Discussion:
USS Liberty: Another Investigation?
(too old to reply)
Joe Meadors
2005-10-25 12:27:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ted Kennedy mentioned the USS Liberty on the floor of the Senate.

Clearly this fits well inside the definition Jay Cristol has created in
his quest for US government investigations of the USS Liberty.

Here's the complete investigation:

Testimony: "USS Liberty"
Finding: "171 wounded"

When is Jay going to increment his count of US government
investigations of the USS Liberty?

Warmest regards,

Joe
Joe Bruno
2005-10-25 15:33:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Meadors
Ted Kennedy mentioned the USS Liberty on the floor of the Senate.
Clearly this fits well inside the definition Jay Cristol has created in
his quest for US government investigations of the USS Liberty.
Testimony: "USS Liberty"
Finding: "171 wounded"
When is Jay going to increment his count of US government
investigations of the USS Liberty?
Warmest regards,
Joe
Let me see if I can clarify this for you:


(1)Congressmen and Senators get paid with tax dollars
(2)Their salaries are big ones-over $100,000 a year
(3)Therefore, investigations cost big money

If you and the other LVA types can raise a few hundred million, you
could perhaps offer to pay for the expense. Then, Congress might
consider it for you and the American taxpayers might not raise hell
about it.
ZuLU
2005-10-26 18:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Meadors
Ted Kennedy mentioned the USS Liberty on the floor of the Senate.
Clearly this fits well inside the definition Jay Cristol has created in
his quest for US government investigations of the USS Liberty.
Testimony: "USS Liberty"
Finding: "171 wounded"
When is Jay going to increment his count of US government
investigations of the USS Liberty?
Warmest regards,
Joe
(1)Congressmen and Senators get paid with tax dollars
(2)Their salaries are big ones-over $100,000 a year
(3)Therefore, investigations cost big money
If you and the other LVA types can raise a few hundred million, you
could perhaps offer to pay for the expense. Then, Congress might
consider it for you and the American taxpayers might not raise hell
about it.
Not necessarily.

The payment for the expense can be made by retaining some money from the
millions of $ paid each year by US taxpayers to Israel.
At the end, isn't it Israel the cause of all that stuff?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3256.htm
p***@aol.com
2005-10-26 18:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ZuLU
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Meadors
Ted Kennedy mentioned the USS Liberty on the floor of the Senate.
Clearly this fits well inside the definition Jay Cristol has created in
his quest for US government investigations of the USS Liberty.
Testimony: "USS Liberty"
Finding: "171 wounded"
When is Jay going to increment his count of US government
investigations of the USS Liberty?
Warmest regards,
Joe
(1)Congressmen and Senators get paid with tax dollars
(2)Their salaries are big ones-over $100,000 a year
(3)Therefore, investigations cost big money
If you and the other LVA types can raise a few hundred million, you
could perhaps offer to pay for the expense. Then, Congress might
consider it for you and the American taxpayers might not raise hell
about it.
Not necessarily.
The payment for the expense can be made by retaining some money from the
millions of $ paid each year by US taxpayers to Israel.
What business is it of yours?
Post by ZuLU
At the end, isn't it Israel the cause of all that stuff?
No, another group of conspiratorial jackasses are the cause of the
problem.

You probably have an affinity to them.

--
Philip Mathews
ZuLU
2005-10-26 23:12:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by ZuLU
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Meadors
Ted Kennedy mentioned the USS Liberty on the floor of the Senate.
Clearly this fits well inside the definition Jay Cristol has created in
his quest for US government investigations of the USS Liberty.
Testimony: "USS Liberty"
Finding: "171 wounded"
When is Jay going to increment his count of US government
investigations of the USS Liberty?
Warmest regards,
Joe
(1)Congressmen and Senators get paid with tax dollars
(2)Their salaries are big ones-over $100,000 a year
(3)Therefore, investigations cost big money
If you and the other LVA types can raise a few hundred million, you
could perhaps offer to pay for the expense. Then, Congress might
consider it for you and the American taxpayers might not raise hell
about it.
Not necessarily.
The payment for the expense can be made by retaining some money from the
millions of $ paid each year by US taxpayers to Israel.
What business is it of yours?
Post by ZuLU
At the end, isn't it Israel the cause of all that stuff?
No, another group of conspiratorial jackasses are the cause of the
problem.
You probably have an affinity to them.
The stuff I mean is the USS Liberty attack, and it was caused by Israel,
so you can put your "affinity" where you want.


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3256.htm
Joe Bruno
2005-10-26 23:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ZuLU
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by ZuLU
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Meadors
Ted Kennedy mentioned the USS Liberty on the floor of the Senate.
Clearly this fits well inside the definition Jay Cristol has created in
his quest for US government investigations of the USS Liberty.
Testimony: "USS Liberty"
Finding: "171 wounded"
When is Jay going to increment his count of US government
investigations of the USS Liberty?
Warmest regards,
Joe
(1)Congressmen and Senators get paid with tax dollars
(2)Their salaries are big ones-over $100,000 a year
(3)Therefore, investigations cost big money
If you and the other LVA types can raise a few hundred million, you
could perhaps offer to pay for the expense. Then, Congress might
consider it for you and the American taxpayers might not raise hell
about it.
Not necessarily.
The payment for the expense can be made by retaining some money from the
millions of $ paid each year by US taxpayers to Israel.
What business is it of yours?
Post by ZuLU
At the end, isn't it Israel the cause of all that stuff?
No, another group of conspiratorial jackasses are the cause of the
problem.
You probably have an affinity to them.
The stuff I mean is the USS Liberty attack, and it was caused by Israel,
Yes, and they admitted fault and paid us for all the damages. They also
paid benefits to the LIBERTY survivors. Did you miss that little tidbit
in your aimless wanderings about the Internet?
p***@aol.com
2005-10-27 19:36:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ZuLU
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by ZuLU
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Meadors
Ted Kennedy mentioned the USS Liberty on the floor of the Senate.
Clearly this fits well inside the definition Jay Cristol has created in
his quest for US government investigations of the USS Liberty.
Testimony: "USS Liberty"
Finding: "171 wounded"
When is Jay going to increment his count of US government
investigations of the USS Liberty?
Warmest regards,
Joe
(1)Congressmen and Senators get paid with tax dollars
(2)Their salaries are big ones-over $100,000 a year
(3)Therefore, investigations cost big money
If you and the other LVA types can raise a few hundred million, you
could perhaps offer to pay for the expense. Then, Congress might
consider it for you and the American taxpayers might not raise hell
about it.
Not necessarily.
The payment for the expense can be made by retaining some money from the
millions of $ paid each year by US taxpayers to Israel.
What business is it of yours?
Post by ZuLU
At the end, isn't it Israel the cause of all that stuff?
No, another group of conspiratorial jackasses are the cause of the
problem.
You probably have an affinity to them.
The stuff I mean is the USS Liberty attack, and it was caused by Israel,
Gee, did you just find that out?

Moron.

