Malvinas War in 1982

soltec wrote:

Russian Patriot wrote:
Soltec , please don't tell me what I need to do!
but I will try to be more patient on him since its his first post!

What is the problem with my first post?

I think that more that 4900 views of this is very good for all types forum.
Your Forum now is is at the top of google now when something search about HMS Invincible sunk in 1982.
This is bad for you?
I do not ask them believing in me, I'm just providing information and would contribute more information from Russia because you can access information that never came to Argentina
UK government does, and I no see the reason that is not questioned.

Sorry by my poor english i use google translator

look soltec, this thread and all its nonsense exists on my whim. I couldn't care less if RMF gets a high search rank over Malvinas, the only people signing on only speak Spanish. If you want to spout conspiracy nonsense, that is your right. If you start disrespecting my moderators then you have a problem with me. I have a set of rules for a reason... this board is in English, the only other allowable language is Russian and that for conversation only. Teach your buddy how to use the translator or adios.

I see there is still no evidence from Soltec. I would have thought after all these years of spamming forums like this one, that he would at least provide some proof.

Vladimir79 wrote:

soltec wrote:

Russian Patriot wrote:
Soltec , please don't tell me what I need to do!
but I will try to be more patient on him since its his first post!

What is the problem with my first post?

I think that more that 4900 views of this is very good for all types forum.
Your Forum now is is at the top of google now when something search about HMS Invincible sunk in 1982.
This is bad for you?
I do not ask them believing in me, I'm just providing information and would contribute more information from Russia because you can access information that never came to Argentina
UK government does, and I no see the reason that is not questioned.

Sorry by my poor english i use google translator

look soltec, this thread and all its nonsense exists on my whim. I couldn't care less if RMF gets a high search rank over Malvinas, the only people signing on only speak Spanish. If you want to spout conspiracy nonsense, that is your right. If you start disrespecting my moderators then you have a problem with me. I have a set of rules for a reason... this board is in English, the only other allowable language is Russian and that for conversation only. Teach your buddy how to use the translator or adios.

I not have problem with your moderators or you. I know the rules and send the alert to all others readers in malvinense forum.

Kysusha wrote:Guys,

At the time of the Falklands war, I was a serving Officer in RNZIR, 1 Task Force Region and immediately after the war I was asked to do a presentation on the war for all the Officers in 1 Task Force.

In preparing for the briefing/presentation, I had access to some Restricted and Confidential MoD documents, videos, photos, maps and general notes. While the presentation was primarily concerned with the conduct of the land war, obviously the logistics and support for the troops on the ground was covered. At no stage, did I come across any information which lead me to believe that there was some “cover-up” involving the HMS Invincible. Don’t worry, all the information I got was not all flattering for the British Forces. The debriefs I read were quite blunt in criticising action, lack of action, logistical support and general planning – they also complemented/praised the Argies where and when it was appropriate.

On the other hand, I found copious reports and disinformation from the Argies regarding engagements and the like. Most of it was very fanciful and more hopeful than realistic.

Some things I agree with – like the Belgrado was torpedoed outside the exclusion zone [in an effort to ensure war and prevent loosing the Falklands in “peaceful negotiations” – after all, possession is nine tenths of law]. Marggie Thatcher was not going to negotiate from a position of weakness on this issue – if the Argies thought that, then that was their first mistake. As for the sinking of the Invincible – just a good talking point – one that has now had it’s day.

the proof of the change alternated of hulls is clear
R05> sunk
R06> R05
R07> R06
R20 (future HMAS Australia) > R07

UK Have 3 carriers ready
R05 Invincible Operating in Malvinas,
R06 hurried comissioned to Malvinas 20 June date return to UK ??
R0X sailing in Agust 82 to Malvinas date return to UK??
R07 Ark Royal (90% finished to sell to Australia) in June 82... Offical comissioned in 1985??

3 years to finish 10% of a ship is very long time..

