USS Liberty

[Caustic Logic]

The liberty was deliberately attacked by the Israelis. They knew it was an american ship on account of the american flag waving in the distance. LBJ and the Israeli governemnt wanted it to look like Egypt attacked the liberty and get america on Israels side just like 9/11 and during the cold war.

That's a lot to just throw out there, you realize. And don't forget it goes way back to when they killed Jesus and got us all on their side by - letting us into heaven? How's that work again? And then Christians get all mad and push the Jews out of country clubs and into ghettoes and concentration camps. But then again, they are a people whose legacy began with the mugging of an angel way back. Or something like that.

Okay, enough off topic. Not sure how to tie this back in best, but I just put together what seems to me an amazing missed lead in all this contention - But the gist is this - a second ship was in the area, responsible for both he shelling of the shore that got Liberty investigated, and for speeding away at 30 knots on the MTB's radar. My sources are mostly Israeli, mostly Michael Oren (the 'Case Closed" guy).
http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/04/one-that-got-away.html
The second ship angle is something everyone else seems to have missed (as far as I've seen). So I must be doing something wrong, since I'm a total novice at this. Anyone who can show me what I got wrong can have a cookie.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Bump.

Great thread, worth reviving and let UNLoVed rebel have his back. Why didn't you guys tell me what a good thread this was?

I vaguely remember mentioning it to you here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4599520&postcount=53

 

[Caustic Logic]

I vaguely remember mentioning it to you here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4599520&postcount=53

Yes you did. I was slow to give it a decent look.

So what does Eddie Dane think about the things Oren says that seem to suggest there was an unidentified second ship involved that got away?
"Yifrah's assessment, twice recalculated and confirmed by him, was pivotal. It meant that the ship could not be the Liberty, whose maximum speed was 18 knots.”
“Israeli forces were convinced they were being bombarded from the sea, and the IDF Southern Command reported sighting two unidentified vessels close offshore.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20000917231200/http://www.azure.org.il/9-Oren.htm

 

[Eddie Dane]

Yes you did. I was slow to give it a decent look.

So what does Eddie Dane think about the things Oren says that seem to suggest there was an unidentified second ship involved that got away?
"Yifrah's assessment, twice recalculated and confirmed by him, was pivotal. It meant that the ship could not be the Liberty, whose maximum speed was 18 knots.”
“Israeli forces were convinced they were being bombarded from the sea, and the IDF Southern Command reported sighting two unidentified vessels close offshore.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20000917231200/http://www.azure.org.il/9-Oren.htm

I leave detailed technical questions to the likes of Gumboot.

But if you really want my amateur opinion: If there was a second ship, it probably fired from the Grassy Knoll.

 

[malcolmxwarrior]

That's a lot to just throw out there, you realize. And don't forget it goes way back to when they killed Jesus and got us all on their side by - letting us into heaven? How's that work again? And then Christians get all mad and push the Jews out of country clubs and into ghettoes and concentration camps. But then again, they are a people whose legacy began with the mugging of an angel way back. Or something like that.

Okay, enough off topic. Not sure how to tie this back in best, but I just put together what seems to me an amazing missed lead in all this contention - But the gist is this - a second ship was in the area, responsible for both he shelling of the shore that got Liberty investigated, and for speeding away at 30 knots on the MTB's radar. My sources are mostly Israeli, mostly Michael Oren (the 'Case Closed" guy).
http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/04/one-that-got-away.html
The second ship angle is something everyone else seems to have missed (as far as I've seen). So I must be doing something wrong, since I'm a total novice at this. Anyone who can show me what I got wrong can have a cookie.

There you go. STOP right there. I have heard enough. They lie now about the gaza genocide that just happened a few months ago and they lied then.

Remember, after the liberty attack was a failure the Israelis had to unleash their spin doctors and do damage control.

They still won't admit they have nukes! They lie and deceive! You can't trust them as far as you can throw 'em.

But remember, I am talking about the Israeli Leaders. So tread carefully before you try to unleash your weapon of "anti-semite"

 

[TSR]

There you go. STOP right there. I have heard enough. They lie now about the gaza genocide that just happened a few months ago and they lied then.

.
And your evidence that Michael Oren has lied is ...?
.

Remember, after the liberty attack was a failure the Israelis had to unleash their spin doctors and do damage control.

