USS Liberty

Wrong. The helicoptor pilots may have done that, but not the pilots of the planes.

Present this 'irrefutable proof', if you don't mind.



Sure........

USAF intelligence analyst Steve Forsland (attached to 544 Air Recon Tech wing)
James Gotcher USAF 6224 security squadron
Captain Richard Block CO of Crypto Unit
Dwight Porter Ambassador to Labanon
Andrew Kilgore Ambassador to Quatar

All these guys are quoted as having listened in real time to intercepts of Israeli ATC traffic where pilots were asking controllers what to do as the vessel was American.

In addition, two crew members of a Navy EC -121 , Hebrew linguist Mike Prostinak, and navigator Charles Tiffany, along with a third crew member who asked his name not be used in the story say the exact same thing.

So we have a number of people, not stationed together, in the case of the first four names who all state hearing the same intercept, and come to the same conclusion.

Either every one of them are lying, or they're statements provide corroborated proof that the pilots were aware she was American, and asked for confirmation to attack because of that, and were given that authority by Israeli ATC.


I would say the exact same conclusion reached by people who had never met each other is extremely convincing.


corroborate

The Oxford Pocket Thesaurus of Current English | Date: 2008
corroborate
• verb
synonyms: confirm, verify, bear out, authenticate, validate, certify, endorse, ratify, substantiate, back up, uphold, support, attest to, sustain, evidence
 
Last edited:
USAF intelligence analyst Steve Forsland (attached to 544 Air Recon Tech wing)
James Gotcher USAF 6224 security squadron
Captain Richard Block CO of Crypto Unit
Dwight Porter Ambassador to Labanon
Andrew Kilgore Ambassador to Quatar

All these guys are quoted as having listened in real time to intercepts of Israeli ATC traffic where pilots were asking controllers what to do as the vessel was American.


Well, first of all, this isn't true.

Second of all, why would the US ambassador to Quatar be listening in real time to intercepted Israeli communications during an attack on the Liberty? And when did he learn Hebrew?


ETA: Oh. I found your source material. Kilgore never once claimed to have heard any intercepts either live or after the fact. He did mention that Porter once discussed with him that Porter had seen translations of transcripts. And that's only if you believe the article. so, to summarize, a journalist says that Kilgore said that Porter said that he had briefly seen an english-language translation of a transcript made long after the actual attack.

Here's the article, based mostly on hearsay upon hearsay and no actual documents.
 
Sure........

USAF intelligence analyst Steve Forsland (attached to 544 Air Recon Tech wing)
James Gotcher USAF 6224 security squadron
Captain Richard Block CO of Crypto Unit
Dwight Porter Ambassador to Labanon
Andrew Kilgore Ambassador to Quatar

All these guys are quoted as having listened in real time to intercepts of Israeli ATC traffic where pilots were asking controllers what to do as the vessel was American.

This is hardly impressive, and is in fact rather deceptive.

Why were two ambassadors listening to Isreali ATC when the attack was a surprise even to the Liberty? Rather strange hobby, isn't it?

Well no, because neither Porter nor Kilgore listened in real time. Porter claims to have seen NSA transcripts after the fact. The NSA has said for some time that they had no such intercepts.

Kilgore, BTW, believes that the Mossad was behind the assasination of JFK.

http://www.juancole.com/2004_05_01_juancole_archive.html#108451247013822085

Nothing unites like a little anti-semitism, eh?

For the others, I can say that Ron Gotcher has been very vocal about putting the blame on Isreal. He's hardly detached from that crowd.

In addition, two crew members of a Navy EC -121 , Hebrew linguist Mike Prostinak, and navigator Charles Tiffany, along with a third crew member who asked his name not be used in the story say the exact same thing.

So we have a number of people, not stationed together, in the case of the first four names who all state hearing the same intercept, and come to the same conclusion.

This is hardly 'irrefultable'. Most of these folks came out with their claims long after the events. This is hardly a case where a bunch of folks were saying the same thing just after the event. These were folks who over their years decided to get their name on the 'dun it on purpose' list without one scrap of evidence or documentation to back them up.
 
