USS Liberty

[Loss Leader]

Actually, the Egytpian ship is only roughly half the size of the liberty, be very hard to mistake the two.


Does it get harder when you're a war with Egypt, the ship you find is sitting just off their coast and you've been assured there are no American ships in the area?



Its been stated they overflew the ship and in fact her presence in the area was noted earlier and on the Israeli's situation board.


The Liberty's presence somewhere in the ocean was noted that morning but: 1) the information was removed in the afternoon because it was considered stale; 2) the Liberty moved so it wasn't even in the same place as where its presence had been noted; and 3) the US assured Israel that it was observing a 100 mile limit.

[kookbreaker]

Actually, the Egytpian ship is only roughly half the size of the liberty, be very hard to mistake the two.


And who could mistake the Sheffield for the 5-times displacement Bismark, eh?

[Darth Rotor]

Ennes make a lot of claims, including that he was officer of the deck. At this stage I could not take his testimony seriously.
I see. He was on the Liberty, during the attack, and has not only written a book describing, in detail, what went on, researched quite a bit of the signals traffic at higher echelons that added to decisions that left Liberty open to attack, but you don't take his testimony seriously?

'Scuse the hell out of me, brother kook (and happy birthday :D ) but do you also not take seriously the testsimony of the NYPD and NYFD witnesses from 9-11?

You have stood tall and slammed 9-11 troofers, yet when an eyewitness to the attack speaks out, you don't take him seriously?

WTF?

ETA: For those of you in this thread who are doing a bit of semantic quibbling, jmeadors assertion that the US government has not done an investigation is an obvious, to me, reference to a lack of a Congressional investigation. The Congress is indeed correctly referred to as "The US Government" in this context, being the Legislative branch of same, and its standard oversight role over the executive branch, in which the US military operates. His ref to the Tillman case is spot on, as well as the Pueblo case.

Let's knock it off with the semantic nitpicking. He was there. Y'all weren't, yet I see a pooh-poohing of his recollections of an event where he was present and took an active role.

What is going on here?

DR

[roundhead]

Does it get harder when you're a war with Egypt, the ship you find is sitting just off their coast and you've been assured there are no American ships in the area?






The Liberty's presence somewhere in the ocean was noted that morning but: 1) the information was removed in the afternoon because it was considered stale; 2) the Liberty moved so it wasn't even in the same place as where its presence had been noted; and 3) the US assured Israel that it was observing a 100 mile limit.




Exactly, you then admit that overflight by the Israeli's well before the attack were able to confirm her as American obviously.

So the day before the attack they know her general whereabouts, have confirmed her identity, and put her on they're situation board.

Yet the next day, with a number of sorties, on a perfectly clear day, all the sudden cant identify her.

You realize how inplausible this is, correct.

If they have no problem one day with identification, why would they the next, in fair weather.

You have any idea how tall the bow numbers were on that ship, and how visible they are to a modern surveilance aircraft, not to mantion of course the flag, which every crewmember to a man says was flying as well.

[Dave Rogers]

Actually, the Egytpian ship is only roughly half the size of the liberty, be very hard to mistake the two.

The Prinz Eugen was only roughly half the size of the Bismarck, but got mistaken for her in the Battle of the Denmark Straits because the silhouettes of the ships were identical. Scale is a lot harder to estimate than shape against a background with no reference points - for example, the open sea.

Dave

[roundhead]

Regarding the false claims made in this thread there have been Congressional investigations into this incident, the following letter clearly puts that to bed....




Dear Patron:

Thank you for your query.

After checking numerous resources, including the CIS (Congressional Information Service) Indexes to Congressional Hearings (both published and unpublished), and the Public Documents Masterfile, I could find no evidence that the Congress ever held hearings or launched an investigation into the June 8, 1967 incident with the USS Liberty.

The Library of Congress does have the following titles concerning the USS Liberty in the Library's collections:

[Several references follow] I hope that this information is helpful.

ECH
Reference Librarian
Main Reading Room
Humanities & Social Sciences Division
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave., S.E.

[Loss Leader]

Exactly, you then admit that overflight by the Israeli's well before the attack were able to confirm her as American obviously.


I admit that on the morning of the attack, some branch of some Israeli service somewhere noted that the Liberty was located somewhere in the Mediterranian.


So the day before the attack they know her general whereabouts, have confirmed her identity, and put her on they're situation board.


I did not say that, nor can it be inferred from my writings.


Yet the next day, with a number of sorties, on a perfectly clear day, all the sudden cant identify her.


I don't think you know what a sortie is.


You realize how inplausible this is, correct.


No, I believe that it is almost certain that the Liberty came under fire because her identity was unknown.


If they have no problem one day with identification, why would they the next, in fair weather.


Because the ship had moved; because the US had informed Israel it would not have ships in the area; because these were different pilots than the ones who had identified the Liberty; because they were in the midst of a war and mistakes get made in wars; because the Liberty was a warship; because the Liberty fired on the Israelis; because the pilots were of lower ability than the pilots who had once identified the Liberty; because God willed it ... I'm really not sure how many explanations your looking for.


You have any idea how tall the bow numbers were on that ship, and how visible they are to a modern surveilance aircraft, not to mantion of course the flag, which every crewmember to a man says was flying as well.


I do. I understand that, despite this, ships are sometimes misidentified.

[Darth Rotor]

The Prinz Eugen was only roughly half the size of the Bismarck, but got mistaken for her in the Battle of the Denmark Straits because the silhouettes of the ships were identical. Scale is a lot harder to estimate than shape against a background with no reference points - for example, the open sea.

Dave
Hi, Dave. I have flown, in the Mediterranean, many dozens of surveillance flights in Sea Sprites (SH-2F) wherein visual identification and rigging of a ship is done. I am intimately familiar with how one identifies a ship visually, with the unaided eye, at a variety of altitudes and flight profiles. I have also done so aboard prop and jet propelled patrol aircraft.

While it is possible to misidentify a ship, if you read Ennes' book, and the range at which the aircraft were to the ship for gun runs, protesting the odds of a misrig, and a failure to note the flag -- the US flag has a very distinctive pattern, easily discerned at gun range -- assumes that IAF pilots don't have sufficient visual acuity to qualify as fighter pilots, nor any training in ship recognition.

This answers LL as well, in regards the likelihood of IAF pilots incorrectly identifying the ship. That the pilots may have lied in their initial reports, or not, is an open question, particularly if they were in fear of punishment for screwing up the VID. I find it far likelier that they fired on the ship regardless of its flag. Also, the torpedo boats, Israeli Navy, would have as ships of even minimally compet navies do, had equipped binoculars for officers and petty officers, and lookouts, on the bridge and above decks, rendering ludicrous any claim that they could not see/identify the Liberty, or its flag. I've stood bridge watch and look out watches as both midshipman and officer, and it takes nothing special to use a pair of binoculars, nor to recognize what you are looking at unless the haze and visibility conditions blur the image. I reserve comment on the visibility conditions to Ennes, or jmeador in this conversation, given that they were there that day.

What the hell do I know? I can only reference 25 years in the US Navy, which included service on surface combatants and carriers, and being well acquainted with how Western and professional navies, among which the Israeli Navy numbers, conduct routine operations.

The complaint the the US Government "swept this under the rug" is part of what motivated Ennes to write his book, and is a valid complaint against the US government of Lyndon B Johnson, which includes upper levels of both uniformed, and non uniformed, leadership in the DoD.

DR

[roundhead]

Our divisions collateral duty was lookouts one deck above the bridge when we pulled out or entered port. We were both(port and starboard)equipped with binoculars. From our vantage point we could see about 6.2 miles.

This was on the USS California. Those torpedo boats would have zero problems easily identifing the bow numbers from several thousand yards off, on a clear day, as it was reported to be.

And that is assuming the attacking aircraft didnt know who she was, which is extremely unlikely.

Very hard to equate training and recognition from 1967 to WW2 days, night and day differences.

Several crew members reported overflights close enough to where they waved at the pilots.

[kookbreaker]

I see. He was on the Liberty, during the attack, and has not only written a book describing, in detail, what went on, researched quite a bit of the signals traffic at higher echelons that added to decisions that left Liberty open to attack, but you don't take his testimony seriously?

'Scuse the hell out of me, brother kook (and happy birthday :D ) but do you also not take seriously the testsimony of the NYPD and NYFD witnesses from 9-11?


Ennes is to Liberty as Rodriguez is to 911. Sorry.


You have stood tall and slammed 9-11 troofers, yet when an eyewitness to the attack speaks out, you don't take him seriously?

WTF?


Ennes' tale does not jibe with the reported facts, and has grown in the telling. He, or one of his buddies is going to have to pull out something more factual, along with some explanations as to why the Captain, and other's sworn testimony does not support his account.

[Tbone]

I see. He was on the Liberty, during the attack, and has not only written a book describing, in detail, what went on, researched quite a bit of the signals traffic at higher echelons that added to decisions that left Liberty open to attack, but you don't take his testimony seriously?

'Scuse the hell out of me, brother kook (and happy birthday :D ) but do you also not take seriously the testsimony of the NYPD and NYFD witnesses from 9-11?

You have stood tall and slammed 9-11 troofers, yet when an eyewitness to the attack speaks out, you don't take him seriously?

WTF?

Why do you not take the account of say... the Captain of the Liberty seriously?

[roundhead]

Why do you not take the account of say... the Captain of the Liberty seriously?


I do take it seriously..Are you aware of how the court of inquiry was held. How few of the ships crew were allowed to testify.

Are you aware the reviewing officer(Adm Staring)after spending several days going over the testimony, wouldnt sign off on it, as i didnt jive with what was actually said.

In other words, the Admiral who first reviewed the inquiry thought it was a whitewash, only a few days after the inquiry.

Are you also aware, the victims families were sent letters stating it was an accident BEFORE the inquiry even convened???????





The Court of Inquiry


Thanks to former crewman Ed Mark, who laboriously hand typed the full text of the Court of Inquiry file, we now have the testimony from that document for visitors to study. The full document contains more than 700 pages including photographs, messages and documents. Testimony accounted for about 170 pages.

As survivors have frequently pointed out, Liberty men were not permitted to speak freely and were directed to reply only to the questions asked. Some men who wished to testify were not permitted to do so. George Golden, who was the second ranking man to survive the attack, was severely limited in the testimony he was permitted to provide. Jim Ennes, who was Officer of the Deck during most of the daylight reconnaissance and could personally testify to the closeness and frequency of overflying aircraft and other key details, provided a sworn statement from his hospital bed, but this statement was not permitted into evidence. Jim's hand-written deck logs for his watch were key evidence, but they were not entered into the record. Instead, they were rewritten and signed by someone else, which is a violation of Navy Regulations.

When you read the "Findings of Fact," look for supporting testimony. Navy Regulations require that all findings of fact be supported by evidence in the record. In this case, such evidence is often absent. For example, where the court finds that the flag may not have been seen by the attacking pilots because it may have hung limp at the mast on a windless day, all the evidence in the record points in the opposite direction, indicating that the flag was clearly displayed in adequate wind to hold it aloft for the pilots to see. The court also had access to and reviewed the Ship's Weather Log which showed that there was ample wind at all times to hold a flag aloft and clearly displayed. Yet the court chose to ignore that log and did not enter it into the record. The careful reader will find numerous other discrepancies in the way the hearing was conducted

[roundhead]

Counsel for the Court: Excuse me, any time prior to the
attack, did you notice the national colors flying?

[LTJG Watts:] Yes sir. At lunch that day, we were
discussing the situation and Mr. Golden made the statement
that someone had said something about the ensign flying so
the people would know who we were. Mr. Golden made the
statement something like, "Don't we have a bigger flag we
can fly, maybe the holiday colors ?" Then after lunch we
went out on the 01 level forward and most of the officers
were around there sunbathing immediately preceding 1300.
At approximately 1245, an aircraft flew over approximately
5,000 to 8,000 feet, and his line of flight took it over
the radar mast, and I was watching it and made a comment
about it that it looked like a C119 flying boxcar. And as
it flew over the radar mast, the ensign was flying from
the gaff. I noticed that it was flying, at this time
there was a breeze.

Q. Extended?

[LTJG Watson:] Yes sir.

[roundhead]

Counsel for the Court: Did you have occasion to see the
national colors flying?

[Chief Smith:] Yes sir. At the time I ran out of the
radio central space to the transmitter room.

Q. What time was this?

[Chief Smith:] I would say about 1225, this was about two
minutes either way. And this was Zulu time because I'm
basing it on the log here. I had occasion to look at it
because I was under the impression we were being attacked
by UAR, and I wanted to see, and by the time that report
came down to us from the bridge that they were Israelis, I
wanted to check myself personally to see if our flag was
flying because I couldn't understand it. For some reason
I saw the flag flying at that time. If this was the
original flag or not, I do not know sir.  - - -

[roundhead]

Q. Do you recall the flag or the national ensign flying?

[Ensign Scott:] Yes sir, it was flying. I noticed at
first light that the ensign was flying. I looked up to it
to check the wind direction just in the event I had to
blow tubes and I wanted to have a favorable wind
direction. That's about all I recall about the flag being
up on the day and night while we were over here. I don't
recall seeing it down at all.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[LT. Golden:] Yes sir. At approximately 1145, I
completed eating lunch, and went to the 01 level forward
to sunbathe along with the Captain and some of the other
officers. I have a lounge chair, most of us do have;
while laying on my back sunbathing, I noticed a plane
flying over. I dozed off, and approximately 25 minutes or
so later on, I woke up and saw a plane circling again
coming from the port beam, crossing the ship. While
watching it, I glanced up and noticed it just crossing
over the stack area, and I noticed a small amount of smoke
coming out of my stack, and also the flag was flying.

Counsel for the Court: Was it extended?

[LT. Golden:] Yes sir, there was a slight breeze
blowing.

Q. Where was the flag flying from, Lieutenant GOLDEN?

[LT. Golden:] The foremast.

Q. And It was standing out where it could be seen?

[LT. Golden:] Yes sir. Not completely the full length,
but it was standing out.

[roundhead]

1351 [LOG:] 3 SMALL SURFACE CONTACTS HELD ON RADAR 32,000
YARDS BEARING 082T - REPORTED TO BRIDGE AS 3 SURFACE
CONTACTS

1424 [LOG:] 3 MTB'S SIGHTED ABAFT STARBOARD 1BEAM DISTANCE
4-5 MILES

[CAPT. McGonagle:] In the latter moments of the air
attack, it was noted that three high speed boats were
approaching the ship from the northeast on a relative
bearing of approximately 135 at a distance of about 15
miles. The ship at the time was still on course 283 true,
speed unknown, but believed to be in excess of five knots.
At no time did the ship stop during the air attack. It is
believed that the time of initial sighting of the torpedo
boats, the time was about 1420. The boats appeared to be
in a wedge type formation with the center boat the lead
point of the wedge. Estimated speed of the boats was
about 27 to 30 knots. They appeared to be about 150 to 200
yards apart.

[CAPT. McGonagle:] It appeared that they were approaching
the ship in a torpedo launch attitude, and since I did not
have direct communication with gun control or the gun
mounts, I told a man from the bridge, whose identity I do
not recall, to proceed to mount 51 and take the boats
under fire.

[CAPT. McGonagle:] The boats continued to approach the
ship at high speed and on a constant bearing with
decreasing range.

1426 [LOG:] NOTICED NORMAL STEAMING ENSIGN SHOT AWAY
DURING AIR ATTACK HOLIDAY SIZE ENSIGN HOISTED ON PORT
YARDARM.

[CAPT. McGonagle:] About this time I noticed that our
Ensign had been shot away during the air attack and
ordered DAVID, signalman, to hoist a second Ensign from
the yardarm. During the air attack, our normal Ensign was
flying. Before the torpedo attack, a holiday size Ensign
was hoisted. ? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ????? I could to
standby for torpedo attack from starboard.

[Tbone]

Once again Roundhead, posting account after account about Americans on the Liberty seeing the American flag flying says nothing about what the Israeli planes saw. No one disputes that the Liberty had their flag flying.

[gumboot]

It seems to me that people are trying to present a false dichotomy here...

Either the attack on the Liberty was a deliberate attack by the IDF on a US ship and the US government swept it under the rug and dismissed it as an accident.

or

The attack was accidental and the US government investigated it thoroughly.

I don't see how these are related. Demonstrating that the US Government was reluctant to investigate does not mean the attack was deliberate.

Here's a third option:

-The attack was accidental but the US government took action to dismiss the event as an accident before an investigation of any description was conducted.

The facts of the incident and the behaviour of the US government after the incident are two independent things.

I have a question for jmeadors, and it is a serious question. While it's specifically aimed at him, anyone else is most welcome to answer.

If a Congressional investigation of the incident is conducted, and finds that the attack was accidental, will you accept the findings?

If, for anyone, the answer to the above is "no" you are lying when you say you want a proper investigation to be conducted. If the answer is "yes", I fully support your calls for an investigation.

[roundhead]

Once again Roundhead, posting account after account about Americans on the Liberty seeing the American flag flying says nothing about what the Israeli planes saw. No one disputes that the Liberty had their flag flying.


That isnt true. The Israeli's stated it wasnt flying

[roundhead]

It seems to me that people are trying to present a false dichotomy here...

Either the attack on the Liberty was a deliberate attack by the IDF on a US ship and the US government swept it under the rug and dismissed it as an accident.

or

The attack was accidental and the US government investigated it thoroughly.

I don't see how these are related. Demonstrating that the US Government was reluctant to investigate does not mean the attack was deliberate.

Here's a third option:

-The attack was accidental but the US government took action to dismiss the event as an accident before an investigation of any description was conducted.

The facts of the incident and the behaviour of the US government after the incident are two independent things.

I have a question for jmeadors, and it is a serious question. While it's specifically aimed at him, anyone else is most welcome to answer.

If a Congressional investigation of the incident is conducted, and finds that the attack was accidental, will you accept the findings?

If, for anyone, the answer to the above is "no" you are lying when you say you want a proper investigation to be conducted. If the answer is "yes", I fully support your calls for an investigation.


My honest opinion is i want a congressional investigation that allows any and all crewmembers with something of value to the case to be able to testify freely. Additionally, any intelligence people with direct information should be called as well.

I also think it would be valuable to have any Israeli's that were part of the attack/ATC to testify as well.

The fact Adm McCain forbade the Naval court of inquiry to go to Israel to interview pertinent individuals i find unpardonable.

As i posted earlier, the fact Adm Staring wouldnt sign off on the findings of the inquiry says plenty about it.
I also found it troubling that families were told it was an accident BEFORE the hearing was even convened. That certainly speaks to the stance the Govt took as regards the case.

[Tbone]

That isnt true. The Israeli's stated it wasnt flying

I have no doubt that some of those who didn't see the flag simply assumed it wasn't raised. American accounts still have nothing to do with Israel aircraft seeing the flag or not.