They still won't admit they have nukes! They lie and deceive! You can't trust them as far as you can throw 'em.

.
Which specific source used by Caustic can you demonstrate has lied in the slightest about Israel *not* having nukes?
.

But remember, I am talking about the Israeli Leaders. So tread carefully before you try to unleash your weapon of "anti-semite"

.
No, you were specifically objecting to *all* of Caustics sources, none of whom you have even tried to demonstrate were Israeli leaders or had individually lied about anything at all.

Well, at least he's stopped trying to claim "anti-semite" has no meaning
.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I question all sources all the time, to diff. extents. That's a valid enuff point and I don't think anti-semitic to point out that governments lie to cover their interests. When you're done stopping there, as TSR asks, what's wrong then in particular? I'm open...

It's possible the IDF made up these bits about another ship, but if so it was a back-burner story they were crafting, as it's been essentially erased leaving Liberty alone in the story.

I didn't include it in the piece, but I just saw the Salans report also notes:

The Israeli report indicates that the torpedo boat Division Commander reported and reconfirmed the target's (Liberty's) speed at 28 to 30 knots and that it had changed its navigational direction shortly after 1341 hours.

1341 is the minute they first got a radar lock on it and presumably radioed this back to IDF. What would cause a ship to change directions just then, when it had been shelling in the area for two hours? "whiskey tango foxtrot, they have you on your scopes now, you may depart the scene..." That's one possibility.

 

[fezzic]

That's a lot to just throw out there, you realize. And don't forget it goes way back to when they killed Jesus and got us all on their side by - letting us into heaven? How's that work again? And then Christians get all mad and push the Jews out of country clubs and into ghettoes and concentration camps. But then again, they are a people whose legacy began with the mugging of an angel way back. Or something like that.

Okay, enough off topic. Not sure how to tie this back in best, but I just put together what seems to me an amazing missed lead in all this contention - But the gist is this - a second ship was in the area, responsible for both he shelling of the shore that got Liberty investigated, and for speeding away at 30 knots on the MTB's radar. My sources are mostly Israeli, mostly Michael Oren (the 'Case Closed" guy).
http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/04/one-that-got-away.html
The second ship angle is something everyone else seems to have missed (as far as I've seen). So I must be doing something wrong, since I'm a total novice at this. Anyone who can show me what I got wrong can have a cookie.

The chain of events as I understand it seems to put the Liberty as the initial radar contact by the MTBs looking for a vessel that reportedly bombarded El Arish or its vicinity or something. The explanation for the high speed was that the person making the calculation made a mistake. Since the MTBs did not apparently lose radar contact with whatever the operator thought was doing 30 kts, it would seem unlikely that Liberty would suddenly pop on to the screen and if a ship went past Liberty doing 30 kts, one might expect someone on the Liberty to have mentioned that.

The MTBs continued to chase Liberty but as might be expected with Liberty maybe 20 miles ahead of them that with their mistaken impression that they only had a 12 kt speed advantage, by the time they would get within close range, the unknown would be at or near an Eygptian port. Hence they called on the IAF to help out.

I don't know what this Oren said, but one might presume that Liberty would have detected on radar (they did have radar didn't they?) or by observation anything moving in fairly close proximity, even a number of miles away, past them at 30 kts. I am sure Mcgonagle would have been interested in knowing about any warship or other ship racing past them.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Good questions fezzic. Oren doesn't make an explicit case contrary to what you outlined there, but he says the radar reading couldn't be the Liberty, mostly I guess cause he doesn't accept an error that gross.

Problems with this are:
as you say, the Liberty crew didn't seem to see or recall any ship a ways away, by eye or radar, either because there wasn't one or it was too mundane to mention. That's I think the biggest problem with this theory. ETA: This would be at about 1:45, so perhaps they were just starting to wonder about that when they came under attack at 1:56 and subsequently forgot about it? Or they just weren't watching radar closely?

They also might hear the cannon fire if it was shelling - Oren says they did hear the explosions on shore, haven't verified - maybe this was the cannons, and they were confused on the source.

But to presume the Liberty is what was clocked at 30 knots is just that - a presumption. Or that Liberty was the only relevant ship in the area, or that the onshore explosions (east and west of el Arish) were from "an ammo dump fire."

 

[fezzic]

Good questions fezzic. Oren doesn't make an explicit case contrary to what you outlined there, but he says the radar reading couldn't be the Liberty, mostly I guess cause he doesn't accept an error that gross.

