda was the story spread among troops on the Falklands that the British would butcher their prisoners; not only that, the Gurkhas would eat them!


The Invincible was not destroyed. (Exhibit A - The HMS Invincible anchored in Portsmouth) The only thing actually destroyed and sunk was the trust of the good people of Argentina.



Until the very last moments the Argentine public sincerely believed that they would win the battle.


You also realize that at the beginning of the war, Argentina only had a grand total of 5 air-launch Exocet missiles. Evidently they kept pulling them from the ocean after they were used, and they kept re-firing them until they hit.


PSYOP of the Falkland Islands War
Falklands War, 1982



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   

are you telling me 55 that this image of the supposed phalanx is the same shape as the phalanx gun below if you are you are living in a dream land a suggest you invest in some new glasses







55 you still havent answered my question about the 2 photographs above despite the fact i have asked you to reply on many occasions. Why would the MOD, RN or the British government release these pictures to the press, of the Invincible crew being transferred when they know, if the truth about the supposed sinking of Invincible was found out it would mean the government would resign. Now answer me in your next post Why??

If you do not answer it, it is because you know that what you have been posting is all lies



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
The photos of the return of the Hermes (and other ships) are of hi-res. You can see the face him the crew members. In the return of the Clean Clone, much cannot be seen but that a phantom.

The one that has a medium resolution it is in black and white.
B & W, why?



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   
You still have not answered the question, so know you admit that the sinking of the Invincible was nothing more than fantasy
im soo glad you have come to your senses 55 hooray





[edit on 26-9-2005 by mojouk]



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
The back and forth bantering on this thread is getting carried away IMHO. Let's not add any more "yes it did" or "no it didn't " replies to the thread. If you have some new or useful inoformation, the please speak up, otherwise keep the knee-jerk responses to yourself.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   
MojoUK, in this two photos. (el cruce imposible)

The British sources that I have read, speak of the crossing or goodbye of the Invincible and the Hermes. Or of the relief of the Hermes when the Invincible returns of it repaired his turbine in means of the sea.

I have not read to any British book or magazine to speak of the crossing between the Illustrious and the Hermes.
Nor of no ceremony of welcome in means of the sea.
That is a desperate invention of you here and now.

But if your you find sources British that on those two photos they recognize the crossing of the Lusty with the Hermes, him request that contributes them to the debate.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
The protector or radome of the Phalanx can be painted of gray to hide it or to mask it.
It is phalanx with camouflage clumsy, but it is pahalnx.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   
thankyou 55 you have just answered my point exactly, if as you claim this is Illustrous and Hermes meeting in the South Atlantic (which you claim they never met) to exchange crew dont you think the British government would want to keep the fact secret, but no they take photographs and let the press publish them. why oh why would they do this if it was supposed to be secret?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join