Malvinas War in 1982

SerbNationalist wrote:Don't worry about me and "the west", I still have some good opinions and hopes for it, because I don't do generalisations, not all are bad, just some. And again about that, if US can do it and spin it so can UK, if you really think that you are not controlled by media think again, you know what media tells you, that's it, a little bit more on the side maybe. Now to be realistic, could you cover up 1000 killed soldiers or sailors or whatever, yes! Could you cover up 50 reporters, well, harder so 50-50% chance! Could you cover a carrier, No! But then again you could cover it being damaged and you could cover deaths on it, just not it being sunk, wich btw is a very though job, it's not easy to sink a destroyer, not to mention a Carrier.

So my feelings are all mine, I actually unlike many like parts of "the west" and I respect it, do I love it and want to be part of it, NO! In any case you can't know anything about what is in my head or who I am, or how I think, or how smart or stupid I am, so please don't try to make those asumptions because in the end they just sound stupid, this is internet, you can't know ppl here!
Cheers!

Actually we cant hide 1000 deaths, dont you think the families might get suspicious when their fathers, brothers, sons and uncles dont return home after almost 30 years? We have memorials with the names of everybody killed during the war, dont you think the families would discover that their mens names wern't on them and ask why? Regardless of what you think, we CANNOT hide 1000 deaths. As for the reporters, their employers would be a bit suspicious also. So tell me, do you think HMS Invincible was sunk?

Aberdeenlad wrote:

SerbNationalist wrote:Don't worry about me and "the west", I still have some good opinions and hopes for it, because I don't do generalisations, not all are bad, just some. And again about that, if US can do it and spin it so can UK, if you really think that you are not controlled by media think again, you know what media tells you, that's it, a little bit more on the side maybe. Now to be realistic, could you cover up 1000 killed soldiers or sailors or whatever, yes! Could you cover up 50 reporters, well, harder so 50-50% chance! Could you cover a carrier, No! But then again you could cover it being damaged and you could cover deaths on it, just not it being sunk, wich btw is a very though job, it's not easy to sink a destroyer, not to mention a Carrier.

So my feelings are all mine, I actually unlike many like parts of "the west" and I respect it, do I love it and want to be part of it, NO! In any case you can't know anything about what is in my head or who I am, or how I think, or how smart or stupid I am, so please don't try to make those asumptions because in the end they just sound stupid, this is internet, you can't know ppl here!
Cheers!

Actually we cant hide 1000 deaths, dont you think the families might get suspicious when their fathers, brothers, sons and uncles dont return home after almost 30 years? We have memorials with the names of everybody killed during the war, dont you think the families would discover that their mens names wern't on them and ask why? Regardless of what you think, we CANNOT hide 1000 deaths. As for the reporters, their employers would be a bit suspicious also. So tell me, do you think HMS Invincible was sunk?

Personal opinion? No I think it wasn't, but I think it was damaged and I think there were casualties, not saying how many, because you can know that for sure in 2 ways, you were there or you're a high ranking officer! And families can easily be manipulated or blackmailed, that is really easy especially in liberal economies with people depending on trust funds, social security and stuff like that, so manipulating families is not an issue!
Again, do I think it was sunk? NO! Do I think it was severely damaged? Yes Do I think there were casualties? Yes, Do I think there was a 1000 of them? Probably not, but really can't know that, neither of us can, you or me!

Here's a picture of HMS Invincible returning to Portsmouth after the war. Note: No Phalanx, and more importantly nowhere to put Phalanx, and even more importantly, nowhere to be seen that actually had a Phalanx. Also note the position of the crane, well forward of the crane position on HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal. The original poster suggested that the crane could easily be moved, and as such, that was exactly what the Royal Navy did. However he never explained HOW the crew of HMS Illustrious did this, given the height of the flight deck, the weight of the crane, and the pedistal below the deck, and all this was done at sea.