--
Philip Mathews
ZuLU
2005-10-28 14:08:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by ZuLU
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by ZuLU
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Meadors
Ted Kennedy mentioned the USS Liberty on the floor of the Senate.
Clearly this fits well inside the definition Jay Cristol has created in
his quest for US government investigations of the USS Liberty.
Testimony: "USS Liberty"
Finding: "171 wounded"
When is Jay going to increment his count of US government
investigations of the USS Liberty?
Warmest regards,
Joe
(1)Congressmen and Senators get paid with tax dollars
(2)Their salaries are big ones-over $100,000 a year
(3)Therefore, investigations cost big money
If you and the other LVA types can raise a few hundred million, you
could perhaps offer to pay for the expense. Then, Congress might
consider it for you and the American taxpayers might not raise hell
about it.
Not necessarily.
The payment for the expense can be made by retaining some money from the
millions of $ paid each year by US taxpayers to Israel.
What business is it of yours?
Post by ZuLU
At the end, isn't it Israel the cause of all that stuff?
No, another group of conspiratorial jackasses are the cause of the
problem.
You probably have an affinity to them.
The stuff I mean is the USS Liberty attack, and it was caused by Israel,
Gee, did you just find that out?
Why don't you understand that what I found is that Israel must pay for
the expense?
NO need to give the money, the USA have only to retain a little of a big
amount that US taxpayers send to it each year.
Another advantage is that the decision come from the payers which is fair.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3256.htm
Post by p***@aol.com
Moron.
To Insult is the weapon of the weaks. You are authorized to continue if
you feel better after that. Don't forget to take some pills , you are
near a nervous breakdown.
p***@aol.com
2005-10-28 18:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ZuLU
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by ZuLU
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by ZuLU
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Meadors
Ted Kennedy mentioned the USS Liberty on the floor of the Senate.
Clearly this fits well inside the definition Jay Cristol has created in
his quest for US government investigations of the USS Liberty.
Testimony: "USS Liberty"
Finding: "171 wounded"
When is Jay going to increment his count of US government
investigations of the USS Liberty?
Warmest regards,
Joe
(1)Congressmen and Senators get paid with tax dollars
(2)Their salaries are big ones-over $100,000 a year
(3)Therefore, investigations cost big money
If you and the other LVA types can raise a few hundred million, you
could perhaps offer to pay for the expense. Then, Congress might
consider it for you and the American taxpayers might not raise hell
about it.
Not necessarily.
The payment for the expense can be made by retaining some money from the
millions of $ paid each year by US taxpayers to Israel.
What business is it of yours?
Post by ZuLU
At the end, isn't it Israel the cause of all that stuff?
No, another group of conspiratorial jackasses are the cause of the
problem.
You probably have an affinity to them.
The stuff I mean is the USS Liberty attack, and it was caused by Israel,
Gee, did you just find that out?
Why don't you understand that what I found is that Israel must pay for
the expense?
And what you don't understand is that they must not pay an expense for
the ravings of conspiracy nuts.
Post by ZuLU
Post by p***@aol.com
Moron.
To Insult is the weapon of the weaks.
No it isn't. Sometimes it is a proper expression of contempt for a
contemptible fool.

--
Philip Mathews
Mort
2005-10-28 18:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[snip]
And what you don't understand is that they must not pay an expense for
the ravings of conspiracy nuts.
Even "conspiracy nuts" should not be denied due process and allocation
of resources to determine whether or not their complaint (War Crimes
report in this case) has merit.

The government used to call people "nuts" who complained about Agent
Orange causing harm. Guess what? It turned out that the government
was nuts.

Mort
p***@aol.com
2005-10-28 18:44:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mort
[snip]
And what you don't understand is that they must not pay an expense for
the ravings of conspiracy nuts.
Even "conspiracy nuts" should not be denied due process and allocation
of resources to determine whether or not their complaint (War Crimes
report in this case) has merit.
Their nutty complaint will be dealt with appropriately.
Post by Mort
The government used to call people "nuts" who complained about Agent
Orange causing harm.
They also call lots of nuts, nuts.

--
Philip Mathews
ZuLU
2005-10-29 14:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Mort
[snip]
And what you don't understand is that they must not pay an expense for
the ravings of conspiracy nuts.
Even "conspiracy nuts" should not be denied due process and allocation
of resources to determine whether or not their complaint (War Crimes
report in this case) has merit.
Their nutty complaint will be dealt with appropriately.
So what? Why do you complaint about a right any taxpayer has in USA, I
suppose.
In that case they are numerous to claim for the truth and if a new
investigation wouldn't be a charge for the other US taxpayers, where is
the problem?

I researched the literature we have in France about that topic and I
regret to inform you that the most plausible thesis that could be found
out is the one of "deliberate attack".

Lately, on National radio "France inter" a program related with French
intelligence sources didn't left any doubt about it.

The explanation most valuable to that deliberate attack was the planned
Israeli's raid on the Golan on June, 8 at 11h 30 am, the ship was
observed at 6 am. Last orders postponed the assault, USS LIberty's issue
was studied in a special commission and Golan's attack decided a little
time after.
Tsahal was afraid about the possible advise of Golan's raid to Syrian
forces because the USA were opposed to that action as they had
previously discussed with Israel.
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Mort
The government used to call people "nuts" who complained about Agent
Orange causing harm.
They also call lots of nuts, nuts.
Are you afraid about the "nuts"?
What is your problem on that matter if it won't cost anything from your
pocket (unless you are Israeli, of course )?
p***@aol.com
2005-10-29 15:44:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ZuLU
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Mort
[snip]
And what you don't understand is that they must not pay an expense for
the ravings of conspiracy nuts.
Even "conspiracy nuts" should not be denied due process and allocation
of resources to determine whether or not their complaint (War Crimes
report in this case) has merit.
Their nutty complaint will be dealt with appropriately.
So what? Why do you complaint about a right any taxpayer has in USA, I
suppose.
Who complained? The fact that someone has a right doesn't mean someone
can't point out an abuse of such a right.
Post by ZuLU
In that case they are numerous to claim for the truth and if a new
investigation wouldn't be a charge for the other US taxpayers, where is
the problem?
How do you know they are clamoring for the truth? What they are
clamoring for is publicity for a mindless conspiracy theory that is
going nowhere.
Post by ZuLU
I researched the literature we have in France about that topic and I
regret to inform you that the most plausible thesis that could be found
out is the one of "deliberate attack".
I regret to inform you that you are an idiot who investigated nothing.
Post by ZuLU
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Mort
The government used to call people "nuts" who complained about Agent
Orange causing harm.
They also call lots of nuts, nuts.
Are you afraid about the "nuts"?
What makes you think that people who recognize you as a nut fear you?

Feel the need to invest your lies with some sense of self-importance?

--
Philip Mathews
ZuLU
2005-10-29 17:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by ZuLU
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Mort
[snip]
And what you don't understand is that they must not pay an expense for
the ravings of conspiracy nuts.
Even "conspiracy nuts" should not be denied due process and allocation
of resources to determine whether or not their complaint (War Crimes
report in this case) has merit.
Their nutty complaint will be dealt with appropriately.
So what? Why do you complaint about a right any taxpayer has in USA, I
suppose.
Who complained? The fact that someone has a right doesn't mean someone
can't point out an abuse of such a right.
Post by ZuLU
In that case they are numerous to claim for the truth and if a new
investigation wouldn't be a charge for the other US taxpayers, where is
the problem?
How do you know they are clamoring for the truth? What they are
clamoring for is publicity for a mindless conspiracy theory that is
going nowhere.
Post by ZuLU
I researched the literature we have in France about that topic and I
regret to inform you that the most plausible thesis that could be found
out is the one of "deliberate attack".
I regret to inform you that you are an idiot who investigated nothing.
How much are you paid to insult people over there?

Do you want more?

Who was responsible for the order of attack?

You can guess among them:

Meir Amit, Mossad's director,

Some generals of Hawk's camp

Ezer Weizman, former Air force commandant, High Command special assessor
Aharon Yaariv, Chief of Military Intelligence
Rehavam Zeevi, chief of operations,
Mordechaï Hod, Air Forces Commandant
Shlomo Erel, Navy Force Commandant

Most Probable

Yitzhak Rabin, Chief of General High Command who was there on JUne, 8 1967.
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by ZuLU
Are you afraid about the "nuts"?
What makes you think that people who recognize you as a nut fear you?
Feel the need to invest your lies with some sense of self-importance?
Which are your arguments to be against another investigation exactly?
Will you pay something, will you loose something?
What about the order to be in silence about the attack given by sup
officer to USS LIberty's crew?
Is it something usual in USA?
p***@aol.com
2005-10-29 18:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ZuLU
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by ZuLU
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by Mort
[snip]
And what you don't understand is that they must not pay an expense for
the ravings of conspiracy nuts.
Even "conspiracy nuts" should not be denied due process and allocation
of resources to determine whether or not their complaint (War Crimes
report in this case) has merit.
Their nutty complaint will be dealt with appropriately.
So what? Why do you complaint about a right any taxpayer has in USA, I
suppose.
Who complained? The fact that someone has a right doesn't mean someone
can't point out an abuse of such a right.
Post by ZuLU
In that case they are numerous to claim for the truth and if a new
investigation wouldn't be a charge for the other US taxpayers, where is
the problem?
How do you know they are clamoring for the truth? What they are
clamoring for is publicity for a mindless conspiracy theory that is
going nowhere.
Post by ZuLU
I researched the literature we have in France about that topic and I
regret to inform you that the most plausible thesis that could be found
out is the one of "deliberate attack".
I regret to inform you that you are an idiot who investigated nothing.
How much are you paid to insult people over there?
How much do you get paid to deny proven history?
Post by ZuLU
Do you want more?
More what?
Post by ZuLU
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by ZuLU
Are you afraid about the "nuts"?
What makes you think that people who recognize you as a nut fear you?
Feel the need to invest your lies with some sense of self-importance?
Which are your arguments to be against another investigation exactly?
There is no need. How many of the exant investigations have you read?

