| Author | Message | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: |
| | What about the reported claim of George Golden in possession mentioned in Peter's book of (incriminating) documents that he has [or lawyer's] and has decided to destroy out of fear and repercussions. Do you think these are legitimate? | |  | | Ken Halliwell | | Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:42 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | What about the reported claim of George Golden in possession mentioned in Peter's book of (incriminating) documents that he has [or lawyer's] and has decided to destroy out of fear and repercussions. Do you think these are legitimate? | Only Golden and his attorney can validate the calim. I have not heard or read anything directly by Golden or his attorney on the subject -- and they have had lots of opportunities over the past 40+ years to state the claim themselves.
Considering Golden's consistent past outspokeness about the attack, it's uncharacteristic of him to decide to withhold and destroy incriminating evidence -- unless it had something to do with protecting the reputation of McGonagle or another crew member that Golden highly respected. | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject: |
| I respect Captain McGonagle and hold him in the highest regard but IMHO I think he knew much more than he ever publicly told. He took care of his ship and his crew in the highest traditions.
I think the same applied to Ward Boston. NSA regulations and vows of secrecy exist for a reason but there should be limits.
The Reuben James, Gulf of Tonkin, the USS Liberty, the Tuskegee Experiments were wrongs with terrible consequences that should have been disclosed. Secrecy can be the death knoll of integrity and destroys the faith of people who want to believe that their government has their best interest instead of others. | | | | Jefferson Davis | | Posted: Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:07 pm Post subject: |
| | BTW, thanks Ken for the comments. Always enlightening and enjoyable when you post here. It is not unappreciated. | | | | Ken Halliwell | | Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 1:51 am Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | ...the impedance matching networks below the HF transmitting antennas (three 30' vertical whip antennas aft the ship's superstructure) would have not generated much heat... | Upon reviewing the Liberty's plans, I found that her vertical whip HF transmitting antennas were 35' in length, not 30' as I stated previously.
It's my understanding, according to the ET in the transmitter room, that the untuned antenna and adhoc feedline combination was manually load matched in the transmitter room. Impedance matching the antenna and feedline combination at the transmitter isn't as efficient as matching impedance at both ends of the feedline, but it works.
IMHO, the ETs in the transmitter room are the unsung hero's of the attack. Routing and connecting an adhoc feedline from the transmitter to the antenna and then quickly matching the transmitter to the antenna and feedline combination while under fire was a critical and heroic achievement that allowed the radiomen to send a distress call. | | | | DanielDives | | Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:38 am Post subject: |
| Hi Ken/JD
Q: BTW, thanks Ken for the comments. Always enlightening and enjoyable when you post here. It is not unappreciated.
R: I second that.
Your unbiased input is truly a breath of fresh air [in] here.
Is it true or false that the Israeli attack halted around that time/moment [the sending of a distress call]? | | | | Ken Halliwell | | Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 8:16 am Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | Is it true or false that the Israeli attack halted around that time/moment [the sending of a distress call]? | Short answer: false.
Here's the long answer...
The Liberty's Radio Log indicates that the initial distress call was sent and received by USS Saratoga about 10 minutes after the air attack began.
Before this time, the pre-tuned and ready HICOM transmitter in the auxiliary radio room was activated to send the distress call, but it failed almost immediately. Then radio central requested a transmitter in the aft transmitter room be tuned to the HICOM frequency and put on line. According to the ET in the transmitter room, this took place quickly using one of the two operational and undamaged antennas.
At first, the distress call was heard by Saratoga, but garbled due to a slight transmitter tuning error. This was quickly corrected and the signal finally clearly received by Saratoga.
Distress communications between Liberty and Saratoga continued sporadically -- throughout the remainder of the air attack -- due to the antennas being hit during the attack and the transmitter being knocked off-line. It was during this time that an ad hoc feedline was run between the transmitter and the out-of-service antenna, that ultimately served to maintain distress communications.
At 1514 (about 1.25 hour after the attack began) a message was sent to Liberty from Saratoga that fighter aircraft were launched and on their way. The MTB attack ended near this time, and IDF rescue helicopters were visiting the ship.
Whether or not the above describes exactly the sequence of events is unclear, but it provides an good overview of what all took place based on log books, NCOI testimony, and my notes from interviewing the transmitter room ET.
Further, here's a bit of related information that might be of interest:
In October, 1967, Israeli Navy Lieutenant Yitzhak Zoran was aboard the Israeli destroyer Eilat (also spelled Eliat). The Eilat was on a routine patrol mission, in international waters, on a clear day, off the coast of the Sinai Peninsula, near Port Said when she was hit and sunk by radar-guided missiles fired from Egyptian missle boats.