[roundhead]

I have no doubt that some of those who didn't see the flag simply assumed it wasn't raised. American accounts still have nothing to do with Israel aircraft seeing the flag or not.


There seems to be a general concensus that even the radio transmissions that have been released(and of course there is plenty of evidence there were more that have"dissapeared")consistantly mention"American flag" as part of the intercept.

If the Israeli's didnt see the flag(extremely unlikely) it is curious why "American Flag"would be part of any of the radio traffic that has been reported, if in fact it wasnt noted.

In other words, why not Egyptian Flag, that would have been in the intercepted radio traffic?

[quicknthedead]

No one has answered this post...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3845299#post3845299

...which indicates tacit approval of the allegation.
Therefore, these uncontested statements, and the claim of the post, stand for the truth:

Based upon American pre-intelligence, the Israeli attack upon USS Liberty was deliberate and no accident.

[gumboot]

My honest opinion is i want a congressional investigation that allows any and all crewmembers with something of value to the case to be able to testify freely. Additionally, any intelligence people with direct information should be called as well.

I also think it would be valuable to have any Israeli's that were part of the attack/ATC to testify as well.

The fact Adm McCain forbade the Naval court of inquiry to go to Israel to interview pertinent individuals i find unpardonable.

As i posted earlier, the fact Adm Staring wouldnt sign off on the findings of the inquiry says plenty about it.
I also found it troubling that families were told it was an accident BEFORE the hearing was even convened. That certainly speaks to the stance the Govt took as regards the case.


You didn't answer my question. Assume all of the above is satisfied, and the inquiry finds that the attack was accidental?

[Tbone]

No one has answered this post...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3845299#post3845299

...

...which indicates tacit approval of the allegation.
Therefore, these uncontested statements, and the claim of the post, stand for the truth.

Whatever makes you satisfied.

[gumboot]

Senate Armed Services Committee
Feb. 1, 1968
No conclusion. Secretary McNamara makes comparison of attack on Liberty to that on Pueblo with regard to uncertainty about what was happening at the time of the incident.

House Appropriations Committee
April-May 1968
Navy communications "foulup" and no conclusion regarding Israeli actions. Much of report remains classified.

House Armed Services Committee
May 10, 1971
Critical of Navy communications, no conclusion regarding Israeli actions.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
1979
Responding to critical book by Liberty crewman James Ennes, Senate investigation found no merit to his claim attack was intentional.

House Armed Services Committee
June 1991
Responding to request from Liberty Veterans Association, Subcommitte on Investigations launched probe that concluded there was no evidence to support allegations made by the Association and no reason for further investigation.


Assuming the five above investigations of the USS Liberty incident actually did occur, Sword of Truth is correct. The above are all entities within the United States Congress. Both houses are represented by these investigations.

To claim that no Congressional Investigation was ever conducted into the USS Liberty incident is therefore simply not true.

[stilicho]

To claim that no Congressional Investigation was ever conducted into the USS Liberty incident is therefore simply not true.

Somebody explained how mistaken identity could occur earlier. Prinz Eugen, Pueblo, and Liberty are but a few. How about Mayaguez? It might be my memory here but weren't the crew of Mayaguez spotted on a different vessel even before the rescue was attempted?

Again, memory, but didn't one of the Liberty crew change his story about the machine-gunned life rafts outside the official investigations?

Liberty is one of the stock-in-trade of anti-semitic conspiracists. If anyone wants a good account of how military mistakes happen, I highly recommend Gabriel's Military Incompetence. For those wishing to examine the same problems in the UK military, there's Dixon's On The Psychology Of Military Incompetence. Gabriel's is the more dispassionate of the two. Liberty would hardly rate in the Top 100 of bad decision-making. The battles of Balaclava, Sedan, and Chancellorsville in the nineteenth century are examples of far worse military judgement but, since there were no Jews involved, they've never suffered similar scrutiny.

[roundhead]

Assuming the five above investigations of the USS Liberty incident actually did occur, Sword of Truth is correct. The above are all entities within the United States Congress. Both houses are represented by these investigations.

To claim that no Congressional Investigation was ever conducted into the USS Liberty incident is therefore simply not true.


I have no alternative but to assume you didnt read my earlier post, so i will put it up again. It has no ambiguity.




Dear Patron:

Thank you for your query.

After checking numerous resources, including the CIS (Congressional Information Service) Indexes to Congressional Hearings (both published and unpublished), and the Public Documents Masterfile, I could find no evidence that the Congress ever held hearings or launched an investigation into the June 8, 1967 incident with the USS Liberty.

The Library of Congress does have the following titles concerning the USS Liberty in the Library's collections:

[Several references follow] I hope that this information is helpful.

ECH
Reference Librarian
Main Reading Room
Humanities & Social Sciences Division
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave., S.E.

[Tbone]

I have no alternative but to assume you didnt read my earlier post, so i will put it up again. It has no ambiguity.

So only Congressional Investigations into any and all incidents in the world, ever, count? Despite the fact that Congress was represented at previous investigations? Why do you specfically require full congressional hearings?

[roundhead]

Ennes...


"Survivors repeatedly have asked Cristol and others to provide copies or other evidence of these so-called “investigations.” None has done so. They cannot. There are no such investigations. Similarly, we have asked them to remove their false statements. They refuse. These lies serve their purpose.

In fact, when survivors have sought details of such investigations from their congressmen, from the Navy Judge Advocate General, from the Library of Congress, from the Congressional Research Service, or from any other government agency, we have repeatedly been advised that there has never been any congressional investigation of Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty.

Most recently, on July 25, 2006, in response to a query from Liberty survivors, the Librarian of Congress wrote:

“After checking numerous resources, including the CIS (Congressional Information Service) Indexes to Congressional Hearings (both published and unpublished), and the Public Documents Masterfile, I could find no evidence that the Congress ever held hearings or launched an investigation into the June 8, 1967 incident with the USS Liberty. LC Control Number: 98135843.”

That should settle the issue for all time and bring Cristol, Joffe, ADL and other myopic Israel-can-do-no-wrongers to cease their never-ending claim that Israel has been exonerated by numerous investigations. That simply is not true, never has been true and never will be true, despite their blind determination to deny reality.




Sorry, as a former sailor, i cant with an open heart call these fine men who served with patriotism and good conduct liars.

As an American, i find it deplorable that an overwhelming consensus of our men, who were there that day, wouldnt be taken at they're word regarding events that memorable day.


The other party(in this case Israel)makes no difference to me.Had it been Ivory Coast, Peru, Canada, it isnt the issue.

The issue is these men were murdered, and we as a country should right this wrong.

[kookbreaker]

Perhaps the reason for this is because the investigations that are listed are not exclusively about the Liberty. For example the 1971 investigation also concerned the USS Pueblo and other incidents.

There's also some confusion regarding a hearing vs. an investigation:

http://www.libertyincident.com/house-investigation-1991.html

[roundhead]

I also find it deplorable that the skipper of the Liberty, who was awarded the Congesssional medal of honor, had it given to him in a Naval Yard, and not by the President, as is customary.
Additionally, when he did receive the medal , no photos were allowed. I find that inexcusable.

[Tbone]

Ennes...


"Survivors repeatedly have asked Cristol and others to provide copies or other evidence of these so-called “investigations.” None has done so. They cannot. There are no such investigations. Similarly, we have asked them to remove their false statements. They refuse. These lies serve their purpose.

In fact, when survivors have sought details of such investigations from their congressmen, from the Navy Judge Advocate General, from the Library of Congress, from the Congressional Research Service, or from any other government agency, we have repeatedly been advised that there has never been any congressional investigation of Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty.

Most recently, on July 25, 2006, in response to a query from Liberty survivors, the Librarian of Congress wrote:

“After checking numerous resources, including the CIS (Congressional Information Service) Indexes to Congressional Hearings (both published and unpublished), and the Public Documents Masterfile, I could find no evidence that the Congress ever held hearings or launched an investigation into the June 8, 1967 incident with the USS Liberty. LC Control Number: 98135843.”

That should settle the issue for all time and bring Cristol, Joffe, ADL and other myopic Israel-can-do-no-wrongers to cease their never-ending claim that Israel has been exonerated by numerous investigations. That simply is not true, never has been true and never will be true, despite their blind determination to deny reality.




Sorry, as a former sailor, i cant with an open heart call these fine men who served with patriotism and good conduct liars.

As an American, i find it deplorable that an overwhelming consensus of our men, who were there that day, wouldnt be taken at they're word regarding events that memorable day.


The other party(in this case Israel)makes no difference to me.Had it been Ivory Coast, Peru, Canada, it isnt the issue.

The issue is these men were murdered, and we as a country should right this wrong.

You really need to stop copy-pasting as if its an arguement or an answer to a question. You need to address the issue that there WERE investigations into the Liberty, just not full Congressional hearings. You need to dispute the findings of these investigations, not just point to the lack of the single investigation you personally want.

Also, I find it amusing, in a sad way, that you say you can't call someone like Ennes a liar, then go ahead and call everyone who disputes him a liar. If you come back with that they must be mistaken, then you have to admit that Ennes may be mistaken as well, and we are back to square one.

I also can't find any reference anywhere that the overwhelming majority of the entire crew think that Israel deliberatly attacked. If you can provide this in the form of clear and non-interpretative statements, please do.

[roundhead]

You really need to stop copy-pasting as if its an arguement or an answer to a question. You need to address the issue that there WERE investigations into the Liberty, just not full Congressional hearings. You need to dispute the findings of these investigations, not just point to the lack of the single investigation you personally want.

Also, I find it amusing, in a sad way, that you say you can't call someone like Ennes a liar, then go ahead and call everyone who disputes him a liar. If you come back with that they must be mistaken, then you have to admit that Ennes may be mistaken as well, and we are back to square one.

I also can't find any reference anywhere that the overwhelming majority of the entire crew think that Israel deliberatly attacked. If you can provide this in the form of clear and non-interpretative statements, please do.




I would suggest you read the original naval inquiry, and then read Captain Boston's(legal counsel of the courts) expert opinion on how the court was ran and exactly what was omitted.

Then Adm Staring, tasked with reviewing the court of inquiry, and who wouldnt sign off on it a week later.

Its notable that Staring, among other high ranking officers privvy to all the information, came to the same conclusion just several years ago during the Moorer commision.
These are extremely high ranking officers, privvy to all pertinent info, who state without equivication she was deliberately attacked, and all are signatories of the Moorer commision.

I choose to believe these officers, who are in a place to know better than anybody in this thread as to what transpired.

A CNO, a Judge advocate general of the Navy, An Asst commandant of the Marine Corp, pretty high ranking officers.

I believe them 100%..........

I just wish every crewmember could get called to the stand at a Congressional hearing, along with intelligence experts and others, and end the Liberty's tragedy.

[Darth Rotor]

Ennes is to Liberty as Rodriguez is to 911.
No.

[Darth Rotor]

Why do you not take the account of say... the Captain of the Liberty seriously?
Why should I weigh his word more heavily than any other survivor of the attack?

That the accounts of the folks who were there vary doesn't surprise me. That some are more upset about it than others doesn't either.

That hardly makes those who are upset with the US government's handling of the affair nuts.

It makes them human.

DR

[Tbone]

I would suggest you read the original naval inquiry, and then read Captain Boston's(legal counsel of the courts) expert opinion on how the court was ran and exactly what was omitted.

Then Adm Staring, tasked with reviewing the court of inquiry, and who wouldnt sign off on it a week later.

Its notable that Staring, among other high ranking officers privvy to all the information, came to the same conclusion just several years ago during the Moorer commision.
These are extremely high ranking officers, privvy to all pertinent info, who state without equivication she was deliberately attacked, and all are signatories of the Moorer commision.

I choose to believe these officers, who are in a place to know better than anybody in this thread as to what transpired.

A CNO, a Judge advocate general of the Navy, An Asst commandant of the Marine Corp, pretty high ranking officers.

I believe them 100%..........

I just wish every crewmember could get called to the stand at a Congressional hearing, along with intelligence experts and others, and end the Liberty's tragedy.

Do you have proof that a majority of the Liberty crew believe the attack was deliberate or not? You have posted the opinion of the above admirals several times. What you have said recently though is that the crew themselves believe it was. Please show this.

[SDC]

I have no alternative but to assume you didnt read my earlier post, so i will put it up again. It has no ambiguity.




Dear Patron:

Thank you for your query.

After checking numerous resources, including the CIS (Congressional Information Service) Indexes to Congressional Hearings (both published and unpublished), and the Public Documents Masterfile, I could find no evidence that the Congress ever held hearings or launched an investigation into the June 8, 1967 incident with the USS Liberty.

The Library of Congress does have the following titles concerning the USS Liberty in the Library's collections:

[Several references follow] I hope that this information is helpful.

ECH
Reference Librarian
Main Reading Room
Humanities & Social Sciences Division
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave., S.E.

It's ambiguous to me, a card-carrying librarian and published historian. What was the date on the letter? What exactly was the question that was asked? How where "investigations" defined in your question -- this answer from a librarian seems to contradict directly the references Sword of Truth posted. Could you explain that, please? Serious question. I don't imagine Sword is making up his information. Or do you think he is?

And surprise: when librarians sit around the darkened hotel bar, during conferences (and we librarians love to huddle together in the dark), among the favorite topics are misleading questions from readers and the bizarre ways in which they try to force us to provide answers that fit their own prejudices. Then we shake our heads and wonder what has happened to them and how they twisted further even the answers we managed to provide.

I'll add that this response reads like "go away and leave us alone." One tries not to write that, of course.

So, I regret to say that this response from a librarian at LC doesn't advance your argument. You have to do your own research. Please confirm that you have done this. I am not asking for chapter and verse, just please advise as to the congressional proceedings sources you have reviewed yourself. Or had some reliable colleague review. This letter is just not adequate.

I'll say again, that a historian who relies on eyewitness accounts by participants in instances like this, is incompetent. I should add that a historian who relies primarily or exclusively is. (I didn't add that phrase before.)

[SDC]

Let me repeat something I asked earlier. Which Israelis are accused of a deliberate attack? Is the idea that it was a national government action? Or the military high command? Or some local unit commanders?

I hope the response is not "that's why we need an investigation." I'm sure that, after 40 years of study, those who believe the attack was deliberate, in the sense that it was planned (again, practically any action taken by people can be defined as "deliberate"), have some likely culprits lined up.

[kookbreaker]

No.

Yes he is. His account has expanded with the telling.

[kookbreaker]

I also find it deplorable that the skipper of the Liberty, who was awarded the Congesssional medal of honor, had it given to him in a Naval Yard, and not by the President, as is customary.
Additionally, when he did receive the medal , no photos were allowed. I find that inexcusable.

He didn't seem to have a problem with it, once the explanations were made.

http://libertyincident.com/docs/McGonagle.pdf

Also, the president does not always present the medal himself. Marine Captain Barnum, for example, had his medal presented at the Marine Corp Barracks by the Naval Secretary in 1967. There are other examples from that era of similar things.

[gumboot]

I have no alternative but to assume you didnt read my earlier post, so i will put it up again. It has no ambiguity.

I read it. Your post is irrelevant.

Senate Armed Services Committee

Committee belonging to the United States Congress, yes or no?


House Appropriations Committee

Committee belonging to the United States Congress, yes or no?


House Armed Services Committee

Committee belonging to the United States Congress, yes or no?


Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Committee belonging to the United States Congress, yes or no?


House Armed Services Committee

Committee belonging to the United States Congress, yes or no?


The above five bodies are all contained within the United States Congress. Fact.

The above five bodies investigated the USS Liberty incident. Fact.

By deduction; the United States Congress investigated the USS Liberty incident. Fact.

[gumboot]

I also find it deplorable that the skipper of the Liberty, who was awarded the Congesssional medal of honor, had it given to him in a Naval Yard, and not by the President, as is customary.
Additionally, when he did receive the medal , no photos were allowed. I find that inexcusable.


I find it more deplorable that the US Government values the Medal of Honor so little that they would use it as a political tool and a bribe. I cannot conceive of a Commonwealth State doing the same with a Victoria Cross.

I cannot see how what the captain of the USS Liberty did warranted a Medal of Honor.

I don't mean this as any sort of disrespect to the Captain, but the Medal of Honor is reserved for extreme acts of selfless courage above and beyond the call of duty.

People like Master Sergeant Gary Gordon and Sergeant First Class Randy Shughart who volunteered to be placed in the middle of a firefight alone to protect down pilots, knowing full well that it would mean their deaths.

I just see no evidence that anyone on the Liberty performed such an act. Sorry.

[quicknthedead]

I find it more deplorable that the US Government values the Medal of Honor so little that they would use it as a political tool and a bribe. I cannot conceive of a Commonwealth State doing the same with a Victoria Cross.

I cannot see how what the captain of the USS Liberty did warranted a Medal of Honor.

I don't mean this as any sort of disrespect to the Captain, but the Medal of Honor is reserved for extreme acts of selfless courage above and beyond the call of duty.

People like Master Sergeant Gary Gordon and Sergeant First Class Randy Shughart who volunteered to be placed in the middle of a firefight alone to protect down pilots, knowing full well that it would mean their deaths.

I just see no evidence that anyone on the Liberty performed such an act. Sorry.

To rise to the extraordinary level of self-sacrifice associated with the CMO, your point is correct and so is your last sentence.

[roundhead]

Do you have proof that a majority of the Liberty crew believe the attack was deliberate or not? You have posted the opinion of the above admirals several times. What you have said recently though is that the crew themselves believe it was. Please show this.


Spend the 51 minutes of this film listening to crew accounts, and tell me what you think the opinion of the crew is. I think it will clearly answer your query.



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7267134620652018859

[Tbone]

Spend the 51 minutes of this film listening to crew accounts, and tell me what you think the opinion of the crew is. I think it will clearly answer your query.



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7267134620652018859

Is the montage of the 11 crew members they do at the beginning an accurate representation of the number of crew they interview?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

“After checking numerous resources, including the CIS (Congressional Information Service) Indexes to Congressional Hearings (both published and unpublished), and the Public Documents Masterfile, I could find no evidence that the Congress ever held hearings or launched an investigation into the June 8, 1967 incident with the USS Liberty. LC Control Number: 98135843.”

Bull-******-crapola.

It was investigated. Deal with it. Lying about it doesn't help your cause.

Sorry, as a former sailor, i cant with an open heart call these fine men who served with patriotism and good conduct liars.

Well if it's a "fraternity of sailors" thing, then I can lend you a hand here.

Meadors and Ennes lied.

They said a thing which it appears that they knew full well is not true. To be fair to Meadors and Ennes though, I see no reason yet to call them anti-semites when Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is just as likely an explanation for why they are behaving this way. Anti-semitisim remains, however, a likely explanation for people lying about the incident and its aftermath who were not on the Liberty that day.

