Review of Joan Mellen's new book on LBJ

[Chris Newton]

Chris: Since you have been following it, do you agree with her conclusions?

I agree with Joan's assessment.

The ship had been identified by Israeli recon aircraft several times the same morning before it was attacked. That the initial aircraft that attacked the ship were bereft of markings is an indication of premeditation and intent.

LBJ's actions suggest collusion with the Israelis. I don't have Joan's book yet so I don't know exactly what she came up with but I doubt I'll be surprised by it.

[James DiEugenio]

Yes, Chris, that is what she says.

Glenn:

Do you know what an antenna is? If you are old enough to recall, these used to stick out from roof tops to facilitate TV reception in the fifties and sixties. In other words, they were receptors for electronic transmission of signal waves.

Now, multiply that in height by about a factor of 10, and multiply that in volume by a factor of about 48. (Plus, those were the first targets of the Israeli fighter jets.)

Secondly, compare that with any picture of a destroyer or battleship, to see the complete lack of retaliatory armament the Liberty had. I find it very hard to believe that no one in the Israeli Air Force or Navy or the Mossad could figure out that, with all that, plus the flag, plus the Jane's ship numerals, that this was not 1.) American and 2.) Was not a war ship.

You are free to disagree Glenn.

Edited October 12, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Glenn Nall]

I didn't say that the Israeli AF or the Mossad couldn't figure it out. I simply stated that your assertion that "anyone with military experience would know" is flatly wrong, and a bit condescending.

[James DiEugenio]

I should have said Naval experience.

But you would object to that also.

As I said, you are free to do so.

Edited October 12, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Chris Newton]

There's no way the USS Liberty could be mistaken for an Egyptian horse transport trawler.

It's like mistaking a Jaguar XKE for a Yugo.

[Larry Hancock]

Just for a bit of clarity, the crew of the Liberty noted low level reconnaissance passes over their ship well before the attack began. Now take a look at the attached photo of the ship or other photos on the internet and convince yourself that the ship could be mistaken for a trawler....especially with those large satellite dishes on the Liberty.

No accident....

https://www.google.com/search?q=uss+liberty+photo&biw=1143&bih=680&tbm=isch&imgil=uchwnQRVQmuOaM%253A%253BsunMc4lpwIk2eM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fnotimeforsilence.wordpress.com%25252Fuss-liberty-gtr-5%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=uchwnQRVQmuOaM%253A%252CsunMc4lpwIk2eM%252C_&usg=__aNTacfOIKC-aK9WozKl-9RtxhUs%3D&dpr=0.9&ved=0ahUKEwiVx-2ejtbPAhUd0IMKHZvJBQAQyjcINw&ei=1Z3-V9WIIJ2gjwSbkxc#imgrc=uchwnQRVQmuOaM%3A

[Glenn Nall]

I should have said Naval experience.

But you would object to that also.

As I said, you are free to do so. Maybe you are too young to recall what antennas were back then.

In fact, I worked on the many antennae on A7-E Corsairs which were retired from service in 1986 when the Hornet took flight. And, unless I screwed up a whole squadron of Corsairs, not all antennae are hundred feet tall whip antennae. Some are shaped a lot like a canoe, attached to the belly of aircraft, and are called, curiously enough, canoe antennae. Some are shaped like horseshoes and extend from the back of the vertical stabilizer. I'll let you guess what they were called.

I do apologize, but I do disagree with you on this. Just because a person served in the US Navy doesn't mean he would know things that were not particular to his rate. That's not good logic.

And I haven't spent time looking at pictures of ships because I'm not at all interested in ships. I'm interested in planes. I know a lot about planes. Don't know xxxx about ships. Ceptin' Aircraft Carriers and how much fun they are when you pull in to Naples or Majorca.

Don't think I've ever even seen a picture of the USS Liberty. But if i did, from your description i'm sure even my little ol' brain could guess that it's a communications vessel. But that would not have come from my Naval experience.

My Naval experience taught me how to recognize, not ships, but beer, for which I am forever grateful.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Glenn Nall

[James DiEugenio]

Just for a bit of clarity, the crew of the Liberty noted low level reconnaissance passes over their ship well before the attack began. Now take a look at the attached photo of the ship or other photos on the internet and convince yourself that the ship could be mistaken for a trawler....especially with those large satellite dishes on the Liberty.

