| Author | Message | | Cowboy | | Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:54 am Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | ...I don't know. Although, one possibility is that the attack aircraft's gun cameras had no film or the film was destroyed. |
Speculation.
Interesting how the flawed (as I pointed out) 'analysis' of such a blurred image is taken as evidence of anything by anybody. | |  | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 5:42 am Post subject: |
| | Quote: | Israel would not need to wait to be fired upon to attack an Egyptian ship at a time Israel was at war with Egypt.
It doesn't matter who shot first. |
The naval and air attack was predicated on the IDF reported claims that off shore naval shelling of IDF forces in the Sinai occurred. This was a lie as it never even happened. This fabrication has never been explained or explained or even investigated by Israel or the US.
Neither the USS Liberty or the 1920's horse carrier tramp steamer El Quisir had the means or the armaments to do any such thing. The ship was in international water. Simple visual observation by aircraft or the MTB's would have determined this easily.
It does matter. The two ships are as different as night and day and attacking and attempting to sink unidentified ships in international waters incapable of waging war is a war crime. Israelis aren't stupid, they knew exactly what they were doing.
Keep apologizing and making up excuses Cowboy. | | | | Ken Halliwell | | Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 5:43 am Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | Interesting how the flawed (as I pointed out) 'analysis' of such a blurred image is taken as evidence of anything by anybody. | Using your "logic" then it's interesting that such a blurred image was presented by the IDF as evidence of anything to anybody.
If the image is so distorted that nobody can determine anything, as you claim, then what purpose did it serve for the IDF to present it?
(Why do I feel I've engaged in this discussion many times before, on several other forums? I'll give you guys credit, you're trained very well in the defensive debating techniques.) | | | | Ken Halliwell | | Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:08 am Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | Quote: | | In the IDF's Ram Ron report, it cites one of the IDF's rules of engagement: "...the [IDF] forces should at all cost avoid attacks on any neutral merchant ship or warships." To me, "at all cost" means make damn sure you are certain the target is truly an enemy vessel before unleasing deadly force. This would seem to exclude attacking unidentified vessels, but yet that's exactly what occured -- according to the IDF. |
Now tell us about the instructions that they had about assuming what was a warship. | Instead of repeating myself here, you can read all about it in this essay: http://usslibertyinquiry.googlepages.com/essay2
| Quote: | | (Not in defense of assumptions, but the orders were what they were.) | Sorry, the "just following orders" defense was thrown out the window over 60 years ago.
Nonetheless, if simply following orders was all the pilots were allowed to do, then I suppose they would have willing attacked the warship ship shown below. After all, purportedly, their orders were to attack if the ship looks like a warship -- any warship will do as long as it's not Israeli.
 | | | | DanielDives | | Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:16 am Post subject: |
| Hi Ken,
That's exactly what those who do not want to see any of the USS Liberty survivors testify in an open court want. Endless spinning around trivial tidbits.
As we've now endorsed 'extended' interrogation techniques, perhaps a rendition flight or two with 1967 Israeli military personnel to a legal free zone [parts of Cuba would be advisable] would finally get to the bottom of the water boarding tub.
Funny how cristol placed two big flags over a place where you'd otherwise see the USS Liberty hull numbers on the cover of his book. Incidentally, of course. | | | | Ken Halliwell | | Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:25 am Post subject: |
| | Quote: | Discussion of the angle is quite meaningless.
Regardless, when the bow angle is compared to another Liberty photo, from just a slightly different angle, the angle looks pretty much the same. | Note that I used the word "appears" when describing the angle of the bow in the fake image. In other words, I'm not certain it's exactly 90 degrees, but it appears darn close based on a graphic analysis not displayed in the essay containing the marked-up image. I suppose I should find and make the original graphical analysis presentable and provide a hyperlink to it in the essay -- another project on the to-do list.
It's interesting that you picked only this part of the marked-up image, questioned its accuracy with no supporting graphic analysis of your own, and never commented on the gross problems highlighted and cited on the marked-up drawing -- very interesting.
(Patterns are funny things. Not only do the occur in nature, but in a person's general behavior and writing style as well. They are very difficult to mask except by a skilled actor.) | | | | Ken Halliwell | | Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:52 am Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | Funny how cristol placed two big flags over a place where you'd otherwise see the USS Liberty hull numbers on the cover of his book. Incidentally, of course. | It's also funny that there is a large dark spot where the letters and number should be on the "gun camera" image within Cristol's book. | | | | DanielDives | | Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:21 am Post subject: |
| Hi Ken,
Nowadays it's easy to turn a frog into a rhino with photshop [Adobe Photoshop CS3 Extended for example], it has the finesse of 1 single pixel. On the other hand, if you'd use Adobe Illustator and deal with vector based objects you can never go wrong no matter how big or small you'd blow up or shrink an image.
41 years ago, those techniques were not at hand..., and it shows.
When all the shattered, little threads are combined, you end up with one big Gordian knot, and one I refuse to swallow.
The longer we wait means, we'll have to rely more and more on circumstantial evidence and hearsay, whilst more and more papers and images are 'misplaced.'
I'm a very positive guy, but I fear the worst in this case [especially given the fact that JFK was shot when I was 5 and his files opened when I'm dead]. | | | | DanielDives | | Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:12 pm Post subject: |
| Hi Ken,
Have the USS Liberty survivors tried to contact [any of] those involved in the attack [or entire command structure]? | | | | Cowboy | | Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:55 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | Quote: | | Quote: | | In the IDF's Ram Ron report, it cites one of the IDF's rules of engagement: "...the [IDF] forces should at all cost avoid attacks on any neutral merchant ship or warships." To me, "at all cost" means make damn sure you are certain the target is truly an enemy vessel before unleasing deadly force. This would seem to exclude attacking unidentified vessels, but yet that's exactly what occured -- according to the IDF. |
Now tell us about the instructions that they had about assuming what was a warship. |
Instead of repeating myself here, you can read all about it in this essay: http://usslibertyinquiry.googlepages.com/essay2 |
Now tell us about the instructions that they had about assuming what was a warship. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