Or is actual knowledge not necessary for your mindless brand of
activity?

--
Philip Mathews
Mike
2005-10-29 20:54:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ZuLU
I researched the literature we have in France about that topic and I
regret to inform you that the most plausible thesis that could be found
out is the one of "deliberate attack".
"we have in France"? As if that really has any meaning, given that the
incident didn't involve France.
Post by ZuLU
Lately, on National radio "France inter" a program related with French
intelligence sources didn't left any doubt about it.
So let's just a quick look at what apparently that means in the way of
facts.
Post by ZuLU
The explanation most valuable to that deliberate attack was the planned
Israeli's raid on the Golan on June, 8 at 11h 30 am, the ship was
observed at 6 am. Last orders postponed the assault, USS LIberty's issue
was studied in a special commission and Golan's attack decided a little
time after.
Tsahal was afraid about the possible advise of Golan's raid to Syrian
forces because the USA were opposed to that action as they had
previously discussed with Israel.
First, that's the "belief" as put forth by Ennes in his book, based on
a newspaper editorial. That is; since the ship was attacked on 8 June,
then Syria was attacked -- on 9 June, that must be the reason.

Well what are the problems there? How about the established fact that
the ship was operating off the Sinai, and had only shown up that day?
She wasn't off northern Israel, but off the Sinai. Nowehere near
Syria.

As the then CIA station chief in Israel has stated:

<start>
As for the lingering suspicions, mainly among U.S. Navy personnel, that
Israel's attack was deliberate so that America could not monitor a
ground offensive onto Syria's Golan Heights, John Hadden responds:
"That's ridiculous. What's a U.S. ship near Egypt going to find out
from there?"
<end>

FRIENDS IN DEED: INSIDE THE U.S.-ISRAEL ALLIANCE
by Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman
pgs 130-131

And of course from State Department messages we have this from the
briefing on the morning of 8 June relating to Syria:

<start>
P 081640Z JUN 67
FM AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY
...
1. FOLLOWING IS SUMMARY OF IDF INTELLIGENCE CHIEF'S BRIEFING
OF MCPHERSON OF WHITE HOUSE JUNE 8, 11:30 A. M.

2. GENERAL YARIV SAID THAT THE PRINCIPAL TASK OF THE IDF
NOW WAS TO EXPLOIT ITS SUCCESS. THERE STILL REMAINED THE
SYRIAN PROBLEM AND PERHAPS IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO GIVE
SYRIA BLOW TO GET MORE QUOTE ELBOW ROOM UNQUOTE.
...
<end>

Here, at 1130, 2 1/2 hours before Liberty ends up being attacked, the
IDF intelligence chief is telling US embassy folks about the Syrian
problem.

Some friggin' SECRET, right?

And while it's not unexpected, even Abbas Eban has puth forth:

<start>
Some American leaders - including Secretary of State Rusk - found
it difficult to assume that the attack had been inadvertent. They
occupied their minds with various scenarios of motivation. All of them
were false. Israel had no interest whatever in preventing the United
States from knowing
what was going on. There was nothing apologetic about our military
decisions.
...
[LBJ advisor] McBundy [sic] went on to reflect, in a tentative voice,
that it would seem strange that Syria - which had originated the war
- might be the only one that seemed to be getting off without injury.
Might it not turn out, paradoxically, he said, that less guilty Arab
states, such as Jordan, had suffered heavy loss, while Syria would be
free to start the whole deadly sequence again?
<end>

PERSONAL WITNESS: ISRAEL THROUGH MY EYES
By Abba Eban
pgs. 442-423

Also ignored in France (as well as other places) is the fact that the
decision by Israel to take the Golan Heights was not authorized during
the 8 June evening defense committee meeting -- several hours after the
ship had been attacked.

Yes the US State Depart. didn't want there to be any more fighting,
especially a third front against Syria -- but bottom line, Israel
wasn't listening to the US State Depart. and certainly was getting
other signals from the US gov't. So why attack deliberately a known US
ship in the first place? Bet that overlooked detail hasn't been
discussed in France ...
Roger
2005-10-30 04:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
Post by ZuLU
I researched the literature we have in France about that topic and I
regret to inform you that the most plausible thesis that could be found
out is the one of "deliberate attack".
Of *Course* the attack was deliberate -- no one has claimed otherwise.
Roger
2005-10-28 20:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
Post by ZuLU
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by ZuLU
The stuff I mean is the USS Liberty attack, and it was caused by Israel,
Gee, did you just find that out?
Why don't you understand that what I found is that Israel must pay for
the expense?
And yet didn't find out that they'd already paid?
ZuLU
2005-10-29 15:04:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
Post by ZuLU
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by ZuLU
The stuff I mean is the USS Liberty attack, and it was caused by Israel,
Gee, did you just find that out?
Why don't you understand that what I found is that Israel must pay for
the expense?
And yet didn't find out that they'd already paid?
They paid something because of the "accident" point of view. I don't
know if the amount, paid by US taxpayers at the end, was fair or not,
wounded and deaths' families are better judges than I to appreciate.

But, Don't you think Israel would pay a little more under "deliberate
attack" point of view?
p***@aol.com
2005-10-29 15:45:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ZuLU
Post by Roger
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
Post by ZuLU
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by ZuLU
The stuff I mean is the USS Liberty attack, and it was caused by Israel,
Gee, did you just find that out?
Why don't you understand that what I found is that Israel must pay for
the expense?
And yet didn't find out that they'd already paid?
They paid something because of the "accident" point of view. I don't
know if the amount, paid by US taxpayers at the end, was fair or not,
wounded and deaths' families are better judges than I to appreciate.
Then your ignorant comments about the issue are exposed.

--
Philip Mathews
Mike
2005-10-29 21:01:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ZuLU
Post by Roger
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
Post by ZuLU
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by ZuLU
The stuff I mean is the USS Liberty attack, and it was caused by Israel,
Gee, did you just find that out?
Why don't you understand that what I found is that Israel must pay for
the expense?
And yet didn't find out that they'd already paid?
They paid something because of the "accident" point of view.
They paid because of the deaths and injuries (and related care),
period. The amounts submitted by the USG for the "wrongful deaths"
(for example) had nothing whatsoever to do with your sentence.
Post by ZuLU
I don't
know if the amount, paid by US taxpayers at the end,
Ah, the years were 1968 and 1969. As for the wrongful deaths, here's
the operative phrase from one of the DOS memos on the subject:

<start>
On May 27, 1968, the Embassy of the US in Tel Aviv
and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel exchanged
notes providing for a full and final settlement of the
34 claims in the claimed amount of 3,323,500 US dollars.
The original note from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs
and a "Treasury of the State of Israel check" for the
amount of settlement were received May 31, 1968. On
June 3, 1968, the check was deposited and covered into
the Treasury and credited to Trust Fund Account 19X8815,
Indemnification Funds, Foreign Governments, as required
by the Act of February 27, 1896, for money received by
the Secretary of State from foreign governments in trust
for US citizens and others.
<end>

Dated June 4, 1968, from Mr. Ewiatek to Mr. Salans

Can't get over how some folks believe that the USG just hands over cash
to Israel as part of foreign aid.
Post by ZuLU
was fair or not,
wounded and deaths' families are better judges than I to appreciate.
It's based on international standards and laws:

<start>
New York Times
May 29, 1968

WASHINGTON, May 28 - Israel paid the United States $3,323,500 today
in compensation to the families of 34 Americans killed in the Israeli
attack on the United States communications ship Liberty last June 8.

The State Department announced that the United States Treasury would
shortly make payments to the next of kin, varying from $20,000 to
$300,000, depending on individual family circumstances.

...

Officials said the amount of compensation for each of the casualties
was determined in accordance with domestic and international damage
laws.

