And which of the voices in your head is that?
Your threads have been locked (I imagine) for several reasons:
Again, best wishes and go back to your frotting,
Tubs[/quote]
i didn´t ask you, i asked THE MODERATOR, you are nothing.
Nothing to be said, it didn’t sink!
Tell, me do you enjoy being a catamite?
And which of the voices in your head is that?
Your threads have been locked (I imagine) for several reasons:
Again, best wishes and go back to your frotting,
Tubs[/quote]
i didn´t ask you, i asked THE MODERATOR, you are nothing.[/quote]
Hmmmm, very interesting.
A most erwinian comment…
here is the evidence cuts, or cat?
That´s Illustrious in Portsmouth after Malvinas, people think it´s Invincible but is not.
FW-190, I think he’s referring to the locked threads with titles along the line of “HMS INVINCIBLE SUNK TRUE WON’T BE CENSURED”.
He means “censored”, not “censured” (though both would seem appropriate). Second, the threads weren’t censored as such - the content can still be freely read. Which is unfortunate, since said content is utter gash.
Finally, for a 19,500 ton pile of scrap…the old girl seems in pretty good shape…http://royalnavy.mod.uk/rn/index.php3?page=1469.
Edit: Oh yes…that photo posted above…I suppose it’s too late to point out that the poster on libreopinion considered it to be INVINCIBLE as well…
How much evidence are you going to ignore about Invincible?
We’ve posted proof that her aircraft were still flying after you say she sank. You’ve posted a link that say she got home safe, except you say that thread’s all lies, apart from the bits you agree with.
You cannot just ignore evidence you don’t like and base all your arguments on one very very poor fake photograph.
What compelling evidence do you have to prove that it is not the Invincible ?
For no other reason than to see if there’s anything on the inside of your hatrack, why do you call me ‘cat’ ?
Isn’t that pretty much the same photo that you said was Invincible leaving for the Falklands (until you were proved wrong)?
post in libreopinon but i have the same photo in a brit forum “Service Pals”
shhh
You are, of course, going to provide a link to verify that, hm?
Ok, I’m old enough to remember the news I watched on German media (TV, radio and newspapers) from the war (I was 15 back then and reading serious newspapers every day. Unlike some Argentinian site members, who were not even born by the time this war happened). Germany was neutral in this war, so I think that the German reporting was also neutral.
The news published by the German media back then corresponds largely with the British version. They probaly got the Argentine version as well, but discredited it as propaganda due to lack of proof. I also have to say that I trust the BBC more than media published by a military dictatorship. The BBC is so eager to report that they actually endangered British troops in the Falklands several times during the war (Goose Green and the Argentinian bombs, which failed to explode, the BBC transmitted the reason for the failures, which enabled the Argentine air force to correct the mistake).
It is simply impossible to hide the loss of a major warship, like an aircraft carrier in European news. If it wouldn’t have been published by British news, and the news agencies of the other European countries (and BTW, the Americans) would have gotten wind of it, it would have been spread all over the news. Media are NOT government controlled over here.
Irish Duck (though I wonder why you picked this name, I can probably claim more connection to Ireland than you), your postings remind me of the effords by a certain Mr. Leuchter and the revisionist historian Irving to prove that the stories of mass murder and genocide in Nazi concentration camps was just Allied propaganda and other Neo-Nazi propaganda “proving” that Hitler wasn’t that bad.
I have two explanations for it:
I assume that the website and the books you mention have been made up by people, who were connected to the old military junta.
I also assume that you are too young to have consciously witnessed the war.
Oh, BTW, I met a good friend of mine last weekend, who was actually in the Falklands during the war, as a sergeant of the RAF regiment, and who actually got involved in the ground fighting.
When I told him about your claims about the Invincible, he gave a hearty laugh.
Jan
Oh, and here is something for our Argentinian friends (greetings from Brasil):
picture removed as it was causing people to be offended
Chill a bit, guys! 
Jan
Why you dont stop with this.
