> Mike wrote:
> > Mort wrote:
> > > Mike wrote:
> > > > Mort wrote:
> > > > > For me, doubt will exist until somebody offers evidence that refutes
> > > > > the fraudlent gun camera claim:
> > > > > 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
As did the publisher ...
> 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.
> > > 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.
> 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 ...
> 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
> > > 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.
> Then how the heck does the pilot aim at the
It's not w/ his eyes plastered against the inside of his cockpit screen
nor against the gun sight viewer.
> 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.
> 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.
> > > 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?