Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

HMS Invincible sunk in 1982

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy



Does anybody else think this photo is photoshopped?


They look TOTALLY identical to me!




posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   
then u pretty much suck at comparing identical ships. the farthest ship has wat looks like blue tarp at the stern of the ship. the middle ship has wat looks like two white specks at two thirds from the bow at the bottom black area. the closest ship HMS Invinicble does not have ani of wat the other two further ships have.

[edit on 2-9-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
See page 3, "devilwasp".

The picture of the three carriers is ok, i don´t think is a fake but there isn´t Invicible 05.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
If there isn't Invincible 05 why does the closest ship have a big 05 on the side of the stack? It's pretty clear to me, I don't know why you can't see it.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
QUOTE : " I can tell you now i have a friend who was aboard the night she was sank (he survived) and he will tell any of you that the switch between the two ships was made!


Not that any single one of you will believe me! "

CORRECT - WE DO NOT BELIEVE YOU


YRS - APE



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
See page 3, "devilwasp".

The picture of the three carriers is ok, i don´t think is a fake but there isn´t Invicible 05.



look at the carrier that is closest to the camera, look at the near center, below first tall boiler and u see it says R05. it does not say 06 or 07 or 08. it says 05!!!!



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   
There's always a friend, or a friend of a friend, or someone who knows someone.


M6D

posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I think our trolls here are seeing what they want to believe again...


simple as this, you cannot cover up a ship been sunk.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Well, you couldn´t answer my questions i suppose so.

You have seen the 3 pictures of the Hermes and Illusrious and couldn´t say nothing.


Why the Royal Navy said nothing about this?
Why Hermes is giving Illustrious personal and harriers?
Why Illustrious is there ???

You can´t answer to me you don´t know nothing, but at least accept...


I have more...


HMS INVINCIBLE R05 IN 1982:







SEPTEMBER 17 1982 HMS ILLUSTRIOUS R06: All the people thought was Invincible but it isn´t!!! it has the phalanx !!!!
You can see this photo in "Service Pals" a web page of veterans, it´s the true.





So if you say Invincible didn´t sink...

How do you explain the photo???

In the Falklands War it had no phalanx
In September in Portsmouth it has the phalanx!!!

wuouowououuu


Here is Illustrious in Porstmouth September 17 with zoom:


So accpet that ship was not Invincible


Here is Illusrious in a book, note that is the same place, the same phalanx...





So Illustrious was the ship that was to Porstmouth on September 17 of 1982.


And Invincible where was?



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Great picture of a blob. lol. I could say that is a UFO and there's no way to tell what it is. There is a lot more evidence that it DIDN'T sink than there is that it DID sink.


M6D

posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
i thought we alraedy decided this guy was a troll?



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck

Here is Illustrious in Porstmouth September 17 with zoom:




HMS Illustrious was rapidly fitted with phalanx, during her hasty final fitting and sea trial before setting sail for the Falklands on 2nd August, BUT she did not original have them installed right on the front of the ship (like Invincible had on her re-fit after she returned from the Falklands and where you suggest in you zoomed pic above, instead she had it furher back in front and to the right of her sea dart emplacement see below





therefore that cannot be the phalanx (if it is phalanx base at all) of the Illustrious as it is in the wrong position (don't worry it is easy to confuse it with the Invincible if you are not careful).


It was only much later that that Illustrious has CIWS in that position.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Wrong popeye, because Invincible in 1982 never had phalanx.

The photo you show me is after 1982.

You have you eye pop you can´t see




posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
Wrong popeye, because Invincible in 1982 never had phalanx.

The photo you show me is after 1982.

You have you eye pop you can´t see



The picture is Illustrious not Invincible and I have never said it was in 82 only it is before her re-fit when she had her CIWS upgraded and re-positioned... Invincible had Phalanx during her re-fit after the falkands so whether they were fitted in 82 or 83 has not bearing on the positioning.

The picture just proves your assertion that the zoomed pic is the phalanx base of the Illustrious is wrong as the Illustrious's phalanx was in a different position to that you indicated



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Attack to the HMS Invincible
the Alte Woodward maintained the aircraft carriers remote. The COATLANSUR and the FAS, on the other hand, incessantly tracked the position of these two targets, to use the last Exocet missile. They located to the HMS Invincible in a position to the Southeast of the rear of the fleet. Their movements were analyzed, doing intelligence with the detections of monitoring that obtained the radar of CIC the Falklands. Thus the "Invincible Operation" was born, risky and audacious, considered most significant in its type from II GM.

I will tell you soon I will give more information
Regards



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
www.free-definition.com...