Among the factors taken into consideration were the age of the victim
and his family status and number of dependents. An unspecified figure
was included in each of the claims to compensate for "emotional
anguish" to the survivors.
<end>

And from one of the DOS memos on the subject:

<start>
As you know, on December 29, 1967 we presented
to the Government of Israel the 34 death claims arising
from the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty. In accordance
with the established international legal practice the amount
of compensation claimed on behalf of the families of
the deceased was calculated on the basis of loss of
support, loss of special services, and emotional anguish.
The claims totalled $3,314,361.
<end>

Dated May 17, 1968 from Mr. Meekers to Under Secretary Katzenbach
Post by ZuLU
But, Don't you think Israel would pay a little more under "deliberate
attack" point of view?
Wrongful deaths are wrongful deaths, period.
Roger
2005-10-30 04:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
Post by ZuLU
Post by Roger
Post by ZuLU
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by ZuLU
The stuff I mean is the USS Liberty attack, and it was caused by Israel,
Gee, did you just find that out?
Why don't you understand that what I found is that Israel must pay for
the expense?
And yet didn't find out that they'd already paid?
They paid something because of the "accident" point of view.
No, they didn't.
Post by ZuLU
I don't
know if the amount, paid by US taxpayers at the end, was fair or not,
wounded and deaths' families are better judges than I to appreciate.
But, Don't you think Israel would pay a little more under "deliberate
attack" point of view?
Since no one, least of all the Israelis, claim that the attack was
anything other than deliberate, what *are* you blathering about?
ZuLU
2005-10-30 17:39:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
Post by ZuLU
Post by Roger
Post by ZuLU
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by ZuLU
The stuff I mean is the USS Liberty attack, and it was caused by Israel,
Gee, did you just find that out?
Why don't you understand that what I found is that Israel must pay for
the expense?
And yet didn't find out that they'd already paid?
They paid something because of the "accident" point of view.
No, they didn't.
Post by ZuLU
I don't
know if the amount, paid by US taxpayers at the end, was fair or not,
wounded and deaths' families are better judges than I to appreciate.
But, Don't you think Israel would pay a little more under "deliberate
attack" point of view?
Since no one, least of all the Israelis, claim that the attack was
anything other than deliberate, what *are* you blathering about?
Sure, I would may be explain that "deliberate" means "by knowing it was
an US ship"
Mort
2005-10-30 18:39:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
For me, doubt will exist until somebody offers evidence that refutes
the fraudlent gun camera claim:
http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/essays/guncameraintro.html
Mike
2005-10-30 19:11:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mort
For me, doubt will exist until somebody offers evidence that refutes
http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/essays/guncameraintro.html
Ah, it works the other way around; until the LVA can actually provide
proof of what it claims. Of course the LVA seems to be a bit mixed up
in the first place; the Israelis aren't claiming that the ship WASN'T
attacked.

Not surprisingly the LVA has a credibility problem of its own when it
comes to the issue of *fraudient* photos:

http://members.aol.com/libertyincident/RGxxfakephoto.html
Mort
2005-10-30 20:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike
Post by Mort
For me, doubt will exist until somebody offers evidence that refutes
http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/essays/guncameraintro.html
Ah, it works the other way around; until the LVA can actually provide
proof of what it claims. Of course the LVA seems to be a bit mixed up
in the first place; the Israelis aren't claiming that the ship WASN'T
attacked.
The proof is in the seeing. The two photos (history report v/s
Cristol) do not look like each other -- not even close. And the one
that does look like the ship has lots problems, as cited in the review.

IMHO, the photos were not intended to somehow deny the ship was
attacked, but to hide what the pilots were able to see while they were
attacked the ship. By presenting extremely poor gun camera
photographs, it's difficult to see what the pilots may have seen.
Likely, the whole idea of presenting poor (and fake) photos is to
convey that the pilots were not able to see any identifying marks or
details on the ship.
Post by Mike
Not surprisingly the LVA has a credibility problem of its own when it
Since the LVA -- or whoever -- removed the offending photo and admitted
it was fake, I'd say the matter is history. Thus, the LVA *had* a
credibility problem that has since been addressed.
Mike
2005-10-30 20:51:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mort
Post by Mike
Post by Mort
For me, doubt will exist until somebody offers evidence that refutes
http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/essays/guncameraintro.html
Ah, it works the other way around; until the LVA can actually provide
proof of what it claims. Of course the LVA seems to be a bit mixed up
in the first place; the Israelis aren't claiming that the ship WASN'T
attacked.
The proof is in the seeing. The two photos (history report v/s
Cristol) do not look like each other -- not even close. And the one
that does look like the ship has lots problems, as cited in the review.
In neither case are actual photos being examined. There is no
*analysis* of any photos; they are rescanned images from pages; pages
which have scanned imprint images -- in no case has the LVA actually
displayed any photo images in support of its claim that what one is
"seeing" is fake. In fact, what's shown for an actual photo image (the
docking at Little Creek) is clearly not the same image as the Mirage
gun camera film.
Post by Mort
IMHO, the photos were not intended to somehow deny the ship was
attacked, but to hide what the pilots were able to see while they were
attacked the ship.
Oh please, an attacking pilot is concentrating on putting ordnance on
target. This claim as to a reason is truly silly.
Post by Mort
By presenting extremely poor gun camera
photographs, it's difficult to see what the pilots may have seen.
So that's why the Israelis would produce fake photos???????? In case
it escapes you, gun camera footage is not the actual view of what a
pilot sees; for a number of clearly obvious reasons.
Post by Mort
Likely, the whole idea of presenting poor (and fake) photos is to
convey that the pilots were not able to see any identifying marks or
details on the ship.
Then there would have been no reason to do so in the very first place
given what the Israelis reported as well as what Liberty herself was
reporting.

More "Likely" is that the LVA simply continues to produce its nonsense
on the net; attempting sucker others who don't know any better.
Post by Mort
Post by Mike
Not surprisingly the LVA has a credibility problem of its own when it
Since the LVA -- or whoever -- removed the offending photo and admitted
it was fake, I'd say the matter is history.
"Innocent people do not need to doctor evidence."

That's the LVA motto -- so the question remains; why did the LVA
produce and post a doctored USN photo?
Post by Mort
Thus, the LVA *had* a
credibility problem that has since been addressed.
It clearly hasn't been addressed: "Innocent people do not need to
doctor evidence." That's the LVA motto ...

http://members.aol.com/libertyincident/RGxxfakephoto.html
Mort
2005-10-30 23:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike
Post by Mort
Post by Mike
Post by Mort
For me, doubt will exist until somebody offers evidence that refutes
http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/essays/guncameraintro.html
Ah, it works the other way around; until the LVA can actually provide
proof of what it claims. Of course the LVA seems to be a bit mixed up
in the first place; the Israelis aren't claiming that the ship WASN'T
attacked.
The proof is in the seeing. The two photos (history report v/s
Cristol) do not look like each other -- not even close. And the one
that does look like the ship has lots problems, as cited in the review.
In neither case are actual photos being examined. There is no
*analysis* of any photos; they are rescanned images from pages; pages
which have scanned imprint images -- in no case has the LVA actually
displayed any photo images in support of its claim that what one is
"seeing" is fake. In fact, what's shown for an actual photo image (the
docking at Little Creek) is clearly not the same image as the Mirage
gun camera film.
Yet, Cristol considers them good enough for his *analysis* and example
purposes. If they are good enough for Cristol, then they should be
good enough for the LVA.
Post by Mike
Post by Mort
IMHO, the photos were not intended to somehow deny the ship was
attacked, but to hide what the pilots were able to see while they were
attacked the ship.
Oh please, an attacking pilot is concentrating on putting ordnance on
target. This claim as to a reason is truly silly.
I suspect pilots are skilled at multi-tasking. If you recall, Royal
fight leader was concerned about not hitting the ship's *masts* while
targeting the ship. And Royal fight noticed CPR5. Hmm, how come
Spector reported only one mast and didn't see CPR5? Yet, Royal fight
immediately noticed more than one mast, even through dense smoke, and
saw CPR5 when attacking the port side. Amazing.
Post by Mike
Post by Mort
By presenting extremely poor gun camera
photographs, it's difficult to see what the pilots may have seen.
So that's why the Israelis would produce fake photos???????? In case
it escapes you, gun camera footage is not the actual view of what a
pilot sees; for a number of clearly obvious reasons.
You mean the pilot doesn't see, in his gun sight, what the gun camera
shows in the gun sight? Then how the heck does the pilot aim at the
target? Perhaps you're referring to the quality of the image. Of
course, the pilot would have a much better view of the target than seen
in any gun camera film.
Post by Mike
Post by Mort
Likely, the whole idea of presenting poor (and fake) photos is to
convey that the pilots were not able to see any identifying marks or
details on the ship.
Then there would have been no reason to do so in the very first place
given what the Israelis reported as well as what Liberty herself was
reporting.
The Israelis (Spector) reported they (he) saw a warship with no flag or
other remarkable features, other than one mast and one stack. Maybe
true film/photos/prints would have clearly showed a flag, three masts
and one stack -- and lots of antennas.
Mike
2005-10-31 01:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mort
Post by Mike
Post by Mort
Post by Mike
Post by Mort
For me, doubt will exist until somebody offers evidence that refutes
http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/essays/guncameraintro.html
Ah, it works the other way around; until the LVA can actually provide
proof of what it claims. Of course the LVA seems to be a bit mixed up
in the first place; the Israelis aren't claiming that the ship WASN'T
attacked.
The proof is in the seeing. The two photos (history report v/s
Cristol) do not look like each other -- not even close. And the one
that does look like the ship has lots problems, as cited in the review.
In neither case are actual photos being examined. There is no
*analysis* of any photos; they are rescanned images from pages; pages
which have scanned imprint images -- in no case has the LVA actually
displayed any photo images in support of its claim that what one is
"seeing" is fake. In fact, what's shown for an actual photo image (the
docking at Little Creek) is clearly not the same image as the Mirage
gun camera film.
Yet, Cristol considers them good enough for his *analysis* and example
purposes.
As did the publisher ...
Post by Mort
If they are good enough for Cristol, then they should be
good enough for the LVA.
The problem you have is that your placing the LVA on the same level as
Cristol when it comes to doing research and uncovering documentation.
It's no contest.
Post by Mort
Post by Mike
Post by Mort
IMHO, the photos were not intended to somehow deny the ship was
attacked, but to hide what the pilots were able to see while they were
attacked the ship.
Oh please, an attacking pilot is concentrating on putting ordnance on
target. This claim as to a reason is truly silly.
I suspect pilots are skilled at multi-tasking.
Ah, the point is that when your're dropping ordnance you're not
"multi-tasking", especially in a 1950's-designed jet.
Post by Mort
If you recall, Royal
fight leader was concerned about not hitting the ship's *masts* while
targeting the ship.
And if you recall that was a warning to the Royal flight WINGMAN, who
was making his run, as well as part of dropping ordnance. Geez ...
Post by Mort
And Royal fight noticed CPR5. Hmm, how come
Spector reported only one mast and didn't see CPR5? Yet, Royal fight
immediately noticed more than one mast, even through dense smoke, and
saw CPR5 when attacking the port side. Amazing.
No, not really if you'd just stop and think about it. Royal flight
switched from an attack mode to an observation mode (i.e., lower and
slower) -- which came AFTER having dropped his ordnance.

