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.
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
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]
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.
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".
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.
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]
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?