| Author | Message | | Cowboy | | Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:19 am Post subject: |
| Note the testimony of RMC Smith which includes...
A radio tranmitter had been 'blown out'.
That in between attacks he found that the radio's frequency had been knocked off one KC, and when he corrected it, the Liberty was able to communicate by radio. But then there was a power failure.
That he was not actually certain that there was jamming, but that if there was it was only during strafing runs. | |  | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:29 am Post subject: |
| I'm downloading the COI as we speak but if your answers are going to be the Clintonesque such as the "definition of 'is'" like such ridiculous answer given "Depends on your definition of "Congressional investigations". Then you are simply resorting to apologizing and spamming again. You're not being the slightest bit honest but given our animosity, I'll let that one pass.
You know as well as anyone that there has never been a Congressional Investigation on the attack of the USS Liberty ever.You cannot even provide a link to two 'congressional investigation" you repeatedly quoted. Should you find any proof on the Congressional investigations , I shall retract my statement. IMO, it won't be necessary.
I will go back and re-read the COI, let's see what honor and decency you really have and just what you're real motive and intention you really have here. I'll even refute the silly response you answered.
_________________
2007 will be the 40th anniversary of injustice and murder and coverup.
http://usslibertyinquiry.com/
www.ussliberty.org
Lest We Forget | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:27 am Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | I'm downloading the COI as we speak but if your answers are going to be the Clintonesque such as the "definition of 'is'" like such ridiculous answer given "Depends on your definition of "Congressional investigations". Then you are simply resorting to apologizing and spamming again. |
There is nothing Clintonian about it. In Clinton's case, it was a matter of if one defined "oral sex" as "sex". DUH, Slick Willy. Just because Clinton absurdly parsed and ridiculously played with definition, that doesn't make the mutual understanding of terminology something generally invalid.
Depending on the definition of "investigation", one might argue that there were as many as 5 Congressional investigations, not just the 2 that I have been referencing.
Just how much "investigation" does it take to be an 'investigation', and just how much of the research involved must be 'original' for it to be an 'investigation'? And even the term 'original research' is up for question. Is the restating of facts 'original research', is the use of the same physical evidence 'original research' and is the restating of previously expressed speculation 'original research'? | | | | DanielDives | | Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:34 am Post subject: |
| Dude, the hallmarks of true professionalism, when it comes to research are the renowned 3 Cs
- Communication
- Contact
- Cooperation
I hope you¡Çre not arguing any such has been the matter in the USS Liberty¡Çs case. Unless you believe a couple of days is enough to entangle such a complex matter or that the refusal to be allowed fly to Israel to question involved personnel are covered by any of the aforementioned three.
Well, there ain't no money to make here, so I suggest you move on to a more profitable geo-political corner or conflict. | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 4:38 am Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | I hope you¡Çre not arguing any such has been the matter in the USS Liberty¡Çs case. |
What I am doing is presenting the sworn testimony of USS Liberty crewmembers at the US Navy COurt of Inquiry.
What you are doing is desperately diverting attention from that testimony. | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:12 am Post subject: |
| | Cowboy wrote: | What I am doing is presenting the sworn testimony of USS Liberty crewmembers at the US Navy COurt of Inquiry.
What you are doing is desperately diverting attention from that testimony.
Note the sworn testimony of the USS Liberty's Captain. |
Cowboy's first post is as follows in its entirety based on "sworn testimony" of the US Naval Court of Inquiry. The US Naval Court of Inquiry on the attack on the USS Liberty by the State of Israel began at "The hour is 2314, the date is 10 June 1967." , [b]just two days after the attack and it ended: "no further witnesses were called and the President closed the Court at 1645, 16 June 1967 in order to deliberate and prepare findings of fact.".
The US Naval Court of Inquiry lists only 15 USS Liberty crewmen as witnesses for called testimony at the Court of Inquiry
There were 34 dead and 174 men wounded as a result of the attack. The USS Liberty Court of Inquiry lasted a total of four days, yet the USS Stark Court of Inquiry lasted nine months.
. www.Libertyinquiry.com (which Cowboy used as his so-called COI source) also stated the following on Page 1 of their website.
| libertyinquiry,com wrote: | In the days immediately following the attack, the United States Navy held an unusual and extremely abbreviated Court of Inquiry. The Court found that the evidence then available to it did not establish hostile intent. The Court did not have access to communications intercepts and other important items of evidence when it made this finding.
