too many insults
The true wouldn´t be censure.
What´s up with Invincible R05???
HMS Invincible (R 07)
1999: Refit Portsmouth October
HMS Illustrious (R 06)
2000: Deployed to Gulf January 17, Atlantic January 19
HMS Ark Royal (R08)
1999: Rosyth naval base major Refit October
http://www.geocities.com/~davemc/canset.htm
Anybody can aswer this???
-
The attack and the impact existed
-
England never recognized it.
-
There isn´t any registry of aerial activity from that aircraft carrier, from that date (may 30)…
-
Nobody knows where it was the Invincible from the 30 of May to July ends, which enter the disguised Illustrious like Invincible in Port Stanley.
-
Nobody can explain why the aircraft carrier do not touch land on June 14 (when the others ships, all the others including Hermes touched port Stanley or returned to England.
-
It is virtually impossible and irrational that the repairs have become to opened sea, with temperatures below cero and a few hours of light.
-
Nobody can´t explain why the second aircraft carrier entered disarmed, if it was the Illustrious it was operative from half-full of June (so may be the Ark Royal was there too)
-
Nobody can´t explain why HMS Illustrious (or Ark Royal??) returned immediately to UK (obviously to be finished and to be armed).
-Why the HMS Invincible that left to the Falklands had the black tower, and when it arrived in September it had it of gray color? repainted?? in the middle of the ocean, it was so cold there…
See…
may 1982…
30 may 1982
was extracted of the tv that´s why you think it´s a fake, but i´ve the photo in my hands.
This before the attacked of the aircraft of the AAF. You can se the Exocet, the people and the circules, indicating the Chinook to stay there.
after the war…
17 september portsmouth
it is not the same ship…
Well read this please:
I WON´T ANSWER OR POST AGAIN UNLESS YOU ANSWER ALL THAT I ASKED.
The Irish Duck
It would have been better if you hadn’t posted at all. Any resonably intelligent person can do his own investigation to answer those questions. You don’t want to believe that you are wrong which is why you post on here and blather rubbish. If you believe it was hit then you believe it. But deep down you know you are wrong and it never happened. All the rubbish you post on here won’t change the facts. That you choose to ignore that is your loss only.
BTW the moon is made of cheese too, look I can prove it:
Is the moon made of green cheese?
(the scientific evidence)
The landings of Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 on the moon sent shock waves through the moon’s surface, which were detected on a seismograph. By measuring the speed of shock waves through rock (known as the seismic velocity), the density of the rock can be estimated. The higher the seismic velocity, the denser the rock. Seismic velocities for moon “rock” were compared to those of rocks from various locations. The results were published in Science [1], and are shown below:
Seismic Velocities
Lunar________________Seismic Velocity (km/sec)
Basalt 10017…1.84
Basalt 10046…1.25
Near surface layer…1.2Terrestrial rocks_______Seismic Velocity (km/sec)
Granite…5.9
Gneiss…4.9
Basalt…5.8
Sandstone…4.9
Marble…6.02
Limestone…5.06-5.97It is clear from this that moon “rock” is considerably less dense than any type of rock found on earth. The scientists then decided to examine the seismic velocities of various cheeses from around the world. Some of the results are shown below:
Cheese_______________Seismic Velocity (km/sec)
Sapsego (Swiss)…2.12
Romano (Italy)…1.74
Cheddar (Vermont)…1.72
Muenster (Wisconsin)…1.57The seismic velocity of moon “rock” is much closer to cheese than any rock found on earth. I admit that this is not conclusive proof that the moon is made of cheese, but in the words of the scientists:
“Old hypotheses are best after all, and should not be lightly discarded”
See. :roll:
Look AIDES you moonhowler, stop a moment and think about your questions.
Ord_Sgt has pointed you in the right direction and that should be enough for you.
As he said you choose to believe against overwhelming evidence that HMS Invincible was sunk.
It is your inalienable right to believe whatever loopy, off the wall fantasy you choose, just don’t imagine you’ll get many converts as most people on site can use their heads for something other than a rack for your bacofoil hat.
If you REALLY want us to answer your questions, why not start by answering those that you were posed on the ‘Why ?’ thread before you and the other personas started running round with your hands in the air squealing “Jejejejejejejejeje ! Rinda rápidamente” ?
But I hope your word is more trustworthy than Erwin’s when you say you won’t post again.
Irish Duck, you really are just a little troll aren’t you? How many times are we going to have this pointless argument?
You’re talking about a ship that costs hundreds of millions of pounds to build. Why on earth (and how on earth) would a democratic government spend hundreds of millions of pounds on a ship (plus another ten million pounds for each Sea Harrier and a couple of million for each Lynx and Sea King helicopter, probably totalling another £216 million if the ship is to have 20 Harriers and 8 helicopters) on a ship, just to keep it hidden in case another one is sunk.
How would they have kept the crew of the ‘original’ Invincible quiet?
