HMS Invincible sunk in 1982

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   
The execution
To 11:25 hs took off from River Galician the Hercules Kc-130 and they went to the supply point in 55º 30' S/58º Or To 12:30 hs they took off of River two Grande Super Etendard ("Wing") and four A-4c Skyhawk ("Zonda").






The operation was in favor conditional of a series of requirements that had to be fulfilled inexorably. All were fulfilled perfectly. Once sudden flight Exocet, the four A-4c Skyhawk (Ureta and Isaac to the right and Castillo and Vázquez to the left), followed the wake of the missile. First that saw it was a column of smoke in the horizon. The impact of the Exocet indicated the target, but it had alerted to the defensive system of the aircraft carrier and his escort. When they already had clearly to the HMS Invincible in the sights, a missile (It is possibly Dart) hit the squadron commander, to 1er Vázquez Lieutenant, who was divided itself in two and she crashed in the sea. Five seconds before sending the pumps, the artillery hit in 1er Lieutenant Castle, whose airplane exploded. Apparently, its motor fell on the cover and slipped until the hollow of the aircraft lift, by where it entered and it set afire his interior. Both A-4c remaining reached the objective, which they saw dismissing smoke. The Argentine pilots dropped the pumps on the cover. Ureta that happened first, creates to have hit in the superstructure. Undamaged, they moved away with different courses, making evasive maneuvers. When calming itself, they threw a last look to the ship and they saw place setting it of thick and black smoke.


They were lost of Vista among them but they followed in course 230º grazing/240º, towards the point in which they would have to meet with the tanker ones. First they had an interview among them and soon, in the exact point, they were both with Hercules Kc-130. Ureta and Isaac resupplied and they went to the BAM Grande River. The operation had lasted almost four hours. It finalized therefore the air operation more audacious imagination and than has been made in this conflict.


Newspaper military is ***reflxed mng in the newspaper military of CIC the Falklands: ... 15:40:
Great commotion of English helicopters on the fleet. The Harrier of the CAP lands in points different from which took off.




posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
All that proves is that the mission took place. There have been numerous occasions when a mission took place and the pilots were mistaken at the results.

Midway, the Japanese claimed to have sank two American carriers. They hit the Yorktown and damaged her, the US sailors repaired her enough to get her underway again and got the fires out, and she got hit a second time.

Numerous air battles, where multiple pilots will claim the same plane shot down, so it appears that they shot down many more planes than they actually did. It's called "The fog of war." It's very common. There is more evidence that it was NOT sunk, than there is that it WAS sunk.

[edit on 2-9-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Popeye

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


Ok i understand now, you are agree with me.

So if the picture you see is Illustrious i have nothing to say you are accpeting Invincible didn´t appear any more. Congratulations!!! you are right.


Look here is were i took the photo:
is "Service Pals"

www.servicepals.com...

you have to register to see it.

They posted the photo and say:

HMS Invincible arriving at the entrance to Portsmouth harbour in September 1982 following her service in the Falklands war. I was fortunate to be on one of the numerous small vessels which accompanied her on her last few miles into port.


So now we know is Illustrious so this is one of the proves that INVINCIBLE WAS SUNK IN FALKLANDS WAR 1982.





[edit on 2-9-2005 by TheIrishDuck]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
No, what he said was that YOUR picture was the Illustrious. No that it proves that you're right. If the Invincible is the R05, and it was sunk and replaced by another ship with the same name, why would they change the number on it? Why make it R08, instead of just renumbering it the 05? Wouldn't that make it so horribly obvious that they lost the Invincible?

The problem with EVERY ONE of the pictures you have posted as "proof" is that there is NOTHING to show when they were taken. They could have been taken in 1981, or in 2002 for all we know. Just because the person taking them says they were taken on a certain date, there has to be a way to prove it.

[edit on 2-9-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   
hahaha.
No because that picture was on tv too, the picture is from that day.


They did not put R08 because they did not accepted Argentina sunk it.

So they have to still putting R05, why?
becasue UK managed the industry of the carriers, it represents lot of money, and if they accepted a country of the third world with poor military weapons sunk his aircraft carrier, they would lost lot of money.