Problems with this are:
as you say, the Liberty crew didn't seem to see or recall any ship a ways away, by eye or radar, either because there wasn't one or it was too mundane to mention. That's I think the biggest problem with this theory. ETA: This would be at about 1:45, so perhaps they were just starting to wonder about that when they came under attack at 1:56 and subsequently forgot about it? Or they just weren't watching radar closely?

They also might hear the cannon fire if it was shelling - Oren says they did hear the explosions on shore, haven't verified - maybe this was the cannons, and they were confused on the source.

But to presume the Liberty is what was clocked at 30 knots is just that - a presumption. Or that Liberty was the only relevant ship in the area, or that the onshore explosions (east and west of el Arish) were from "an ammo dump fire."

I think the problem with wondering whether they forgot or were watching the radar closely is that it is all possible but this would cover a fairly prolonged period, after all, even at 30 kts, a 10 n. m. distance (arbitrary distance) would take 20 miuntes to traverse.

They had secured from GQ drill only a shortish time before the air attacks during the GQ drill, I would think the MGs would have been manned, among other things. People might be busy going through the drill but people who were doing things like manning the helm would be looking outward. Anything passing them at 30 kts would, I think, rate some mention somewhere.

I would point out that we are taking what might have been somebody's calculation error and projecting that he was actually correct and that somehow Liberty at 5 kts didn't show up on his radar screen then somehow the 30 kt target disappeared and was replaced unnoticed by Liberty who themselves didn't see anybody speeding in their vicinity.

I would think a calculation error would be more plausible than a 30 kt warship or unknown being able to switch locations (more or less) with Liberty doing only 5 kts and vanish without a trace.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I think the problem with wondering whether they forgot or were watching the radar closely is that it is all possible but this would cover a fairly prolonged period, after all, even at 30 kts, a 10 n. m. distance (arbitrary distance) would take 20 miuntes to traverse.

They had secured from GQ drill only a shortish time before the air attacks during the GQ drill, I would think the MGs would have been manned, among other things. People might be busy going through the drill but people who were doing things like manning the helm would be looking outward. Anything passing them at 30 kts would, I think, rate some mention somewhere.

I think so too, so long as they saw it - a lot of variables you have a better grip on than I. I'm not sure it wasn't mentioned somewhere, but nowhere prominent I've seen.

I would point out that we are taking what might have been somebody's calculation error and projecting that he was actually correct and that somehow Liberty at 5 kts didn't show up on his radar screen then somehow the 30 kt target disappeared and was replaced unnoticed by Liberty who themselves didn't see anybody speeding in their vicinity.

I don't think there's any evidence they had un uninterrupted track including the first hit all the way up to the Liberty.They 'let it go' in favor of planes, and only ever had it on screen, this means it went off screen. So it's also a presumption that the track was of the Liberty. As far as the Liberty not showing up at that time, it could be it was too far out or too slow to show relative to the closer faster one?

I would think a calculation error would be more plausible than a 30 kt warship or unknown being able to switch locations (more or less) with Liberty doing only 5 kts and vanish without a trace.

Perhaps, but recall, this error followed the error of lots of people thinking a few explosions meant shelling, and that the returns also showed a change of course that the Liberty didn't do. And the report(s) of two ships also existed.

Good counter-arguments, thanks. I'm working it out.

 

[TSR]

Oren doesn't make an explicit case contrary to what you outlined there, but he says the radar reading couldn't be the Liberty, mostly I guess cause he doesn't accept an error that gross.

.
Read again. What he says is from the Israeli POV: if that ship is moving that fast, it's not the Liberty.

Problem was, the conclusion was based on false premises because the ship wasn't going that fast.
.

 

[fezzic]

My understanding of the MTB behavior was that they were always trying to catch up to the 'unknown'. That is why they requested air support because, by their estimation (which was faulty but they didn't know that at the time) the 'unknown' probable hostile (since the estimate it was doing 30 kts in their minds meant it was a warship) would be very close to or in an Egyptian harbor (Port Said is what I read somewhere) so slowing it down was imperative.

The IDF navy logs seem to indicate that the MTBs continued to close the range on the unknown (Liberty) through all this. While it may be possible that they momentarily lost contact that would be highly speculative and cound not have been for very long else they would have reported the loss of contact to HQ.