At the end of the day, while I do see a mitigating circumstance in Meadors and Ennes lies, I am afraid they that have scuttled themselves as viable voices in the USS Liberty controversy and blown their own credibility out of the water.

The issue is these men were murdered, and we as a country should right this wrong.

Argument by repetition.

[roundhead]

What bothers me, and its evidenced by accounts in the film i linked to, is how testimony, logs and other significant information, was kept out of or removed from the Naval inquiry report.
Adm Staring, the reviewing officer, is interviewed in this film, his statements are interesting.

It seems a very common thread among crewmembers that they were ordered, and forced, to keep they're mouths shut regarding the incident, especially any revelent info that cast a bad light on Israel.

I found the account of a radioman from the ship interesting regarding the jamming of they're standard frequencies. Had Israel really believed it an Egyptian ship, i find it hard to believe they would have jammed American frequencies.

Btw, the Egyptian ship was at the time of the attack in drydock in Alexandria, and was painted white.

Capt Tully, CO of one of the Carriers is quoted in the film as well, regarding planes sent to help being recalled.

Some items in that film i wasnt aware of.

[SDC]

Roundhead, since you have already decided it was murder -- I think that was your word, I apologize if it was not -- why is there any need for any additional investigation? That would only be required if there were a need to learn anything useful further.

Just make your best case in the proverbial court of public opinion.

[roundhead]

Roundhead, since you have already decided it was murder -- I think that was your word, I apologize if it was not -- why is there any need for any additional investigation? That would only be required if there were a need to learn anything useful further.

Just make your best case in the proverbial court of public opinion.


I think our nation should learn a lesson. We should stand behind those in uniform, allow them to testify as to exactly what happened that day, and expose the coverup that went on regarding the incident.

I consider it a shamefull blemish that should be removed.

[kookbreaker]

It seems a very common thread among crewmembers that they were ordered, and forced, to keep they're mouths shut regarding the incident, especially any revelent info that cast a bad light on Israel.


roundhead, I already posted earlier in the thread that this is simple untrue. There are articles mentioning how the crew were actively talking to the media about the events.


I found the account of a radioman from the ship interesting regarding the jamming of they're standard frequencies. Had Israel really believed it an Egyptian ship, i find it hard to believe they would have jammed American frequencies.


I find it hard to beleive that jamming could have been done with the planes and boats on site. There was also the case where Ennes was just messed up about the radio.

[roundhead]

roundhead, I already posted earlier in the thread that this is simple untrue. There are articles mentioning how the crew were actively talking to the media about the events.



I find it hard to beleive that jamming could have been done with the planes and boats on site. There was also the case where Ennes was just messed up about the radio.



I dont care if you find the jamming hard to believe or not, they did it, i believe either the Saratoga or America picked it up as well..have to rewatch the film, but it was mentioned.


The crew was forbidden to talk publically about it....Heck only 14 were interviewed at the inquiry and 60 wanted to testify.......quite a disparity if getting to the truth was important. You better watch this film and see what crewmembers have to say about discussing the case.

Look, the counsel has stated it would take likely 6 months to get a proper investigation done. They were given 10 days from the actual event.

Counsel waNted to interview Israeli participants(McCain forbade it).

Family members recieved letters stating it was an accident BEFORE the enquiry even convened...What a friggin joke...

And you wrap yourself around this ..................

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I dont care if you find the jamming hard to believe or not, they did it,...

If it was really there and it iobviously didn't come from the Israeli planes or MTBs then why don't you tell us where it came from Mr. Electronic-Warfare Genius?

The crew was forbidden to talk publically about it...

Which is why one of them wrote and published a frigging book that resulted not in a court-martial for disobeying orders but a virtually unprecedented eighth investigation that he now lies about claiming it never happened.

[kookbreaker]

The crew was forbidden to talk publically about it....Heck only 14 were interviewed at the inquiry and 60 wanted to testify.......quite a disparity if getting to the truth was important. You better watch this film and see what crewmembers have to say about discussing the case.


Not getting to testify is not the same thing as being told to keep quiet!

So name me one person from the crew who was court martialed or imprisoned for talking, but it sure seems they are talking today! Several were interviewed for newspapers in '67!

Read the Naval Security file on the Liberty incident. At the end it lists a whole series of articles and interviews.

[quicknthedead]

Bull-******-crapola.

It was investigated. Deal with it. Lying about it doesn't help your cause.



If it was as fully and judiciously investigated as purported, there should be no trouble in locating substantiation of findings explaining the US pre-intelligence that showed Israel was going to attack USS Liberty if it was not moved.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3845299#post3845299

What investigation dealt with this specific pre-intelligence?

Where are the findings?

On the contrary, to this day there are no findings on this, which indicates there has never been a full and rigorous investigation.

This is what needs to be brought to the light of day. This is what should have been investigated...and this is what still needs to be investigated and answered.

This is the heart of the matter, that there was US pre-intelligence that clearly revealed the attack on USS Liberty was deliberate and not an accident.

[SDC]

If it was as fully and judiciously investigated as purported, there should be no trouble in locating substantiation of findings explaining the US pre-intelligence that showed Israel was going to attack USS Liberty if it was not moved.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3845299#post3845299

What investigation dealt with this specific pre-intelligence?

Where are the findings?

On the contrary, to this day there are no findings on this, which indicates there has never been a full and rigorous investigation.

This is what needs to be brought to the light of day. This is what should have been investigated...and this is what still needs to be investigated and answered.

This is the heart of the matter, that there was US pre-intelligence that clearly revealed the attack on USS Liberty was deliberate and not an accident.

My bolding. I thought the heart of the matter was THE BELIEF that there was such intelligence. If this is known and documented already, what is the need for further investigation? Just publish the stuff!

[roundhead]

Not getting to testify is not the same thing as being told to keep quiet!

So name me one person from the crew who was court martialed or imprisoned for talking, but it sure seems they are talking today! Several were interviewed for newspapers in '67!

Read the Naval Security file on the Liberty incident. At the end it lists a whole series of articles and interviews.

Sure they are talking today. They arent in the service anymore.Even Ennes's book came out YEARS after the incident.

That film interviews several sailors who state exactly what happened when the investigative officer came on board. And the threats that were leveled.

[roundhead]

The administration moved at once to isolate the men and to control news stories about the attack through CHINFO (Chief Information Office) and its PAs (public affairs officers).

1. News was coordinated and centralized in the Pentagon.

2. The LIBERTY crewmen were forbidden to talk to reporters except under conditions arranged by the PA officers. Control of the men came in two phases. From June 8 to 28, when the summary of the Naval Court was completed, the men were told that they could not speak at all. After June 2l they were told that they could speak only by repeating the exact words of the Summary.

3. The crewmen were forbidden to speak of the matter even to members of their families. There were threats of demotion, dishonorable discharge loss of pensions and even possible imprisonment for those who might disobey.

4. The crewmen were kept from the press by every possible means. Armed guards were stationed near the wounded men in the hospitals on the carriers, in Naples, and in Landshut, Germany. The crewmen on shore in Malta were under constant watch and were given daily orders to avoid the press.

5. Only one newsman, Irving R. Levine of NBC News, tried to break through this wall of isolation. He came from Rome to interview Captain McGonagle but instead was given an interview with Admiral Kidd.

6. The men were not allowed to merely remain silent. On the carrier AMERICA, in Malta, and later in Norfolk, they were ordered to take part in press conferences and told what to say. PA officers rehearsed the men and were present during the interviews.

7. The Departments of State and Defense kept a close watch to see how "favorable" and "unfavorable" stories were reported.

8. The crewmen were desperate to break out of their isolation and tell their story to the world. In the single case where a crewman managed to speak to a reporter (Lt. Golden's interview with APs Colin Frost, which will be described) the PA apparatus immediately put out a "counter story" through Reuters.

[kookbreaker]

Sure they are talking today. They arent in the service anymore.Even Ennes's book came out YEARS after the incident.


They were talking back then. Look at the list of articles. They were talking. Stop repeating this lie.


That film interviews several sailors who state exactly what happened when the investigative officer came on board. And the threats that were leveled.

This is further indication that they are not telling the truth, because they sure as heck were talking!

Produce evidence of this gag order, or admit that these folks just made it up or exagerrated the situation.

[kookbreaker]

The administration moved at once to isolate the men and to control news stories about the attack through CHINFO (Chief Information Office) and its PAs (public affairs officers).

1. News was coordinated and centralized in the Pentagon.

2. The LIBERTY crewmen were forbidden to talk to reporters except under conditions arranged by the PA officers. Control of the men came in two phases. From June 8 to 28, when the summary of the Naval Court was completed, the men were told that they could not speak at all. After June 2l they were told that they could speak only by repeating the exact words of the Summary.

3. The crewmen were forbidden to speak of the matter even to members of their families. There were threats of demotion, dishonorable discharge loss of pensions and even possible imprisonment for those who might disobey.

4. The crewmen were kept from the press by every possible means. Armed guards were stationed near the wounded men in the hospitals on the carriers, in Naples, and in Landshut, Germany. The crewmen on shore in Malta were under constant watch and were given daily orders to avoid the press.

5. Only one newsman, Irving R. Levine of NBC News, tried to break through this wall of isolation. He came from Rome to interview Captain McGonagle but instead was given an interview with Admiral Kidd.

6. The men were not allowed to merely remain silent. On the carrier AMERICA, in Malta, and later in Norfolk, they were ordered to take part in press conferences and told what to say. PA officers rehearsed the men and were present during the interviews.

7. The Departments of State and Defense kept a close watch to see how "favorable" and "unfavorable" stories were reported.

8. The crewmen were desperate to break out of their isolation and tell their story to the world. In the single case where a crewman managed to speak to a reporter (Lt. Golden's interview with APs Colin Frost, which will be described) the PA apparatus immediately put out a "counter story" through Reuters.

Horse crap.

http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/GagOrdersDebunked.pdf

The last 4 pages of that document is a huge list of mainstream articles about the incident that obviously came from crew interviews. Particularly telling articles show up on June 16th that show that the crew was talking to the press.

[roundhead]

Horse crap.

http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/GagOrdersDebunked.pdf

The last 4 pages of that document is a huge list of mainstream articles about the incident that obviously came from crew interviews. Particularly telling articles show up on June 16th that show that the crew was talking to the press.



You better reread what you linked to........In no uncertain terms it lays out exactly what can be discussed, and if anything more is asked to reference the Naval authorities in charge.

In short, say exactly what we tell you to. Its extremely clear

[roundhead]

From Paul Findley:




He identified George Golden, the Liberty'S engineering officer and acting commanding officer, as the source of the Associated Press story that charged that the attack was deliberate. Golden, who is Jewish, was so outraged at the prohibition against talking with reporters that he ignored it--risking his future career in the navy to rescue a vestige of his country's honor.


The Pentagon staved off reporters' inquiries with the promise of a "comprehensive statement" once the official inquiry, conducted by Admiral Isaac Kidd, was finished.(9) Arriving at Malta, Kidd gave explicit orders to the crew: "Answer no questions. If somehow you are backed into a corner, then you may say that it was an accident and that Israel has apologized. You may say nothing else." Crew members were assured they could talk freely to reporters once the summary of the Court of Inquiry was made public. This was later modified. They were then ordered not to provide information beyond the precise words of the published summary

[roundhead]

Horse crap.

http://www.libertyincident.com/docs/GagOrdersDebunked.pdf

The last 4 pages of that document is a huge list of mainstream articles about the incident that obviously came from crew interviews. Particularly telling articles show up on June 16th that show that the crew was talking to the press.



Read section 13 of 30 of that pdf file you linked. I am curious as to your assessment of it.




Your BLATANT LIE saying the crew were allowed to speak FREELY of the incident is in dispute with all the facts, and the statement of ADM KIDD.

[SDC]

This has become a "they said X/ those said Y" conversation.

Roundhead, please provide the citation for Findley's comment.

By the way, he definitely has a dog in the fight. He never saw an Israel he didn't want to smack. Try for a better source, one that might be trusted.

[roundhead]

This has become a "they said X/ those said Y" conversation.

Roundhead, please provide the citation for Findley's comment.

By the way, he definitely has a dog in the fight. He never saw an Israel he didn't want to smack. Try for a better source, one that might be trusted.



Frankly, the only thing newsworthy in the Findley article is the Adm Kidd quote. Anything else is just hearsay.. If you dont deny Kidd said that, and that the crew were under strict orders not to discuss the case publically, except in the context of what was allowed to be said, show me proof, otherwise, the instruction regarding this(which a number of crewmembers state)is irrefutable.


I still await an explanation regarding section 13 of the link one of you parrots linked to.



I would also like to be provided a link to ANY CREWMEMBER TESTIFING BEFORE CONGRESS regarding events of that day...




Regarding Israel, i personally think they are way more trouble that they are worth, and should deal with they're own problems and not involve the US in them.

Unlike some i make a distinction, i have a number of Jewish friends, and they are wonderful people.

The Isreali Govt, on the other hand, i could care less about. I like its neighbors equally as much, if not more.

I dont know what that makes me, but thats how i am..Antizionist, perhaps, not not anti Jew.

A number of Jewish friend i have distance themselves from the Israeli govt..the ONLY thing they have in common is religious beliefs. Period.

[Darth Rotor]

The other party(in this case Israel)makes no difference to me.Had it been Ivory Coast, Peru, Canada, it isnt the issue.
Iraqi Mirage shoots missile that hits USS Stark, American sailors die. Saddam fesses up, and makes the mea culpa. Reagan accepts it was a screw up.
The issue is these men were murdered, and we as a country should right this wrong.
Killed, yes, murder is still a thorny, open question due to less than transparent info availability from the Israeli side.

As to "we should right this wrong" what course of action are you advocating? The Israeli government mea culpa'ed and paid reparations. Conspiracy or no, it was their fault.

While I am not convinced of the sincerity of the Israeli response, on the details, there is no question that at the political level their government did own up to the attack.

What more do you want? Please state clearly what would satisfy you.

How the American government handled it, internally, is also worth significant scrutiny. Again, the account I read over twenty years ago of the Attack on the Liberty pointed clearly to significant errors and dropped balls at the Command and Control end.

I have noted a few more posters who cannot seem to stop insinuating that those Liberty crewmen who are not satisfied with how their attack was treated as anti-semites. You are no better that the garden variety anti-semite and CT woo fish.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Yes he is. His account has expanded with the telling.
So you've convinced yourself. You might be interested in a book by another man badly used by his government. It is called Scapegoats of the Empire. http://www.amazon.com/Scapegoats-Empire-Breaker-Bushveldt-Carbineers/dp/0207146667

It informed the screenplay of Breaker Morant. You might find that any number of servicemen who feel abused by their governments have similar reactions.

Why?

Governments lie and their comrades die. It pisses them off. They lived in the context.

Did you?

[SDC]

Crikey. Someone else who has both read "Scapegoats" and seen "Breaker Morant."
There can't be many of us.

[Tbone]

I would also like to be provided a link to ANY CREWMEMBER TESTIFING BEFORE CONGRESS regarding events of that day...

So when you said you wanted the attack to be "investigated" by Congress, this is what you meant. Why can't you just say these things right at the start so we don't have to debate what constitutes an investigationor not by the US government?

[quicknthedead]

If it was as fully and judiciously investigated as purported, there should be no trouble in locating substantiation of findings explaining the US pre-intelligence that showed Israel was going to attack USS Liberty if it was not moved.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...99#post3845299

My bolding. I thought the heart of the matter was THE BELIEF that there was such intelligence. If this is known and documented already, what is the need for further investigation? Just publish the stuff!


Read the link. The documented testimonies are based on pre-intelligence of the attack, and presumably this information can only be obtained from the government. I certainly don't have it. However, a congressional investigation with a few pointed questions might be able to obtain this.

AFAIK there never was any congressional action that attempted to obtain this specific pre-intelligence mentioned by Tate and Stenbit.

Why was this never attempted?

Does government coverup come to mind?

[kookbreaker]

You better reread what you linked to........In no uncertain terms it lays out exactly what can be discussed, and if anything more is asked to reference the Naval authorities in charge.

In short, say exactly what we tell you to. Its extremely clear

Oh horsecrap. Even the section you referred to is referencing security issues. Its not clear at all, especially in light of the all the articles listed at the end!

For guys who claim they were not allowed to talk...they sure were talking!

Heck even Stars and Stripes gave their grudges printspace.

That was weak. Beyond weak. You find some vague reference to restrictions and ignore all the articles showing the crew was talking.

[kookbreaker]

So you've convinced yourself.


The evidence of his changing story convinced me, actually. That was his doing, not mine.


You might be interested in a book by another man badly used by his government. It is called Scapegoats of the Empire. http://www.amazon.com/Scapegoats-Empire-Breaker-Bushveldt-Carbineers/dp/0207146667

It informed the screenplay of Breaker Morant. You might find that any number of servicemen who feel abused by their governments have similar reactions.


And when was Ennes held up as a scapegoat for the Liberty events? He decided to put his version of events on the table. Morant and Ennes are not comparable.


Why?

Governments lie and their comrades die. It pisses them off. They lived in the context.

Did you?

Spare me the 'you weren't there' cheap ploy. Rodriguez was at 911 and performed heroic deeds, but that does not excuse his expanding story

[gumboot]

I found the account of a radioman from the ship interesting regarding the jamming of they're standard frequencies. Had Israel really believed it an Egyptian ship, i find it hard to believe they would have jammed American frequencies.


That's not how jamming works. Presuming a jamming did occur (there's more to refute this than to support it) the Israelis would simply have detected the frequency the suspected Egyptian ship was communicating on and started broadcasting on it.

It should be pointed out, for the ill informed, that jamming is nothing more than deliberate interference (in other words deliberately putting unwanted signal onto a frequency to decrease the signal-noise ratio). Obviously there's ample explanations for interference that don't require deliberate action by the Israelis.

It should be pointed out that at the time the Sixth Fleet (who were allegedly the ones being jammed) were a significant distance away, and more specifically, the Liberty was between the Sixth Fleet and Israel. For Israel to have jammed their frequency they would have needed to broadcast on the frequency at significantly higher power than the Liberty could.

It goes without saying that there's no way fighter/attack aircraft or torpedo boats could produce enough transmission power to out-broadcast a spy ship.

Were a land-based station broadcasting a strong enough signal to jam the Sixth Fleet frequency it would have been ridiculously obvious on the Liberty with their entire radio frequency utterly saturated with extremely loud noises. It certainly wouldn't sound like what the Radio Operator described.

There could, of course be other explanations for jamming (such as a Soviet facility somewhere trying to jam the Sixth Fleet frequency for the heck of it) or more likely it wasn't jamming at all but just regular interference.