The US Navy supervisor on the EC-121 was called Dr. Marvin Nowicki. He was one of the Hebrew speaking crew. He believes that the attack was accidental. You can find some information here.
 
This is hardly impressive, and is in fact rather deceptive.

Why were two ambassadors listening to Isreali ATC when the attack was a surprise even to the Liberty? Rather strange hobby, isn't it?

Well no, because neither Porter nor Kilgore listened in real time. Porter claims to have seen NSA transcripts after the fact. The NSA has said for some time that they had no such intercepts.

Kilgore, BTW, believes that the Mossad was behind the assasination of JFK.

http://www.juancole.com/2004_05_01_juancole_archive.html#108451247013822085

Nothing unites like a little anti-semitism, eh?

For the others, I can say that Ron Gotcher has been very vocal about putting the blame on Isreal. He's hardly detached from that crowd.



This is hardly 'irrefultable'. Most of these folks came out with their claims long after the events. This is hardly a case where a bunch of folks were saying the same thing just after the event. These were folks who over their years decided to get their name on the 'dun it on purpose' list without one scrap of evidence or documentation to back them up.

The source is the Chicago paper

I wondered when anti semiyism would enter this thread.

No matter quite a few people say the same thing, and its corraborated, as i said..the guys in the plane alone would be extremely convincing at a real hearing, not to mention the first four names.


You talk about people stepping up at a later date, so what. According to reports, people were told to shut up about it at the time.

Dont forget, 60 sailors who were aboard and were injured were never allowed to testify at the original hearing. It surely isnt because they didnt want to.
 
Last edited:
USAF intelligence analyst Steve Forsland (attached to 544 Air Recon Tech wing)
James Gotcher USAF 6224 security squadron
Captain Richard Block CO of Crypto Unit
Dwight Porter Ambassador to Labanon
Andrew Kilgore Ambassador to Quatar

All these guys are quoted as having listened in real time to intercepts of Israeli ATC traffic where pilots were asking controllers what to do as the vessel was American.


Do you have any response to the fact that at least two of the people on your list (Porter and Kilgore) never claimed to have heard any intercepts at all, let alone in real time? Do you have any response to the fact that you were wrong on that issue?
 
Do you have any response to the fact that at least two of the people on your list (Porter and Kilgore) never claimed to have heard any intercepts at all, let alone in real time? Do you have any response to the fact that you were wrong on that issue?


I cede not in real time, but not that they werent aware of what the intercepts said.As US ambassadors, why wouldnt they be credible, and in the loop.

The others i listed were, and there is zero reason to deem them not credible.

Go read what those two said, they support what i said. The others did hear in real time, and i find it credible and corroborated.

Google chicago paper uss liberty.


Re opening and having a CREDIBLE investigation would tear this wide open, and any sane person is well aware of this.
 
Last edited:
The source is the Chicago paper

I wondered when anti semiyism would enter this thread.

No matter quite a few people say the same thing, and its corraborated, as i said..the guys in the plane alone would be extremely convincing at a real hearing, not to mention the first four names.

The first names wouldn't be very interesting. At least two did not hear any 'real-time'. The rest have no documentation to support them and don't really add much but their own interpetation.

Its also possible that these folks heard the helicoptor pilots after the attacks. Or they heard the IAF pilots who flew by them in the morning and did identify them properly.


As Dr. Evil points out, they weren't the only ones listening. How do you account for the documentation Nowicki has?

You talk about people stepping up at a later date, so what. According to reports, people were told to shut up about it at the time.

Not true. Name me one survivor who is documented as facing any charges or prison time for speaking.

Dont forget, 60 sailors who were aboard and were injured were never allowed to testify at the original hearing. It surely isnt because they didnt want to.

There has been more than one hearing.
There have been 10 in the US alone. These folks were being heard, from the start in press interviews right after the incident.