Who sailed the ‘new’ Invincible down to the Falklands so that the ‘original’ crew could sail it back? How were they kept quiet?
How could the dock workers who built the secret ship be kept quiet?
Where would you keep the ‘spare ship’ until it was needed? Surely someone would have noticed an aircraft carrier just lying around doing nothing? Unless of course you’re suggesting they built a new one as soon as the Invincible was ‘sank’, in which case I’ll laugh at you even more.
Why do you find it so hard to believe that the ship could be painted at sea? It’s common practice (as Walther told you in the original thread) and has been done for many years. RN ships at Trafalgar had to repaint the bands of colour around their masts so that they were the same colour as Nelson’s and a different colour to the bands around the French and Spanish ship’s bands.
:lol: :lol: The luck of the Irish…a leprechaun asking questions about the World.
One more thing to add:
Arkantos it is obvious that you are Argentinean.
You upload a picture on www.tripod.com.ar instead of www.tripod.com.mx (normally if you were a Mexican). Anyway, I left 15 hours this thread and when I came back I found this mess. It is a shame. Arkantos, you’ll will be watched very closely. Comprende?
Erwin, your behaviour here is in debating now.
Topic locked.
Excellent post 1000!
For the Argentinian recidivists: Let’s try again shall we? Follow these instructions very carefully.
1 – This is the Royal Navy carrier webpage: http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/static/pages/148.html. Open it in a new window.
2 – Scroll down to the bottom of the page to where it says “Fact File”.
3 – There is a table here listing all the Royal Navys Invincible class vessels along with their pennant numbers. Read it.
4 – You should notice that the pennant number listed for HMS Invincible is R05. Do so.
5 – Burn this fact into your mind so that you will not forget it.
6 – Now answer the questions that have been asked of you.
Doesn’t there exist a RN matelot site similar to Arrse, where we could get some veteran, who actually served on the ship during the war?
This would settle the argument once and for all.
Jan
I doubt it, not with the blind fanaticism displayed by certain members. It’s like trying to argue with the Pope that God doesn’t exist. :lol:
What joy! Now that was sunk, the Invincible wasn’t. FACT!
Oh and by the way it has never been denied that Invincible was attacked, after all Exocet is a beyond visual range weapon and the pilots may well have aimed one at Invincible. However there is no credible evidence to say that it was ever hit, much less sunk.
As to where Invincible was after the end of the war? She was standing off well to the North out of flying range (the Argentinians were not entirely trusted even after the surrender) with an escort in order to change a gearbox and conduct repairs to an engine damaged by a drive-train failure. One of the things that the the Argentinians did no know at the time was that Invincible only had one working propellor (Hastings and Jenkins, pp188) for much of the war.
Major repairs like this at sea take some time, particularly when parts have to be sent out from home port. It would have taken some considerable time for the ship to have limped home to a friendly port and it would have been too far away to respond if the Argentinians had broken the truce. Moving the ship north to warmer (and lighter) latitudes would be the best compromise between comfort and military readiness.
It has already been pointed out that one of the main activities of a ship’s company at sea is repainting the ship to prevent corrosion, it is therefore perfectly possible to change the colour of a ship at sea particularly if you wish to make it mre difficult to see. Stupid people may say “Oh but it’s cold in the South Atlantic”, that may be so but the ship spent several weeks sailing through the North Atlantic in spring and then through the Tropics, where it is generaly quite warm. There is also the layover at ascension to consider. All in all plenty of time to repaint a ship in pleasent weather.
After repairs Invincible took over from Hermes in providing air-cover for the Falklands while Hermes sailed home. Illustrius was then sent south to take over from Invincible (and take on some of her air group from Hermes and Invincible - the task force carriers actually had more Harriers than normal leaving too few in Britain for Illustrious) until the airfields on the islands were ready for the Phantoms that were sent there. As soon as the land bases were operational (and the Junta had problems at home) Illustrious returned.
Ark Royal was not finished until 1985 and is a slightly different design to the first two ships.
Is the Malvinas War the same as the Falklands War? If it is, why keep bringing it up, you lost!
I think we have just discovered how grown up Arkantos is.
Put your head in Dick also
Andate a chingar tu madre trolo
I’ll bet hes pished off because a Section of booties chucked their load up his mums back box in '82.
This was not recieved via PM. 
Irish Duck - something has just been brought up on a British Army site that a copy of your picture was posted on - one of the ships is Hermes and one is Invincible, which may explain the apparent differences?
Flash mate do you read rules you cannot post PM ,thats private you should send this to some mod.they wil take actions ,for posting PM you can ger a warning ,so better delete this post .
Well, said, Clause, I hope you will be elevated to the esteemed position of moderator on this site one day mate.
Well, Gentleman this forum It´s only for make commentary about the War in the Malvinas /Facklands
regards.
READ MY WORDS:
Until further notice this thread will be closed. It’s again and again a reason for flame war.