It would really help if you'd attempt to understand how all this
unfolded.
Post by Mort
Post by Mike
Post by Mort
By presenting extremely poor gun camera
photographs, it's difficult to see what the pilots may have seen.
So that's why the Israelis would produce fake photos???????? In case
it escapes you, gun camera footage is not the actual view of what a
pilot sees; for a number of clearly obvious reasons.
You mean the pilot doesn't see, in his gun sight, what the gun camera
shows in the gun sight?
To begin with we're *discussing*, I thought, how the gun camera film
turned out; second, ever take a photo w/ a camera? If so, you'd know
that when your eye is against the viewer, you have no other view.
Post by Mort
Then how the heck does the pilot aim at the
target?
It's not w/ his eyes plastered against the inside of his cockpit screen
nor against the gun sight viewer.
Post by Mort
Perhaps you're referring to the quality of the image.
No kidding; which makes your comment of "By presenting extremely poor
gun camera photographs, it's difficult to see what the pilots may have
seen" all the more ridiculous given we know the general conditions on 8
June 1967 in the Eastern Med.
Post by Mort
Of
course, the pilot would have a much better view of the target than seen
in any gun camera film.
That's correct. It's not represented by how the gun camera film
actually turns out.
Post by Mort
Post by Mike
Post by Mort
Likely, the whole idea of presenting poor (and fake) photos is to
convey that the pilots were not able to see any identifying marks or
details on the ship.
Then there would have been no reason to do so in the very first place
given what the Israelis reported as well as what Liberty herself was
reporting.
The Israelis (Spector) reported they (he) saw a warship with no flag or
other remarkable features, other than one mast and one stack. Maybe
true film/photos/prints would have clearly showed a flag, three masts
and one stack -- and lots of antennas.
Please ... "true"????? As if what the gun camera LENS actually records
is what the human eye takes in and registers. Ever stop for example to
think what was the magnification factor of the gun camera lens? -- as
if you really think it's all suppose to be a Kodak moment. And then
lastly there's the process of film developing to consider.

So, why did the LVA produce and display a doctored USN photo?
Mort
2005-10-31 13:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[snip]
Post by Mort
If you recall, Royal
fight leader was concerned about not hitting the ship's *masts* while
targeting the ship.
And if you recall that was a warning to the Royal flight WINGMAN, who
was making his run, as well as part of dropping ordnance. Geez ...
The point is that Royal flight noticed the ship was multi-masted while
it was damaged and giving off smoke. How come Spector (an ace pilot)
didn't notice and report this after supposedly making several ID runs
around the ship before attacking? If Spector would have reported one
forward and one aft solid mast, one central lattice mast, and one
stack, it would have given a different impression than reporting only
one mast and one stack.

Of course, if Spector reported what he should have seen, then the
mistaken identity excuse goes out the window. Thus, we now know why
the transcript has him reporting only one mast and one stack.
Post by Mort
And Royal fight noticed CPR5. Hmm, how come
Spector reported only one mast and didn't see CPR5? Yet, Royal fight
immediately noticed more than one mast, even through dense smoke, and
saw CPR5 when attacking the port side. Amazing.
No, not really if you'd just stop and think about it. Royal flight
switched from an attack mode to an observation mode (i.e., lower and
slower) -- which came AFTER having dropped his ordnance.
According to Cristol, the letters on the bow were seen/noticed by the
Royal flight pilot as he strafed the port side.
It would really help if you'd attempt to understand how all this
unfolded.
Post by Mort
Post by Mike
Post by Mort
By presenting extremely poor gun camera
photographs, it's difficult to see what the pilots may have seen.
So that's why the Israelis would produce fake photos???????? In case
it escapes you, gun camera footage is not the actual view of what a
pilot sees; for a number of clearly obvious reasons.
You mean the pilot doesn't see, in his gun sight, what the gun camera
shows in the gun sight?
To begin with we're *discussing*, I thought, how the gun camera film
turned out; second, ever take a photo w/ a camera? If so, you'd know
that when your eye is against the viewer, you have no other view.
Are you assuming one eye closed? By the way, how did the pilots set
the range markers (the circle of dots) if they didn't know the size
(width and length) of the ship? The gun camera images make it appear
that the range markers were properly set.

Similar question for the patrol boat gunners: how were they able to use
their rangefinders without knowing the ship's true dimensions? If they
thought the ship was El Quseir, their shots would have fallen short due
to use of El Quseir dimensions instead of USS Liberty dimensions.
Mike
2005-10-31 20:02:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Let us know when that crack team of LVA "forensic analysts" can
actually provide documentation in support of their stated assumptions
you're so fond of repeating.
Mort
2005-10-31 20:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike
Let us know when that crack team of LVA "forensic analysts" can
actually provide documentation in support of their stated assumptions
you're so fond of repeating.
And exactly where is Cristol's documentation to authenticate the gun
camera photos and IAF transcript in his book, and the Israeli War Logs
on his website?
Mike
2005-10-31 21:08:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mort
Post by Mike
Let us know when that crack team of LVA "forensic analysts" can
actually provide documentation in support of their stated assumptions
you're so fond of repeating.
And exactly where is Cristol's documentation to authenticate the gun
camera photos and IAF transcript in his book, and the Israeli War Logs
on his website?
When it comes to comparing the efforts of judge Cristol regarding the
research conducted and material obtained, for example, and the LVA on
the other hand, all one one need do is recall this LVA statement (as
only one example):

"Innocent people do not need to doctor evidence."

and compare it to the LVA doctored USN photo:

http://members.aol.com/libertyincident/RGxxfakephoto.html

We'll ignore for now the LVA's inability to even understand what
constitutes "neutral waters" as defined by the Hague Conference of 1907
(Hague XIII) ...
Mort
2005-10-31 22:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike
Post by Mort
Post by Mike
Let us know when that crack team of LVA "forensic analysts" can
actually provide documentation in support of their stated assumptions
you're so fond of repeating.
And exactly where is Cristol's documentation to authenticate the gun
camera photos and IAF transcript in his book, and the Israeli War Logs
on his website?
When it comes to comparing the efforts of judge Cristol regarding the
research conducted and material obtained, for example, and the LVA on
the other hand, all one one need do is recall this LVA statement (as
"Innocent people do not need to doctor evidence."
http://members.aol.com/libertyincident/RGxxfakephoto.html
As I recall, the obvious fake photo you cite was published by Gotcher,
on the usslibertyinquiry site. This site was once managed by Gotcher,
but now it appears to be managed by Ennes. I do not believe either of
these sites are owned, managed or sanctioned by the LVA organization.