SerbNationalist wrote:

Aberdeenlad wrote:

SerbNationalist wrote:Don't worry about me and "the west", I still have some good opinions and hopes for it, because I don't do generalisations, not all are bad, just some. And again about that, if US can do it and spin it so can UK, if you really think that you are not controlled by media think again, you know what media tells you, that's it, a little bit more on the side maybe. Now to be realistic, could you cover up 1000 killed soldiers or sailors or whatever, yes! Could you cover up 50 reporters, well, harder so 50-50% chance! Could you cover a carrier, No! But then again you could cover it being damaged and you could cover deaths on it, just not it being sunk, wich btw is a very though job, it's not easy to sink a destroyer, not to mention a Carrier.

So my feelings are all mine, I actually unlike many like parts of "the west" and I respect it, do I love it and want to be part of it, NO! In any case you can't know anything about what is in my head or who I am, or how I think, or how smart or stupid I am, so please don't try to make those asumptions because in the end they just sound stupid, this is internet, you can't know ppl here!
Cheers!

Actually we cant hide 1000 deaths, dont you think the families might get suspicious when their fathers, brothers, sons and uncles dont return home after almost 30 years? We have memorials with the names of everybody killed during the war, dont you think the families would discover that their mens names wern't on them and ask why? Regardless of what you think, we CANNOT hide 1000 deaths. As for the reporters, their employers would be a bit suspicious also. So tell me, do you think HMS Invincible was sunk?

Personal opinion? No I think it wasn't, but I think it was damaged and I think there were casualties, not saying how many, because you can know that for sure in 2 ways, you were there or you're a high ranking officer! And families can easily be manipulated or blackmailed, that is really easy especially in liberal economies with people depending on trust funds, social security and stuff like that, so manipulating families is not an issue!
Again, do I think it was sunk? NO! Do I think it was severely damaged? Yes Do I think there were casualties? Yes, Do I think there was a 1000 of them? Probably not, but really can't know that, neither of us can, you or me!

Quite agree, people can be bribed or blackmailed, but in this case, I can assure you HMS Invincible was not hit at all. I'm sure you have seen photos of HMS Invincible returning from the Falklands war in 1982, she doesnt have a scratch on her,(see pic above) now contrast that with ships returning that the Royal Navy admitted had been hit. Here is some pictures of ships hit by Exocet
USS Stark

HMS Sheffield

Atlantic Conveyor

HMS Glamorgan

Now thats the damage and destruction Exocet did back in the 1980s. Tell me how HMS Invincible could have been repaired back into perfect condition, by sailors,at sea, in the South Atlantic winter?

The fact is, even the most die hard anti Brit, brainwashed person on the planet (I'm not calling anybody on here any names, it's just an expression) could in all sensibility claim HMS Invincible was hit. Remember the Argentine claim (and it changes all the time) was 1 x Exocet and 2 x 500 lb bombs hit a carrier loaded with aviation fuel and bombs, there could only have been 1 outcome, HMS Invincible would have been destroyed completely, yet she sailed back home. Any questions feel free to ask.

As we have no more replies from the Argie that started this topic, can we take it he has given up?

British friend can you tell me the exact date that the HMS Cardiff departed from Malvinas to the UK?
And you have the exact date of arrival in the British port of Portsmouth or Devonport?
--------------

Can you explain why Nigel Ward (in the book "Harriers sobre Malvinas") edit the photo about the return of R06 Invincible's Clone, sailing together with a part of the Bristol Group?

For that reason Mr. Ward withdrew the part where we can see the U.S. America (CV 66) behind two auxiliary ships "Hecla" Class?

The U.S. America (CV 66 a Kitty Hawk Class Supercarrier) will join the Northern Wedding operation, concealing the return of a Invincible´s clone (R06) in immaculate condition.
What was the purpose of the "Northern Wedding" Operation?

soltec wrote:British friend can you tell me the exact date that the HMS Cardiff departed from Malvinas to the UK?
And you have the exact date of arrival in the British port of Portsmouth or Devonport?

Why?? Did you sink her also.

Aberdeenlad wrote:

soltec wrote:British friend can you tell me the exact date that the HMS Cardiff departed from Malvinas to the UK?
And you have the exact date of arrival in the British port of Portsmouth or Devonport?

Why?? Did you sink her also.

No no, in the five Class 42, qwe "only" sank two (Sheffield & Coventry) and leave off fighting one (Glasgow)

I need this information about HMS Cardiff in Malvinas for another reason.