Stop posting rubbish Soltec, just post hard evedence, it shouldn't be too hard considering you say you can prove it. The funny thing is you cant prove anything at all. Graham has asked you loads of times and so have I, yet still you post nothing than can prove your claim.

garbage are four different versions each published by the UK government.
Are more fanciful than the possible replacement of enrollment in the hulls.
Graham not post here and I have responded with vigor in malvinense forum.
If you defend the position of graham maybe you can show photo of R05 HMS Invincible turbines change in the Falklands that promised more than a month ago.
Or you can explain how a missile hit a ship that was already under water two days earlier.

An easier?
what are the squads that start with the Illustrious on June 20, when they return to UK.
What are the squads that sail in August to falklands in R0X and when they return to UK.
Vessels are yours, the military also, you have free access to information.
You can answer it?
.
.

Still cant provide proof Soltec.

Let me help you. Proof is where you PROVE that what your saying is true. In this case, you claim you sunk Invincible, so YOU need to give US the proof. Posting pictures of different ships is NOT proof. Telling us Illustrious became Invincible and Ark Royal became Illustrious is NOT proof, and neither is inventing another carrier. What you need to do is post images of the ship sinking or burning. If you cant do that then I suggest you give up.

GarryB wrote:The absence of an answer is not proof of anything.

It is like me saying there are aliens on the dwarf planet Pluto... just because you cannot come up with proof I am wrong does not make me right. I have to produce pretty convincing evidence to prove my claim or it is just opinion.

Fortunately the distance between uk and Malvinas is much less than going to planet Pluton

But it took 3 months go as well as other vessels does in 15 days


you like that I say be practical to understand.
what it is more practical? change a turbine at sea or repaint the ID Number in the ship?

soltec wrote:

GarryB wrote:The absence of an answer is not proof of anything.

It is like me saying there are aliens on the dwarf planet Pluto... just because you cannot come up with proof I am wrong does not make me right. I have to produce pretty convincing evidence to prove my claim or it is just opinion.

Fortunately the distance between uk and Malvinas is much less than going to planet Pluton

But it took 3 months go as well as other vessels does in 15 days


you like that I say be practical to understand.
what it is more practical? change a turbine at sea or repaint the ID Number in the ship?

Are you going to prove your claim any time soon.

Aberdeenlad wrote:

soltec wrote:

GarryB wrote:The absence of an answer is not proof of anything.

It is like me saying there are aliens on the dwarf planet Pluto... just because you cannot come up with proof I am wrong does not make me right. I have to produce pretty convincing evidence to prove my claim or it is just opinion.

Fortunately the distance between uk and Malvinas is much less than going to planet Pluton

But it took 3 months go as well as other vessels does in 15 days


you like that I say be practical to understand.
what it is more practical? change a turbine at sea or repaint the ID Number in the ship?

Are you going to prove your claim any time soon.

Yes, yes, of course!
at 10 seconds that you show the change of offshore turbines of R05 HMS Invincible in 1982
.
.
thats is very dificult for you?
oohhhh baby, dont cry! and continued spying malvinense forum to see if you learn something

you like photos of the R05 Invendible in flames?
.
Here a sample of british style to lie

.
.

.
.
This photo was made by UK intelligence services and shared to some magazines in argentina.
.
they were wrong to publish a modified photo of UK.
That was in 1982
you think you are foolish enough to strike twice in the same joke?

if i not have photos of invendible in flames, you shure have a lot photos from more that thousand happy and victorious crews aboard from may 82 to september 82.
Changing the turbine and painting the ship previous to enter to portsmouth will be the best.
.

soltec wrote:you like photos of the R05 Invendible in flames?
.
Here a sample of british style to lie

.
.

.
.
This photo was made by UK intelligence services and shared to some magazines in argentina.
.
they were wrong to publish a modified photo of UK.
That was in 1982
you think you are foolish enough to strike twice in the same joke?

if i not have photos of invendible in flames, you shure have a lot photos from more that thousand happy and victorious crews aboard from may 82 to september 82.
Changing the turbine and painting the ship previous to enter to portsmouth will be the best.
.

jajajaja. Get a grip of yourself man. Just post the proof. Or dont you have any.

You said that Britain made that photo!! On page 1 of this thread you said this:

as I said before
Some Argentine media took the picture as proof...
NOT ME
.
the photo was published with the flames on the cover of a magazine in Argentina, so you can read the Spanish text

It gets funnier by the second. Lets be honest here Soltec, you are making this up as you go along.