Contrary to assertions made by Israel and its supporters, the United States has never officially accepted the explanation or excuses offered by Israel. Quite the contrary, the official U.S. position is that the attack was "quite literally incomprehensible" and showed a "wanton disregard for human life." (The word "wanton" was later removed, though the general concept remained.)
The Navy neither completed a full Court of Inquiry investigation, nor undertook any other, further formal inquiries concerning the Israeli attack on USS Liberty. Indeed, from the moment the attack started until today, no U.S. government body has undertaken any investigation into the culpability for the attack on USS Liberty. |
The entire Court of Inquiry is dotted with "Records are not accessible at the time.". And records that were available were not admitted such as the ship's weather logs yet the Court found in it's Findings of Fact" that the ship's ensign "not blowing" may have contributed to the attack which is against US Navy Regulations and that such a claim was easily refuted by the crew and ignored.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Cowboy complete quotation wrote: | Note the sworn testimony of the USS Liberty's Captain.
It includes....
The passes from Israeli aircraft earlier in the day were made at a range of 12-15 miles from the craft.
The Liberty's ensign was down from early in the air attack until just prior to the torpedo boat attacks, and there was too much smoke at the time of the torpedo boat attacks for the Liberty to clearly see the torpedo boats, meaning that there was likely too much smoke for the torpedo boats to see the newly raised ensign on the Liberty.
That the Captain believed that the attack was done in error.
That the Liberty fired on the Israeli torpedo boats, and the Captain stated that he believed that the Israelis at that time believed that they were under fire from the Liberty.
That after the torpedo struck the Liberty, the torpedo boats were in closer range and ceased the attack.
That the entire attack lasted about 20 minutes, not an hour or more. |
None of the above is quoted material from the USS Liberty Court of InInquiry. Every statement here is an outright fabrication and/or misrepresentation of Capatin McConagle, MoH recipitient and the only US armed forces member who was NOT awarded the MoH by the Presiedent of the United States since WW2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Cowboy wrote: | | "The passes from Israeli aircraft earlier in the day were made at a range of 12-15 miles from the craft." |
Cowboy has specifically lied about the nature and the relative context of the testimony and manufactured a duplicitous slander against the Captain to further his pro-Israeli cover-up. He has never deviated from it.
Captain McConagle stated for the Court of Inquiry as follows:
| Quote: | | Aircraft activity of an apparent propeller patrol type flying at very low altitude and parallel to and over the coast in the vicinity of El Arish was noted. It is estimated that the altitude of this plane was approximately 500 feet. At no time did this plane approach the ship in any fashion. His distance remained approximately 12 to 15 miles. It was possible to visually sight the minaret which is quite conspicuous at El Arish. This was used as a navigational aide in determining the ship's position during the morning and afternoon of 8 June. |
It is the only time Captain McConagle mentions 12 to 15 miles in his Court testimony so this proves that Cowboy's use of it was deliberately and willfully misleading. There is no indication at all that the Captain used this testimony to denote the distance to the ship other than fact nor did invoke either Israeli culpability or innocence before the attack or did he use it as an subterfuge to diminish/mimimize Israel's aircraft reconnaissance or import a false impression as Cowboy did.
The US State Department in its official information memorandum of 21 Sept 1967 declares as follows:
"The Israeli report indicates that a ship was reported in the area by reconnaissance aircraft at 0600 and that another report was received of a contact between an Israeli aircraft and a surface vessel about 0900. The Navy Court finding of facts, plus testimony of various members of the crew indicate reconnaissance [b]overflights of the Liberty at 0515, 0850, 1030, 1056, 1126, 1145, 1220, and 1245.[/b]"
http://usslibertyinquiry.com/evidence/usreports/salans.html
| US Naval Court of Inquiry wrote: | ENS. J. D. SCOTT, USNR, Damage Control Assistant, USS LIBERTY
TESTIMONY
[Scott] Yes sir. On the morning of the 8th, I had the 4
to 8 Officer of the Deck watch on the bridge. It was a
routine watch. The only thing out of the ordinary was we
had one reconnaissance plane that flew by us and made a
few circles off our port beam. He circled around about
three or four times, then took off .