And also I need information about the two Class 42 who arrived to Malvinas in the early postwar (HMS Birmingham and HMS Southtampton). If you have photos, I would appreciate that the post them in this forum.
----------

Can you explain why Nigel Ward (in the book "Harriers sobre Malvinas") edit the photo about the return of R06 Invincible's Clone, sailing together with a part of the Bristol Group?

For that reason Mr. Ward withdrew the part where we can see the U.S. America (CV 66) behind two auxiliary ships "Hecla" Class?

The U.S. America (CV 66 a Kitty Hawk Class Supercarrier) will join the Northern Wedding operation, concealing the return of a Invincible´s clone (R06) in immaculate condition.
What was the purpose of the "Northern Wedding" Operation?
------------------------

For the members and readers, who can read in Spanish or have an interest in translating, here is a link to a site which exposes Argentina and justifies the hypothesis of the sinking of Invincible and his replacement by a clone carrier.

http://www.malvinense.com.ar/foro/viewtopic.php?t=20&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=260&sid=640ecb4865782ce489d7ad9695e4bc91

In this site writes the Engineer Miguel Bortolotto, who is the author original of this hypothesis, a historical researcher expert with 28 years dedicated to the "Operacion Invincible".
Also is the son of Teniente de Navio Nestor Bortolotto, who led the Sea Cat from UK to Argentinian Navy in 1968. And put them in the cruiser General Belgrano in 1968. Also is the founder and first chief of the Missile Armed Workshop, in the Puerto Belgrano Naval Base in 1969/70.
In the same instalations in 1982,we were calibrated AM-39 Exocet missiles that sank HMS Sheffield, Atlantic Conveyor and HMS Invincible.
Despite the boycott of technological support of France and the withdrawal of Aerospatiale´s technicians.
France boycott delivery of 9 Super Etendard and 9 exocet AM-39 missiles that had already been bought and paid for in 1980.

Those who had finished with the entire fleet of the Royal Navy without a doubt.

You’re clutching at straws now, all you need is photographic evidence of HMS Invincible with HMS Illustrious, this has been supplied, and for good measure I have even supplied a picture of HMS Illustrious leaving the Tyne with HMS Ark Royal in the background, nowhere near ready to go to sea. I suggest you come back with evidence and not stories.
I also suggest you have a look at the FAA website, at no point do they say HMS Invincible was sunk, only you conspiracy theorists say that, but like you and people like you they cant prove anything either.
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fuerzaaerea.mil.ar%2Fconflicto%2Fobjetivos_navales.html

soltec wrote:

Aberdeenlad wrote:

soltec wrote:British friend can you tell me the exact date that the HMS Cardiff departed from Malvinas to the UK?
And you have the exact date of arrival in the British port of Portsmouth or Devonport?

Why?? Did you sink her also.

No no, in the five Class 42, qwe "only" sank two (Sheffield & Coventry) and leave off fighting one (Glasgow)

I need this information about HMS Cardiff in Malvinas for another reason.

And also I need information about the two Class 42 who arrived to Malvinas in the early postwar (HMS Birmingham and HMS Southtampton). If you have photos, I would appreciate that the post them in this forum.
----------

Can you explain why Nigel Ward (in the book "Harriers sobre Malvinas") edit the photo about the return of R06 Invincible's Clone, sailing together with a part of the Bristol Group?

For that reason Mr. Ward withdrew the part where we can see the U.S. America (CV 66) behind two auxiliary ships "Hecla" Class?

The U.S. America (CV 66 a Kitty Hawk Class Supercarrier) will join the Northern Wedding operation, concealing the return of a Invincible´s clone (R06) in immaculate condition.
What was the purpose of the "Northern Wedding" Operation?
------------------------

For the members and readers, who can read in Spanish or have an interest in translating, here is a link to a site which exposes Argentina and justifies the hypothesis of the sinking of Invincible and his replacement by a clone carrier.

http://www.malvinense.com.ar/foro/viewtopic.php?t=20&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=260&sid=640ecb4865782ce489d7ad9695e4bc91