Perhaps both of us should be more careful in our attribution of who
published and claimed what about any given image. It's all too easy to
broad-brush anybody who doesn't buy into Cristol's research or the
IDF's storyline as being somehow part of the LVA. I suspect there are
attack survivors who are not members of the LVA that don't believe the
attack was a mistake. So, it would not be fair to state that their
views and claims are those of the LVA or brand them as being of "the
LVA."

Anyway, the fact that Gotcher published an obvious fake image isn't at
the same level of Cristol publishing fake images that his book claims
came from the IDF. The only other place Cristol's fake images appear
are in the British film "Attack on the Liberty". For all I know, the
British film company fabricated the images and gave them to Cristol's
publisher. British press and film have a bit of history in this
regard. Incidentally, isn't Cristol's publisher a British outfit?
Mike
2005-10-31 22:47:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
<start>
Proceedings
May 2005
pgs 14-15

Rick Russell: This article ["Liberty Victims Did Not Die in Vain"] is
marred by the author's unsupported attack on A. Jay Cristol's study,
The Liberty Incident: The 1967 Attack on the U.S. Navy Spy Ship. I was
the acquiring editor for Cristol's book at Brassey's. Before joining
this publisher I served ten years as a historian in the Contemporary
History Branch of the U.S. Naval Historical Center. This book is not
"bad history," as Wells claims. Its impressive endorsements and
published scholarly reviews refute such a verdict. Instead, this book
is the most thorough study of the attack offered to date and represents
a major leap forward in our understanding of what happened to the
Liberty (AGTR-5) on 8 June 1967. Furthermore, documents obtained from
the National Security Agency via the Freedom of Information Act
subsequent to the book's publication reinforce the author's findings.
Still, whether historians or policy makers, we view it as the last word
on the subject only at our peril. Thus, rather than accept Well's
notion that our culture is endangered by bad history -- apparently
meaning history with which he and others with strong opinions do not
agree -- we might prevail on those agencies of the U.S. government that
still hold classified material to help to advance the historical
process by releasing documents pertinent to this subject. It should be
self-evident that excessive secrecy is a greater threat to our culture
than open and fair debate.
<end>

Do your own research as to whether or not Brassey's was "British owned"
and come back when you can actually demonstrate a publishing
co./out-of-business YV production co. conspiracy regarding what you
think are fake gun camera film. Geez ...

After all:

"Innocent people do not need to doctor evidence" is the LVA motto ...

http://members.aol.com/libertyincident/RGxxfakephoto.html
little_people
2005-11-01 08:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Mort posted...
By the way, what is your proof or evidence that the gun camera
pictures/images are true?
I don't have to provide that, Mort. I'm not relying upon the pictures/images in question
to bolster any position I'm taking on this issue - i.e., any claims that I am making
do not rest soley upon what these pictures/images depict. For the most part, I have
the sworn testimony of the survivors to serve in that capacity. In short, these
pictures/images merely serve to document that to which we all already agree -
that the USS Liberty was under attack by Israeli planes which had the ship in their
gun sights. Beyond some discussion regarding the direction in which the smoke
appears to be blowing, that's the way Cristol seems to be treating them, as well.

You, on the other hand, are repeating a very specific and far-reaching claim based
upon little more than wild and unsupported speculation. You do not provide any
evidence yielded by research on *actual* photographs, which, at minimum, is
what would be required for you to even utter the words "fraudulent" or "fake" with
regard to these pictures/images. That doesn't stop you, however, from repeating
outlandish charges which implicate Cristol and the IDF.

This is, at best, irresponsible and demonstrates a want of intellectual
honesty among those who make such utterances.
Frankly, this issue could be settled by somebody (Cristol?) publishing
a high resolution digital image of the contiguous film frames,
including its sprocket holes and film batch data, along with a signed
affidavit by an IDF official regarding authenticity. Of course, even
this would not be foolproof, but it should certainly cause people who
claim the images are fake to rethink their position.
The "people who claim the images are fake" have already rethought their
position on at least one occasion. In fact, this claim itself constitutes a
"rethink", as they have already made (and subsequently discarded)
previous claims regarding "reversed" images and the like. The current
charge of "fraudulent gun camera photos" is merely the current incarnation
of LVA canon. The flavour of the day, if you will.

Operative words: "Of course, even this would not be foolproof..."

Mark them well, Mort. For even if Cristol were to provide everything that
you suggest, the LVA would simply alter their criteria of acceptance and
level a whole new set of charges against Cristol if they are not met.

In a way, they would *have* to...
The fact that something like this has not been done tends to reenforce
that the fraud claim has merit.
Or it reinforces the notion that Cristol is not interested in attempting
to prove a negative to those for whom no amount of proof will ever
be satisfatory. If you think about it, Mort, the LVA *cannot* allow any
proof that Cristol provides to disprove that upon which they've already
staked the tattered remains of their credibility. They know, as any
thinking person would, that if their claims were ever demonstrably
proven to be false, then any hopes of their ever being taken seriously
would be trampled into the dust once and for all time.

If it hasn't been already, that is. The sad fact is that the only ones who
lend the LVA a serious ear these days are those among the choir to whom
they preach on a continuous basis.
If Cristol doesn't play the ball, then he loses.
Pay attention, Mort. The game has long-since been over.

[...]

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Joe Bruno
2005-10-30 20:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mort
For me, doubt will exist
It doesn't matter, since you're a nobody.
Mike
2005-10-30 21:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Mort
For me, doubt will exist
It doesn't matter, since you're a nobody.
Now now; everybody is somebody ...
Joe Bruno
2005-10-31 00:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Mort
For me, doubt will exist
It doesn't matter, since you're a nobody.
Now now; everybody is somebody ...
No. Some organisms who resemble people are actually Mother Nature's
mistakes. Examples:

Way Back Jack
Kurt Knoll
kukri
Mort
David Michael
Mike
2005-10-30 18:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ZuLU
Post by Roger
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
Post by ZuLU
Post by Roger
Post by ZuLU
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by ZuLU
The stuff I mean is the USS Liberty attack, and it was caused by Israel,
Gee, did you just find that out?
Why don't you understand that what I found is that Israel must pay for
the expense?
And yet didn't find out that they'd already paid?
They paid something because of the "accident" point of view.
No, they didn't.
Post by ZuLU
I don't
know if the amount, paid by US taxpayers at the end, was fair or not,
wounded and deaths' families are better judges than I to appreciate.
But, Don't you think Israel would pay a little more under "deliberate
attack" point of view?
Since no one, least of all the Israelis, claim that the attack was
anything other than deliberate, what *are* you blathering about?
Sure, I would may be explain that "deliberate" means "by knowing it was
an US ship"
First, as to what "deliberate" means:

http://historynewsnetwork.org/articles/article.html?id=369

"All attacks are inherently deliberate. The question is: did the
Israelis attack knowing that it was an American ship."

Second, as to the intent:

http://libertyincident.com/CIAposition.html

"It remains our best judgment that the Israeli attack the USS Liberty
was
not made in malice toward the United States and was a mistake."

CIA Director Turner to Senator Abourezk, 28 Feb. 1978
Roger
2005-10-30 19:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
Post by ZuLU
Post by Roger
Post by ZuLU
Post by Roger
Post by ZuLU
Post by p***@aol.com
Post by ZuLU
The stuff I mean is the USS Liberty attack, and it was caused by Israel,
Gee, did you just find that out?
Why don't you understand that what I found is that Israel must pay for
the expense?
And yet didn't find out that they'd already paid?
They paid something because of the "accident" point of view.
No, they didn't.
Post by ZuLU
I don't
know if the amount, paid by US taxpayers at the end, was fair or not,
wounded and deaths' families are better judges than I to appreciate.
But, Don't you think Israel would pay a little more under "deliberate
attack" point of view?
Since no one, least of all the Israelis, claim that the attack was
anything other than deliberate, what *are* you blathering about?
Sure, I would may be explain that "deliberate" means "by knowing it was
an US ship"
Well, if you're going to use private definitions which conflict with
the norm, you should say so.
little_people
2005-11-01 00:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Mort wrote...
As I recall, the obvious fake photo you cite was published by Gotcher,
on the usslibertyinquiry site. This site was once managed by Gotcher,
but now it appears to be managed by Ennes. I do not believe either of
these sites are owned, managed or sanctioned by the LVA organization.
And yet Gotcher is named as the LVA's "General Legal Counsel" in the
following report:

http://www.ussliberty.com/report/report.pdf

So the person who apparently put in legwork towards gathering all of the legal
precedent upon which the LVA's report is based has himself been caught publishing
a fake photo on a Web site he once managed.