Q. About what time?
[Scott] About 0515, I was not able to identify the
aircraft. We looked at it with the binoculars. Due to
the distance we could not see any markings or insignia of
any sort on it. [headed back for Tel Aviv as later stated] |
The other IDF air reconnaissances by the crew are mentioned on the COI record.
The link is on http://www.ussliberty.org/recon.htm
The facts show here that there have discrepancies and unknown facts claimed and yet Israel has opposed any investigation for 40 years with the acquiescence/approval/duplicity of the US Government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Cowboy wrote: | | The Liberty's ensign was down from early in the air attack until just prior to the torpedo boat attacks, and there was too much smoke at the time of the torpedo boat attacks for the Liberty to clearly see the torpedo boats, meaning that there was likely too much smoke for the torpedo boats to see the newly raised ensign on the Liberty. |
The IDF reports as well as Ahol Jay Cristol's own book stated categorically the the Liberty was not flying their ensign during the attack. yet Cowboy even states a "newly raised" so the IDF air attackes in clear sunlight cruising at 5 knots in the beginning must have seen the ensign, nevermind the ship hull numbers/name from the mutlple sides of attack that is completely ignore. The Court of Inquiry as a Statement of Fact said the numbers had been freshly painted.
Ahol Jay Cristol on his "infamous" Liberty bookcover crops the numbers off the ship claiming the ship picture came from IDF gun cameras. It has been determined to be another Liberty picture "doctored" from elsewhere and his claimas suxh a forgery. Because if he had placed the numbers in the book cover, it would have proven that the IDF knew the ship was American without a doubt and American ships do not have Arabic letters as Isreal STILL claims it was attacking a 1/2 smaller Egyptian horse carrier.
This is again not "sworn testimony" but Cowboy's desired interpretation. The Liberty's crewmen who testified as to the following concerning their testimonies ship's flag/ensign during the attack.
1) CAPT W. L. McGONAGLE, USN, Commanding Officer, USS LIBERTY, Sworn Testimony, US Naval Court Inquiry
"About this time I noticed that our Ensign had been shot away during the air attack and ordered DAVID, signalman, to hoist a second Ensign from the yardarm. During the air attack, our normal Ensign was flying. Before the torpedo attack, a holiday size Ensign was hoisted."
1426 [LOG] NOTICED NORMAL STEAMING ENSIGN SHOT AWAY DURING AIR ATTACK HOLIDAY SIZE ENSIGN HOISTED ON PORT YARDARM.
2) ENS. J. D. SCOTT, USNR, Damage Control Assistant, USS LIBERTY, Sworn Testimony, US Naval Court Inquiry
"Q. Do you recall the flag or the national ensign flying? [Ensign Scott:] Yes sir, it was flying. I noticed at first light that the ensign was flying. I looked up to it to check the wind direction just in the event I had to blow tubes and I wanted to have a favorable wind direction. That's about all I recall about the flag being up on the day and night while we were over here. I don't recall seeing it down at all. "
3) LT. G. H. GOLDEN, USN, Engineering Officer, USS LIBERTY, Sworn Testimony, US Naval Court Inquiry
"[LT. Golden:] Yes sir. At approximately 1145, I completed eating lunch, and went to the 01 level forward to sunbathe along with the Captain and some of the other officers. I have a lounge chair, most of us do have; while laying on my back sunbathing, I noticed a plane flying over. I dozed off, and approximately 25 minutes or so later on, I woke up and saw a plane circling again coming from the port beam, crossing the ship. While watching it, I glanced up and noticed it just crossing over the stack area, and I noticed a small amount of smoke coming out of my stack, and also the flag was flying.