In this site writes the Engineer Miguel Bortolotto, who is the author original of this hypothesis, a historical researcher expert with 28 years dedicated to the "Operacion Invincible".
Also is the son of Teniente de Navio Nestor Bortolotto, who led the Sea Cat from UK to Argentinian Navy in 1968. And put them in the cruiser General Belgrano in 1968. Also is the founder and first chief of the Missile Armed Workshop, in the Puerto Belgrano Naval Base in 1969/70.
In the same instalations in 1982,we were calibrated AM-39 Exocet missiles that sank HMS Sheffield, Atlantic Conveyor and HMS Invincible.
Despite the boycott of technological support of France and the withdrawal of Aerospatiale´s technicians.
France boycott delivery of 9 Super Etendard and 9 exocet AM-39 missiles that had already been bought and paid for in 1980.

Those who had finished with the entire fleet of the Royal Navy without a doubt.

HaHaHa
El Malvinense!!! So thats where you have been getting your rubbish from, do yourself a favour mate, take up bird watching, I dont think your heart condition will stand up to this discussion. El Malvinense what a laugh, jajaja classic.

That picture of the USS Stark says it all for me.

If there was one incident the US would want to cover up for so many reasons that would be it.

US vessel spying on Israel finding out that Israelis are cheating on a deal they have with the US and attacking the Stark to try to hide the evidence... very shady.

Of course the US navy is not above creating an incident to justify a conflict... just look at the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the GOT II that never happened they used to escalate the conflict.

GarryB wrote:That picture of the USS Stark says it all for me.

If there was one incident the US would want to cover up for so many reasons that would be it.

US vessel spying on Israel finding out that Israelis are cheating on a deal they have with the US and attacking the Stark to try to hide the evidence... very shady.

Of course the US navy is not above creating an incident to justify a conflict... just look at the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the GOT II that never happened they used to escalate the conflict.

Very true about the USS Stark Garry, what that incident showed was that it's impossible to hide these things, and that makes the argie claims on Invincible even sillier. I don’t know if any of the Russian members of this forum have had a look at the link that Soltec posted yet, but I can assure them all, it’s a great fictitious read and you can get a good look in to the mindset of these people.

Aberdeenlad wrote:

GarryB wrote:That picture of the USS Stark says it all for me.

If there was one incident the US would want to cover up for so many reasons that would be it.

US vessel spying on Israel finding out that Israelis are cheating on a deal they have with the US and attacking the Stark to try to hide the evidence... very shady.

Of course the US navy is not above creating an incident to justify a conflict... just look at the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the GOT II that never happened they used to escalate the conflict.

Very true about the USS Stark Garry, what that incident showed was that it's impossible to hide these things, and that makes the argie claims on Invincible even sillier. I don’t know if any of the Russian members of this forum have had a look at the link that Soltec posted yet, but I can assure them all, it’s a great fictitious read and you can get a good look in to the mindset of these people.

.
great fictitious ???
.
if you like see something great fictitious see this photo
.
.

.
along 5 years of investigation the most strong proof from UK about R05 still live is this photo..
but is ficticious too.
.
You can see the same formation from other viewpoint, the ships are identified for better understanding
.

.
.
.

.
.
.
great photos, would be a good test but a small detail
HMS Cardiff was no longer in the Malvinas by the date indicated
.
.
can see at this papers desclasiffied the real date to return to UK
.

.
.

.
.
UK LIES
Royal Navy LIES
Griffith LIES (crew of HMS Cardiff that attack me in all forums)
.
which is the need to lie?
which of the sides is actually hiding information or conspiracy?
.
.

Well done Soltec, you are correct for the second time on this thread, it is fictitious. Or rather your ship naming is fictitious, the destroyer in question in that photo is HMS Exeter and NOT HMS Cardiff.

So who's telling the lies?? Back to the drawing board for you matey.

Cardiff arriving to Portsmouth in 28 july 1982.



Formacion de september. desde babor....



Observe the trace of soot in the larger tower. It is similar

soltec wrote:Cardiff arriving to Portsmouth in 28 july 1982.



Formacion de september. desde babor....



Observe the trace of soot in the larger tower. It is similar

Dont be silly now, check the black line down the funnel!!!