ETA. It should be added that throughout the Cold War it was common practise for countries to try and jam other countries broadcasts. The USSR were particularly well known for jamming eastern bloc language programmes being broadcast on various European channels. However in the broadcast race that resulted, as broadcasts and jammers alike increased signal output by increasing power, the end result was spill over into unintended areas.

[roundhead]

From Naval Court of Inquiry testimony of Wayne L. Smith, RMC:"...We did have [radio frequency] jamming in my estimation. I was unable to determine this exactly, but every time it seems when an attack was made on us, or a strafing run, it was preceded by, anywhere from 25 to 30 seconds, carrier on our HiCom circuit, and I had ascertained to check this by calling the transmitter room and they said that they had not keyed the transmitter. This prevailed during the attack and quite a bit after the attack, intermittently."

From Naval Court of Inquiry testimony of Carl Francis Lamkin, CTC: "...I heard [about radio jamming] from Radioman Chief SMITH. He said that definitely that he had notice that the jamming was so loud that he thought at first that it was our transmitters which were malfunctioning but he noted, regardless of frequency, this loud jamming noise. At that time we weren't aware of what they were transmitting at radio central. This is one reason I stressed the fact that the men keep transmitting [distress messages from the transmitter room]."

Naval Court of Inquiry Finding 48: "LIBERTY apparently experienced a phenomenon identified as electronic jamming of her voice radio just prior to and during air attacks. This jamming was described as a steady carrier without modulation."

[beachnut]

From Naval Court of Inquiry testimony of Wayne L. Smith, RMC:"...We did have [radio frequency] jamming in my estimation. I was unable to determine this exactly, but every time it seems when an attack was made on us, or a strafing run, it was preceded by, anywhere from 25 to 30 seconds, carrier on our HiCom circuit, and I had ascertained to check this by calling the transmitter room and they said that they had not keyed the transmitter. This prevailed during the attack and quite a bit after the attack, intermittently."

From Naval Court of Inquiry testimony of Carl Francis Lamkin, CTC: "...I heard [about radio jamming] from Radioman Chief SMITH. He said that definitely that he had notice that the jamming was so loud that he thought at first that it was our transmitters which were malfunctioning but he noted, regardless of frequency, this loud jamming noise. At that time we weren't aware of what they were transmitting at radio central. This is one reason I stressed the fact that the men keep transmitting [distress messages from the transmitter room]."

Naval Court of Inquiry Finding 48: "LIBERTY apparently experienced a phenomenon identified as electronic jamming of her voice radio just prior to and during air attacks. This jamming was described as a steady carrier without modulation."
Do you support all failed CTs, no matter how bad your data and conclusions are? Does this mean you errors you made in the OKC thread will not be acknowledged or corrected by you?

[roundhead]

Do you support all failed CTs, no matter how bad your data and conclusions are? Does this mean you errors you made in the OKC thread will not be acknowledged or corrected by you?



By a huge factor, the evidence is overwhelming the Israeli's knew the ships identity, attacked it anyhow, and in conjunction with the US government, the Israeli's helped cover it up.

Between numerous quotes from US intel professionals, high ups in govt, High Naval officials, and others, its extremely convincing that it was an intentional attack on a US Naval vessel.

No matter your weak and unconvincing arguements to the contrary.

[Loss Leader]

Between numerous quotes from US intel professionals, high ups in govt, High Naval officials, and others, its extremely convincing that it was an intentional attack on a US Naval vessel.


Are you including in that list the US Ambassador who remembers having once heard from another ambassador that he had once seen an English translation of a transcript that he thought showed that the pilots knew the ship was American?

Because he may not be your strongest witness, seeing as he didn't actually witness anything. And the guy he was talking about was already dead.

[roundhead]

Are you including in that list the US Ambassador who remembers having once heard from another ambassador that he had once seen an English translation of a transcript that he thought showed that the pilots knew the ship was American?

Because he may not be your strongest witness, seeing as he didn't actually witness anything. And the guy he was talking about was already dead.



Loss Leader, address this, as noone else has as of yet..

from earlier in this thread



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."

[SDC]

Roundhead, source for the Harman quotes, please. You'll also notice that Harman is only saying that he thinks the Americans have information. He is not confirming that he has been shown any hard evidence by the Americans, or in fact that he had seen any from the Israeli side. He probably got yelled at by the State dept or the like.

ETA: Roundhead, please, please, remember to source statements like these! I'm begging. Don't make me nag and whine. It won't be pretty. Ask my wife.

[kookbreaker]

I'd still like to know how IDF managed this jamming with the planes and ships on scene.

[Loss Leader]

Loss Leader, address this, as noone else has as of yet..



No.

Why should I address your posts when you don't address mine?

Also, from another thread, Elvis?

[roundhead]

Roundhead, source for the Harman quotes, please. You'll also notice that Harman is only saying that he thinks the Americans have information. He is not confirming that he has been shown any hard evidence by the Americans, or in fact that he had seen any from the Israeli side. He probably got yelled at by the State dept or the like.

ETA: Roundhead, please, please, remember to source statements like these! I'm begging. Don't make me nag and whine. It won't be pretty. Ask my wife.

Chicago Tribune....I told you it was earlier in the thread, where it was sourced...lol, and wasnt addressed.


Btw...The quote doesnt say"thinks"...dont water down the quote, it was quite damning



"clear proof that from a certain stage the pilot discovered the identity of the ship and continued the attack anyway."

[SDC]

Btw...The quote doesnt say"thinks"...dont water down the quote, it was quite damning



"clear proof that from a certain stage the pilot discovered the identity of the ship and continued the attack anyway."

Your post did not say he had seen the American evidence. Just that he reported that the Americans had evidence. Granted, "thinks" is my word, but you are making a distinction without a difference. He is only reporting that he thinks, believes, has been told, whatever, that the Americans have evidence. Last time I looked that was a fair way from providing actual evidence. If I were on a jury (as I've been, in both civil and criminal), I would say that without confirmation that wasn't enough.

Also, what does "from a certain stage" mean? Could mean anything. From first thing in the morning or after the ship was already shot up?

Go to the court of public opinion, if Congress won't do what you want. That's your right, obviously.

[roundhead]

Your post did not say he had seen the American evidence. Just that he reported that the Americans had evidence. Granted, "thinks" is my word, but you are making a distinction without a difference. He is only reporting that he thinks, believes, has been told, whatever, that the Americans have evidence. Last time I looked that was a fair way from providing actual evidence. If I were on a jury (as I've been, in both civil and criminal), I would say that without confirmation that wasn't enough.

Also, what does "from a certain stage" mean? Could mean anything. From first thing in the morning or after the ship was already shot up?

Go to the court of public opinion, if Congress won't do what you want. That's your right, obviously.



The Israeli agents statement says that during the attack he became aware it was an American ship and continued the attack anyway. That seems very precise to me.

In other words, it wasnt a day before(when we already have proof they had identified our ship), or that morning(when we already have proof it was on they're situation map). This was DURING THE ATTACK.

If this agent thought enough to tell his powers to be several times we knew they knew, and then add to it the statements of the EC-21 crew, and the corraborated statements of intelligence people in different theatres who read a transcript of the attack, i would say the evidence is overwhelming.

Sadly, as we speak, none of these witnesses has ever been asked to testify before Congress, ever. That in itself is a travesty.

[Doctor Evil]

If this agent thought enough to tell his powers to be several times we knew they knew, and then add to it the statements of the EC-21 crew, and the corraborated statements of intelligence people in different theatres who read a transcript of the attack, i would say the evidence is overwhelming.

You probably meant the EC-121.

We already covered that, on pages 2,3 of the thread, including links to the transcripts we have, and to a detailed evidence of one of the hebrew linguists on the EC-121. Both sources refute your claims. You posted in those pages. Yet here you are, repeating the claims, while ignoring the evidence you did not like. :rolleyes:

[roundhead]

You probably meant the EC-121.

We already covered that, on pages 2,3 of the thread, including links to the transcripts we have, and to a detailed evidence of one of the hebrew linguists on the EC-121. Both sources refute your claims. You posted in those pages. Yet here you are, repeating the claims, while ignoring the evidence you did not like. :rolleyes:


So are you calling this guy on the plane a liar, and that tapes HE made wernt recorded. Remember, other cited in this same part of the story heard the same exact things this guy from the plane heard, even if you exclude Porter and Kilgore as "just having heard about it"

From the Tribune piece:


Indeed, the declassified documents state that no recordings of the "actual attack" exist, raising questions about the source of the transcripts recalled by Forslund, Gotcher, Block, Porter, Lang and Kirby.

The three recordings reflect what the NSA describes as "the aftermath" of the attack -- Israeli communications with two Israeli helicopters dispatched to rescue any survivors who may have jumped into the water.

Two of the recordings were made by Michael Prostinak, a Hebrew linguist aboard a U.S. Navy EC-121, a lumbering propeller-driven aircraft specially equipped to gather electronic intelligence.

But Prostinak said he was certain that more than three recordings were made that day.

"I can tell you there were more tapes than just the three on the Internet," he said. "No doubt in my mind, more than three tapes."

At least one of the missing tapes, Prostinak said, captured Israeli communications "in which people were not just tranquil or taking care of business as normal. We knew that something was being attacked," Prostinak said. "Everyone we were listening to was excited. You know, it was an actual attack. And during the attack was when mention of the American flag was made."

Prostinak acknowledged that his Hebrew was not good enough to understand every word being said, but that after the mention of the American flag "the attack did continue. We copied [recorded] it until we got completely out of range. We got a great deal of it."

Charles Tiffany, the plane's navigator, remembers hearing Prostinak on the plane's intercom system, shouting, "I got something crazy on UHF," the radio frequency band used by the Israeli Air Force.

"I'll never forget it to this day," said Tiffany, now a retired Florida lawyer. He also remembers hearing the plane's pilot ordering the NSA linguists to "start taping everything."

Prostinak said he and the others aboard the plane had been unaware of the Liberty's presence 15,000 feet below, but had concluded that the Israelis' target must be an American ship. "We knew that something was being attacked," Prostinak said.

After listening to the three recordings released by the NSA, Prostinak said it was clear from the sequence in which they were numbered that at least two tapes that had once existed were not there.

[roundhead]

So here is what we have, thus far.


Every crewmember has said the flag was flying and was visible

Israel says it wasnt.

Israel has admitted it knew the ship was in the area the day before.

Israel has admitted the ship was there that morning, that it was on the situation board, and that its "presence"was forgotten or misplaced on the board.

Numerous intelligence types working for the US at the time have stated they saw transcripts of the attack and heard Israeli pilots questioning ATC after noting the ship was American.

The EC-121 guy stating he heard the attacks going on, taped them, his navigator noted him screaming into the planes intercom regarding this, his hearing the American flag mentioned and the attack continuing. His firm ststement that at least two tapes are missing that he recorded and turned into officials after they touched down.

The intercepted cable of an Israeli agent stating we knew Israel attacked on purpose and had identified the ship.

The findings of the Moorer Commision, and its composition of highly regarded militry officers...including the reviewing officer of the Naval Inquiry(Adm Staring)among others.

The Cheif petty officer who listened in on communications between the White House and 6TH fleet, turning our air assets around who were on the way to help.From Morocco.

The hastily arranged Court of Inquiry (held 10 DAYS after the incident), which interviewed only 14 crewmen, and despite its request, no Israeli's.
The fact the reviewing officer WOULDNT sign off on its outcome.

The fact victims families were told it was an accident BEFORE THE INQUIRY WAS EVEN OVER. That should clearly speak to how important getting to the truth was.


These few points alone, and i have chosen only some, leave no doubt the attack was intentional.

[SDC]

Actually Roundhead, once you started posting in the 9/11 area, indicating that you believe "inside job" conspiracy ideas, I decided any information or opinions you provide are not worth accepting or pursuing. On any topic.

Remember, the court of public opinion should be the one you want. Also you should try to make better friends than the 9/11 "Truthers."

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Actually Roundhead, once you started posting in the 9/11 area, indicating that you believe "inside job" conspiracy ideas, I decided any information or opinions you provide are not worth accepting or pursuing. On any topic.

Remember, the court of public opinion should be the one you want. Also you should try to make better friends than the 9/11 "Truthers."

So he's hit all the buttons, has he? Liberty incident, OKC, 9/11, hates Israel... do we even dare ask what Roundhead thinks of the Holocaust casualty figures?

[roundhead]

So he's hit all the buttons, has he? Liberty incident, OKC, 9/11, hates Israel... do we even dare ask what Roundhead thinks of the Holocaust casualty figures?

Actually, you left out a few. I have zero problems with Jews, and plainly stated that, but i do have an extremely unfavorable opinion of the Isreali govt, and that opinion has been held for many years, and through many of they're administrations.
So lets get the facts straight about my opinions, rather thaN miscast them, or outright lie about them.

I am a veteran, love my country, but draw a distinction between love of country and love of administration.
The current administration i have zero love for, they are proven liars, dont represent the views of the majority of Americans(who they are tasked to represent)
Remember, these people work and represent me, not the other way around. The current administration has utterly failed at that. And based on opinion polling, my views represent the mainstream.
I have zero against the Israeli people, nor Americans, obviously, but those who run both countries have issues that arent endearing to me.

Hopefully you are intelligent enough to note the distinctions i raise, above.

And yes, i dont believe the fertilizer bomb did all the damage at OKC. I dont believe the official conspiracy theoty regarding 9/11, and i dont believe the Israeli's attacked the Liberty unaware who they were attacking.

I sleep more soundly at night thinking that if even one person at least digs in to my above opinions because of something i said or typed, ans as a result becomes aware of something he or she might not have otherwise, i have added to whatever it was i accomplished that day.
My perhaps biggest fault is my inability to express myself as well on a keyboard as i can in person. We all have our faults.:D


Believe, i take great solace in the reports of Israeli pilots continually asking for clarification when aware they were attacking our ship. And additionally in the report one pilot actually refused to attack, and was dealt with by Israeli officials.

I have a firm belief all people are basically good, but some in a position of power sometimes use influence to make people do something that is against they're moral convictions. Its a sad truth.

[roundhead]

Actually Roundhead, once you started posting in the 9/11 area, indicating that you believe "inside job" conspiracy ideas, I decided any information or opinions you provide are not worth accepting or pursuing. On any topic.

Remember, the court of public opinion should be the one you want. Also you should try to make better friends than the 9/11 "Truthers."


The first paragraph in you post says enough about you for me to come to the conclusion your opinion of me is of zero value.

Once you decide what somebody believes is grounds to dislike them, you have shown how inept your reasoning process truly is.

I hold no ill opinion of you, regarding your belief in that the Govt is telling the truth. Especially as there is ample proof this administration has lied to us repeatedly, as have others, instead of telling the truth, which we elect and pay them to do.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Actually, you left out a few. I have zero problems with Jews, and plainly stated that, but i do have an extremely unfavorable opinion of the Isreali govt, and that opinion has been held for many years, and through many of they're administrations.
So lets get the facts straight about my opinions, rather thaN miscast them, or outright lie about them.

I am a veteran, love my country, but draw a distinction between love of country and love of administration.
The current administration i have zero love for, they are proven liars, dont represent the views of the majority of Americans(who they are tasked to represent)
Remember, these people work and represent me, not the other way around. The current administration has utterly failed at that. And based on opinion polling, my views represent the mainstream.
I have zero against the Israeli people, nor Americans, obviously, but those who run both countries have issues that arent endearing to me.

Hopefully you are intelligent enough to note the distinctions i raise, above.

And yes, i dont believe the fertilizer bomb did all the damage at OKC. I dont believe the official conspiracy theoty regarding 9/11, and i dont believe the Israeli's attacked the Liberty unaware who they were attacking.

I sleep more soundly at night thinking that if even one person at least digs in to my above opinions because of something i said or typed, ans as a result becomes aware of something he or she might not have otherwise, i have added to whatever it was i accomplished that day.
My perhaps biggest fault is my inability to express myself as well on a keyboard as i can in person. We all have our faults.:D


Believe, i take great solace in the reports of Israeli pilots continually asking for clarification when aware they were attacking our ship. And additionally in the report one pilot actually refused to attack, and was dealt with by Israeli officials.

I have a firm belief all people are basically good, but some in a position of power sometimes use influence to make people do something that is against they're moral convictions. Its a sad truth.

Ah yes, bring up the Holocaust and get the classic long-winded dodge.

Is 6 million (give or take a hundred thousand or so) an accurate figure for the jewish death toll from the Holocaust?
Did the Nazi regime plan and premeditate the Holocaust?
Were gas chambers the weapon of choice for the murders?

You say it's not fair for people who have issues with the Liberty Incident to be called anti-semites. Just say "yes" three times and you can put that issue to bed.

[SDC]

Roundhead, I don't like or dislike you. That is your issue, not mine. If you read my post you will see that I don't trust anything you say, because of your support of 9/11 "truth," which I think is a totally bogus movement. (If "movement" is the right term to use.)

I'd like to believe I've been trying to encourage you to refine your use of evidence. By and large, you seem to rely on distant hearsay and rumors. But I understand now that you don't want or need my encouragement.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I am a veteran, love my country,... I dont believe the official conspiracy theoty regarding 9/11,

By the way, these two statements are contradictory. They are mutually exclusive and incompatible. The 9/11 truth movement is basically "casual treason". You and the rest are covering up for the enemy, convincing the world the enemy doesn't exist. I see no difference between the antics of the twoofers and Jane Fonda having her photo taken at the controls of a weapon system used to kill her countries airmen. If you people are successful, the jihadists will have another clear shot at our exposed hindquarters and you will have indirectly contributed to the deaths of thousands, maybe even millions of US and allied citizens.

I have a deep respect for those who have served in time of war or manned the ramparts in time of peace but the instant "9/11 was an inside job" escapes your lips, you lose any respect or courtesy I may have otherwise accorded you. I leave it to the families of those who did not come home whether or not to forgive you.

[roundhead]

Ah yes, bring up the Holocaust and get the classic long-winded dodge.

Is 6 million (give or take a hundred thousand or so) an accurate figure for the jewish death toll from the Holocaust?
Did the Nazi regime plan and premeditate the Holocaust?
Were gas chambers the weapon of choice for the murders?

You say it's not fair for people who have issues with the Liberty Incident to be called anti-semites. Just say "yes" three times and you can put that issue to bed.



What a disgusting post.......


I have no idea, other than published reports, how many Jews perished in death camps at the hands of the Nazi's and Hitler. Millions did.

More than one perishing just because he was a Jew is one to many, imo.

Gas chambers were only one method of Killing the Nazi's used. Guns, medical experiments and others were used as well. I despise any and all of them.

Regarding the Liberty incident, its my take that any coutry that had done the same thing could be substituted, and i would equally despise the incident, and the lack of follow up(and in fact a major coverup by the US regarding the incident) I consider my Govt's abandonment of those sailors just as distastefull, if not more so. Its unpardonable.

