Evan Burton
-
Posts
4,419 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Evan Burton
-
-
Wow ... That's quite some 'evidence' that Pericynthion image shacked together here ... He used to come to postbaguk Dave's rescue on the UM also when he got into jams .
Other people might fall for your tag team , think tank BS , but not me ... If I remember correctly Pericynthion is the same Apollo propagandist that image shacked some scratches on Cernan's visor to 'win' the argument about the reflected lights in his visor also.
I don't know how you got the shadow to be such a close match to that phony A15 anomalous Scott shadow , but congrats on being one of the best when it comes to the ... "let's do whatever it takes to prove all the hoax evidence wrong" gang .
So why not become a member here Pericynthion ? ... Don't want anyone to know your real identity perhaps ? ... I guess you're just like some of the other propagandist members of nasa's think tank when it comes to that .
Duane,
That is one of the best examples of how you are completely unwilling to alter your views, regardless of empirical evidence. You seem to lack the ability to reassess your theories when presented with new information.
If Pericynthion does not wish to become a member here, then that is their prerogative - though I would welcome their presence. I'm guessing that if they did decide to join, you would then claim it was just another example of people 'ganging up' on you.
-
Well done! If the unevenness of the lunar surface could have been recreated, it would have been just about perfect.
It's a fantastic demonstration showing why you should recreate the shots if there appears to be an anomoly.
Great work Peri!
-
So far, I have been unable to find what radio equipment the ground troops used.
I've got to go away for a few days; maybe better luck on my return.
-
How probable do you think it is the Israeli military used HF radios? From what I gather HF radios are less reliable than UHF/VHF ones since they are affected by climatic conditions. Wouldn’t it have made more sense for the armed forces of a small country surrounded by enemies to use VHF/UHF instead? For theory 1 to be plausible we would have to assume that the Israelis were so dependant on HF radios rather than VHF/UHF and the ‘good ole’ telephone that they only way out was to attack the Liberty.
I can't say I have checked, but it would be most likely.
Military aircraft of the era predominantly used UHF radios, and occasionally were fitted with VHF (for comms with civil ATC). Ground forces used VHF for short range comms (the typical 'back pack' radio you see in the era), but used HF for anything more than LOS.
The surface vessels would have used VHF for intership communication, and HF for long range comms.
Being an intel gatherer, the LIBERTY would have had a full suite of radios.
I'll see if I can find out what the Israelis typically used during the Six Day War.
-
Why didn't the Russians simply fake a landing before we did?
Considering the secrecy in which the Soviet space programme operated compared to the openness of the US effort, it would have been a lot easier for them to have done such a thing.
-
It's kind of tough to do a pretty tap dance to this one , isn't it Kevin ?
No, just tough to figure out what drugs to take to have my vision distorted like yours. I have no friggin clue how you can make the claims you do seriously. If you really believe it you should have no problem illustrating it by labeling the parts of the shadow, in either image since they are the same, one just has a different vertical scale.
To be fair, I can understand why Duane could think the shadow is reversed; it's just that I think he is wrong, and Dave's illustration reinforces that belief to the point of certainty.
-
BTW, to demonstrate how resilient ships can be with effective damage control, we can look at the case of the collision between the HMAS MELBOURNE (an aircraft carrier) and the USS FRANK E. EVANS (a destroyer). The MELBOURNE sliced the EVANS in two during exercises in the South China Sea. The bow of the EVANS sunk, but the stern remained afloat and was eventually towed back to Subic Bay.
-
Given what we know about the assault capability at Israel's disposal in the vicinty of the USS Liberty, how easy or hard was should it have been for the Israelis to sink the vessel in a daylight attack?
If the Israeli leadership's intention was to sink the USS Liberty, could they have anticipated the vessel would be still be afloat after an hour or so of lethal bombardment?
I don't know what forces were in the area of the LIBERTY at the time, so it's difficult to say what the Israelis would have had available.
If you want to sink a vessel, then what you should be aiming for is to hole the vessel below the waterline. That will cause flooding and unless the vessel can provide effective damage control, it is likely to sink. (Slightly off-topic, but that's why you have what are called Command Priorities for damage control - DC - during combat. They are fight / move / float. Depending on what Command wants, that is where your DC efforts go towards. If it is fight / move / float, then you want weapon systems working, propulsion next, and keeping the ship afloat last. It might be float / fight / move, which is keep the ship afloat, make sure we can respond to attack, and worry about getting underway later.)