I will help you. The black stripe down the funnel on HMS Exeter was painted in line with the boat davit, the line painted on HMS Cardiff was painted aft of the davit. You have posted 2 pictures clearly showing 2 different ships, or rather your friend Michael Bortolotto has, you just copied and pasted the rubbish he posted. Keep it up mate, this is so easy.

This is not HMS Exeter....
But...
The HMS Exeter arrives to Portsmouth, the 28 of July 1982....


The HMS Cardiff or The HMS Exeter NEVER can be sailing in Malvinas the 27 of August 1982...
NEVER
IS IMPOSSIBLE

Brits lies...

Ahhh the ship is the HMS Cardiff...

soltec wrote:This is not HMS Exeter....
But...
The HMS Exeter arrives to Portsmouth, the 28 of July 1982....


The HMS Cardiff or The HMS Exeter NEVER can be sailing in Malvinas the 27 of August 1982...
NEVER
IS IMPOSSIBLE

Brits lies...

Ahhh the ship is the HMS Cardiff...

Are you blind? 2 pictures, 2 different ships,and you say it's HMS Cardiff. PMSL, fill your boots man, you have just proved to anybody that reads this that you argies are living in a dream world.

Actually Soltec!!! Can you prove any of your wild claims???

more proof of the hms cardiff








Here some of the ship's crew in 1982.
One of them confirm the situation on the HMS Cardiff as a participant in your personal photo site.

What do you see there that proves you sunk HMS Invincible?
Why do you mention HMS Cardiff and post a picture of another type 42?

Just give me hard facts to prove you sunk Invincible.

Aberdeenlad wrote:What do you see there that proves you sunk HMS Invincible?
Why do you mention HMS Cardiff and post a picture of another type 42?

Just give me hard facts to prove you sunk Invincible.

Not is the HMS Cardiff???
Then you must be sure it is a other vessel type 42.
Identify exactly them and find the answer to the invincible thread

soltec wrote:

Aberdeenlad wrote:What do you see there that proves you sunk HMS Invincible?
Why do you mention HMS Cardiff and post a picture of another type 42?

Just give me hard facts to prove you sunk Invincible.

Not is the HMS Cardiff???
Then you must be sure it is a other vessel type 42.
Identify exactly them and find the answer to the invincible thread

I'm certain it's not Cardiff, and I cant see the link with Invincible either. So would you care to explain.

Just to make it very clear to you, I have scanned this image from a book. Pay close attention to the black stripe down the funnel, it's not in the same place as the picture you posted claiming to be HMS Cardiff.

Aberdeenlad wrote:

soltec wrote:

Aberdeenlad wrote:What do you see there that proves you sunk HMS Invincible?
Why do you mention HMS Cardiff and post a picture of another type 42?

Just give me hard facts to prove you sunk Invincible.

Not is the HMS Cardiff???
Then you must be sure it is a other vessel type 42.
Identify exactly them and find the answer to the invincible thread

I'm certain it's not Cardiff, and I cant see the link with Invincible either. So would you care to explain.

Soltec , he already named the ship for you in a previous post and I tend to believe him!

Soltec, just how many military forums have you spammed with this kind of rubbish now, 3 maybe 4? You get the same replies every time from people all over the world, and yet you still believe this garbage. All I can really say for sure is that you and people like you are brainwashed completly, your unable to give a straight answer to a simple question and unable to comprehend the magnitude of what you are claiming, you cant even get ships names right, you post a picture of a type 42 and claim it's HMS Cardiff, but clearly to anybody with eyes its not Cardiff, but still you claim it is. Tell me Soltec / 55 heroes or whatever you call yourself now, do you keep a straight face when posting your rubbish?

Reading posts by you and the other halfwits on the El Malvinense forum, you seem to be suggesting that the Americans built another Invincible Class carrier and kitted it out with British weapons in about 4 weeks and sent it down to be photographed anchored off Port Stanley!!!! Do the sums mate, nobody can build a carrier in that short space of time, your also claiming that we sent Ark Royal to replace Illustrious, even when I provided photographic evidence to prove Ark Royal was nowhere ready to go to sea. Get your head out of your backside mate and stop spamming honest forums like this one with your badly thought out conspiracy theory.