I dont know nothing about malvinas war ,but i am not blind i saw on one link Invincible not sunk he is been in NATO exercise 1998,and stop with insults and this stupid topic about malvinas ,what you want do you want to been banned like arkantos ,if you agian post insults thats wil happened i an sure ,this is ww2 forum post about it .
Please, friends…I find this unnecessary one… I do not have rivals here.
Salute for all.
:!: Ok guys, we are under my jurisdiction now. Stop with posting insults. I will begin with just editing your offensive posts, and if this escalates to the point where I need to call in Dani, FW, or SAM, people will recieve warnings. Be warned from now on, insults will have zero tolerance.
Please, friends…I find this unnecessary one… I do not have rivals here.
Salute for all.[/quote]
I got this picture from a thread about the same topic (Falklands / Malvinas) at www.Airliners.net, which is actually running very politely and without insults. There it was posted as a good natured cheer from a German guy who lived in Brasil for quite a while. There was no insult intended by me with it.
Jan
As far as the loss of a major vessel is concerned I would like to know how the Argentine claims can be substantiated against existing records of building ships.
The UK shipbuilding industry was contracted to build 3 “Through Deck Cruisers” as they were known at the time. These were major vessels of over 20 thousand tonnes gross weight.
A vessel of this size would take around 3 years to construct due to long lead time items and the need to obtain materials by advanced purchase; this weight and material is not available from steel and aluminium processors without ramping up production.
The need to construct a replacement vessel for the lost one would not be possible to hide from the public at large due to the vast supplier base which would be required to deliver parts for the vessel as well as the shipyard that built the secret ship. A construction programme such as this would have a direct impact on the working lives of over 100 thousand workers and cause economic blips in shipbuilding regions that would not be easy to hide.
As well as this there is the “rumour mill” that runs around any armed service. Does anyone really believe that the loss of 1000 crew or the rescue of the said crew from the sea could have been hidden without leakage via the press or the internet for 23 years whilst the death of Princess Diana (an event of much less significance) is the subject of weekly discussion amongst conspiracy theorists?
That the ship was hit by a missile would be extremely difficult to cover up especially with the internet. The loss of the ship does not stand up to logical examination.
I do not doubt that the pilots who launched the attack were brave men who believed that their attack against Invincible had been a success but the only conclusion that bears examination is that the claims on the website are the remaining echoes of a murderous and desperate military government determined to prop up its position by propaganda and lies.
To be fair, it’s not unknown for pilots and others such as tankies to claim a target kill in all good faith, when they either didn’t actually score a disabling hit, or when two or more claim the same hit. The fog of war can be thick stuff.
It doesn’t happen with Gunners, but then they are an exceptional breed
I’m sure the Argentinian pilots (who generally get a good write up for bravery in the books about the Falklands I read) thought they had hit INVINCIBLE, but they missed. It happens. When a claim is coupled with an unpopular regime looking for any bit of good news, it makes for airbrushed pictures in the newspapers.
Given the fact that the Government of the day admitted the loss of the SHEFFIELD, ATLANTIC CONVEYOR etc etc, I’m not sure why the loss of INVINCIBLE would have been covered up. The MoD seemed to make no secret of things once OPSEC was no longer an issue.
As so many posters have said, a cover-up on this scale is not credible. I must slightly disagree with MiB above. From start to finish, the INVINCIBLE took 7 years to build, not 3. Of course, this only strengthens your point, but accuracy in all things!
Kind regards to all
Fluffy
PS in the famous picture that has been posted of the INVINCIBLE supposedly on fire, where was the photo taken from? I doubt it was a British photo released to the Argentinian goverment of the time, so who took it? Given the VSTOL planes on the deck and the INVINCIBLE’s AA complement, to say nothing of any escorting ships, how did the FAA manage to get a plane that close?
Erwin, Duck et al where was this mythical replacement Invincible class supposed to have been built then? Do you have any relaible (third party witness or documentary) evidence to confirm this?
As far as I can tell only three ships of that class were ever built and there are still three ships of that class afloat as all three were recently in portsmouth at the same time. If a fourth was built there should be verifyable evidence.
im not anymore here,why you said erwin?