Israel is a very unique country as regards the US and world politics. It has by far the biggest and most vocal(and most influential lobby)of any other country in the world as it affects US policy.
There is no changing that, and as i have issue with some Israel policy, it follows it bothers me that a foreign country is so influential in our policy.
It is what it is.
Again, i harbor no ill will toward the Israeli people, or Jews in general, just as i harbor no ill will toward Muslims or Catholics or anybody else.

You seem to equate having a strong distaste towards Israili policy as hating Jews, that makes absolutely no sense to me.

Heck i like Cubans, have met many, but Castro is an idiot.

I guess, to sum it up, i like nobody who doesnt have American citizens interests first and foremost.

[roundhead]

Roundhead, I don't like or dislike you. That is your issue, not mine. If you read my post you will see that I don't trust anything you say, because of your support of 9/11 "truth," which I think is a totally bogus movement. (If "movement" is the right term to use.)

I'd like to believe I've been trying to encourage you to refine your use of evidence. By and large, you seem to rely on distant hearsay and rumors. But I understand now that you don't want or need my encouragement.

AH, a civil reply:D



Look, i admit to not being the most highly educated person on the planet. My background basically consists of Computer hardware troubleshooting in both the USN and for Wang Labs, and currently as the co-owner of a car dealership.

I am in my early 50's, and not to brag, but have seen and done pretty much anything and everything. Travelled all over the world, both in the service and since, and consider myself to be well above average at evaluating people and coming to the correct conclusions in short order.
The above skills, or lack thereof, are what i bring to the table.

Having really not gotten involved AT ALL regards 9/11 till about 2.5 years ago, i had no reason to doubt the official verdict of events. I mean that sincerely.

I happened to come across a video somewhere that showed 7 coming down and an imploded building coming down, as reference.
I looked at that, thought about it, and quickly came to the conclusion(like anybody with any common sense who has seen it would)that the explanation didnt fit the features of its demise.
I looked around more, and at seemingly every turn, pieces just plain didnt fit. I have become over time, 100% convinced 911 is not described accurately by the official narrative.
I have yet to figure out how exactly the events were orchestrated, and not being privvy to a mountain of evidence that would allow an ironclad conclusion to be drawn, continue to read and study and watch how this plays out.

One little thing that really got my attention a couple of years ago really set my "parity bit"....I believe it was Griffin who was being interviewed by Tucker Carlson on mainstream TV. Griffin had made it known he was going to show the demise of 7, this had been discussed and apparently agreed upon, and didnt happen.

It made me wonder. If a 1/2 hour show was run on like say CBS, and a guy like Griffin was allowed to show 7's demise and show bildings being demolished along with it, what a post show poll of viewers would reveal.
My guess is it would be fatal to the Govt.
For being such a truly hot topic throughout the world, and here in the US, with thousands of websites and chatrooms dedicated to just 9/11, how the MSM cant have an interest in it, if its popularity is so viral.
The answer is of course obvious.

[roundhead]

AH, a civil reply:D



Look, i admit to not being the most highly educated person on the planet. My background basically consists of Computer hardware troubleshooting in both the USN and for Wang Labs, and currently as the co-owner of a car dealership.

I am in my early 50's, and not to brag, but have seen and done pretty much anything and everything. Travelled all over the world, both in the service and since, and consider myself to be well above average at evaluating people and coming to the correct verdict in short order. My current way of making a living requires the above. I am quite sucessful as a result of that skill.
The above skills, or lack thereof, are what i bring to the table.

Having really not gotten involved AT ALL regards 9/11 till about 2.5 years ago, i had no reason to doubt the official verdict of events. I mean that sincerely.

I happened to come across a video somewhere that showed 7 coming down and an imploded building coming down, as reference.
I looked at that, thought about it, and quickly came to the conclusion(like anybody with any common sense who has seen it would)that the explanation didnt fit the features of its demise.
I looked around more, and at seemingly every turn, pieces just plain didnt fit. I have become over time, 100% convinced 911 is not described accurately by the official narrative.
I have yet to figure out how exactly the events were orchestrated, and not being privvy to a mountain of evidence that would allow an ironclad conclusion to be drawn, continue to read and study and watch how this plays out.

One little thing that really got my attention a couple of years ago really set my "parity bit"....I believe it was Griffin who was being interviewed by Tucker Carlson on mainstream TV. Griffin had made it known he was going to show the demise of 7, this had been discussed and apparently agreed upon, and didnt happen.

It made me wonder. If a 1/2 hour show was run on like say CBS, and a guy like Griffin was allowed to show 7's demise and show buildings being demolished along with it, what a post show poll of viewers would reveal.
My guess is it would be fatal to the Govt.
For being such a truly hot topic throughout the world, and here in the US, with thousands of websites and chatrooms dedicated to just 9/11, how the MSM cant have an interest in it, if its popularity is so viral.
The answer is of course obvious.
At least to me

[roundhead]

By the way, these two statements are contradictory. They are mutually exclusive and incompatible. The 9/11 truth movement is basically "casual treason". You and the rest are covering up for the enemy, convincing the world the enemy doesn't exist. I see no difference between the antics of the twoofers and Jane Fonda having her photo taken at the controls of a weapon system used to kill her countries airmen. If you people are successful, the jihadists will have another clear shot at our exposed hindquarters and you will have indirectly contributed to the deaths of thousands, maybe even millions of US and allied citizens.

I have a deep respect for those who have served in time of war or manned the ramparts in time of peace but the instant "9/11 was an inside job" escapes your lips, you lose any respect or courtesy I may have otherwise accorded you. I leave it to the families of those who did not come home whether or not to forgive you.


And see, i come to quite a different conclusion.As i believe my govt conspired to perpetrate 9/11, for its own interests, such as an ill advised war based on untruths against a country who had zero to do with 9/11. Iraq.And fooolishly, oil and resources. Pity even that didnt work out, or at least evidently wont.
Only an event like 9/11 could have galvanised the American public to follow along with such a folly.
It certainly isnt the first time innocent Americans were sacrificed to further a governmental aim, but hopefully its the last.
I see a large number of victims families behind seeking the truth, wherever that might lead, some such as the Jersey Girls and others less vocal. I feel for those people, shouting to the very commision set up to get to the bottom of this mess, that so many question fell on deaf ears, or just plain were ignored.
I leave my views for God to decide, but i can assure you, my beliefs regarding 9/11 surely wont scare me come judgement day, to the contrary, i think God will give me a brownie point in that area.

My hero's are guys like Pepper, who in no uncertain terms uncovered one of just many Govt lies, the death of MLK, a true patriot.
My only hope is that a groundswell of intelligence will develope, so that, once again, our govt will answer only to the best interests of its citizens, and the Constitution it was founded on.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

AH, a civil reply:D



Look, i admit to not being the most highly educated person on the planet. My background basically consists of Computer hardware troubleshooting in both the USN and for Wang Labs, and currently as the co-owner of a car dealership.

I am in my early 50's, and not to brag, but have seen and done pretty much anything and everything. Travelled all over the world, both in the service and since, and consider myself to be well above average at evaluating people and coming to the correct conclusions in short order.
The above skills, or lack thereof, are what i bring to the table.

Having really not gotten involved AT ALL regards 9/11 till about 2.5 years ago, i had no reason to doubt the official verdict of events. I mean that sincerely.

I happened to come across a video somewhere that showed 7 coming down and an imploded building coming down, as reference.
I looked at that, thought about it, and quickly came to the conclusion(like anybody with any common sense who has seen it would)that the explanation didnt fit the features of its demise.
I looked around more, and at seemingly every turn, pieces just plain didnt fit. I have become over time, 100% convinced 911 is not described accurately by the official narrative.
I have yet to figure out how exactly the events were orchestrated, and not being privvy to a mountain of evidence that would allow an ironclad conclusion to be drawn, continue to read and study and watch how this plays out.

One little thing that really got my attention a couple of years ago really set my "parity bit"....I believe it was Griffin who was being interviewed by Tucker Carlson on mainstream TV. Griffin had made it known he was going to show the demise of 7, this had been discussed and apparently agreed upon, and didnt happen.

It made me wonder. If a 1/2 hour show was run on like say CBS, and a guy like Griffin was allowed to show 7's demise and show bildings being demolished along with it, what a post show poll of viewers would reveal.
My guess is it would be fatal to the Govt.
For being such a truly hot topic throughout the world, and here in the US, with thousands of websites and chatrooms dedicated to just 9/11, how the MSM cant have an interest in it, if its popularity is so viral.
The answer is of course obvious.

Replied to in the appropriate sub-forum. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119388)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What a disgusting post.......


I have no idea, other than published reports, how many Jews perished in death camps at the hands of the Nazi's and Hitler. Millions did.

How many millions, Roundhead?

[LukeB]

I have no idea, other than published reports, how many Jews perished in death camps at the hands of the Nazi's and Hitler. Millions did.

How many millions, Roundhead?

Seems to me he already answered. I know, I know, this is the conspiracy forum and we must always assume that anyone who holds crank views is a lunatic anti-semitic neo-Nazi (redundant?).
I'm sure there's a logical fallacy in asking irrelevent questions to smear your opponent though. Poisoning the well maybe?

[roundhead]

How many millions, Roundhead?


6 Million seems to be the number i have heard most often......

[quicknthedead]

How many millions, Roundhead?

Sword Of Truth, you would do better sticking to arguments surrounding facts and details instead of going at Roundhead's credibility.

Roundhead seems to do this, so why don't you.

Attacking a person's "credibility" is better left for the courtroom, because in logic, it is simply fallacious.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sword Of Truth, you would do better sticking to arguments surrounding facts and details instead of going at Roundhead's credibility.

Roundhead seems to do this, so why don't you.

Attacking a person's "credibility" is better left for the courtroom, because in logic, it is simply fallacious.

There is little I can do to roundheads credibility that he hasn't already done himself.

[roundhead]

To put even an finer point on the already overwhelming evidence the Israeli attack on the Liberty was intentional, i cite the "Salans Memorandum" on the incident.
Carl Salans was the legal advisor to the US Secretary of State. Per the Secretary's request,Salans compared the reports of the Israeli Judge, the Naval Court of Inquiry, and the Clifford report, and issued these findings, among others.

This report in full can be found at, among other places....http://www.gtr5.com/evidence/salans.htm


"The Israeli report states that the initial speed of the target reported by the torpedo boat commander at 1341 hours as 30 knots was verified within minutes and confirmed as a speed of 28 knots. The report notes that it was the speed of the target which led to the final conclusion that there was no reason for surmising that the target could possibly be the Liberty.

The reported speed would have ruled out the "El Kasir" as the target, as well as the Liberty since the top speed of the "Kasir", published in Janes Fighting Ships, is in the range of 14 knots. The Liberty's top speed is 18 knots"



"The Israeli report emphasizes that the attack originated with reports that the El Arish area was being shelled from the sea. The implication of such reports was obviously that a ship capable of such shelling was present in the immediate offshore area, i.e., within gun range of the shore.

It would be clear to any trained observer that the armament aboard the Liberty was incapable of shore bombardment. It appears nevertheless that neither the aircraft, torpedo boats, nor the command headquarters to which they presumably reported evaluated the ship's capability for shore bombardment."




IV. Attack by Torpedo Boat After "Do Not Attack" Order

The Israeli report confirms that during the final attack by aircraft the marking "CPR-5" was noted on the hull and an order was transmitted to the torpedo boat division not to attack. The order was recorded in the log book of the flag boat at approximately 1420 hours. The torpedo boats nevertheless began their attack run at approximately 1428. The Division Commander later "claimed that no such message ever reached him." The Deputy Commander testified that "he received the message and passed it on to the Division Commander."



V. Flag and Identification Markings

The Israeli report indicates that the fighter aircraft which reportedly made an initial pass over the Liberty was looking for a flag but found none; likewise no other identification mark was observed. "...Throughout the contact no American or any other flag appeared on the ship...." (Elsewhere the report had indicated that at 1055 the ship had been identified as the Liberty "whose marking was GTR-5.")

The Navy inquiry confirms by testimony of five members of the crew that they had personally observed the Ensign flying during the entire morning and up until the air attack. The Ensign was subsequently shot away during the air attack. Before the torpedo attack, a second Ensign was hoisted. The Navy report also found that "hull markings were clear and freshly painted."

The Clifford report noted that "the Liberty's U.S. Navy's distinguishing letters and number were painted clearly on her bow. The Liberty's name was clearly painted in English on her stern. The ship's configuration and her standard markings were clearly sufficient for reconnaissance aircraft and waterborne vessels to identify her correctly...." The report noted that at all times prior to the air attack the Liberty was flying her normal size American flag (5 ft. by 8 ft.) at the masthead.

Five minutes prior to the attack by the torpedo boats, the Liberty put up a flag measuring 7 ft. by 13 ft. to replace the flag which had been shot down in the air attack.




Anybody who truly believes with ANY sincerity the attack wasnt intentional, is beyond the realm of sanity.

[Tbone]

You cite the same points over and over from different sources as if they somehow change or become new. The torpedo boats returned fire after the Liberty, they did not open fire; assuming Israeli regulations even called for the recon planes to evaluate armament on a potential target, not doing so is a case of incompetence, not conpsiracy; and again, it does not matter a lick that the American sailors knew what was painted on their hull, all that matters is what the Israeli planes saw. And to prove this, you need a bit more than transcripts someone said someone who might have seen them told them about.

[Caustic Logic]

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? Fuleair, I had no idea, Quicknthedead, strong argument, much respect, and an actual Liberty Survivor (we must presume anyhoo). Wow. Why is it not tagged and searchable as USS Liberty here at an educational forum? Someone should fix that.

[I’m particularly interested in someone employing these techniques in analyzing the research of Jay Cristol as codified in his book, The Liberty Incident

Warmest regards,

Joe Meadors
USS Liberty Survivor
joe@ussliberty.com

A much belated welcome, sir!

It's a long thread, did anyone take a close look at Cristol's work? That would be interesting.

You assume much here. I suggest you pop to a few of my posts on Israel and Israelis before making that assumption - because I was around when it happened and heard about it at the time and have seen/heard/read about it very much over the 41 years since it happened - and I am 90%* certain that it was known (that it was a US ship) to the Israelis at the time of the attacks- but I am in no way anti-Semitic and loathe those who are. I don't know the two guys who are agreeing on this - and I have no idea why now - but that they bring it up does not make them anti-semitic to me. They will have to go beyond this for that to happen.


*Two years ago I was 100% certain.

This guy, sounds human to me. :thumbsup:

[Caustic Logic]

Actually Roundhead, once you started posting in the 9/11 area, indicating that you believe "inside job" conspiracy ideas, I decided any information or opinions you provide are not worth accepting or pursuing. On any topic.

What if I seconded them? Would you give it a thought then? What on here is not troubling to you and the friendly fire fantasy? (Great work here, Roundhead, I'm quite surprised to be honest)

So here is what we have, thus far.


Every crewmember has said the flag was flying and was visible

Israel says it wasnt.

Israel has admitted it knew the ship was in the area the day before.

Israel has admitted the ship was there that morning, that it was on the situation board, and that its "presence"was forgotten or misplaced on the board.

Numerous intelligence types working for the US at the time have stated they saw transcripts of the attack and heard Israeli pilots questioning ATC after noting the ship was American.

The EC-121 guy stating he heard the attacks going on, taped them, his navigator noted him screaming into the planes intercom regarding this, his hearing the American flag mentioned and the attack continuing. His firm ststement that at least two tapes are missing that he recorded and turned into officials after they touched down.

The intercepted cable of an Israeli agent stating we knew Israel attacked on purpose and had identified the ship.

The findings of the Moorer Commision, and its composition of highly regarded militry officers...including the reviewing officer of the Naval Inquiry(Adm Staring)among others.

The Cheif petty officer who listened in on communications between the White House and 6TH fleet, turning our air assets around who were on the way to help.From Morocco.

The hastily arranged Court of Inquiry (held 10 DAYS after the incident), which interviewed only 14 crewmen, and despite its request, no Israeli's.
The fact the reviewing officer WOULDNT sign off on its outcome.

The fact victims families were told it was an accident BEFORE THE INQUIRY WAS EVEN OVER. That should clearly speak to how important getting to the truth was.


These few points alone, and i have chosen only some, leave no doubt the attack was intentional.

Lemme guess - 'ever since you started praising Roundhead...'

[Caustic Logic]

Cool, someone got a tag on here. SDC, challenge stands, if you care to address anything. All else: Apologies for going off here on two different threads now, and for having succumbed to that ‘weird energy’ thing. With this mini-essay I’ll go silent as well until someone else speaks up (aside from roundhead). So I’d been harping on the issue over at UnloVed Rebel’s thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139480), hoping to get a good discussion going and see if any rational JREF members would be able to admit there is at least cause for grave concern here. I was frustrated less by the faith-based coincidence theorizing I saw than by the lack of interest – just a few members took the time to even tell me I was wrong. But this old thread contains the battle I missed – it feels like – well, the smoking deck of a warship that’s just seen serious battle. Little wonder so few are eager to revive the discussion. It was more pitched than I’d expect.

Those who argue essentially the Israeli case with at least more than a drive-by one-liner dismissal: Gumboot, Kookbreaker, Dave Rogers, MRC Hans, Doctor Evil, van dutch, SDC, and the rest… wanted to thank everyone who stepped up and added to the discussion. Kudos, some genuine food for thought that the other side might want to go back and reconsider.

Those who can clearly see the implausibility of the accident upon accident story - with their own blinspots, of course: Quicknthedead, fuelair, jmeadors, a unique person, Darth Rotor, Cpt. Fantastic, Magz, and of course Roundhead. Thankfully, not one appearance from D Charmichael. Many of these are not of the standard CT crowd, though my knowledge of each’s posting history is limited. It’s fairly mixed company to be in - I was a little surprised.

But then again, the same basic sentiments can be found stated outside the intertubes by former CIA and NSA directors, CNO/CincPAC/CinCUS/CJCS, State Department, White House, Navy, Airforce, and intelligence people at different levels, pretty unanimously the survivors who were the only ones (on this side) that saw it firsthand, That’s a lot of buzz for something a few erred sailors made up to explain away the horror of friendly fire – some smart people cannot accept that, and it’s reflected here at the forum as well.

Aside from the startling number of intelligent, non-kooky people who side with the Liberty crew, another striking thing is the seriousness with which the “nutters” here take the issue. We see essays rebutted with bumper stickers and links to the same old pro-Israel sites spewing the same slender thread of tired half-truths.

Perhaps most troubling is the polarization of opinions. I’ve seen roughly zero people say “I honestly don’t understand the issue, I’ve heard some evidence that’s troubling, but I can’t see the motive, and I’d like to learn more.” No, everyone who knows enough to say anything seems to have it all figured out. How many members at this forum? That's how many ears and how many fingers plugged in 'em?