I would observe that if such a thing -- loss of contact then regaining contact -- had occurred it would be in the Israeli's interests to point to such an occurrence because it does mitigate their 'negligence' a bit if they, in fact, had been tracking a warship, lost contact and happen to catch Liberty instead. This would not mean they didn't screw up majorly though.

 

[Caustic Logic]

.
Read again. What he says is from the Israeli POV: if that ship is moving that fast, it's not the Liberty.

Problem was, the conclusion was based on false premises because the ship wasn't going that fast.
.

I read it again and it says the calculation was "pivotal," "twice recalculated and confirmed by him" and was apparently correct, meaning "the ship could not be the Liberty." So it's not a reading problem on my part, it's a "false premise" on Oren's part.

And this falseness is according to the assumption that the 2X reading was just wrong, since the Liberty wasn't going that fast. No, it was doing one sixth tha speed. Ever got a speeding ticket for going 360 in a 60 zone? It would be that far off. And they misread a change of direction as soon as they started watching, and all this happened just after random explosions on the shore, erred reports of two ships in the area, all collaborating to draw attention and fire to the Liberty. Is that about right then?

Thanks for commenting, everything helps.

 

[Caustic Logic]

My understanding of the MTB behavior was that they were always trying to catch up to the 'unknown'. That is why they requested air support because, by their estimation (which was faulty but they didn't know that at the time) the 'unknown' probable hostile (since the estimate it was doing 30 kts in their minds meant it was a warship) would be very close to or in an Egyptian harbor (Port Said is what I read somewhere) so slowing it down was imperative.

I confess I'm not sure if they stopped trying to catch up. I'd like to map this all out as close as possible given the data, but that's a project. Now here's a thought - if they were extrapolating from this speed and direction, what were they thinking when the ship wound up in a different spot, much slower and on a diff heading than the errors suggested? Maybe they just thought it was trying to play nonchalant.

The IDF navy logs seem to indicate that the MTBs continued to close the range on the unknown (Liberty) through all this. While it may be possible that they momentarily lost contact that would be highly speculative and cound not have been for very long else they would have reported the loss of contact to HQ.

I would observe that if such a thing -- loss of contact then regaining contact -- had occurred it would be in the Israeli's interests to point to such an occurrence because it does mitigate their 'negligence' a bit if they, in fact, had been tracking a warship, lost contact and happen to catch Liberty instead. This would not mean they didn't screw up majorly though.

I'm curious about the logs - have you seen them firsthand or in an analysis? I need to check that info. Losing the ship might be helpful to Israel's cause, or harmful, depending whether or not they were trying to cover up the second ship's getaway and the host of questions that might raise. So they keep the speed because that was true and can be shown as reported, paper over the radar gap (if there was one), and the other gaps... better to look horribly flawed and confused than responsible.

 

[Caustic Logic]

An excellent resource, straight from the IDF, available here via Liberty survivors assoc: http://www.gtr5.com/evidence/idfhr.htm

At 1124 hours, the naval representative at Air Command reported to Naval Operation Section/3, on the shelling of E1-Arish from the sea, Commander Lunz passed on the report to Chief of Naval Operations, Captain (Navy) Rahav, and he to turn instructed Lt. Commander Pinchasi, in no uncertain terms, to check the source of the report.15

The inquiry into the source of the report was ordered because of the many reports which had been received concerning shelling from the sea and which were later proven to be false, The feeling was that this report was probably no different. Lt. Commander Pinchasi was told by Air Operations Section/3 that the source of the report was an Air-Ground Support Officer in El-Arish; the Navy representative at the Supreme Command,16 Lt. Commander Tel, also informed Lt. Commander Pinchasi that a similar report had been received enquiry to Naval Operations/3.17

Meanwhile the shelling of the coastline also aroused interest at Supreme Command. The Head of Operations Section, Lt, Colonel Haim Nadel, (during a meeting with the COS at 1127 hours), received a report from G Branch- Southern Command, stating that a ship had been shelling E1-Arish but the shells had not reached the coast. The Head of Operations Section immediately ordered that the report be verified, and more important instituted a check to see if there were no Israel Navy vessels off the coast of El-Arish.18 Meanwhile, another report arrived from Southern Command (at 1145 hours), which stated that two ships were approaching the EL-Arish coast.19

These reports were passed to Fleet Operations Control Center - to Commander Lunz and Captain (Navy) Rahav. The accumulation of reports from various sources and the involvement of Supreme Commend in the matter, indicated that these reports were not baseless and should be taken seriously.20

All that over an ammo dump fire and one ship with no cannons.