The most effective weapon that they would have had available would have been torpedoes. These would have holed the ship below the waterline and probably 'broken her back' (literally snapped the hull). On the other hand, you don't necessarily need to sink a vessel to take it out of the fight. You can disable its offensive capability, or simply make it dead in the water.
Considering that the LIBERTY was hardly more than a converted cargo ship, it had little offensive capability. If they had wanted to sink it, they had a variety of weapons available. Air attack could certainly disable it, leaving it defenceless for a latter torpedo attack. Air attack alone (using the Mirage or Mystere) isn't that effective to sink it. The Mystere had unguided rockets which could do some serious damage and possibly sink it, but the Mirage was primarily an air superiority fighter and had dual cannons.
If they had wanted to sink the vessel, then they would most likely have attacked with either torpedoes from the MTBs or a submarine (if one was in the area). It would have been an easy target. Of course, you don't necessarily want to sink such a vessel; disabling it achieves pretty much your military aims.
Once the MTBs came into the fight, if they had wanted the LIBERTY on the bottom then they only needed to launch a torpedo salvo at them.
The method of attack suggests to me they wanted it disabled, not sunk.
-
Evan, according to The Race by James Schefter, Eisenhower wanted the mission to have a purely scientific purpose so as not to agitate the Kremlin. Someone in the Pentagon (according to Schefter) suspected, or had been tipped off that a military nose cone might be used and "accidently" sent into orbit. To prevent this, Medaris sent in technicians to disable the Sergeant rockets and fill the cone with sand.
Hi Greg! The nose cone still contained instrumentation, IIRC. It was the upper (fourth) stage that was disabled. Perhaps a "military" payload might have been fitted, but I really can't see it. Satellite recon was still in its infancy, so simply demonstrating that a certain weight could be lifted to orbit would indicate that a warhead would be possible. Even in that case, an "inadvertent" launch to orbit would have meant that the test crew would need to know where the payload would de-orbit to.
Given that Eisenhower later would distance himself from his more Hawkish advisers, and later still, order an end to U2 flights over Soviet territory, I see no reason to disbelieve his concern was genuine. What, on the surface, seems a bit out of character is the Pentagon disabling the Jupiter in order to achieve Ike's wishes. I'm sure it could just as easily ensured it was filled with scientific instruments, and at the same time, prevented any "accidental" orbit without going to the extremes it did. I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis, but I'd be looking at someone other than Ike as the engineer of the deception.Yep, that's why I said 'administration' rather than Ike personally (though I can't see him not being aware of it). I think the administration saw the advantage of letting the Soviets achieve orbital flight first, and held back their own people.
There is little doubt that they deliberately prevented it; the question is why?
-
I actually find that quite funny. The author quotes Richard Setlow about the cosmic rays. As it turns out, for another forum, I had previously e-mailed Dr Setlow regarding this:
Dear Evan,The Committee considered all sources of radiations in Space. We concluded that Solar Particle Events (SPE) would be the major source of radiation exposures supplemented by the cosmic ray background composed of many types of particles including heavy nuclei. To the best of my knowledge, all space missions carry devices to measure the radiation doses. Astronauts should not be outside of a space craft if there were an SPE. They should be shielded inside the space craft. Hence, radiation exposures for Apollo missions would be very small. Hence, I believe that radiation exposures from Apollo missions were very small, unless astronauts stayed outside during an SPE about which they would have been informed.
You could get simple, short descriptions of what is known from 2 summaries that I wrote: (1) " The U.S National Research Council's views of the radiation hazards in space" Mutation Research (1999) 430, 169-175 and (2) " The hazards of space travel" EMBO Reports (2003) 4, 1013-1016. Radiation is only one of the hazards. Microgravity is another.
Sincerely yours,
Richard Setlow
________________________________
From: Evan Burton [mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Mon 1/1/2007 6:11 AM
To: Setlow, Richard
Cc: xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Radiation Hazards to Crews of Interplanetary Missions
Dear Sir,
I refer to a report which you chaired in 1996, Radiation Hazards to Crews of Interplanetary Missions.
Firstly, some quick background. I am one of the many people who, on what seems like a daily basis, try to rebut arguments put forward by people who claim that the Apollo missions were faked by NASA. I have an aviation background, not physics or biological sciences.