I have to say I don’t have it all figured out – like with my Pearl Harbor investigation, I’m finding this case more ambiguous than it at first seemed. There's the evidence, partial tho it is, showing no orders to sink the American ship or anything like that. There's past precedent for friendly fire incidents to call on, and there's the fact that Israel "admitted" to a "mistake" they themselves proposed as an explanation. Oh, and paid someone some money. I’m willing to concede that at least some witness memories may well be warped, and then reinforced into mantras – guys will perhaps clearly recall seeing something they only heard someone else say they saw, and so on… There's the almost over-done ‘under-the-breath’ complaints from Washington insiders, on top of the curious string of American blunders that made the IDF’s blunderkrieg attack possible.

In short, both sides - case not closed. This is not yet 'conspiracy fact,' nor is 'eveything explained.' The ‘conspiracy theory’ just won’t die, some are alarmed to learn. I’m reminded of an old SNL skit with a Condor, IIRC, that smacked into someone’s deck and was injured – mortally, they decided. They decided to be merciful and finish it off with a baseball bat, but the bird just won’t die, with blood everywhere, like 100 blows. It was uncomfortable funny, stuck with me, and pops up here – if the ting just won’t die, shouldn’t you ask yourself whether it should? Do you keep hitting it and trying to ‘’finish it off,’ or stop, wrap it in towels, and get it to the hospital?

[malcolmxwarrior]

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.

If you want to know the facts behind the liberty watch http://www.911missinglinks.com/

[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://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4599520&postcount=53

[Caustic Logic]

I vaguely remember mentioning it to you here:
http://forums.randi.org/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. :confused:
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 (http://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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism) 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".

[roundhead]

Even the most cursory research, e.g., Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism) 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".



The Liberty was attacked on purpose, brave US servicemen died because of it.

I have zero use for any Govt that would do that.

It just so happens that Israel was behind this attack, so its them i hate because of it. Had it been Germany, i would hate them equally.

I could care less what religion somebody is, but i do care about US servicemen getting killed and a foreign govt out right lying about it.

[malcolmxwarrior]

The Liberty was attacked on purpose, brave US servicemen died because of it.

I have zero use for any Govt that would do that.

It just so happens that Israel was behind this attack, so its them i hate because of it. Had it been Germany, i would hate them equally.

I could care less what religion somebody is, but i do care about US servicemen getting killed and a foreign govt out right lying about it.

I agree. I do not care what you do in the privacy of your own home. You can worship cheese crackers for all I care.

But when a small group rule the masses, THAT bothers me. And that has bothered great men through history.

Whether they are freemasons or "jesuits", or jews or zionists or NWO. Whatever.

A small percentage of the population call themselves a race and a religion. They also happen to be in the highest positions of power. chairman of the fed, advisors to the president of the US, lawyers, District attorneys "border Czars" and the list goes on and on.

I DO have a problem with that.

I DO have a problem with my countrymen fighting a war that has nothing to do with our national security but for ANOTHER NATIONS security.

I DO have a problem with that.

[Thunder]

A small percentage of the population call themselves a race and a religion. They also happen to be in the highest positions of power. chairman of the fed, advisors to the president of the US, lawyers, District attorneys "border Czars" and the list goes on and on.

I DO have a problem with that.


why do you have a problem with Jewish-Americans holding positions of power in the USA?

did it bother you when a Jewish-American was the Secretary of Agriculture under Clinton?

why?

I am not black, but I am not bothered that a black man is the Attorney General. I am also not bothered that a black man is President.

A black man is also my Governor. As is my City Comptroller, and the the head of the New York State Senate. None of this bothers me. Should it?

Should I be worried that all these black men in power might be secretly working ONLY towards the interest of black people??

White Anglo-Saxon Protestants are NOT the majority of this country. They once were, but not any more. Yet they still wield great power in the USA. Should we be worried about WASP power???

[malcolmxwarrior]

Even the most cursory research, e.g., Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism) 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".

Nice spin.

But no, you are wrong. Jews will use that as a lame attempt to discredit someone.

Using the term zionist is to separate, because obviously not all jews are zionists.

I will come straight out and say it.

But many PC people and others will play along and criticize zionists or neocons, but then some jew or jew appeaser will call them an "anti-semite"

So it's best to just get it out of the way so you don't have to peddle to their schemes.

[malcolmxwarrior]

why do you have a problem with Jewish-Americans holding positions of power in the USA?

did it bother you when a Jewish-American was the Secretary of Agriculture under Clinton?

why?

I am not black, but I am not bothered that a black man is the Attorney General. I am also not bothered that a black man is President.

A black man is also my Governor. As is my City Comptroller, and the the head of the New York State Senate. None of this bothers me. Should it?


Well, they have taken the country to hell and a basket.


Well, them and their goys.

[Thunder]

Well, they have taken the country to hell and a basket.


have we? is it our fault that the nation is full of fools who got mortgages they cant afford?

is it the Jews fault whenever something goes wrong in the USA?

you seem to feel that way.

is there NOTHING good the Jews...or any single Jew..has done for the USA?

nothing???

[malcolmxwarrior]

Should I be worried that all these black men in power might be secretly working ONLY towards the interest of black people??

You see, you can't compare the two.

Blacks aren't using the united states as a vehicle to carry wicked acts in Palestine.

It must be said, and yes there are exceptions to every rule, but jews are some of the racist people on earth. That is a just a fact. We gave them their own country and look what they did with it?

These jews are racist, hateful people. Obviously there are exceptions but just to comment on the fact that two of the most crude racist jews I have seen/heard, are don rickles and jackie mason.

But hey, watch me get suspended for what I just wrote.

Parky has said some of the worst things about jesus I have ever heard, but watch, *I* will be the one suspended. [/Rant

I apologize for derailing the thread :(

[malcolmxwarrior]

have we? is it our fault that the nation is full of fools who got mortgages they cant afford?

is it the Jews fault whenever something goes wrong in the USA?

you seem to feel that way.

is there NOTHING good the Jews...or any single Jew..has done for the USA?

nothing???

Hmmm....

I'll try.


Mila Kunis is one hot HOT piece of A$$!

Seeing her on the screen is good.

I think that's it.

[Thunder]

how about the Polio vaccine?

how about the combustion engine automobile?

how about those lovely nutrition labels on all foods and beverages?

now...what wonderful things have African-Americans done for the USA? hmmm????

here is a list of famous Jewish-American biologists, physicians, and other scientists:



Richard Axel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Axel), olfactory system, Nobel Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Physiology_or_Medicine) (2004)
Julius Axelrod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Axelrod), neurotransmitters, Nobel Prize (1970)
David Baltimore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Baltimore), reverse transcriptase, Nobel Prize (1975)
Baruj Benacerraf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruj_Benacerraf), immunologist, Nobel Prize (1980)
M. A. Benjaminson, microbiologist and biotechnologist, in vitro meat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat) pioneer
Paul Berg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Berg), recombinant DNA, Nobel Prize (1980)
Konrad Bloch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Bloch), cholesterol, Nobel Prize (1959)
Baruch Blumberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Blumberg), hepatitis B vaccine, Nobel Prize (1976)
Michael S. Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Brown), molecular geneticist, Nobel Prize (1985)
Stanley Cohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Cohen), neurologist, Nobel Prize (1986)
Stanley N. Cohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_N._Cohen), genetic engineering
Gerty Cori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerty_Cori), biochemist, Nobel Prize (1947)
Jared Diamond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond), evolutionary biologist & biogeographer
Carl Djerassi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Djerassi), contraceptive pill
Gerald Edelman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Edelman), biologist, Nobel Prize (1972)
Gertrude Elion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertrude_Elion), drug development, Nobel Prize (1988)
Joseph Erlanger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Erlanger), physiologist, Nobel Prize (1945)
Edmond H. Fischer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_H._Fischer), biochemist, Nobel Prize (1992) (Jewish father)
Judah Folkman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Folkman), cancer angiogenesis
Casimir Funk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_Funk), vitamins
Robert F. Furchgott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Furchgott), pharmacologist, Nobel Prize (1998)
Herbert Gasser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Gasser), physiologist, Nobel Prize (1945) (Jewish father)
Alfred G. Gilman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_G._Gilman), biochemist, Nobel Prize (1994)
Joseph L. Goldstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_L._Goldstein), molecular geneticist, Nobel Prize (1985)
Paul Greengard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Greengard), neuroscientist, Nobel Prize (1990)
Stephen Jay Gould (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould), evolutionary biologist & writer
Michael Heidelberger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Heidelberger), immunochemist
H. Robert Horvitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Robert_Horvitz), biologist, Nobel Prize (2002)
Jerome Horowitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Horowitz), AZT
Eric R. Kandel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_R._Kandel), neuroscientist, Nobel Prize (2000)
Charles Kelman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kelman), cataract surgery
Arthur Kornberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kornberg), DNA replication, Nobel Prize (1959)
Roger Kornberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Kornberg), RNA transcription, Nobel Prize (2006) (son of Arthur Kornberg)
Eric Lander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lander), Human Genome Project
Esther Lederberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Lederberg), geneticist [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_biologists_and_physicians# cite_note-0)
Joshua Lederberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Lederberg), molecular biologist, Nobel Prize (1958)
Rita Levi-Montalcini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rita_Levi-Montalcini), neurologist, Nobel Prize (1986)
Richard Lewontin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin), evolutionary biologist
Fritz Lipmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Lipmann), coenzyme A, Nobel Prize (1953)
Otto Loewi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Loewi), acetylcholine, Nobel Prize (1936)
Abraham Low (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Low), neuropsychiatrist, Recovery International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_International) founder
Salvador Luria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Luria), bacterial evolution, Nobel Prize (1969)
Lynn Margulis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis), Gaia theory
Matthew Meselson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Meselson), DNA replication
A. L. Mestel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._L._Mestel), pediatric surgeon, separation of conjoined twins (1968)
Otto Meyerhof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Meyerhof), glycolysis, Nobel Prize (1922)
Stanley Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Miller), Miller-Urey experiment
Hermann Muller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Muller), geneticist, Nobel Prize (1946) (Jewish mother)
Daniel Nathans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Nathans), microbiologist, Nobel Prize (1978)
Marshall Nirenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Nirenberg), genetic code, Nobel Prize (1968)
Gregory Pincus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Pincus), contraceptive pill
Karl Pribram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Pribram), neurologist
Stanley Prusiner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Prusiner), neurologist, Nobel Prize (1997)
Martin Rodbell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rodbell), biochemist, Nobel Prize (1994)
Albert Sabin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Sabin), oral polio vaccine
Jonas Salk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk), polio vaccine
Andrew V. Schally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_V._Schally), endocrinologist, Nobel Prize (1977)
Albert Schatz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schatz_%28scientist%29), streptomycin
Béla Schick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9la_Schick), diphtheria test
Rudolf Schoenheimer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Schoenheimer), radioactive tracers
Alexander Shulgin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Shulgin), pharmacologist, populariser of ecstasy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecstasy_%28drug%29)
Leo Sternbach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Sternbach), valium
Howard Temin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Temin), reverse transcriptase, Nobel Prize (1975)
Max Tishler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tishler), synthetic vitamins
Harold Varmus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Varmus), virologist, Nobel Prize (1989)
George Wald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wald), retina pigmentation, Nobel Prize (1967)
Selman Waksman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selman_Waksman), streptomycin, Nobel Prize (1952)
Charles Weissmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Weissmann), interferon cloning
Alexander S. Wiener (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_S._Wiener) hematologist and co-discoverer of the Rh factor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhesus_blood_group_system)
Rosalyn Yalow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalyn_Yalow), medical physicist, Nobel Prize (1977)
Charles Yanofsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Yanofsky), geneticist




Ralph Alpher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Alpher), background radiation, nucleosynthesis
John Bahcall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bahcall), astrophysicist
Hans Bethe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Bethe), nuclear physicist, Nobel Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Physics) (1967) (Jewish mother)
Felix Bloch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Bloch), nuclear physicist, Nobel Prize (1952) (naturalized citizen)
David Bohm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm), quantum physicist, philosopher of science
Gregory Breit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Breit), physicist
Leon Cooper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Cooper), BCS theory, Nobel Prize (1972)
Albert Einstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein) ((German)) theoretical physicist, Nobel Prize (1921) (naturalized citizen)
Paul Sophus Epstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Sophus_Epstein), theoretical physicist, quantum mechanics
Herman Feshbach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Feshbach), nuclear physicist
Richard P. Feynman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_P._Feynman), physicist, Nobel Prize (1965)
David Finkelstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Finkelstein), physicist
James Franck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Franck), physicist, Nobel Prize (1925)
Edward Fredkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Fredkin), digital physicist
Jerome Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Friedman), physicist, Nobel Prize (1990)
Murray Gell-Mann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Gell-Mann), quarks, Nobel Prize (1969)
Sheldon Glashow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Glashow), physicist, Nobel Prize (1979)
Donald A. Glaser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_A._Glaser), bubble chamber, Nobel Prize (1960)
Roy Glauber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Glauber), physicist, Nobel Prize (2005)
Samuel Goudsmit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Goudsmit), electron spin
Brian Greene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Greene), string theorist
Herbert Goldstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Goldstein), Columbia physicist, author of standard textbook on classical mechanics.
David Gross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gross), string theorist, Nobel Prize (2004)
Alan Guth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth), cosmic inflation
Eugene Guth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Guth), polymer physics, nuclear physics, solid state physics
Robert Herman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Herman), cosmology, background radiation, operations research
Robert Hofstadter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hofstadter), physicist, Nobel Prize (1961)
Herman Kahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Kahn), nuclear physicist
Theodore von Kármán (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_von_K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n), aeronautical engineer
Daniel Kleppner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kleppner), atomic research
Walter Kohn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Kohn), physicist, Nobel Prize (1998)
Rudolf Kompfner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Kompfner), engineer and physicist
Cornelius Lanczos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Lanczos), mathematical physicist [3] (http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%7Ehistory/Biographies/Lanczos.html)
Rolf Landauer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf_Landauer), physicist, information theory
Leon M. Lederman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_M._Lederman), physicist, Nobel Prize (1988)
David Morris Lee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Morris_Lee), superfluidity, Nobel Prize (1996)
Fritz London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_London), quantum chemistry
Theodore Maiman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Maiman), first operable laser
Albert Michelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Michelson), speed of light, Nobel Prize (1907)
Ben Roy Mottelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Roy_Mottelson), physicist, Nobel Prize (1975)
Frank Oppenheimer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Oppenheimer), nuclear physicist (brother of Robert)
Robert Oppenheimer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Oppenheimer), nuclear physicist (brother of Frank)
Douglas D. Osheroff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_D._Osheroff), superfluidity, Nobel Prize (1996)
Jeremiah P. Ostriker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_P._Ostriker), astrophysicist
Abraham Pais (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Pais), historian of science
Wolfgang Pauli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Pauli), nuclear physicist, Nobel Prize (1945) (Jewish father, half-Jewish mother) (naturalized citizen)
Arno Allan Penzias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_Allan_Penzias), background radiation, Nobel Prize (1978)
Martin Lewis Perl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Lewis_Perl), physicist, Nobel Prize (1995)
H. David Politzer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._David_Politzer), physicist, Nobel Prize (2004)
Isidor Isaac Rabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isidor_Isaac_Rabi), physicist, Nobel Prize (1944) (naturalized citizen)
Simon Ramo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Ramo), physicist, engineer
Mark G. Raizen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_G._Raizen), physicist, quantum physics
Sidney Redner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Redner), statistical physics
Frederick Reines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Reines), neutrino experiment, Nobel Prize (1995)
Burton Richter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burton_Richter), physicist, Nobel Prize (1976)
Carl Sagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan), astronomer & science popularizer
Arthur Schawlow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schawlow), laser spectroscopy, Nobel Prize (1981) (Jewish father)
John H. Schwarz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Schwarz), string theorist
Melvin Schwartz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_Schwartz), physicist, Nobel Prize (1988)
Julian Schwinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Schwinger), quantum physicist, Nobel Prize (1965)
Emilio G. Segrè (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilio_G._Segr%C3%A8), anti-proton, Nobel Prize (1959) (naturalized citizen)
Lee Smolin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin), loop quantum gravity
Alan Sokal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sokal), Sokal Affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair)
Jack Steinberger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Steinberger), physicist, Nobel Prize (1988)
Otto Stern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Stern), physicist, Nobel Prize (1943)
Andrew Strominger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Strominger), string theory
Leonard Susskind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind), string theory (Jewish father)
Leo Szilard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Szilard), nuclear physicist (naturalized citizen)
Edward Teller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller), nuclear physicist
Steven Weinberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg), electroweak force, Nobel Prize (1979)
Victor Frederick Weisskopf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Frederick_Weisskopf) (1908–2002) physicist. During World War II, he worked at Los Alamos on the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb, and later campaigned against the proliferation of nuclear weapons[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_physicists#cite_note-0)
Eugene Wigner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Wigner), quantum physicist, Nobel Prize (1963)
Edward Witten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Witten), mathematical physicist
George Zweig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Zweig), quarks




Christian B. Anfinsen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_B._Anfinsen), biochemist, Nobel Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Chemistry) (1972) (converted)
Sidney Altman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Altman), chemist, Nobel Prize (1989)
Allen J. Bard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_J._Bard), electrochemist, inventor of scanning electrochemical microscope, Wolf Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Prize) (2008)
Paul Berg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Berg), biochemist, Nobel Prize (1980)
R. Stephen Berry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Stephen_Berry), physical chemist
Eric Borenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Borenstein&action=edit&redlink=1), Biochemist
Herbert C. Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_C._Brown), chemist, Nobel Prize (1979)
Melvin Calvin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_Calvin), calvin cycle, Nobel Prize (1961)
Erwin Chargaff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Chargaff), DNA pioneer
Morris Cohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Cohen_%28scientist%29), metallurgist
Kasimir Fajans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasimir_Fajans), isotopes, identified protactinium
Walter Gilbert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Gilbert), DNA sequencing, Nobel Prize (1980)
Henry Gilman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Gilman), organometallic chemist
Moses Gomberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Gomberg), free radicals
Norman Hackerman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Hackerman), chemist, [2] (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_jews.html)
Herbert A. Hauptman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_A._Hauptman), chemist, Nobel Prize (1985)
Roald Hoffmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Hoffmann) (1937–) chemist & writer, Nobel Prize winner (1981)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_chemists#cite_note-0)
Martin Kamen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Kamen), Carbon 14
Martin Karplus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Karplus), theoretical chemist
Phoebus Levene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_Levene), nucleic acid pioneer
Bruce H. Lipshutz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_H._Lipshutz), organometallic chemist
Rudolph A. Marcus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_A._Marcus), chemist, Nobel Prize (1992)
Jacob A. Marinsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_A._Marinsky), discovered promethium
George Olah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Olah), chemist, Nobel Prize (1994)
Irwin Rose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Rose), biologist, Nobel Prize (2004)
William Stein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Stein), biochemist, Nobel Prize (1972)
Richard Zare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Zare), chemist




Max Abramovitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Abramovitz), architect
Dankmar Adler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dankmar_Adler), architect and civil engineer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_engineer), partner with Louis Sullivan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Sullivan) in celebrated firm of Adler and Sullivan
Armand Phillip Bartos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand_Phillip_Bartos), architect and philanthropist, best known for the Shrine of the Book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrine_of_the_Book), co-designed with Frederick John Kiesler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_John_Kiesler), housing the gift of the State of Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Israel) of the Dead Sea Scrolls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls) by his father-in-law Samuel Gottesman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Gottesman)
Walter Curt Behrendt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Curt_Behrendt), German modernist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_modernism) architect and expert on city planning and housing
Edward Blum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blum) and George Blum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Blum), École des Beaux-Arts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_des_Beaux-Arts)-trained brothers, of Alsatian-French decent, celebrated for their terra cotta embellished, Art Nouveau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Nouveau) Manhattan apartment buildings, ended their career with two Art Deco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Deco) works [1] (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/realestate/02scap.html). Their work was catalogued in Andrew S. Dolkart and Susan Tunick's 1993 book [2] (http://books.google.com/books?id=ia6K5-L6U_oC&dq=Edward+%2B+George+Blum+%2B+architects&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=NbdpbGleBE&sig=UDVPAeBE6uzOMCqaLWFgeiu5ik0&hl=en&ei=hn-4SY2KIOH8tgeJuP2qBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result), George & Edward Blum: Texture and Design in New York Apartment House Architecture (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7D61039F934A25753C1A9659582 60).
Marcel Breuer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Breuer), modernist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_architecture) architect and furniture designer
Arnold Brunner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Brunner), considered the first successful American born Jewish architect in the US [3] (http://www.americanjewisharchives.org/aja/journal/PDF/54v2/Article54v2-Fine.pdf) - and a city planner as well - he is the namesake of an annual award by the American Academy of Arts and Letters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Arts_and_Letters) and a grant by the American Institute of Architects' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_of_Architects) New York chapter
Alan Buchsbaum (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE6D9133FF932A25757C0A9619482 60), high tech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_tech) architect
Gordon Bunshaft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Bunshaft), modernist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_architecture) architect, partner in firm of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skidmore,_Owings_and_Merrill)
Giorgio Cavaglieri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgio_Cavaglieri),architectural preservationist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architectural_preservationist) and painter of gouaches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gouache)
Irwin Chanin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Chanin), designer of Art Deco office towers and Broadway theaters, real estate developer and benefactor to his alma mater, The Cooper Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cooper_Union),

which named its school of architecture in his honor.