Of course, I suspect you would argue that this speaks to nothing whatsoever regarding the
integrity of this individual or, by extension, his research of which the LVA made liberal use.

Or the fact that the LVA has made liberal use of research conducted by an individual
who posted a fake photo on a Web site he once managed.
Perhaps both of us should be more careful in our attribution of who
published and claimed what about any given image. It's all too easy to
broad-brush anybody who doesn't buy into Cristol's research or the
IDF's storyline as being somehow part of the LVA. I suspect there are
attack survivors who are not members of the LVA that don't believe the
attack was a mistake. So, it would not be fair to state that their
views and claims are those of the LVA or brand them as being of "the
LVA."
Well, the Forums section of the "inquiry" site has been down for some time now,
but if I remember correctly from my previous reading, the chief architect of the
"forensic analysis" which concludes that the photos in question are "fake" was
once scheduled to speak at an LVA "sanctioned" event in DC. And his work
has been published quite extensively on the very same Web site that Gotcher
once managed. While Gotcher was still managing it, IIRC.

So I'd say that, on some level, there exists a very strong connection between the
"views and claims" of these individuals and the same of "the LVA".
Anyway, the fact that Gotcher published an obvious fake image isn't at
the same level of Cristol publishing fake images that his book claims
came from the IDF.
And if you had one *iota* of proof that Cristol's image is "fake", then you could
make such an argument.

You don't. You can't.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Mike
2005-11-01 01:07:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by little_people
Mort wrote...
As I recall, the obvious fake photo you cite was published by Gotcher,
on the usslibertyinquiry site. This site was once managed by Gotcher,
but now it appears to be managed by Ennes. I do not believe either of
these sites are owned, managed or sanctioned by the LVA organization.
And yet Gotcher is named as the LVA's "General Legal Counsel" in the
http://www.ussliberty.com/report/report.pdf
So the person who apparently put in legwork towards gathering all of the legal
precedent upon which the LVA's report is based has himself been caught publishing
a fake photo on a Web site he once managed.
<snip>

To say nothing of this current "message" on the main page from the LVA
memorial web site:

"It was filed more than four months ago.
We are still waiting patiently for a reply."

I see a "We"; not a "They" when it comes to mentioning who is waitng
for a response ...
Mort
2005-11-01 02:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mike
Post by little_people
Mort wrote...
As I recall, the obvious fake photo you cite was published by Gotcher,
on the usslibertyinquiry site. This site was once managed by Gotcher,
but now it appears to be managed by Ennes. I do not believe either of
these sites are owned, managed or sanctioned by the LVA organization.
And yet Gotcher is named as the LVA's "General Legal Counsel" in the
http://www.ussliberty.com/report/report.pdf
So the person who apparently put in legwork towards gathering all of the legal
precedent upon which the LVA's report is based has himself been caught publishing
a fake photo on a Web site he once managed.
<snip>
To say nothing of this current "message" on the main page from the LVA
"It was filed more than four months ago.
We are still waiting patiently for a reply."
I see a "We"; not a "They" when it comes to mentioning who is waitng
for a response ...
If this is of concern, I suggest that you take it up with Ennes. All I
can say is that I'm under the strong impression that the sites are not
of or by the LVA.

Tell you what. I'll send an email to Ennes to see what he has to say
about it.
Mike
2005-11-01 02:19:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mort
Post by Mike
Post by little_people
Mort wrote...
As I recall, the obvious fake photo you cite was published by Gotcher,
on the usslibertyinquiry site. This site was once managed by Gotcher,
but now it appears to be managed by Ennes. I do not believe either of
these sites are owned, managed or sanctioned by the LVA organization.
And yet Gotcher is named as the LVA's "General Legal Counsel" in the
http://www.ussliberty.com/report/report.pdf
So the person who apparently put in legwork towards gathering all of the legal
precedent upon which the LVA's report is based has himself been caught publishing
a fake photo on a Web site he once managed.
<snip>
To say nothing of this current "message" on the main page from the LVA
"It was filed more than four months ago.
We are still waiting patiently for a reply."
I see a "We"; not a "They" when it comes to mentioning who is waitng
for a response ...
If this is of concern, I suggest that you take it up with Ennes. All I
can say is that I'm under the strong impression that the sites are not
of or by the LVA.
Tell you what. I'll send an email to Ennes to see what he has to say
about it.
<yawn>
Mort
2005-11-01 01:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by little_people
And if you had one *iota* of proof that Cristol's image is "fake", then you could
make such an argument.
You don't. You can't.
I have no proof that New Zealand exists, but I've seen many high
quality pictures/images of New Zealand, from many well known and
different sources, that convince me that it exists. In a similar
manner, I've seen a few poor quality gun camera pictures/images,
published by relatively unknown and limited sources, that do not
convince me that they are real.

By the way, what is your proof or evidence that the gun camera
pictures/images are true?

Frankly, this issue could be settled by somebody (Cristol?) publishing
a high resolution digital image of the contiguous film frames,
including its sprocket holes and film batch data, along with a signed
affidavit by an IDF official regarding authenticity. Of course, even
this would not be foolproof, but it should certainly cause people who
claim the images are fake to rethink their position. The fact that
something like this has not been done tends to reenforce that the fraud
claim has merit.

As I see it, the fellow who reviewed the gun camera images used what
was available to him. I suspect he would have used higher quality
images, if they were available. Based on the images available to him,
he did his review and published his results. Now, the ball is in
Cristol's court -- no pun intended. If Cristol doesn't play the ball,
then he loses. Don't forget; it was Cristol who started the game by
implying the photos/image were true and supplied by the IDF. Now, his
claim has been challenged. In my view, he either provides evidence to
support his claim or loses his case. It's somewhat like somebody
claiming they own a gold mine and show a photocopied, fuzzy picture of
the mine, with the name blotted out, as proof. Sorry, not good enough.
If they really own a gold mine, then let's see a better picture and
the deed of mine ownership; otherwise, the poor quality picture appears
like a fraud to me.
Mike
2005-11-01 02:17:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mort
Post by little_people
And if you had one *iota* of proof that Cristol's image is "fake", then you could
make such an argument.
You don't. You can't.
I have no proof that New Zealand exists, but I've seen many high
quality pictures/images of New Zealand, from many well known and
different sources, that convince me that it exists. In a similar
manner, I've seen a few poor quality gun camera pictures/images,
published by relatively unknown and limited sources, that do not
convince me that they are real.
Then bone up on the fact that gun camera images are not always going to
be a Kodak moment. for example:

http://members.aol.com/libertyincident/JEJMpage4.html
Post by Mort
By the way, what is your proof or evidence that the gun camera
pictures/images are true?
You still don't get it; the LVA hasn't provided any proof that the
images available to Cristol are fake; if for no other reason than they
are not working from any actual photos.
Post by Mort
Frankly, this issue could be settled by somebody (Cristol?) publishing
a high resolution digital image of the contiguous film frames,
including its sprocket holes and film batch data, along with a signed
affidavit by an IDF official regarding authenticity. Of course, even
this would not be foolproof, but it should certainly cause people who
claim the images are fake to rethink their position.
No it wouldn't; as it would simply be claimed that the images are fake.