Counsel for the Court: Was it extended? [LT. Golden:] Yes sir, there was a slight breeze blowing. Q. Where was the flag flying from, Lieutenant GOLDEN? [LT. Golden:] The foremast. Q. And It was standing out where it could be seen? [LT. Golden:] Yes sir. Not completely the full length, but it was standing out. "
4) LTJG L. C. PAINTER, USNR, Officer Of the Deck, USS LIBERTY, Sworn Testimony, US Naval Court Inquiry
"Counsel for the Court: Did you have occasion to see the national ensign flying? [LTGJ Painter:] Yes sir, I did. I saw the national ensign flying after the, it was at the time I believe when we were going to abandon ship. I ran out on the main deck to get the life rafts ready. I remember distinctly looking back up and seeing the Ensign flying. This was, I think, after the air raid, after the torpedo attack. Q. Had you seen it earlier that morning? [LTGJ Painter:] I saw it earlier that morning when I came up, I don't know when it was. I came up on and of off that morning checking a patrol plane that had been flying over us. The quartermaster, DAVID QM2, had told me that the night that he was wounded that he had put the flag up at 0730 that morning. Q. So you, in recollection, recall seeing the flag flying in the morning and after the torpedo attack? [LTGJ Painter:] Yes, before and after the torpedo attack. Q. Do you know whether or not it was the same flag? [LTGJ Painter:] I couldn't tell you sir. The way I thought at one time, what the heck was it, I noticed there was something funny about it. I might have seen the flag twice, because once I saw one that had been shot up and it was ragged, and the next time I looked at it I didn't notice whether it was ragged or not. I couldn't say either way whether it was the same flag."
5) RMC W. L. SMITH, USN, Radio Central, USS LIBERTY, Sworn Testimony, US Naval Court Inquiry
"Counsel for the Court: Did you have occasion to see the national colors flying? [Chief Smith:] Yes sir. At the time I ran out of the radio central space to the transmitter room. Q. What time was this? [Chief Smith:] I would say about 1225, this was about two minutes either way. And this was Zulu time because I'm basing it on the log here. I had occasion to look at it because I was under the impression we were being attacked by UAR, and I wanted to see, and by the time that report came down to us from the bridge that they were Israelis, I wanted to check myself personally to see if our flag was flying because I couldn't understand it. For some reason I saw the flag flying at that time. If this was the original flag or not, I do not know sir."
6) LTJG M. N. WATSON, USNR, Main Propulsion Assistant, USS LIBERTY, Sworn Testimony, US Naval Court Inquiry
"Counsel for the Court: Excuse me, any time prior to the attack, did you notice the national colors flying?
[LTJG Watson:] Yes sir. At lunch that day, we were discussing the situation and Mr. Golden made the statement that someone had said something about the ensign flying so the people would know who we were. Mr. Golden made the statement something like, "Don't we have a bigger flag we can fly, maybe the holiday colors ?" Then after lunch we went out on the 01 level forward and most of the officers were around there sunbathing immediately preceding 1300. At approximately 1245, an aircraft flew over approximately 5,000 to 8,000 feet, and his line of flight took it over the radar mast, and I was watching it and made a comment about it that it looked like a C119 flying boxcar. And as it flew over the radar mast, the ensign was flying from the gaff. I noticed that it was flying, at this time there was a breeze. Q. Extended? [LTJG Watson:] Yes sir. President: Was it from the mast aft or the mast directly over the bridge? [LTJG Watson:] The mast directly over the bridge, sir."
7) ENS. D. G. LUCAS, USNR, First Lieutenant & Gunnery Officer, USS LIBERTY, Sworn Testimony, US Naval Court Inquiry
"There was a time when I was in the pilot house that I heard the Commanding Officer holler to someone, perhaps signalman DAVID, to get the Ensign, the colors, off the deck. I went out to the starboard wing, and there was an Ensign on the deck. I went out a little bit further and looked up and we were flying our Ensign. I found that later all of the starboard halyards or hoists had been shot down and that signalman DAVID had run up another Ensign.
Q. Do you recall how long the Ensign was down? [Ensign Lucas:] I cannot recall for sure. From the first air attack, the radar was made inoperative, the antenna on the mainmast was damaged, obviously on the first air pass and the Ensign would be flying just below it and just aft of it. Evidently, the shelling that got the radarscope, well it could have very possibly severed the halyard lines at that time. I do not recall when the Commanding Officer saw the Ensign on the deck and told someone to pick it up, but I do recall going out on the starboard wing, looking up and seeing that there was an Ensign flying.
Q. Do you remember the time frame when you looked and saw the Ensign flying, was it during the surface or the air attack? [Ensign Lucas:] I can't set an exact time on it. I do believe that I recall that at this time the patrol craft was off our starboard side at an approximate bearing of 120. It seems to me that this might have been around the time when I investigated the firing coming from mount 53 and found it was bullets cooking off as opposed to men being there actually firing.