Aberdeenlad wrote:jajajaja. Get a grip of yourself man. Just post the proof. Or dont you have any.

You said that Britain made that photo!! On page 1 of this thread you said this:

as I said before
Some Argentine media took the picture as proof...
NOT ME
.
the photo was published with the flames on the cover of a magazine in Argentina, so you can read the Spanish text
.

Exactly!! what is the problem?
I'm saying the same thing, is a photo trick.
UK lies from the beginning of the conflict.

soltec wrote:

Aberdeenlad wrote:jajajaja. Get a grip of yourself man. Just post the proof. Or dont you have any.

You said that Britain made that photo!! On page 1 of this thread you said this:

as I said before
Some Argentine media took the picture as proof...
NOT ME
.
the photo was published with the flames on the cover of a magazine in Argentina, so you can read the Spanish text
.

Exactly!! what is the problem?
I'm saying the same thing, is a photo trick.
UK lies from the beginning of the conflict.

You said the British created the photo, on the first page of this thread you said Argentina made the photo, make up your mind.
The only lies are coming from Argentina, you guys dont have any evidence what so ever, not one scrap.

Ok Guys! This is related to the Falklands :


UK admirals call for rethink on navy cuts

IRNA - Islamic Republic News Agency

London, Nov 10, IRNA -- A group of former British navy chiefs Wednesday urged the government to reverse its decision to scrap the aircraft carrier Ark Royal and the fleet of Harrier jets, saying they were 'the most dangerous of the defence cuts'.

In a joint letter to the Times, the former admirals warned that the cuts would leave the oil-rich Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic open to a fresh Argentinian attack 'from which British prestige ... might never recover'.

The signatories, including former navy chief Lord West, said they believed Prime Minister David Cameron had been badly advised before agreeing to the measures as part of the Strategic Defence Review and the need to cut the country’s defence budget.

They suggested that scrapping the aircraft carrier and its fleet of Harrier jets “practically invited' Argentina to attempt to inflict a national humiliation on the British on the scale of the loss of Singapore in 1942.

West, who served as security minister under the previous Labour government, warned that if the islands were captured as they were in 1982, there could be “absolutely no way whatsoever of recovering them unless we have carrier air.'

He told the Times that he was not convinced that the prime minister had been given a 'full and proper briefing about the implications' of the defence cuts.

But Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey insisted that the Falklands could still be protected - and if necessary, retaken - without an aircraft carrier.

'The Falklands is a very different situation now from what it was in 1982. We're far more alert to the threat now, we've got a well-defended airfield, we've got a company of troops there, we've got submarines,' Harvey told the BBC.

He also argued that the Tornado fixed-wing planes were the right aircraft for the current conflict in Afghanistan and for the next decade or so.

'This was a very difficult decision. It was looked at in immense detail. In the end a decision had to be made and we took the decision on the basis of the balance of military advice coming from the current military leadership,” Harvey said.

2220**345**1412
Islamic Republic News Agency/IRNA NewsCode: 30068410

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/uk/uk-101110-irna01.htm

soltec wrote:

Aberdeenlad wrote:jajajaja. Get a grip of yourself man. Just post the proof. Or dont you have any.

You said that Britain made that photo!! On page 1 of this thread you said this:

as I said before
Some Argentine media took the picture as proof...
NOT ME
.
the photo was published with the flames on the cover of a magazine in Argentina, so you can read the Spanish text
.

Exactly!! what is the problem?
I'm saying the same thing, is a photo trick.
UK lies from the beginning of the conflict.

Tell me how we lied, and give me some proof that you sunk Invincible.

BTW, I think we need to clarify one thing here - The Islands are THE FALKLAND ISLANDS, not Los Malvianas. Maybe Argies Los Malvianas - but the Atlas calls the island British territory and by name - The Falkand Islands. Don't cry for me Argentina.

Kysusha wrote:One thing I remember from the documents I got for briefing was an Argentinean magazine showing the HMS Invincible seemingly burning out of control. [ I may still have the documents in my files – should try and look them up]. However, the photo on the cover looks very much like the photo shown here as “proof” of the sinking of HMS Invincible.