Serge Chermayeff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Chermayeff), Grozny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grozny)-born architect of Sephardic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephardic) decent whose inter-war partnership with Erich Mendelsohn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Mendelsohn) was lauded for bringing modernism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism) to Britain; was also a writer, professor and co-founder of professional societies Stateside (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateside), and father of graphic designer Ivan Chermayeff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Chermayeff)
Preston Scott Cohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Scott_Cohen), architect
Richard Dattner, Bielsko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielsko), Poland-born recipient of the American Institute of Architects' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_of_Architects) Thomas Jefferson Award, its highest honor for public architecture
Elizabeth Diller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Diller), partner with husband Ricardo Scofidio and Charles Renfro in Diller Scofidio + Renfro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diller_Scofidio_%2B_Renfro), the first architectural firm to win the so-called "genius award," a MacArthur Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacArthur_Prize)
Dan Dworsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Dworsky), architect
John Eberson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eberson), Romanian-born architect best known for his atmospheric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_theatre) movie palaces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_palaces)
Leopold Eidlitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Eidlitz), architect
Peter Eisenman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Eisenman), architect
Sidney Eisenshtat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Eisenshtat), architect best known for modernist synagogues including the House of the Book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandeis-Bardin_Institute#Filming_locations)
Sheldon Fox (http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/061219fox.asp), architect, co-founder Kohn Pedersen Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohn_Pedersen_Fox)
Ulrich Franzen (http://oasis.lib.harvard.edu/oasis/deliver/%7Edes00016), architect
James Ingo Freed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ingo_Freed), architect
M. Paul Friedberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Paul_Friedberg), landscape architect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landscape_architect)
Frank Gehry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gehry), architect, Pritzker Prize (1989)
Bertrand Goldberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Goldberg), architect of Chicago's Marina City Center
Percival Goodman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percival_Goodman), urban theorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_design) and architect who designed over 50 synagogues; brother of sociologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociologist)/author Paul Goodman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Goodman_%28writer%29)
Victor Gruen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Gruen), father of the shopping mall
Lawrence Halprin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Halprin), landscaper architect/educator
Franklin D. Israel (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gables/hiv/mem/israel.html), architect
Herman Jessor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Jessor), the architect of more than 40,000, union-sponsored, publicly-assisted, cooperative housing units in New York City
Albert Kahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Kahn_%28architect%29), industrial architect
Louis I. Kahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_I._Kahn), influential, world-renown, modernist architect
Frederick John Kiesler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_John_Kiesler), Czernowitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czernowitz)-born theater designer, artist, theoretician and architect (see Bartos)
A. Eugene Kohn (http://www.archiplanet.org/wiki/A._Eugene_Kohn), architect, co-founder Kohn Pedersen Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohn_Pedersen_Fox)
Robert D. Kohn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Kohn), one-time American Institute of Architects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_of_Architects) president, best known for his designs of Reform synagogues and buildings for the New York Society for Ethical Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_Culture)
Reed Kroloff (http://www.ted.com/index.php/speakers/reed_kroloff.html) , architect/critic, former editor of Architecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_%28magazine%29), former dean of Tulane School of Architecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulane_School_of_Architecture), director of Cranbrook Academy of Art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cranbrook_Educational_Community)
Morris Lapidus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Lapidus), once maligned architect of "gorgeous", but now celebrated as exemplar of MiMo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Modern_Architecture)
Daniel Libeskind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Libeskind), architect
Richard Meier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Meier), architect, Pritzker Prize (1984)
Erich Mendelsohn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Mendelsohn), architect, co-founder of the German architectural collaborative Der Ring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Ring), later practiced in Mandatory Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine) before settling in the US in 1941
Robert Moses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses), this "master builder" was the subject of Robert Caro's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Caro) Pulitzer Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize)-winning biography, The Power Broker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_Broker)
Eric Owen Moss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Owen_Moss), architect
Barbara A. Nadel [4] (http://www.aia.org/nwsltr_yaf.cfm?pagename=yaf_a_060418_leadership_bn adel), an architect specialized in health care and justice facilities, much in demand for her expertise on design for public and institutional building security [5] (http://books.google.com/books?id=6W1IdJD3Mv0C)
Richard Neutra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neutra), modernist architect
James Polshek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Polshek), architect
Emery Roth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emery_Roth), apprentice to Daniel Burnham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Burnham) and architect of classic Jazz Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz_Age) New York apartment buildings and hotels, who founded firm known as the "builder's architects"
Moshe Safdie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Safdie), architect
Stanley Saitowitz (http://www.saitowitz.com/), architect and emeritus architecture professor at UC Berkeley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Berkeley) [6] (http://www.ced.berkeley.edu/ced/people/query.php?id=80&dept=&title=&first=Stanley&last=Saitowitz&ced&berkeley)
Rudolph Schindler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Schindler_%28architect%29), Austrian-born modernist architect known for his private houses in LA.
Denise Scott Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_Scott_Brown), architect, city planner and partner/spouse of architect Robert Venturi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Venturi)
Martha Schwartz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Schwartz), landscape architect
Schwartz and Gross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwartz_and_Gross), New York City architectural firm which designed dozens of Manhattan apartment buildings in the three decades preceding the

Great Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression).


Raphael Soriano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Soriano) Rhodes-born architect/educator of Sephardi descent whose work epitomized Mid-Century modern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Century_modern)
Michael Sorkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Sorkin), architectural theorist and academic with non-profit practice, currently directs the graduate program in urban design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_design) at CCNY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCNY)
Clarence Stein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Stein), urban planner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_planner), architect and writer, best known for advancing the garden city movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_city_movement) in the US, as evinced by his own collaborations with architect Henry Wright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Wright), Sunnyside Gardens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnyside_Gardens,_Queens) and Radburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radburn,_New_Jersey)
Robert A. M. Stern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._M._Stern), architect
Edgar Tafel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Tafel), architect; Frank Lloyd Wright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lloyd_Wright) protege
Stanley Tigerman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Tigerman), architect
Joseph Urban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Urban), architect, set designer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_designer)[7] (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/eresources/archives/rbml/urban/architectOfDreams/text.html) and book illustrator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illustrator)
Paul Zucker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Zucker), architect/city planner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_planner) in Berlin who joined the University in Exile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_in_Exile) at the New School for Social Research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_School_for_Social_Research)




Hal Abelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson), artificial intelligence
Len Adleman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Len_Adleman), RSA cryptography, DNA computing, Turing Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_Award) (2002)
David Austreng (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Austreng&action=edit&redlink=1), photographic display, www photographic 3D (Jewish mother)
Paul Baran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Baran), packet switching
Dan Bernstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Bernstein), cryptologist (unconfirmed)
Manuel Blum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Blum), computational complexity, Turing Award (1995)
Dan Bricklin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Bricklin), creator of the original spreadsheet
Sergei Brin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Brin)
Peter Elias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Elias), information theory
Robert Fano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fano), information theory
Edward Feigenbaum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Feigenbaum), artificial intelligence, Turing Award (1994)
William F. Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Friedman), cryptologist
Eugene Garfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Garfield), library & information scientist
David Gelernter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gelernter), parallel computation, Unabomber victim
Herbert Gelernter (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herbert_Gelernter&action=edit&redlink=1), artificial intelligence.
Adele Goldberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adele_Goldberg_%28computer_scientist%29), Smalltalk design team
Herman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Goldstine) & Adele Goldstine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adele_Goldstine), developers of ENIAC
Shafi Goldwasser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi_Goldwasser), cryptographer
Philip Greenspun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Greenspun), web applications
Martin Hellman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Hellman), public key cryptography
Douglas Hofstadter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Hofstadter), academic & author (half Jewish)
Bob Kahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Kahn), TCP/IP
Richard Karp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Karp), computational complexity, Turing Award (1985)
John Kemeny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kemeny), BASIC
Leonard Kleinrock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Kleinrock), packet switching
Joseph Kruskal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kruskal), Kruskal's algorithm
Solomon Kullback (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Kullback), cryptographer
Raymond Kurzweil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Kurzweil), OCR, speech recognition
Leslie Lamport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Lamport), LaTeX
Jaron Lanier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier), virtual reality
Leonid Levin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Levin), computational complexity
Herman Lukoff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Lukoff), helped develop ENIAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC) and UNIVAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIVAC)
John McCarthy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCarthy_%28computer_scientist%29), inventor of the term "artificial intelligence" (half Jewish)
Marvin Minsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Minsky), artificial intelligence, neural nets, Turing Award (1969)
John von Neumann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann), computer scientist, mathematician & economist
Larry Page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Page)
David Parnas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Parnas), software engineering
Seymour Papert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Papert), LOGO
Judea Pearl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_Pearl), Bayesian networks
Ken Perlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Perlin), fractal noise
Alan J. Perlis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_J._Perlis), compilers, Turing Award (1966)
Lawrence Rabiner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Rabiner), digital signal processing
Frank Rosenblatt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Rosenblatt), perceptrons
Azriel Rosenfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azriel_Rosenfeld), image analysis
Jean E. Sammet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_E._Sammet), language design
Bruce Schneier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier), cryptographer
Herbert Simon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Simon), cognitive & computer scientist, Turing Award (1975)
Abraham Sinkov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Sinkov), cryptanalyst
Daniel Sleator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Sleator), splay trees (Jewish mother)
Gustave Solomon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Solomon), error correction
Ray Solomonoff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Solomonoff), algorithmic information theory
Richard Stallman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman), GNU, FSF
Gerald Jay Sussman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Jay_Sussman), Scheme
Jeffrey D. Ullman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_D._Ullman), compilers
Leslie Valiant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Valiant), parallel computing
Andrew Viterbi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Viterbi), Viterbi algorithm
Peter J. Weinberger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_J._Weinberger), awk
Joseph Weizenbaum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Weizenbaum), ELIZA, artificial intelligence critic
Norbert Wiener (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Wiener), cybernetics
Terry Winograd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Winograd), SHRDLU
Jacob Wolfowitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Wolfowitz), information theory
Lotfi Zadeh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotfi_Zadeh), fuzzy logic (Jewish mother, Muslim father)


seen enough yet?????

=)

[malcolmxwarrior]

how about the Polio vaccine?

how about the combustion engine automobile?

how about those lovely nutrition labels on all foods and beverages?

now...what wonderful things have African-Americans done for the USA? hmmm????

here is a list of famous Jewish-American biologists, physicians, and other scientists:



Richard Axel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Axel), olfactory system, Nobel Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Physiology_or_Medicine) (2004)
Julius Axelrod (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Axelrod), neurotransmitters, Nobel Prize (1970)
David Baltimore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Baltimore), reverse transcriptase, Nobel Prize (1975)
Baruj Benacerraf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruj_Benacerraf), immunologist, Nobel Prize (1980)
M. A. Benjaminson, microbiologist and biotechnologist, in vitro meat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat) pioneer
Paul Berg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Berg), recombinant DNA, Nobel Prize (1980)
Konrad Bloch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Bloch), cholesterol, Nobel Prize (1959)
Baruch Blumberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Blumberg), hepatitis B vaccine, Nobel Prize (1976)
Michael S. Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Brown), molecular geneticist, Nobel Prize (1985)
Stanley Cohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Cohen), neurologist, Nobel Prize (1986)
Stanley N. Cohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_N._Cohen), genetic engineering
Gerty Cori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerty_Cori), biochemist, Nobel Prize (1947)
Jared Diamond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond), evolutionary biologist & biogeographer
Carl Djerassi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Djerassi), contraceptive pill
Gerald Edelman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Edelman), biologist, Nobel Prize (1972)
Gertrude Elion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertrude_Elion), drug development, Nobel Prize (1988)
Joseph Erlanger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Erlanger), physiologist, Nobel Prize (1945)
Edmond H. Fischer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_H._Fischer), biochemist, Nobel Prize (1992) (Jewish father)
Judah Folkman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_Folkman), cancer angiogenesis
Casimir Funk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_Funk), vitamins
Robert F. Furchgott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Furchgott), pharmacologist, Nobel Prize (1998)
Herbert Gasser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Gasser), physiologist, Nobel Prize (1945) (Jewish father)
Alfred G. Gilman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_G._Gilman), biochemist, Nobel Prize (1994)
Joseph L. Goldstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_L._Goldstein), molecular geneticist, Nobel Prize (1985)
Paul Greengard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Greengard), neuroscientist, Nobel Prize (1990)
Stephen Jay Gould (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould), evolutionary biologist & writer
Michael Heidelberger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Heidelberger), immunochemist
H. Robert Horvitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Robert_Horvitz), biologist, Nobel Prize (2002)
Jerome Horowitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Horowitz), AZT
Eric R. Kandel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_R._Kandel), neuroscientist, Nobel Prize (2000)
Charles Kelman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Kelman), cataract surgery
Arthur Kornberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kornberg), DNA replication, Nobel Prize (1959)
Roger Kornberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Kornberg), RNA transcription, Nobel Prize (2006) (son of Arthur Kornberg)
Eric Lander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lander), Human Genome Project
Esther Lederberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Lederberg), geneticist [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_biologists_and_physicians# cite_note-0)
Joshua Lederberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Lederberg), molecular biologist, Nobel Prize (1958)
Rita Levi-Montalcini (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rita_Levi-Montalcini), neurologist, Nobel Prize (1986)
Richard Lewontin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lewontin), evolutionary biologist
Fritz Lipmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Lipmann), coenzyme A, Nobel Prize (1953)
Otto Loewi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Loewi), acetylcholine, Nobel Prize (1936)
Abraham Low (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Low), neuropsychiatrist, Recovery International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_International) founder
Salvador Luria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Luria), bacterial evolution, Nobel Prize (1969)
Lynn Margulis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis), Gaia theory
Matthew Meselson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Meselson), DNA replication
A. L. Mestel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._L._Mestel), pediatric surgeon, separation of conjoined twins (1968)
Otto Meyerhof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Meyerhof), glycolysis, Nobel Prize (1922)
Stanley Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Miller), Miller-Urey experiment
Hermann Muller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Muller), geneticist, Nobel Prize (1946) (Jewish mother)
Daniel Nathans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Nathans), microbiologist, Nobel Prize (1978)
Marshall Nirenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Nirenberg), genetic code, Nobel Prize (1968)
Gregory Pincus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Pincus), contraceptive pill
Karl Pribram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Pribram), neurologist
Stanley Prusiner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Prusiner), neurologist, Nobel Prize (1997)
Martin Rodbell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rodbell), biochemist, Nobel Prize (1994)
Albert Sabin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Sabin), oral polio vaccine
Jonas Salk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonas_Salk), polio vaccine
Andrew V. Schally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_V._Schally), endocrinologist, Nobel Prize (1977)
Albert Schatz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schatz_%28scientist%29), streptomycin
Béla Schick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9la_Schick), diphtheria test
Rudolf Schoenheimer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Schoenheimer), radioactive tracers
Alexander Shulgin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Shulgin), pharmacologist, populariser of ecstasy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecstasy_%28drug%29)
Leo Sternbach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Sternbach), valium
Howard Temin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Temin), reverse transcriptase, Nobel Prize (1975)
Max Tishler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tishler), synthetic vitamins
Harold Varmus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Varmus), virologist, Nobel Prize (1989)
George Wald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wald), retina pigmentation, Nobel Prize (1967)
Selman Waksman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selman_Waksman), streptomycin, Nobel Prize (1952)
Charles Weissmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Weissmann), interferon cloning
Alexander S. Wiener (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_S._Wiener) hematologist and co-discoverer of the Rh factor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhesus_blood_group_system)
Rosalyn Yalow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalyn_Yalow), medical physicist, Nobel Prize (1977)
Charles Yanofsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Yanofsky), geneticist