The above report is being discussed on a forum which (despite its name) tries to dispel the myth that Apollo was somehow faked. The link to the relevant section (a discussion on space radiation) is:
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...798&page=12
To cut a long story short, could I ask two brief questions:
1. Was radiation / exposure data from Apollo considered (amongst other sources) when making the report's determinations?
2. Do the report's findings (in any way) support the proposition that radiation should have killed (or at least seriously harmed) astronauts on a typical 14-day Apollo lunar landing mission?
I would also ask permission to post your reply to the thread linked above.
Thank you for your time.
Evan Burton
xxxxxxxxxx, NSW
Australia
My bolding.
-
Len,
Don't forget the LOS applies only to VHF and UHF transmissions. HF transmissions would be detectable by 'skip' across the ionosphere (though this has to be calculated; the LIBERTY may have been in a 'dead zone' for skip).
So far, I can only find theory 1 having any plausibility.
-
Typical Bad Astronomy and clavius claptrap ...
Do you really expect everyone to fall for you disecting every line of every post I put here as a real rebutal ? ... You didn't post one bit of information here that I haven't seen before ... You are only quoting what you have brought here from nasa defending sources, whose sole purpose is to defend the Apollo myth , by attempting to defuse the hoax evidence by any means possible ..
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I've provided documented sources and studies from persons with qualifications & expertise in the field that counter the arguments of Mr Rattigan.
If you say those sources are wrong, then you have to show documented sources from people with the necessary expertise that disprove those counter-arguments. Simply saying "That is NASA claptrap" or "This is from a NASA Apollogist" does not cut it. You have to show where and why my rebuttals are incorrect.
I know, however, that you are unable to do this; that is why you resort to the poor tactic of saying "no it isn't!" rather than giving evidence.
-
It's a little difficult to answer. Perhaps the better question would be how close were they to making a landing attempt.
As mentioned in other threads, the biggest hurdle (never overcome) was the N-1 launch vehicle, the Soviet counterpart to the American Saturn V. Because of a combination of internal personality disputes / rivalry, and a lesser technological base, the Soviets had not produced a rocket engine as powerful as the American F-1 (which produced over 1.5 million pounds of thrust). Since they did not have as powerful engines, they needed more of them to carry equivalent payloads. This meant that the N-1 had thirty engines in it's first stage alone. This meant a very complex arrangement of fuel oxidizer feed lines, control systems, etc. The problems of this complex system were never overcome, and the N-1 never successfully flew (although the upper stages had been tested successfully).
Without the N-1 to launch the spacecraft into lunar orbit, they never had a chance. Coincidently though, if not for an earlier decision they might have been able to do it. Like the US, the USSR considered various 'modes' to reach the Moon. Like the US, they considered Earth Orbit Rendezvous (EOR) but it was rejected in favour of the N-1. If they had stuck with EOR, they they would have launched all the various components separately using smaller but available rockets, assembled them in Earth orbit, refuelled, and conducted a lunar landing mission. It would have still been complex (no manned mission to this day has refuelled in orbit) but stood a chance.
If the USSR had been able to launch the components into Earth orbit, then they had planned to use a similar mission profile to Apollo, albeit with different spacecraft. The S-IVB / CSM would be replaced by a modified Soyuz spacecraft (the LOK), and the LM would have been replaced by a single-pilot lunar lander (the LK). The Soviet docking design meant that the cosmonaut would have transferred between LOK and LK via an EVA instead of a connecting tunnel.
The Soyuz was a reliable spacecraft, so perhaps not too many problems would be expected for a lunar mission. That being said, another variant had been scheduled to conduct a manned circumlunar flight. It was tested unmanned as Zond-5 in SEP 68 and returned to Earth, with a repeat as Zond 6 in NOV 68. The flights had problems with the spacecraft, so perhaps they did not feel it was up to a lunar mission as yet. Additionally, Apollo 8 did a circumlunar flight in DEC 68, so a lot of the propaganda value would have been diminished.
The LK, on the other hand, had been ground tested but never flown in space; it's unknown what problems might have been encountered.
There are also the problems with rendezvous to consider; the Soviets had far less experience than the Americans. These were not insurmountable by any means, but it was another hurdle they would have to face.