But it still doesn't add up to any real evidence, let alone anything 'irrefutable'.
 
You avoided answering why 60 sailrs werent allowed to testify, and why the inquiry was forced to be held with only one week to prepare, in spite of counsel stating a proper investigation would take 6 months???


Statement of survivor James M. Ennes, Jr., Exhibit 12.

"Almost every man on that ship recalls -- as I personally recall very clearly from my position outside the wardroom -- that the torpedo boats then circled the ship for a long time firing at close range at anything that moved. Men trying to aid their wounded shipmates on deck were fired upon. Men fighting fires were fired upon and recall seeing their fire hoses punctured by machine gun fire. This went on for several minutes. At one point the boatmen concentrated their fire near the waterline amidships, presumably hoping to blow up the boilers to hasten our demise. Finally they pulled a distance back from the ship."
 
You avoided answering why 60 sailrs werent allowed to testify, and why the inquiry was forced to be held with only one week to prepare, in spite of counsel stating a proper investigation would take 6 months???


Statement of survivor James M. Ennes, Jr., Exhibit 12.

"Almost every man on that ship recalls -- as I personally recall very clearly from my position outside the wardroom -- that the torpedo boats then circled the ship for a long time firing at close range at anything that moved. Men trying to aid their wounded shipmates on deck were fired upon. Men fighting fires were fired upon and recall seeing their fire hoses punctured by machine gun fire. This went on for several minutes. At one point the boatmen concentrated their fire near the waterline amidships, presumably hoping to blow up the boilers to hasten our demise. Finally they pulled a distance back from the ship."


Statement by survivor Ken Ecker , Exhibit 35

"Immediately following the attack I was threatened with court-martial if I discussed the incident with the press or anyone else. One of the warnings was also not to discuss the attack even with my immediate family or friends. In my case these warnings were repeated upon my transfer from each duty station I left along with the standard security clearance de-briefing. I was also periodically taken aside and reminded of the original threat even when not being transferred. Though never told the reason for these one on one "advisory" sessions, I personally believe they were the result of some action that raised the possibility of further publicity that our government wanted to suppress.

I want no personal recognition, but I will not rest until the 34 brave men that sacrificed their lives are finally given the long overdue honor they so justly deserve. Hopefully with the help of all concerned this long denied justice will be forthcoming"
 
You avoided answering why 60 sailrs werent allowed to testify, and why the inquiry was forced to be held with only one week to prepare, in spite of counsel stating a proper investigation would take 6 months???

Might be an issue if there hadn't been 9 more inquiries!

Statement of survivor James M. Ennes, Jr., Exhibit 12.

"Almost every man on that ship recalls -- as I personally recall very clearly from my position outside the wardroom -- that the torpedo boats then circled the ship for a long time firing at close range at anything that moved. Men trying to aid their wounded shipmates on deck were fired upon. Men fighting fires were fired upon and recall seeing their fire hoses punctured by machine gun fire. This went on for several minutes. At one point the boatmen concentrated their fire near the waterline amidships, presumably hoping to blow up the boilers to hasten our demise. Finally they pulled a distance back from the ship."

Directly contradicted by the Captain, several other members of the crew as well as the Ship's Logs.

Ennes make a lot of claims, including that he was officer of the deck. At this stage I could not take his testimony seriously.
 
Statement by survivor Ken Ecker , Exhibit 35

"Immediately following the attack I was threatened with court-martial if I discussed the incident with the press or anyone else. One of the warnings was also not to discuss the attack even with my immediate family or friends. In my case these warnings were repeated upon my transfer from each duty station I left along with the standard security clearance de-briefing. I was also periodically taken aside and reminded of the original threat even when not being transferred. Though never told the reason for these one on one "advisory" sessions, I personally believe they were the result of some action that raised the possibility of further publicity that our government wanted to suppress.