No accident....

https://www.google.com/search?q=uss+liberty+photo&biw=1143&bih=680&tbm=isch&imgil=uchwnQRVQmuOaM%253A%253BsunMc4lpwIk2eM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fnotimeforsilence.wordpress.com%25252Fuss-liberty-gtr-5%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=uchwnQRVQmuOaM%253A%252CsunMc4lpwIk2eM%252C_&usg=__aNTacfOIKC-aK9WozKl-9RtxhUs%3D&dpr=0.9&ved=0ahUKEwiVx-2ejtbPAhUd0IMKHZvJBQAQyjcINw&ei=1Z3-V9WIIJ2gjwSbkxc#imgrc=uchwnQRVQmuOaM%3A

And it had satellite dishes on it also I see. Nice find Larry.

With dishes and antennae how could it be anything else but a communications ship?

And Joan says that the Israeli recon flights came very close to the ship. The sailors could have waved at the pilots.

Edited October 12, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

As per Sandy, evidently he still has not read Joan's book.

I've read the two parts about fingerprints. Nothing else.

Garrett concluded that the Austin prints and the Navy print belonged to the same person. (See p. 259)

That's right. The prints are identical, except for the alterations.

But neither matched the WC box print. (ibid)

The Austin print DOES match the WC box print. Darby failed to compare the Austin print with the high-quality WC print from the box. Had he done so he would have seen they match.

[Chris Newton]

...Four decades later, many of the more than two dozen Liberty survivors located and interviewed by the Tribune cannot talk about the attack without shouting or weeping.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-liberty_tuesoct02-story.html

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy:

Garrett had all of those. He specifically said, with 256 grey scale technology and much better materials than Darby had, that the Austin and Navy prints were of the same man. And he added that the smudged Austin print itself did not match the WC box print.

Its a free country. If you want to argue with Garrett and what he wrote and said and his 256 grey scale technology, then fine.

[Sandy Larsen]

Glenn:

Do you know what an antenna is? If you are old enough to recall, these used to stick out from roof tops to facilitate TV reception in the fifties and sixties. In other words, they were receptors for electronic transmission of signal waves.

Jim and Glenn,

I'm an electrical engineer. I'm an expert on antennas. I have designed and built many antennas. And I can vouch for what Jim says, that you don't need to be an expert to identify antennas. You don't need to be an expert to understand how antennas work. You can even build simple antennas.

Jim,

I hope you will keep this in mind when I give my Mac Wallace fingerprint presentation. Because, just as with antennas, you don't need to be an expert to understand fingerprints and how to read them. You can even read simple prints. An expert is required only for sophisticated readings, just as an expert is required only for sophisticated antenna designs.

P.S. Glenn, I'm not arguing with you... I was just trying to make a point. To Jim.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Glenn Nall]

Sandy. Please reread my original comment. It was about neither antennae nor ships.

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy:

Garrett had all of those.

Yes, Garrett had what he needed to do the pertinent comparison. But he didn't do the pertinent comparison.

He specifically said, with 256 grey scale technology and much better materials than Darby had, that the Austin and Navy prints were of the same man.

Yes, I already agreed with you on that point.

And he added that the smudged Austin print itself did not match the WC box print.

No, Garrett did not say that. He said that the photocopy of the WC box print was of too poor quality to find a sufficient number of identifying minutiae. And therefore he couldn't declare a match between it and the low-quality photocopy of the Austin print (Page 272).

Garrett had the high-quality Austin print which he said "is of value for identification purposes" (page 272). And he had the high-quality gray-scale WC box print. Had he compared those two he would have found a match. But he didn't. He chose (or was instructed) instead to compare the low-quality photocopies that had insufficient minutiae.

So it was an unfair Austin-print comparison.

Garrett DID do a fair comparison with the Navy print. The print that has been altered.

If you want to argue with Garrett and what he wrote and said and his 256 grey scale technology, then fine.

I have no argument with Garrett. I'm arguing with you because what you're saying is not true.

P.S. I'm not accusing Joan or Garrett of intentionally avoiding a fair Austin-print comparison. They may have felt it was unnecessary given that they did do a fair Navy-print comparison.

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy. Please reread my original comment. It was about neither antennae nor ships.

That's okay, because my reply wasn't about your post. It was about Jim's reply to your post. I was just borrowing your name for a moment. Sorry about that.