So, if the Soviets had been able to get a successful manned N-1 launch happening in 1969, they may have been able to conduct a successful lunar landing; it would have been a very big risk though, using spacecraft that had either little variant flight testing / no flight testing. Perhaps they might have gotten lucky and pulled it off - but it would probably have failed, more likely with the LK during the lunar landing phase.
-
the lack of any stars in the lunar sky ; … and so on.
As has been explained by countless sites, the film didn't register any because they were not bright enough to be recorded on the film when exposure settings were for lunar surface photography. Venus was actually captured in a couple of shots, but Venus is a bright planet in our sky.
The impression that the men and vehicles were moving in a less dense gravity was created by simply slowing down the film to half-speed.Does not explain the ballistic trajectory of the dust, dirt, etc, which follows the path predicted in an airless, 1/6G environment.
One of the "whistle-blowers" Bill Kaysing, former analyst and engineer with Rocketdyne, the Apollo rocket designersNot a whistle-blower. Kaysing was a technical librarian who left Rocketdyne (who designed the F-1 engine, not the Apollo spacecraft or the Saturn V launch vehicle) in 1963, when the Saturn V had not yet even been built.
estimated that “.. there were 85 completely separate manoeuvres involved in a lunar landing. Statisticians have calculated that the chances of completing this set of manoeuvres six times, without a single failure, were totally beyond the realms of possibility".Where is this analysis? Have other statisticians concurred with the assessment?
Kaysing also reckoned that the chances of a successful, manned return trip to the moon were .0017%.How did he derive this figure? Was Kaysing trained in statistical analysis?
Other informants have not been so lucky. The outstanding critic of America’s chances of lunar success, Gus Grissom was one of ten astronauts who had “freak fatal accidents” between 1964 & 67.Gus Grissom was an outspoken supporter of the lunar landing programme. If not for the Apollo 1 fire, he would have likely been the first American on the Moon. The astronauts who died were all pilots; flying high performance aircraft can be risky. Check out the accident statistics for US military pilots during the period. One died in a car crash.
Apollo 1 safety inspector, Thomas Baron, produced a 500-page report. He stated that “The Apollo 1 programme was in such disarray that America would never make it to the moon.” One week later Baron and his family were killed in a road crash : the report disappeared.The report was given to the House Committee, and they concluded that although there were some pertinent aspects, the majority of claims were unsubstantiated, hearsay from people who were unidentified or disputed Mr Baron's claims, and was generally assessed to be the work of a disgruntled employee.
Although the Americans recruited over 120 Nazi space scientists for their use, the Apollo scam is well beyond anything in the Joseph Goebbels Manual of Public Relations.The Germans were the world leaders in rocket construction. The USSR also used Germans for their space programme.
Sorry, Mr Rattigan, but your webpage is just a rant with the usual inaccurate & disproven claims. It has zero merit.
-
The official NASA record of the six Apollo excursions is so full of basic mistakes that various observers believe that some NASA personnel, very unhappy at being forced to be part of the hoax, deliberately left what would become obvious flaws in the record. The American flag flapping in the atmosphere-free, windless conditions ;
Movement by the astronauts pushing it into the lunar surface. No movement observed when the astronauts are not handling it.
the school-boy-level fake "moon photographs" and their difference from the live (film studio) transmissions ;No difference has been found, and no images have ever been proven to have been faked (yes, that includes Jack).
the miracle of the standard Kodak film which withstood the X-rays and the extremes of heat and cold - 250 to minus-250 degrees ;The film was designed to withstand those conditions. It was NOT 'standard' Kodak film.
the chest-mounted cameras which, without a viewfinder, produced hundreds of clear, well-framed photographs ;The cameras could be taken off the chest-mount, and before the astronauts left they practiced extensively with the camera. Even so, a number of frames were duds.
the multiple light sources ;Unproven, and I'd say disproven.
the clear, uninterrupted voices of the astronauts as they sat above 10,000 lb-thrust, 140-decibel rockets ;Sound doesn't travel in a vacuum. Some sound traveled through the spacecraft structure itself, but this was muted by the noise-cancelling microphones used by the astronauts who had their helmets on.
the lack of any crater beneath the LMs;There is evidence of blast on the lunar surface in some cases, but the engine was not at full throttle for landing. It was at about 15% throttle (IIRC).
the lack of any exhaust smoke from the LM rockets (as it was pulled upwards, Thunderbird-style, by puppet strings in the studio) ;The hypergolic fuels did not produce any smoke.