I want no personal recognition, but I will not rest until the 34 brave men that sacrificed their lives are finally given the long overdue honor they so justly deserve. Hopefully with the help of all concerned this long denied justice will be forthcoming"

So when the National Review stated, in their 9/5/67 issue that:

During the past month, press service interviews with survivors of the attack (emphasis added) have turned up a uniform conviction that the attack was deliberate. Sailors point to the morning-long aerial surveillance; the presence of the flag; the known configuration of the Liberty; her name in English on the stern; her slow progression in international waters. All of these factors support the crew's conclusion that the assault was no accident.

They were just making it up?

I think someone is making things up, and its not the National Review.
 
The US Navy supervisor on the EC-121 was called Dr. Marvin Nowicki. He was one of the Hebrew speaking crew. He believes that the attack was accidental. You can find some information here.


I Read his statement. The guy i cited above was actually listening, and heatedly telling others what was going on and to listen as well. Nowicki only listened after some time, and hadnt been listening to the intercepts at all, until told to.

He did however say this, and i quote him

"Despite replaying portions of the tapes, we still did not have a complete understanding of what transpired except for the likelihood that a ship flying the American flag was being attacked by Israeli air and surface forces."

This is YOUR witness who said this.

Also, it should be noted, others on there said tapes they made came up missing where the US flag was mentioned in regards these intercepts, and couldnt be found.

YOUR witness seems here to confirm they in fact were made.

All in all, the weight of the case made by guys on that plane backs my contention, and the only guy you cite confirms what the others said to a degree. Not to mention the USAF INTERCEPT PERSONEL WHO WERE LISTENING TO THE SAME THING.

If, as Israel claims, and did so repeatedly, that the ship wasnt flying a flag, or it wasnt seen, YOUR witness sure seems to confirm it was in fact discussed. Had it been an Egyptian Ship as Israel said, there would be zero reason for the Amnerican flag to have been mentioned whatsoever by any Israeli that was attacking.

Your owned.................
 
Last edited:
Letter from Marvin E. Nowicki, Ph.D., published in The Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, May 16, 2001, page A-23:
Tragic "Gross Error" In a 1967 Attack
In regard to Timothy Naftali's review of James Bamford's book "Body of Secrets" (Leisure & Arts, May 9): Mr. Naftali doesn't quite have it right concerning the book portion dealing with the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. I know because I am the person to whom Mr. Natfali [sic] refers as the "chief Hebrew-language analyst" aboard the U.S. Navy (not Air Force) EC121 aircraft. He says that I recall one of my teammates telling me of hearing references to "a U.S. flag" from Israeli pilots.
For the record, we (my teammate and I) both heard and recorded the references to the U.S. flag made by the pilots and captains of the motor torpedo boats. My personal recollection remains after 34 years that the aircraft and MTBs prosecuted the Liberty until their operators had an opportunity to get close-in and see the flag, hence the references to the flag.
My position, which is opposite of Mr. Bamford's, is that the attack, though terrible and tragic especially to the crew members and their families on that ill-fated day in June 1967, was a gross error. How can I prove it? I can't unless the transcripts/tapes are found and released to the public. I last saw them in a desk drawer at NSA in the late 1970s before I left the service.
MARVIN E. NOWICKI, PH.D.
Ashley, Ill.

No comment needed.
 
Israel owned up to this. They admitted they messed up. The helicopter pilots thought they were rescuing Egyptians. This is shown in the translation of the intercepted communications (see page 3 and pages 6 of the first transcript here: http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/recordings.cfm). Israel even paid $13 million, I believe to the US government and the sailors and families because they messed up. It was a war. War is stressful. The Israeli military is filled with people. People are known to make mistakes. More stress means more mistakes. It's sad and unfortunate, but it happens.
 
Last edited:
Israel owned up to this. They admitted they messed up. The helicopter pilots thought they were rescuing Egyptians. This is shown in the translation of the intercepted communications (see page 3 and pages 6 of the first transcript here: http://www.nsa.gov/liberty/recordings.cfm). Israel even paid $13 million, I believe to the US government and the sailors and families because they messed up. It was a war. War is stressful. The Israeli military is filled with people. People are known to make mistakes. More stress means more mistakes. It's sad and unfortunate, but it happens.