With Gotcher's background you could expect the LVA to take any digital
image and then aler it ...
Post by Mort
The fact that
something like this has not been done tends to reenforce that the fraud
claim has merit.
No it doesn't. It basically shows how desperate the LVA has become
since 2002.
Post by Mort
As I see it, the fellow who reviewed the gun camera images used what
was available to him. I suspect he would have used higher quality
images, if they were available. Based on the images available to him,
he did his review and published his results. Now, the ball is in
Cristol's court -- no pun intended. If Cristol doesn't play the ball,
then he loses.
You seem to think that Cristol is engaged in some kind of "game" w/ the
LVA; it may come as a shock Mort, but Cristol ain't playing the LVA
"game".
Post by Mort
Don't forget; it was Cristol who started the game by
implying the photos/image were true and supplied by the IDF.
No, it's the LVA which started the game in which they are the only
players.
Post by Mort
Now, his
claim has been challenged. In my view, he either provides evidence to
support his claim or loses his case.
Cristol I am willing to bet doesn't give a hoot about what you or the
LVA think is a "case." He's done the work, crossed his tees, dotted
his eyes, and the resulting work has been received well in the arena
which counts; ie., that's not the Internet w/ the LVA.
Post by Mort
It's somewhat like somebody
claiming they own a gold mine and show a photocopied, fuzzy picture of
the mine, with the name blotted out, as proof. Sorry, not good enough.
If they really own a gold mine, then let's see a better picture and
the deed of mine ownership; otherwise, the poor quality picture appears
like a fraud to me.
Apples to oranges, and it reflects the standard LVA line; unwillingless
to face the bleeding obvious regarding their long-held beliefs based
only on myths and tales. When it come to the LVA and supporters a
kodake photo of a gold mine and a deed would be claimed to be a fake.

Besides, when it comes to IAF gun camera film; there's no need to ever
have faked anything given the US documentation which supports what the
conditions were on 8 June 1967 in the Eastern Med. For example:

<start>
O 142148Z JUN 67
FM CINCUSNAVEUR
TO SECNAV
...
1. FOLLOWING RECEIVED FROM LIBERTY. QUOTE:
...
C. FLAT CALM CONDITION AND SLOW (5) KNOT SPEED
OF LIBERTY IN FORENOON WHEN SHE WAS BEING LOOKED OVER
INITIALLY MAY WELL HAVE PRODUCED INSUFFICIENT RELATIVE
WIND FOR STEAMING COLORS TO BE SEEN BY PILOTS. UNQUOTE
<end>
Mort
2005-11-01 06:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[snip]
Besides, when it comes to IAF gun camera film; there's no need to ever
have faked anything given the US documentation which supports what the
<start>
O 142148Z JUN 67
FM CINCUSNAVEUR
TO SECNAV
...
...
C. FLAT CALM CONDITION AND SLOW (5) KNOT SPEED
OF LIBERTY IN FORENOON WHEN SHE WAS BEING LOOKED OVER
INITIALLY MAY WELL HAVE PRODUCED INSUFFICIENT RELATIVE
WIND FOR STEAMING COLORS TO BE SEEN BY PILOTS. UNQUOTE
<end>
In other words, ideal conditions for photography. The gun camera was
pointed toward the east, the sun was in the west, and the air was
clear. The result should have been some of the best looking gun camera
film of the entire war. Instead, it appears to be the worst.
Mike
2005-11-01 07:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mort
[snip]
Besides, when it comes to IAF gun camera film; there's no need to ever
have faked anything given the US documentation which supports what the
<start>
O 142148Z JUN 67
FM CINCUSNAVEUR
TO SECNAV
...
...
C. FLAT CALM CONDITION AND SLOW (5) KNOT SPEED
OF LIBERTY IN FORENOON WHEN SHE WAS BEING LOOKED OVER
INITIALLY MAY WELL HAVE PRODUCED INSUFFICIENT RELATIVE
WIND FOR STEAMING COLORS TO BE SEEN BY PILOTS. UNQUOTE
<end>
In other words, ideal conditions for photography. The gun camera was
pointed toward the east, the sun was in the west, and the air was
clear. The result should have been some of the best looking gun camera
film of the entire war. Instead, it appears to be the worst.
In other words try to understand that there are many factors involved
with photography besides the position of the friggin' Sun.
Joe Bruno
2005-10-26 23:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ZuLU
Post by Joe Bruno
Post by Joe Meadors
Ted Kennedy mentioned the USS Liberty on the floor of the Senate.
Clearly this fits well inside the definition Jay Cristol has created in
his quest for US government investigations of the USS Liberty.
Testimony: "USS Liberty"
Finding: "171 wounded"
When is Jay going to increment his count of US government
investigations of the USS Liberty?
Warmest regards,
Joe
(1)Congressmen and Senators get paid with tax dollars
(2)Their salaries are big ones-over $100,000 a year
(3)Therefore, investigations cost big money
If you and the other LVA types can raise a few hundred million, you
could perhaps offer to pay for the expense. Then, Congress might
consider it for you and the American taxpayers might not raise hell
about it.
Not necessarily.
The payment for the expense can be made by retaining some money from the
millions of $ paid each year by US taxpayers to Israel.
"Can be made"???? I made a suggestion to the LVA of a practical way to
solve their problem and keep Congress and the American taxpayers happy
at the same time.. I don't need your idiotic, irrelevant hypotheticals.


Tell ya what, fiddlebrain: write a letter to your Senator and propose
that to him.. After he stops laughing, you might get an answer from
him.
Joe Meadors
2005-10-27 12:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Bruno
(1)Congressmen and Senators get paid with tax dollars
(2)Their salaries are big ones-over $100,000 a year
(3)Therefore, investigations cost big money
Do you apply that principle unilaterally?

Warmest regards,

Joe
Joe Bruno
2005-10-27 12:54:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Meadors
Post by Joe Bruno
(1)Congressmen and Senators get paid with tax dollars
(2)Their salaries are big ones-over $100,000 a year
(3)Therefore, investigations cost big money
Do you apply that principle unilaterally?
Warmest regards,
Joe
I did not see any "principle" in the material you refer to, pathetic
one. I saw several statements of fact.

How did I "apply" anything "unilaterally"? It's almost impossible for
one man(Myself) to accomplish anything in the US government
unilaterally. If I want something from Congress, all I can do is write
letters to Pres Bush, Duncan Hunter(in the House) and Dianne Feinstein
or Barbara Boxer in the Senate.

Is English your first language?

I'm beginning to wonder if a big part of your problem is that you
simply cannot read or write the English language.
Were you a Petty Officer on the LIBERTY?(If I were your Division
Officer,I would bust you in a heartbeat and process you for
administrative discharge or court martial if you acted there the way
you act on the Internet)

You likely contributed to the disaster by thoroughly confusing your
subordinates.
little_people
2005-10-31 18:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mort
Post by Mike
Post by Mort
Post by Mike
Post by Mort
For me, doubt will exist until somebody offers evidence that refutes
http://www.usslibertyinquiry.com/essays/guncameraintro.html
Ah, it works the other way around; until the LVA can actually provide
proof of what it claims. Of course the LVA seems to be a bit mixed up
in the first place; the Israelis aren't claiming that the ship WASN'T
attacked.
The proof is in the seeing. The two photos (history report v/s
Cristol) do not look like each other -- not even close. And the one
that does look like the ship has lots problems, as cited in the review.
In neither case are actual photos being examined. There is no
*analysis* of any photos; they are rescanned images from pages; pages
which have scanned imprint images -- in no case has the LVA actually
displayed any photo images in support of its claim that what one is
"seeing" is fake. In fact, what's shown for an actual photo image (the
docking at Little Creek) is clearly not the same image as the Mirage
gun camera film.
Yet, Cristol considers them good enough for his *analysis* and example
purposes. If they are good enough for Cristol, then they should be
good enough for the LVA.
That's your answer, Mort? Good Lord.

For one thing, Cristol's "analysis" is qualified by the fact that amounts to little more
than a general observation about that which the image depicts. And one doesn't
necessarily need the actual photographic print in order to form an opinion on such a
basis (i.e., that image appears to show "smoke" which is travelling in a certain direction).
In terms of specificity, that's but a relatively small step beyong saying that the image
appears to show "smoke" which is travelling in *some* direction - one way or another.
I suppose that if one wanted to pick nits, then it could be said that Cristol is
incorrectly referring to the image as a "photo" when it is actually a copy (although I
would presume that he has had access to the actual photo at one time or another).
Beyond that, however, I think he is well-within the ballpark.

What the LVA is claiming, on the other hand, is of an entirely different nature, and, therefore
requires an entirely different set of standards under which it can be qualified. They're not
simply debating that which the image depicts. They're making a statement regarding the
authenticity of the image itself. They're concluding - flat out - that the photograph has
been "faked", based upon that which they alternatively refer to as "photographic"
or "forensic" "analysis that they've supposedly conducted. Well, the fact is that they're
conducted no such "analysis" on any actual photograph, and such is the least of what would
be required in order for them to even *consider* a charge of such far-reaching scope.

The fact that they've gone barrelling ahead with their claims in any event is but a symptom
of their obvious desparation for attention at this point. And it is their folly.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Loading...