(More to follow)
-
I don't mind (too much) going over all this... again.
That's a pretty big call from Mr Rattigan - who is a naturopath, not an aerospace engineer, rocket scientist, etc. Perhaps he is unaware that as well as the US space programme, the USSR also had a lunar landing programme. The spacecraft were built (a modified Soyuz and a one-man lunar lander) but the launcher (N-1) was never successfully test flown. Mr Rattigan should also take a look at the Chinese, who have not only put their own taikonaut into space but are planning their own lunar landing.APOLLO : ONE GIANT HOAXAt the present time, nowhere on Earth does there exist, nor is there any prospect in the foreseeable future of there being, the technology to put men on the moon and bring them back safely.
When NASA realised that President Kennedy's 1961 call, for a man on the moon and back alive before the end of the decade, was totally impossible, they decided, rather than lose face, to hoax the whole thing. With $40 billion – at 1961 rates – available, the scope for deception was endless.Proof? The development of the Apollo spacecraft is very well documented, and is easily verified by engineers. So far, no-one with a qualification in the field has leap up and said the the documented history is wrong.
Proof? The "six feet of lead" claim is often made but strangely no calculations showing how this was derived is ever shown. I'm sure I know why - because it refers to a 'generation ship' on a deep space mission, where the spaceship occupants would spend their entire lives in space. Also I think it refers to water shielding, not lead. Lead would have problems of its own (Bremsstrahlung).The major problem was the impossibility of overcoming the cosmic radiation threat within and beyond the Earth's Van Allen Belts and on the moon’s surface. At least 5 feet of lead would be needed in all directions to protect the voyagers : for one man, in a telephone kiosk, this would involve a thousand tons of lead. 30-plus years later, the unprotected Apollo travellers, all of whom would have been fried, have shown no signs of radiation sickness.People with qualifications in the field don't seem to find Apollo impossible, nor the problems of radiation insurmountable.
Space Radiation Hazards and the Vision for Space exploration (2006)
The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon
Heavy cosmic ray exposure of Apollo astronauts
Neutron exposure to lunar astronauts (Abstract)
Space radiation cancer risk projections for exploration missions
Another problem was the inability of NASA to produce a stable craft which was intended to be the lunar landing module. “Lunar astronaut”, Neil Amstrong, almost lost his life when one of the prototype flying-bedstead LMs crashed and disintegrated. The problems were never even close to being solved.Armstrong crashed in the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle (LLTV), a craft meant to simulate the last portions of a lunar landing. It was not, and has never been claimed to be, a 'prototype' LM. The LM had been extensively tested on the ground, tested in unmanned Earth-orbital flights (Apollo 5), in a manned Earth orbit flight (Apollo 9), and manned in lunar orbit (Apollo 10) before a manned lunar landing was attempted.
Some of the technical reports from the testing are available in this post.
The highly secret Area 51, in the Nevada Desert, is believed to be the location for the film studios – still visible from satellite photographs – which produced the television programmes – “live from the Moon”, whilst the astronauts merely sat out their time 200 miles above the Earth’s surface.Conjecture - proof? Also, does not explain the tracking of the spacecraft, visual observations of the spacecraft in cislunar space, nor the large quantity of lunar samples brought back by Apollo.
(more to follow)
-
The real question is: what scientific evidence and data is there that supports the assumption that cosmic particle radiation is an insurpassable barrier to manned spaceflight outside the magnetosphere? I look forward to seeing some articles that back this position up with facts and data, rather than the handwaving arguments many "moon hoax" use.
Given that Duane has used the radiation argument as a reason why Apollo can't have happened several times on various forums, I'm sure he can lay his hands on the relevant studies very easily, if indeed these studies do exist.
I'd be interested to see it, too. Some type of paper written by a person qualified in the field, and saying that Apollo could not have happened because there was too much radiation. A modern paper, since our knowledge is greater now.
Saying that radiation in deep space is dangerous is insufficient, because we have said time and time again that that point is acknowledged but the duration of the exposure is a key factor.
-
I also remember reading that Johnson ordered U.S. fighters on their way to aid the Liberty during the attack to turn around and come back.
I also remember reading that somewhere - but I can't think where it was (though I haven't tried to find it as yet).