Check this out:

The speed of the target detected by the Israel Naval Division was significant in that it indicated, beyond doubt, that the target was a combat vessel - since only combat ships can develop such high speeds.

Clearly they meant to say "the target their errors led them to imagine they'd spotted." Oddly, this document seems to have been for public consumption, not an internal thing. Surprising candidness if there's a cover-up.
More:

In retrospect, it is clear that the data dealing with target speed were incorrect since the "Liberty" was not capable of cruising at such high speeds. However, it is astounding that the same target speed was measured independently by two torpedo boats: T204 (with the Division commander aboard) and T203 which estimated target speed at 25 - 28 knots.

 

[fezzic]

Reread the IDF HQ log, according to it the MTBs were about 11 miles from the target (Liberty) when the first airstrike went in and had closed to about 8.5 miles when the second airstrike departed. Given the attacks, the MTBs might not be surprised to see the target seriously slowed down, from the erroneous 30 kt speed they thought it had been doing, as they closed the range. They also probably slowed down when the aircraft arrived so as to remain clear of where the aircraft would be attacking -- no point in getting shot up by accident by your own side.

I think that we might also remember that it is likely that the poor MTB radar operator probably didn't have a plotting board or equivalent so he was working off the radar screen with both a moving vessel, his MTB, and a moving target, Liberty. Probably where the initial errors in calculating speed may have come from.

If the MTBs had actually been like DDs with a CIC that would plot a target and track their progress in running it down, I'd think they would have realized very quickly that it couldn't be doing 30 kts. The plot would show them overhauling much faster than would be expected.

As far as the logs go, I am reading them on the site: www.thelibertyincident.com which takes the general POV that it was friendly fire and not a nefarious conspiracy. It is quite friendly to Jay Cristol, who wrote a book (2002) about the incident, and has what seems like a fairly extensive document section. The logs are in hebrew and the english translations are what I am reading. I think it kind of goes without having to say it much that it appears he was considered favorably by the Israeli military and they cooperated with him pretty well. YMMV

 

[TSR]

I read it again and it says the calculation was "pivotal,"

.
And it was -- without that error, the Mirages would not have scrambled, Liberty would have been over taken at a speed which would have allowed a more positive identification.
.

"twice recalculated and confirmed by him" and was apparently correct,

.
As far as T-204 was concerned it was.
.

meaning "the ship could not be the Liberty."

.
As far as T-204 was concerned it could not have been.
.

So it's not a reading problem on my part, it's a "false premise" on Oren's part.

.
If you are referring to Oren Sr., it's not a false premise, it's an incorrect observation.

If you are referring to Oren Jr., it's not a false premise, it's an honest reporting of that incorrect observation.
.

 

[malcolmxwarrior]

And your evidence that Michael Oren has lied is ...?

He probably spins it. Anybody that thinks the liberty was a case of mistaken identity or an accident is nuts!

Which specific source used by Caustic can you demonstrate has lied in the slightest about Israel *not* having nukes?

None. Again, if you do not know the issue at hand, don't comment. It is common knowledge that Israel does not confirm their nuclear program FYI.

No, you were specifically objecting to *all* of Caustics sources, none of whom you have even tried to demonstrate were Israeli leaders or had individually lied about anything at all.

no. These are recycled leaders that constantly lie. You seem not to be keen on the issue.

Well, at least he's stopped trying to claim "anti-semite" has no meaning

It is just a smokescreen as far as I am concerned.

How can African-Americans with north African ancestry be anti-semites when they themselves are semites?

The powers that be should change the name.

 

[ktesibios]

Even the most cursory research, e.g., Wikipedia will show that the term "antiSemitic" (antisemitisch in German) was coined specifically to refer to anti-Jewish prejudice and was enthusiastically taken up for that purpose by German antiSemites.

In addition, the English language has no "powers that be", no equivalent to the Académie française. As any lexicographer will tell you, what counts is how a word is used in ordinary speech by the general public, not a technical definition, viz "gay".

This silly semantic argument is really old hat. Hatefreaks have been whipping it out with the same depressing regularity with which they use "Zionist" as a code word for "Jew".