In Lieutenant Zoran's personal account of the attack, he tells of being the Eilat's electronics officer and states the following: | Quote: | | ... Our operating procedures actually depended on both COMINT and ELINT to alert us to such dangers [missile attack], but that time the systems broke down. For one thing, our COMINT operators (the ones who continually monitored radio traffic) were not aboard at the time. They had rotated ashore, and their replacements had yet to arrive. We later found out that our home based COMINT intercept operators had indeed monitored Egyptian radio traffic indicating an impending missile launch, but they (our INTEL assets) were not aware of any Israeli ships in the area that would be threatened, so no warning was issued. ... |
This reveals that in the Fall of 1967 the Israeli navy had SIGINT operations on its destroyers and at shore-based facilities. Likely, this was also the case in the Summer of 1967 -- when the Liberty was attacked.
If the Israeli navy was capable of monitoring Egyptian radio traffic, from its shore-based facilities, it was capable of monitoring pre-attack, attack and post-attack radio traffic sent by and to USS Liberty. | | | | Ken Halliwell | | Posted: Fri Oct 31, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | This reveals that in the Fall of 1967 the Israeli navy had SIGINT operations on its destroyers and at shore-based facilities. Likely, this was also the case in the Summer of 1967 -- when the Liberty was attacked. | Also, it reveals that the IDF navy had difficultly with keeping track of the whereabouts of its own ships. | | | | outsider | | Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 6:51 am Post subject: |
| @ Ken H:
Given the geopolitical situation of the day (i.e. Cold War and Vietnam War), the need to cover-up gross weakness in US military command-and-control systems, and protect at least one high-commander who made a very bad decision (i.e., Admiral Martin), the USG response makes sense; albeit, not good sense in hindsight.
Purely point of clarification: What 'very bad decision' of Martin's are you referring to?
I have discussed this with Dave Lewis. He agrees that his statements about the use of heat seeking missiles was pure speculation.
Fair enough.
Golden was the ship's Engineering Officer; i.e., the guy in charge of people who work in the engine room and other mechanical-oriented areas of the ship. If Golden told Hounam what is claimed above, then why has he never mentioned it elsewhere or in his many filmed interviews? And who exactly told Golden all of this Top Secret information -- another anonymous source?
George Golden 'allegedly' told Peter Hounam that he had had frequent visits from people who warned him off, as well as getting threatening phone calls against his family. As a man who had gone through the 'Liberty' attack, he would not scare easily, but did decide to ask his lawyer to destroy the documents. ' If Golden told Hounam what is claimed above'..What are you implying, that either George Golden, Peter Hounam, or both, are lying? That seems to be what you are implying.
And lastly, if nuclear weapons were launched in anger, and Peter gives multiple named sources, would not that require Presidential orders?
Do you accept that nukes were launched, that the US Charge d'Affaires in Cairo received information US bombing (though nukes were not specified) was imminent? | | | | Ken Halliwell | | Posted: Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:41 pm Post subject: |
| | Quote: | | Quote: | | Given the geopolitical situation of the day (i.e. Cold War and Vietnam War), the need to cover-up gross weakness in US military command-and-control systems, and protect at least one high-commander who made a very bad decision (i.e., Admiral Martin), the USG response makes sense; albeit, not good sense in hindsight. |
Purely point of clarification: What 'very bad decision' of Martin's are you referring to? | Martin denied McGonagle's request for destroyer escort when he (Martin) was fully aware that Liberty was virtually defenseless and would be operating very near a war zone. Additionally, Martin told McGonagle that fighter aircraft could come to Liberty's defense within about 15 minutes of being notified of a need.
If a full-blown Court of Inquiry would have been conducted, most likely Martin would have been called to testify about the rational for his decision and his wrongful statement about being able to quickly defend Liberty.
| Quote: | | What are you implying, that either George Golden, Peter Hounam, or both, are lying? That seems to be what you are implying. | I'm not implying anything. All I'm saying is that I've never read or heard the story about Golden's purported acts, as told by Hounam, from Golden himself or any other source. And that it seems unlike Golden. This doesn't mean it's not possible; only that it's strange.
| Quote: | And lastly, if nuclear weapons were launched in anger, and Peter gives multiple named sources, would not that require Presidential orders?
Do you accept that nukes were launched, that the US Charge d'Affaires in Cairo received information US bombing (though nukes were not specified) was imminent? | I assume that use of nukes requires an order from the Commander in Chief -- at least that's what I've been led to believe. I have seen no direct evidence that nukes were launched; but it's not beyond belief. It's likely that nukes were at-the-ready in case the Soviets decided it was time to nuke Israel, on behalf of their Arab allies. | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