-
I didn't know the appropriate thread to put this in, so I thought here might be okay.
“They shall not grow old as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.”
We will remember them.
Lest we forget.
-
Possibly to bring the Sixth Fleet into the war on their behalf. The war was in progress at the time, with the final outcome unknown. This plan would require as few survivors as possible in order for Israel to place the blame elsewhere.
Possible, but I think unlikely. If this were the objective, then a far more effective strike would have been organised - using aircraft and surface vessels that would have been unmistakably non-Israeli. The Mirage III aircraft used in the initial strike were definitely linked to Israeli origin. Instead, they would have limited the strike to Mystere IVs, which might have been mistaken for MiGs.
-
Mark,
A question raised by Len still drives home to me: why? Drive it away, etc, by all means, but attack it? It doesn't seem to make sense (although there are aspects which certainly suggest someone, somewhere, is not telling the entire truth about the matter).
Hiw to explain the the strafing of lifeboats? (whether the vessel was believed to be American or not)
My understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong) is that this is disputed.
If it did occur, and under any circumstances, I could appreciate why it might happen but would still object to it.
-
Mark,
A question raised by Len still drives home to me: why? Drive it away, etc, by all means, but attack it? It doesn't seem to make sense (although there are aspects which certainly suggest someone, somewhere, is not telling the entire truth about the matter).
-
Well, I'll start off.
A claim has been made that the Israelis mistook the LIBERTY for the Egyptian EL QUSEIR. IMO, they are similar. I could certainly understand aircraft confusing the two. When it comes to the surface vessels, though, I wonder if they saw the pennant number painted on the hull? They may have thought this to be deception, but I wonder. The LIBERTY was much larger, too. Easy mistake to make from the air, but less understandable from a surface combatant.
I can certainly understand the US saying that there were no US vessels in the area at the time. It was true when they said it, and they probably wouldn't want to let the Israelis know they had an AGI in the area.
But there is the fact that the vessel was identified as the LIBERTY on the morning of the attack (source: Wikipedia article).
I can't remember where I read it, but there was also a mention that the fighter cover from a US carrier was stood down after the LIBERTY had called they were under attack.
To me, it certainly has all the elements of a 'blue-on-blue' mistake, but there are still aspects I would like to see explored further.
-
This thread is started as an offshoot of another thread. Pertinent portions of posts in the other thread have been quoted here.
Some background.
The USS LIBERTY was a converted cargo ship used by the US Navy in the electronic intelligence gathering role. On 8 JUN 67, three days after the start of the Six Day War, the vessel was attacked by Israeli aircraft and surface vessels. About 34 people were killed on the LIBERTY.
Israel claimed that it was a case of mistaken identity, but others believe it was a deliberate attack.
Some sources for background reading:
The Wikipedia article
The USS LIBERTY memorial association website
The USN website with images of the USS LIBERTY
I mentioned the USS Liberty as another striking example of western mass media double standards. True, the incident predated the 21 Century WoT.Yet the falure of the US media on that occasion to speak up for US forces viciously attacked by another nation will stand for all time as the quintessence of Zionist bias in the US media.
On another thread, the question has been posed: "who controlled the US media in 1963?"
The case of the USS Liberty provides a partial answer.
They were the kind of people who, just a few years later, could impose an effective news blackout concerning a murderous Israeli attack on a US naval vessel.
One problem with the belief the Israeli’s knowingly attacked an American ship is that I have yet to see a realistic motive proposed for them having done so.There was no reason to believe the Israelis would intentionally attack their most important ally and benefactor one of the few countries that would sell them weapons and one of the two most powerful nations on earth. Even now 40 years later I still haven’t heard any realistic motive for them to have done so.Was the mass media misled by US and Israeli Government officials who deliberately lied? I'm sure that happened to some extent. But the US mass media also showed no enthusiasm for digging beneath the official story and uncovering the truth.No protests from the media, for example, that the US Navy blocked all testimony about Israeli actions.