Q. Did you look and see the Ensign flying before the torpedo hit, or was it after? [Ensign Lucas:] I cannot honestly recall whether it was before or after."
| Quote: | | USSLIBERTY.com: "Navy Regulations require that all findings of fact be supported by evidence in the record. In this case, such evidence is often absent. For example, where the court finds that the flag may not have been seen by the attacking pilots because it may have hung limp at the mast on a windless day, all the evidence in the record points in the opposite direction, indicating that the flag was clearly displayed in adequate wind to hold it aloft for the pilots to see.[/b] The court also had access to and reviewed the Ship's Weather Log which showed that there was ample wind at all times to hold a flag aloft and clearly displayed. Yet the court chose to ignore that log and did not enter it into the record.[/b] The careful reader will find numerous other discrepancies in the way the hearing was conducted." |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Cowboy wrote: | | "That the Captain believed that the attack was done in error." |
This again is not sworn testimony and nowhere does Capt.McConagle testify to such in the Naval Court of Inquiry
His exact and only "one sentence" testimony is as follows.
| Quote: | | 'I realized that there was a possibility of the aircraft having been Israeli and the attack had been conducted in error." |
A possibility and a certainity as claimed by Cowboy are two different things. Cowboy is being duplicitious and deliberate in stating a different meaning. It is another of his malicious misrepresentation. Capt. McConagle has scores of quotes remaining the rest of his life claiming the attack on the USS Liberyt was deliberate by the State of Israel.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Cowboy wrote: | [That the Liberty fired on the Israeli torpedo boats, and the Captain stated that he believed that the Israelis at that time believed that they were under fire from the Liberty.
That after the torpedo struck the Liberty, the torpedo boats were in closer range and ceased the attack. |
The US Court of Inquiry also detemined from the Captain that the aft gun mount "cooked off" from the ongoing fire. There were also no bridge to gun communications and the Captain also stated the the gunnery chiefs have the perogative to order fire in circumstance. Nevermind the ensign was up and the hull numbers were still there. The Court also has testimony:
"LTG Painter:] About 30 minutes later we had word from the Captain that torpedo boats were approaching us again and to prepare for another torpedo attack starboard side. And I know that if another torpedo had hit us, it would have sunk us, so I told the men to standby to abandon ship. We prepared to abandon ship in case we were hit the second time."
There are four different conflicting versons of testimony of what actually happened. Cowboy manufactured a pro IDF spin as usual to his interpetation. But the Court of Findings did state that the "larger holiday ensign" was in place and the hull numbers were still there. Ignored as usual in any discussion bt the COI as one MTB did circle as the COI stated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Cowboy wrote: | | "That the entire attack lasted about 20 minutes, not an hour or more" |
As the logs and the Court of Inquiry determined.
"Thirty minutes after attacking LIBERTY the MTBs signaled in English, "Do you need help?"
Two hours and 10 minutes after torpedo attack (2 hours 40 minutes after air attack) an Israeli helo apparently offered assistance."
COwboy is a damn liar and a fraud.
_________________
2007 will be the 40th anniversary of injustice and murder and coverup.
http://usslibertyinquiry.com/
www.ussliberty.org
Lest We Forget | | | | harrietbuster | | Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 1:54 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | That the Captain believed that the attack was done in error.
That the Liberty fired on the Israeli torpedo boats, and the Captain stated that he believed that the Israelis at that time believed that they were under fire from the Liberty.
|
al-jeffie thinks the Captain is lying for Israel
 | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:10 pm Post subject: |
| | Those are Cowboys 's quotes but don't let another lying Zionist Liberty apologist like you harrietbullshiter from protecting murderer. | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 6:20 pm Post subject: |
| Prove a lie or one misrepresentation harrietbuster. That's all you have to do yet you choose not to hb.
Same mindset as Cowboy, you apologists are as afraid of the truth as the IGF is of Hezzies | | | | funglefoot | | Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 7:11 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | Why did self proclaimed "expert" A. Jay Cristol "photoshop" the numbers off his infamous book cover of his fictional novel? Was that too damning to allow considering he claimed it was an IDF aircraft camera that took it? Whether the flag was on or off, the numbers were there all the time. |
| Rabbi CB wrote: | | Your conclusions and portrayals show that you are not actually asking questions. |
This is pure evasion on your part, Rabbi. 
Either you can answer the questions or otherwise admit to having no answer.
Were the letters AGTR 5 distinguishable or were they not?
The question is simple. It seems that the answer is impossibly difficult. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