Ony three tapes are there, several are missing.The plane guys state there were 5 or 6, and know there were more than the three that turned up.

Two at least, that are missing, was during the times of the actual attack. With the numerous references to the ATC being asked what to do, its an American ship.

Concludes one of the declassified NSA documents: "Every official interview of numerous Liberty crewmen gave consistent evidence that indeed the Liberty was flying an American flag -- and, further, the weather conditions were ideal to ensure its easy observance and identification."



The ground control station stated that the target was American and for the aircraft to confirm it," Forslund recalled. "The aircraft did confirm the identity of the target as American, by the American flag.

"The ground control station ordered the aircraft to attack and sink the target and ensure they left no survivors."

Forslund said he clearly recalled "the obvious frustration of the controller over the inability of the pilots to sink the target quickly and completely."

"He kept insisting the mission had to sink the target, and was frustrated with the pilots' responses that it didn't sink."

Nor, Forslund said, was he the only member of his unit to have read the transcripts. "Everybody saw these," said Forslund, now retired after 26 years in the military.

Forslund's recollections are supported by those of two other Air Force intelligence specialists, working in widely separate locations, who say they also saw the transcripts of the attacking Israeli pilots' communications.




Perhaps the most persuasive suggestion that such transcripts existed comes from the Israelis themselves, in a pair of diplomatic cables sent by the Israeli ambassador in Washington, Avraham Harman, to Foreign Minister Abba Eban in Tel Aviv.

Five days after the Liberty attack, Harman cabled Eban that a source the Israelis code-named "Hamlet" was reporting that the Americans had "clear proof that from a certain stage the pilot discovered the identity of the ship and continued the attack anyway."

Harman repeated the warning three days later, advising Eban, who is now dead, that the White House was "very angry," and that "the reason for this is that the Americans probably have findings showing that our pilots indeed knew that the ship was American."
 
Ony three tapes are there, several are missing.The plane guys state there were 5 or 6, and know there were more than the three that turned up.

Two at least, that are missing, was during the times of the actual attack. With the numerous references to the ATC being asked what to do, its an American ship.

So in other words, nothing

Concludes one of the declassified NSA documents: "Every official interview of numerous Liberty crewmen gave consistent evidence that indeed the Liberty was flying an American flag -- and, further, the weather conditions were ideal to ensure its easy observance and identification."

Which as we have already established, means little for identification.

The ground control station stated that the target was American and for the aircraft to confirm it," Forslund recalled. "The aircraft did confirm the identity of the target as American, by the American flag.

"The ground control station ordered the aircraft to attack and sink the target and ensure they left no survivors."

Forslund said he clearly recalled "the obvious frustration of the controller over the inability of the pilots to sink the target quickly and completely."

"He kept insisting the mission had to sink the target, and was frustrated with the pilots' responses that it didn't sink."

This is getting ludicrous. Even the most poorly trained pilots have to know that a missiles, bullets, and napalm are not the tools for sinking ships. This makes me think this guy is telling tales.

Nor, Forslund said, was he the only member of his unit to have read the transcripts. "Everybody saw these," said Forslund, now retired after 26 years in the military.

Forslund's recollections are supported by those of two other Air Force intelligence specialists, working in widely separate locations, who say they also saw the transcripts of the attacking Israeli pilots' communications.

So 'everbody saw these' but only two other folks can say they saw them or heard them?

Doubtful.
 
For all the conspiracists out there, let me repeat some basic truths: The USS Liberty was an acknowledged spy ship sitting five miles off of the coast of a war zone after the US had declared that it had no ships in the area.


This is worth pointing out because too often it is overlooked. There's pretty good evidence the USS Liberty breached the coastal buffer zone that Israel had said they would defend during the war.

Simply put the US stuck its nose into a conflict it had no business being nosey about, and got a smack for it.
 

Back
Top Bottom