In the words of James M. Ennes Jr, the lieutenant on the bridge of the USS Liberty on the day of the attack, discussing the Liberty attack in 1993:
Instead of determining whether the attack was deliberate, the Navy blocked all testimony about Israeli actions. No survivor was permitted to describe the close in machine-gun fire that continued for 40 minutes after Israel claims all firing stopped. No survivor was allowed to talk about the life rafts the Israeli torpedo men machine-gunned in the water. No survivor was permitted to challenge defects and fabrications in Israel's story. Even my eyewitness testimony as officer-of-the deck was withheld from the official record. No evidence of Israeli culpability was "found" because no such testimony was allowed. To survivors, this was not an investigation. It was a cover-up.
Public exposure of what really took place when the USS Liberty was attacked was a slow process. It occurred in spite of - not because of - the US mass media.
Intimidation by the Israel Lobby also played a role in the cover-up.
To support Liberty survivors in their quest for justice was not a great career step for US politicians.
See this story, for example:
Adlai Stevenson supported USS Liberty
Senator Adlai Stevenson III in 1980, his last year as a United States Senator from Illinois, invited Jim Ennes to his Senate office for a private, two hour meeting to discuss the USS Liberty attack and cover-up. Following the private meeting, Ennes was invited back the next day to discuss the attack with members of Stevenson's staff, along with members of the staff of Senator Barry Goldwater and members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
In that meeting, staff members told Ennes that they found his story convincing, but that they would recommend to both senators that they not pursue an investigation because an investigation would only antagonize Israeli interests while "nothing good could come of it."
Goldwater accepted that staff recommendation. Stevenson did not. Instead, Stevenson called a news conference in which he announced that he was convinced that the attack was deliberate and that the survivors deserved an investigation. He would, he said, spend the remaining few weeks of his Senate term attempting to arrange for an inquiry.
Almost immediately, the government of Israel contacted the White House and offered to settle the outstanding $40-million damage claims for $6-million -- an amount equal to one dollar for each Jewish victim of the Holocaust.
Vice President Walter Mondale quickly agreed to that offer just before Christmas while Congress and President Carter were on vacation. The Department of State followed immediately with a press release, reported on the front page of the New York Times, which announced, "The book is now closed on the USS Liberty." Indeed, from that point on, it was impossible to generate any congressional interest in the Liberty at all. Senator Stevenson's staff told me later that they felt the settlement was directly related to Senator Stevenson's announced plan to hold an inquiry, and was engineered to block forever any inquiry plans.
Israel did subsequently pay $6-million in three annual installments of $2-million each. Secretary of State Dean Rusk said later that he considered the payments meaningless, as Congress merely increased the annual Israeli allotment by that amount.
Adlai Stevenson later ran for Governor of Illinois. He was strongly opposed by Israeli and Jewish interests. He lost. Many feel it was his support for the Liberty that cost him the election. Many also feel it was Stevenson's experience with the Liberty that has intimidated other Members of Congress who might otherwise support the survivors.
Stevenson lost to James R. Thompson, the incumbent; it is very uncommon for the incumbent to loose reelection barring some extenuating circumstances. Thompson it seems was very popular serving from 1977 – 1991 longer than anyone else. He won his first term by 1.3 million votes, 65 – 35 % the biggest margin in “over a century”, was reelected in 1978 with 60% of the vote, he got 60% of the vote again in 1986 (also against Stevenson) in 1982 however Thompson won the closest election in state history 1/7 % (5074 out of 3.7 million votes) ahead of Stevenson and this was possibly due to fraud. Illinois elected Republican governors in 7 consecutive elections from 1976 – 1998, they elected a Democrat in 2002, for the first time in 30 years, largely because the Republican incumbent who was not running for reelection had been indicted on bribery chargesSo the big bad Israel lobby
1) caused Thompson to get 10 – 15% LESS in 1982 than he did in the other three lections and his party to come closer to loosing than any other election between 1972 and 1992
2) didn’t prevent Stevenson from getting the nomination of the Democratic party (the party in which presumably they were strongest in during the 80’s). Stevenson in fact got 100% of the primary vote in 1982 thus presumably he was unopposed (Thompson though.
http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1976/ii761205.html
http://genealogytrails.com/ill/governors.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adlai_Stevens...olitical_career
http://www.unc.edu/~beyle/Expenditures/1982.doc
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/ti...amp;match=exact
Apologies if I have snipped too much out of anyone's posts.
Anomalous object in A17 moonscape
in Political Conspiracies
Posted
Jack,
If you read the accompanying text instead of casting dispersions on the person, you'll see it is a 1/6th scale model available to anyone through a company called Dragon Models.