I also remember that there were several British rebuffs to this article and correspondence from the Press who were on Invincible at the time. It was widely reported as yet another wild Argentinean claim – all part of the propaganda war that was going on at the time.

Now in fairness, this was definitely a two-way-street. The Argies went along with the deception of the Poms over the bombing of Stanley airfield and showed their photos to “prove” substantial damage to the airfield – which British recon flight confirms. In fact, the Vulcan bombers id not significant damage to the runway at all and the Argies simply brushed off the dirt at night, flew the airlift sorties and then returned the dirt ready for the next morning. The Poms never caught on to this.

Likewise, the Argies did not fuse their bombs correctly and the very brave attacks by the A4 pilots, bombing from deck-height, did score several good hits. They were reported as hits and touted in the Argie press. The problem was, the bombs were blinds. Like the hit on HMS Antelope – she was towed into San Carlos and evacuated while a Royal Engineer bomb disposal team went on board to defuse the bomb. Unfortunately – the Brits are now minus on bomb disposal team. All the time, Britain was able to effectively counter Argie claims that the ship had been hit or sunk, simply by taking the press to the ship and showing them it happily sailing along. However, for the Poms, the disaster came when a member of the Press corps revealed “why” the bombs were not exploding and then after, the Argies changed the settings on the bombs and the effects were felt with Sir Galahad.

So you see, the war was as much about a military confrontation as it was a propaganda war – one in which fairly the Poms won – simply because the Argies too often over-stated the case and we caught out. Many of what they reported as hits, were definitely hits – but little more than holes in the hull – not the devastating effect that they predicted of a bomb strike.

The invincible may well have been a similar story and in an effort to “show” that she was hit, the photo was “doctored” – by whom…? The Poms may have wanted the Argies to think that the Invincible was gone, the Argies wanted to believe it was gone.

Twenty years later, we still squabble over the effects of propaganda.

That’s a good post mate. What we have to differentiate is what deception is and what is lies. In war (as you will know) you don’t tell the truth, except in circumstances where all you can do is tell the truth, Sheffield, Coventry etc. Deception is sweeping back the dirt onto the runway. Now this whole story about HMS Invincible being sunk was denied during the Falklands conflict by the RN and the media onboard, infact the media were still sending back reports from onboard HMS Invincible after the argies surrendered. A couple of pages back from this one I posted pictures of HMS Invincible taken in July 1982, long after the silly argie claims that they sank her, infact, the FAA don’t claim to have sunk HMS Invincible, all they claim is they hit her, only these conspiracy theorists like Soltec claim Vince was sunk.

My take on this is that these people can’t handle the fact they lost a war, BADLY!! They lost to a smaller force that travelled 8000 miles by sea and won every single battle on the Falklands, the only saving grace for the argies was the performance of the FAA and for some strange reason they think they should invent stories to make the FAA look better than it was.

Look at Soltec’s posts, he’s living in a dream world, he’s posting pictures of destroyers and claiming they are a ship that was back in Portsmouth. I posted a picture showing Invincible with Illustrious in the South Atlantic, and he claims that it’s really Illustrious and Ark Royal, despite me also posting a picture showing Illustrious leaving the Tyne with a half built Ark Royal in the background.

Despite numerous requests for evidence from Soltec, I have still received no proof at all.

The first causualty of war is truth ! After that, we argue about the lies.

Kysusha wrote:The first causualty of war is truth ! After that, we argue about the lies.

Very true, however there are lies and there are lies. Know what I mean?

soltec wrote:you like photos of the R05 Invendible in flames?
.
Here a sample of british style to lie

.
.

.
.
This photo was made by UK intelligence services and shared to some magazines in argentina.
.
they were wrong to publish a modified photo of UK.
That was in 1982
you think you are foolish enough to strike twice in the same joke?

if i not have photos of invendible in flames, you shure have a lot photos from more that thousand happy and victorious crews aboard from may 82 to september 82.
Changing the turbine and painting the ship previous to enter to portsmouth will be the best.
.

This changing a turbine sure is playing on your mind. Can you tell me once and for all, do you actually have any evidence that you hit Invincible, never mind sunk her?