Olmeda saw extensive service during the Falklands War, being one of the first ships to head south. The ship took part in the recapture of the island of Thule. However, Olmeda did not play any part in the recapture of Kuwait in 1991, unlike the other two members of the class.


link


Above - RFA Olmeda replenishing HMS Invincible post-war
(Courtesy - MOD, Navy)

u can see the phalanx in the back. in anicase its proof Invincible is still afloat.



[edit on 2-9-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I'm probably missing some crucial point but why would anyone lie about it anyway? Seems rather an extravagant lie to what end exactly?

The idea that they could build a ship here in secret is ridiculous, and whatever anyone wants to think, keeping the whole crew silent would be near impossible.

The plug for the Yahoo newsgroup which appears to require registration to join looks like some sort of blatant plug, which I believe is against board T&C's anyway, did you check it was OK to advertise your forum first?

[edit on 2-9-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   
As a Falklands vet im sure i would have heard about one of our ships sinking but guess what? "I heard no such thing".

What a laughable story this is!!!!!!

Trust me i was there, Got the t-shirt, Medal, Keyring and blankety blank cheque book and pen.

(An easy way to get points though eh)



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Attack to the HMS Invincible:
The decision
For the 28 of May COATLANSUR had made the decision to attack the HMS Invincible with the Super Etendard/Exocet that would need to resupply itself in flight of Hercules Kc-130. The FAS demanded to take part with a squadron and to increase the firepower of the attack, in spite of the reluctance of Navy that argued the indiscretion of the airplanes of the Air Force. They chose the A-4c Skyhawk by his capacity of resupply and oxygen autonomy and issued the order to the swarm in San Julian. The head traveled to Commodore Rivadavia and she prevailed of the planning. Given to the extreme complexity and danger of the operation, the head of the swarm asked for volunteers. Two squadron commanders appeared, 1er Lieutenant Jose Vázquez and 1er Lieutenant Ernesto Ureta. To these one authorized them to designate to his numerals: to 1er Omar Lieutenant Castle, Lieutenant Daniel Paredi and Alfe'rez Gerald Isaac. One would act like reserve. In the morning of the 29 of May they took off towards Grande River. Problems with the Hercules Kc-130 caused that the exit was delayed until the following day. This two circumstance took advantage of to change Skyhawk that had some faults and were ready for the day of the more important air operation until now planned.




posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
The Invincible Operation was carried out by two Super Etendard of the Argentina Navy (ALTAR), whose pilots were the Lieutenant commander Alexander Francisco and the Lieutenant of Ship Luis Collavino and, by the following personnel and airships of the Air Force: Hercules C-130, Tc-69 matriculation, indicative "Piece". Crew: Air force lieutenant colonel Luis Litrenta, Captain. Guillermo Destéfanis, Greater Francisco Mensi, Petty officer Juan Perón, Petty officer Juan Tello, Auxiliary Sergeant major Hugo González, Auxiliary Sergeant major Vicente Reynoso and Auxiliary Suboficial Manuel Lombino. Hs took off of River Galician to 11:25 and arrived at Commodore Rivadavia to 17:25 hs.




Hercules C-130 Tc-70 matriculation, indicative "Rooster". Crew: Greater Briend Robert, Air force lieutenant colonel Robert Noah, Greater Miguel Sanchez, Captain Osvaldo Bilmezis, Sergeant major Greater Juan Cufré, Main Sergeant major Carlos Golier, Main Sergeant major Caravaca Robert, Auxiliary Sergeant major Insipid Héctor and Auxiliary Sergeant major Juan Marnoni. He took off of River Galician to 11:25 and arrived at 17:15 hs.





Four A-4c, Zonda indicative. Mission: attack to the aircraft carrier located in the position 51° South 38'/53° 38 ' the West, with two resupplies, armed with three pumps slowed down by parachute (BRP), each one. Crew: to 1er Lieutenant Jose Vázquez (C-301), to 1er Lieutenant Ernesto Ureta (C-321), to 1er Omar Lieutenant Castle (C-310) and Lieutenant Gerald Isaac (C-318). The Lieutenant Daniel Paredi would act like reserve. They took off from Grande River to 12:30 hs and returned to 16:00 hs. The predicted routes left from Grande River (Super Etendard/A-4c Skyhawk) and River Galician (Hercules Kc-130), converged to 55º 50 ' S/58º Or, where the resupply would become

Each system would resupply twice, to the going and the return, to take off with Maxima armament load. From there, with course 330º/350º would descend to grazing (100 feet), the Super Etendard to front and two A-4c Skyhawk to each side. They would come near flying in formation to 420 knots until 100 miles of the target. In this section, the Super Etendard would have to locate with their radar the objective and, twenty-five kilometers before, to send the last Exocet returning, previous resupply, to Grande River. Accelerating to the maximum, the A-4c Skyhawk would mount in the trajectory of the missile until the ship, fifty seconds after the impact would drop three bombs slowed down by parachute of 250 kg each one.












 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join