So it was easiest to kept that in secret.


Regards.


pd. I was angry first when met with the true but i prefer to know what real happened and no believe in lies.



[edit on 2-9-2005 by TheIrishDuck]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
There is no way they could have hidden building a new carrier. It would take thousands of people, and at LEAST several years to build. Do you REALLY think that they could have hidden it for that long? SOMEBODY that rebuilt it would have talked by now, or SOMEBODY would have noticed that the ship never came home, or was missing for a long time.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
I don´t know it´s possible.

The same happened with HMS Dasher 30 years later the people know what really had happenned.


And if you search on the net you will find interesting things about "Lynda Cash", a member of the HMS Invincible during the Falklands War.

She talked about 3 casualties of the aircraft carrier and she says interesting things.


Nothing is impossible.
At least something is wrong, why UK put the Illustrious as Invincible on september 17 ?? and the strange encounter of Hermes and Illustrious in the South Atlantic, all is so strange...


Regards.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   
If the missile was shot down just before impact with the ship, there WILL be casualties. The debris from the missile is going to continue to travel forward and impact the ship.

As far as the "replacement" carrier that was built, you are talking about THOUSANDS of people that would see it being built and see the hull number on it. You're telling me that NOT ONE of them would have said something about seeing it?

[edit on 2-9-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
If the missile was shot down just before impact with the ship, there WILL be casualties. The debris from the missile is going to continue to travel forward and impact the ship.

As far as the "replacement" carrier that was built, you are talking about THOUSANDS of people that would see it being built and see the hull number on it. You're telling me that NOT ONE of them would have said something about seeing it?

[edit on 2-9-2005 by Zaphod58]


yes, but i think the missile impact.

Because then, two pilots, Ureta and Isaac (i have interviewed them a few weeks ago) hit the Invincible with his bombs.
Only one pilot could drop his bombs and them explode, two of them.

The attack existed, is true.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
We're not denying that the attack happened. We're denying your claim that they actually sank the ship, or caused nearly as much damage as the Argentinian pilots claimed.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
We're not denying that the attack happened. We're denying your claim that they actually sank the ship, or caused nearly as much damage as the Argentinian pilots claimed.



ok but i explained it with links, photos...

i have more but nobody can say to me what was doing Illustrious as Invincible in Porsmotuh and the episode with Hermes...

that strange very strange.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
You didn't prove that the Illustrious was pretending to be the Invincible. You showed a picture of it in Portsmouth, that's all. There is no way they could simply change the name and expect to fool anyone. If you've never been on a carrier before, the name of the ship is on EVERYTHING. Almost every door, every hatch cover, every picture, etc. They would have had to repaint all that everytime it was pretending to be the Invincible. That's just not feasable, it would take days to rename all those things. If you want us to believe this was happening, find a picture that proves BEYOND A DOUBT that the Illustrious was pretending to be the Invincible, and shows that it was in 1982 or 83 after the Falklands War.

As far as the two together, as someone stated in a previous post, they're not transferring anything, they're rendering honors. The crew lines up on the deck as they pass, and they salute each other. US carriers do it everytime they enter port, or after exercises or for any number of reasons.

So the British gov't didn't admit they were together. There are a LOT of places the US gov't won't admit our carriers have been, or are going. It's called "Operational Security".



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
You didn't prove that the Illustrious was pretending to be the Invincible. You showed a picture of it in Portsmouth, that's all. There is no way they could simply change the name and expect to fool anyone. If you've never been on a carrier before, the name of the ship is on EVERYTHING. Almost every door, every hatch cover, every picture, etc. They would have had to repaint all that everytime it was pretending to be the Invincible. That's just not feasable, it would take days to rename all those things. If you want us to believe this was happening, find a picture that proves BEYOND A DOUBT that the Illustrious was pretending to be the Invincible, and shows that it was in 1982 or 83 after the Falklands War.

As far as the two together, as someone stated in a previous post, they're not transferring anything, they're rendering honors. The crew lines up on the deck as they pass, and they salute each other. US carriers do it everytime they enter port, or after exercises or for any number of reasons.

So the British gov't didn't admit they were together. There are a LOT of places the US gov't won't admit our carriers have been, or are going. It's called "Operational Security".



I took the photo of Service Pals you have to login and go to the gallery and search "invincible" you will see the photo and a comment that it´s invincible back in Porstmouth, but now you know is Illustrious.
That ´s all, that ´s the prove.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   
And we know this how? Because it has a Phalanx? That's a terrible way to identify a ship. Did you look at the pic of the three ships together? The only similarity between them was the hull type. All three had pretty significant differences between them. That there is the biggest reason why one couldn't pretend to be another one.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   
or i can send you an email with a copy of the page.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And we know this how? Because it has a Phalanx? That's a terrible way to identify a ship. Did you look at the pic of the three ships together? The only similarity between them was the hull type. All three had pretty significant differences between them. That there is the biggest reason why one couldn't pretend to be another one.


Not only the phalanx...

the position of the crane, the color of the tower.
REMEMBER THE ONLY SHIP WHO HAD PHALANX ON 1982 WAS ILLUSTRIOUS.



posted on Sep, 2 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
The only thing is that a big part of your argument revolves around them building a new carrier and pretending that it's the Invincible. That is just not possible. There is NO WAY that they could have had all the crew, all the journalists on board, all the people involved with building the new ship, and all the people in the shipyard that would have seen them building it, and NOT ONE OF THEM say ANYTHING about what they saw. Not to mention that it would take YEARS to build a new ship, ESPECIALLY if it was built in the US. The US doesn't have ANYTHING of even remotely similar design, so they would have had to get the plans, retool the equipment, then build it..... There are just too many holes in your argument that the Invincible was sunk in 1982.

[edit on 2-9-2005 by Zaphod58]


M6D

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I wish arguments could offiicaly be thrown out due to the sheer evidence against, unfortunately on forums, nil we can do.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck

Originally posted by Popeye

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


Ok i understand now, you are agree with me.

So if the picture you see is Illustrious i have nothing to say you are accpeting Invincible didn´t appear any more. Congratulations!!! you are right.


Look here is were i took the photo:
is "Service Pals"

www.servicepals.com...

you have to register to see it.

They posted the photo and say:

HMS Invincible arriving at the entrance to Portsmouth harbour in September 1982 following her service in the Falklands war. I was fortunate to be on one of the numerous small vessels which accompanied her on her last few miles into port.


So now we know is Illustrious so this is one of the proves that INVINCIBLE WAS SUNK IN FALKLANDS WAR 1982.





[edit on 2-9-2005 by TheIrishDuck]


IrishDuck obviously English is not your first laguage so I will try and make this simple so you can understand as you clearly are having problems.

The picture posted of the carrier entering Portsmouth on 17th is Invincible, you claim it is Illustrious as because in the czoomed picture you claim you can seea phalanx in the front of the ship.

I posted a new picture one of Illustrious in the early 80's that show her phalanx was NOT in the position you claimed it to be, THUS this proves your assertion that the she entering Portsmouth is Illustrious is totally wrong, as the carrier does not have a phalanx in the position that Illustrious did at that time, therefore the carrier can ONLY BE Invincible, thus it can not have sunk. It that clear enough.

Your ignorance is hsown by trying to see a phalanx base in the picture but looking at the wrong position (ironically the position that Invincible had the phalanx fitted aftre the Falklands) for Illustrious.


Also if you search the BBC's on this day, you will find someone posting who was a 17 year old rating on HMS Avenger and see the exocet comiong towards his ship before it was destroyed by a flukely shot from the 4.5 inch gun.

There are also posts from people whose father were on Invinvible and they came home.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheIrishDuck
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?


absolutely ridiculous post. next time you post, back it up with proof not from some rubbish Argentianian patriotic website thats blatantly false.

HMS Invincible was on station, in the Falklands well after the war, in fact up until mid July, when it was relieved by HMS Illustrious. HMS Invincible then left for the UK.

Also why do you insist that there is a Phalanx sited on the landing deck!!? do you not think this may get in the way slightly??
The only carrier at the time to have Phalanx was Illustrious, positioned on her bow below the flight deck.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join