Ralph Alpher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Alpher), background radiation, nucleosynthesis
John Bahcall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bahcall), astrophysicist
Hans Bethe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Bethe), nuclear physicist, Nobel Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Physics) (1967) (Jewish mother)
Felix Bloch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Bloch), nuclear physicist, Nobel Prize (1952) (naturalized citizen)
David Bohm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm), quantum physicist, philosopher of science
Gregory Breit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Breit), physicist
Leon Cooper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Cooper), BCS theory, Nobel Prize (1972)
Albert Einstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein) ((German)) theoretical physicist, Nobel Prize (1921) (naturalized citizen)
Paul Sophus Epstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Sophus_Epstein), theoretical physicist, quantum mechanics
Herman Feshbach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Feshbach), nuclear physicist
Richard P. Feynman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_P._Feynman), physicist, Nobel Prize (1965)
David Finkelstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Finkelstein), physicist
James Franck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Franck), physicist, Nobel Prize (1925)
Edward Fredkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Fredkin), digital physicist
Jerome Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Friedman), physicist, Nobel Prize (1990)
Murray Gell-Mann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Gell-Mann), quarks, Nobel Prize (1969)
Sheldon Glashow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Glashow), physicist, Nobel Prize (1979)
Donald A. Glaser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_A._Glaser), bubble chamber, Nobel Prize (1960)
Roy Glauber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Glauber), physicist, Nobel Prize (2005)
Samuel Goudsmit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Goudsmit), electron spin
Brian Greene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Greene), string theorist
Herbert Goldstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Goldstein), Columbia physicist, author of standard textbook on classical mechanics.
David Gross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gross), string theorist, Nobel Prize (2004)
Alan Guth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth), cosmic inflation
Eugene Guth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Guth), polymer physics, nuclear physics, solid state physics
Robert Herman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Herman), cosmology, background radiation, operations research
Robert Hofstadter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hofstadter), physicist, Nobel Prize (1961)
Herman Kahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Kahn), nuclear physicist
Theodore von Kármán (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_von_K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n), aeronautical engineer
Daniel Kleppner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kleppner), atomic research
Walter Kohn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Kohn), physicist, Nobel Prize (1998)
Rudolf Kompfner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Kompfner), engineer and physicist
Cornelius Lanczos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_Lanczos), mathematical physicist [3] (http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%7Ehistory/Biographies/Lanczos.html)
Rolf Landauer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf_Landauer), physicist, information theory
Leon M. Lederman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_M._Lederman), physicist, Nobel Prize (1988)
David Morris Lee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Morris_Lee), superfluidity, Nobel Prize (1996)
Fritz London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_London), quantum chemistry
Theodore Maiman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Maiman), first operable laser
Albert Michelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Michelson), speed of light, Nobel Prize (1907)
Ben Roy Mottelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Roy_Mottelson), physicist, Nobel Prize (1975)
Frank Oppenheimer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Oppenheimer), nuclear physicist (brother of Robert)
Robert Oppenheimer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Oppenheimer), nuclear physicist (brother of Frank)
Douglas D. Osheroff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_D._Osheroff), superfluidity, Nobel Prize (1996)
Jeremiah P. Ostriker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_P._Ostriker), astrophysicist
Abraham Pais (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Pais), historian of science
Wolfgang Pauli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Pauli), nuclear physicist, Nobel Prize (1945) (Jewish father, half-Jewish mother) (naturalized citizen)
Arno Allan Penzias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arno_Allan_Penzias), background radiation, Nobel Prize (1978)
Martin Lewis Perl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Lewis_Perl), physicist, Nobel Prize (1995)
H. David Politzer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._David_Politzer), physicist, Nobel Prize (2004)
Isidor Isaac Rabi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isidor_Isaac_Rabi), physicist, Nobel Prize (1944) (naturalized citizen)
Simon Ramo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Ramo), physicist, engineer
Mark G. Raizen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_G._Raizen), physicist, quantum physics
Sidney Redner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Redner), statistical physics
Frederick Reines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Reines), neutrino experiment, Nobel Prize (1995)
Burton Richter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burton_Richter), physicist, Nobel Prize (1976)
Carl Sagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan), astronomer & science popularizer
Arthur Schawlow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schawlow), laser spectroscopy, Nobel Prize (1981) (Jewish father)
John H. Schwarz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_H._Schwarz), string theorist
Melvin Schwartz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_Schwartz), physicist, Nobel Prize (1988)
Julian Schwinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Schwinger), quantum physicist, Nobel Prize (1965)
Emilio G. Segrè (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emilio_G._Segr%C3%A8), anti-proton, Nobel Prize (1959) (naturalized citizen)
Lee Smolin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin), loop quantum gravity
Alan Sokal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sokal), Sokal Affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair)
Jack Steinberger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Steinberger), physicist, Nobel Prize (1988)
Otto Stern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Stern), physicist, Nobel Prize (1943)
Andrew Strominger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Strominger), string theory
Leonard Susskind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Susskind), string theory (Jewish father)
Leo Szilard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Szilard), nuclear physicist (naturalized citizen)
Edward Teller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller), nuclear physicist
Steven Weinberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg), electroweak force, Nobel Prize (1979)
Victor Frederick Weisskopf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Frederick_Weisskopf) (1908–2002) physicist. During World War II, he worked at Los Alamos on the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb, and later campaigned against the proliferation of nuclear weapons[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_physicists#cite_note-0)
Eugene Wigner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Wigner), quantum physicist, Nobel Prize (1963)
Edward Witten (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Witten), mathematical physicist
George Zweig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Zweig), quarks




Christian B. Anfinsen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_B._Anfinsen), biochemist, Nobel Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Chemistry) (1972) (converted)
Sidney Altman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Altman), chemist, Nobel Prize (1989)
Allen J. Bard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_J._Bard), electrochemist, inventor of scanning electrochemical microscope, Wolf Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Prize) (2008)
Paul Berg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Berg), biochemist, Nobel Prize (1980)
R. Stephen Berry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Stephen_Berry), physical chemist
Eric Borenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Borenstein&action=edit&redlink=1), Biochemist
Herbert C. Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_C._Brown), chemist, Nobel Prize (1979)
Melvin Calvin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_Calvin), calvin cycle, Nobel Prize (1961)
Erwin Chargaff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Chargaff), DNA pioneer
Morris Cohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Cohen_%28scientist%29), metallurgist
Kasimir Fajans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasimir_Fajans), isotopes, identified protactinium
Walter Gilbert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Gilbert), DNA sequencing, Nobel Prize (1980)
Henry Gilman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Gilman), organometallic chemist
Moses Gomberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Gomberg), free radicals
Norman Hackerman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Hackerman), chemist, [2] (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_jews.html)
Herbert A. Hauptman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_A._Hauptman), chemist, Nobel Prize (1985)
Roald Hoffmann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roald_Hoffmann) (1937–) chemist & writer, Nobel Prize winner (1981)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_American_chemists#cite_note-0)
Martin Kamen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Kamen), Carbon 14
Martin Karplus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Karplus), theoretical chemist
Phoebus Levene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_Levene), nucleic acid pioneer
Bruce H. Lipshutz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_H._Lipshutz), organometallic chemist
Rudolph A. Marcus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_A._Marcus), chemist, Nobel Prize (1992)
Jacob A. Marinsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_A._Marinsky), discovered promethium
George Olah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Olah), chemist, Nobel Prize (1994)
Irwin Rose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Rose), biologist, Nobel Prize (2004)
William Stein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Stein), biochemist, Nobel Prize (1972)
Richard Zare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Zare), chemist




Max Abramovitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Abramovitz), architect
Dankmar Adler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dankmar_Adler), architect and civil engineer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_engineer), partner with Louis Sullivan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Sullivan) in celebrated firm of Adler and Sullivan
Armand Phillip Bartos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand_Phillip_Bartos), architect and philanthropist, best known for the Shrine of the Book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrine_of_the_Book), co-designed with Frederick John Kiesler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_John_Kiesler), housing the gift of the State of Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Israel) of the Dead Sea Scrolls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls) by his father-in-law Samuel Gottesman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Gottesman)
Walter Curt Behrendt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Curt_Behrendt), German modernist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_modernism) architect and expert on city planning and housing
Edward Blum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Blum) and George Blum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Blum), École des Beaux-Arts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_des_Beaux-Arts)-trained brothers, of Alsatian-French decent, celebrated for their terra cotta embellished, Art Nouveau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Nouveau) Manhattan apartment buildings, ended their career with two Art Deco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Deco) works [1] (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/realestate/02scap.html). Their work was catalogued in Andrew S. Dolkart and Susan Tunick's 1993 book [2] (http://books.google.com/books?id=ia6K5-L6U_oC&dq=Edward+%2B+George+Blum+%2B+architects&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=NbdpbGleBE&sig=UDVPAeBE6uzOMCqaLWFgeiu5ik0&hl=en&ei=hn-4SY2KIOH8tgeJuP2qBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result), George & Edward Blum: Texture and Design in New York Apartment House Architecture (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE7D61039F934A25753C1A9659582 60).
Marcel Breuer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Breuer), modernist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_architecture) architect and furniture designer
Arnold Brunner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Brunner), considered the first successful American born Jewish architect in the US [3] (http://www.americanjewisharchives.org/aja/journal/PDF/54v2/Article54v2-Fine.pdf) - and a city planner as well - he is the namesake of an annual award by the American Academy of Arts and Letters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Arts_and_Letters) and a grant by the American Institute of Architects' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_of_Architects) New York chapter
Alan Buchsbaum (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE6D9133FF932A25757C0A9619482 60), high tech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_tech) architect
Gordon Bunshaft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Bunshaft), modernist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_architecture) architect, partner in firm of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skidmore,_Owings_and_Merrill)
Giorgio Cavaglieri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgio_Cavaglieri),architectural preservationist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architectural_preservationist) and painter of gouaches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gouache)
Irwin Chanin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Chanin), designer of Art Deco office towers and Broadway theaters, real estate developer and benefactor to his alma mater, The Cooper Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cooper_Union),

which named its school of architecture in his honor.


Serge Chermayeff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Chermayeff), Grozny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grozny)-born architect of Sephardic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephardic) decent whose inter-war partnership with Erich Mendelsohn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Mendelsohn) was lauded for bringing modernism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism) to Britain; was also a writer, professor and co-founder of professional societies Stateside (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateside), and father of graphic designer Ivan Chermayeff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Chermayeff)
Preston Scott Cohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Scott_Cohen), architect
Richard Dattner, Bielsko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bielsko), Poland-born recipient of the American Institute of Architects' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_of_Architects) Thomas Jefferson Award, its highest honor for public architecture
Elizabeth Diller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Diller), partner with husband Ricardo Scofidio and Charles Renfro in Diller Scofidio + Renfro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diller_Scofidio_%2B_Renfro), the first architectural firm to win the so-called "genius award," a MacArthur Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacArthur_Prize)
Dan Dworsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Dworsky), architect
John Eberson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eberson), Romanian-born architect best known for his atmospheric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_theatre) movie palaces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_palaces)
Leopold Eidlitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Eidlitz), architect
Peter Eisenman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Eisenman), architect
Sidney Eisenshtat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Eisenshtat), architect best known for modernist synagogues including the House of the Book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandeis-Bardin_Institute#Filming_locations)
Sheldon Fox (http://archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/061219fox.asp), architect, co-founder Kohn Pedersen Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohn_Pedersen_Fox)
Ulrich Franzen (http://oasis.lib.harvard.edu/oasis/deliver/%7Edes00016), architect
James Ingo Freed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ingo_Freed), architect
M. Paul Friedberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Paul_Friedberg), landscape architect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landscape_architect)
Frank Gehry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gehry), architect, Pritzker Prize (1989)
Bertrand Goldberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Goldberg), architect of Chicago's Marina City Center
Percival Goodman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percival_Goodman), urban theorist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_design) and architect who designed over 50 synagogues; brother of sociologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociologist)/author Paul Goodman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Goodman_%28writer%29)
Victor Gruen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Gruen), father of the shopping mall
Lawrence Halprin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Halprin), landscaper architect/educator
Franklin D. Israel (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/gables/hiv/mem/israel.html), architect
Herman Jessor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Jessor), the architect of more than 40,000, union-sponsored, publicly-assisted, cooperative housing units in New York City
Albert Kahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Kahn_%28architect%29), industrial architect
Louis I. Kahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_I._Kahn), influential, world-renown, modernist architect
Frederick John Kiesler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_John_Kiesler), Czernowitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czernowitz)-born theater designer, artist, theoretician and architect (see Bartos)
A. Eugene Kohn (http://www.archiplanet.org/wiki/A._Eugene_Kohn), architect, co-founder Kohn Pedersen Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohn_Pedersen_Fox)
Robert D. Kohn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Kohn), one-time American Institute of Architects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_of_Architects) president, best known for his designs of Reform synagogues and buildings for the New York Society for Ethical Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_Culture)
Reed Kroloff (http://www.ted.com/index.php/speakers/reed_kroloff.html) , architect/critic, former editor of Architecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_%28magazine%29), former dean of Tulane School of Architecture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulane_School_of_Architecture), director of Cranbrook Academy of Art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cranbrook_Educational_Community)
Morris Lapidus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Lapidus), once maligned architect of "gorgeous", but now celebrated as exemplar of MiMo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Modern_Architecture)
Daniel Libeskind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Libeskind), architect
Richard Meier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Meier), architect, Pritzker Prize (1984)
Erich Mendelsohn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Mendelsohn), architect, co-founder of the German architectural collaborative Der Ring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Ring), later practiced in Mandatory Palestine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_Palestine) before settling in the US in 1941
Robert Moses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses), this "master builder" was the subject of Robert Caro's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Caro) Pulitzer Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulitzer_Prize)-winning biography, The Power Broker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_Broker)
Eric Owen Moss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Owen_Moss), architect
Barbara A. Nadel [4] (http://www.aia.org/nwsltr_yaf.cfm?pagename=yaf_a_060418_leadership_bn adel), an architect specialized in health care and justice facilities, much in demand for her expertise on design for public and institutional building security [5] (http://books.google.com/books?id=6W1IdJD3Mv0C)
Richard Neutra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Neutra), modernist architect
James Polshek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Polshek), architect
Emery Roth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emery_Roth), apprentice to Daniel Burnham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Burnham) and architect of classic Jazz Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz_Age) New York apartment buildings and hotels, who founded firm known as the "builder's architects"
Moshe Safdie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Safdie), architect
Stanley Saitowitz (http://www.saitowitz.com/), architect and emeritus architecture professor at UC Berkeley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UC_Berkeley) [6] (http://www.ced.berkeley.edu/ced/people/query.php?id=80&dept=&title=&first=Stanley&last=Saitowitz&ced&berkeley)
Rudolph Schindler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Schindler_%28architect%29), Austrian-born modernist architect known for his private houses in LA.
Denise Scott Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denise_Scott_Brown), architect, city planner and partner/spouse of architect Robert Venturi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Venturi)
Martha Schwartz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Schwartz), landscape architect
Schwartz and Gross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwartz_and_Gross), New York City architectural firm which designed dozens of Manhattan apartment buildings in the three decades preceding the

Great Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression).


Raphael Soriano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_Soriano) Rhodes-born architect/educator of Sephardi descent whose work epitomized Mid-Century modern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Century_modern)
Michael Sorkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Sorkin), architectural theorist and academic with non-profit practice, currently directs the graduate program in urban design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_design) at CCNY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCNY)
Clarence Stein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Stein), urban planner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_planner), architect and writer, best known for advancing the garden city movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_city_movement) in the US, as evinced by his own collaborations with architect Henry Wright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Wright), Sunnyside Gardens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnyside_Gardens,_Queens) and Radburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radburn,_New_Jersey)
Robert A. M. Stern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_A._M._Stern), architect
Edgar Tafel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Tafel), architect; Frank Lloyd Wright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lloyd_Wright) protege
Stanley Tigerman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Tigerman), architect
Joseph Urban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Urban), architect, set designer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_designer)[7] (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/eresources/archives/rbml/urban/architectOfDreams/text.html) and book illustrator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illustrator)
Paul Zucker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Zucker), architect/city planner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_planner) in Berlin who joined the University in Exile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_in_Exile) at the New School for Social Research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_School_for_Social_Research)




Hal Abelson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson), artificial intelligence
Len Adleman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Len_Adleman), RSA cryptography, DNA computing, Turing Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_Award) (2002)
David Austreng (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Austreng&action=edit&redlink=1), photographic display, www photographic 3D (Jewish mother)
Paul Baran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Baran), packet switching
Dan Bernstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Bernstein), cryptologist (unconfirmed)
Manuel Blum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Blum), computational complexity, Turing Award (1995)
Dan Bricklin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Bricklin), creator of the original spreadsheet
Sergei Brin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Brin)
Peter Elias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Elias), information theory
Robert Fano (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fano), information theory
Edward Feigenbaum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Feigenbaum), artificial intelligence, Turing Award (1994)
William F. Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Friedman), cryptologist
Eugene Garfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Garfield), library & information scientist
David Gelernter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gelernter), parallel computation, Unabomber victim
Herbert Gelernter (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herbert_Gelernter&action=edit&redlink=1), artificial intelligence.
Adele Goldberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adele_Goldberg_%28computer_scientist%29), Smalltalk design team
Herman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Goldstine) & Adele Goldstine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adele_Goldstine), developers of ENIAC
Shafi Goldwasser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shafi_Goldwasser), cryptographer
Philip Greenspun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Greenspun), web applications
Martin Hellman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Hellman), public key cryptography
Douglas Hofstadter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Hofstadter), academic & author (half Jewish)
Bob Kahn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Kahn), TCP/IP
Richard Karp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Karp), computational complexity, Turing Award (1985)
John Kemeny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kemeny), BASIC
Leonard Kleinrock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Kleinrock), packet switching
Joseph Kruskal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kruskal), Kruskal's algorithm
Solomon Kullback (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Kullback), cryptographer
Raymond Kurzweil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Kurzweil), OCR, speech recognition
Leslie Lamport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Lamport), LaTeX
Jaron Lanier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier), virtual reality
Leonid Levin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Levin), computational complexity
Herman Lukoff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Lukoff), helped develop ENIAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENIAC) and UNIVAC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIVAC)
John McCarthy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCarthy_%28computer_scientist%29), inventor of the term "artificial intelligence" (half Jewish)
Marvin Minsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Minsky), artificial intelligence, neural nets, Turing Award (1969)
John von Neumann (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann), computer scientist, mathematician & economist
Larry Page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Page)
David Parnas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Parnas), software engineering
Seymour Papert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Papert), LOGO
Judea Pearl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_Pearl), Bayesian networks
Ken Perlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Perlin), fractal noise
Alan J. Perlis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_J._Perlis), compilers, Turing Award (1966)
Lawrence Rabiner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Rabiner), digital signal processing
Frank Rosenblatt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Rosenblatt), perceptrons
Azriel Rosenfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azriel_Rosenfeld), image analysis
Jean E. Sammet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_E._Sammet), language design
Bruce Schneier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Schneier), cryptographer
Herbert Simon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Simon), cognitive & computer scientist, Turing Award (1975)
Abraham Sinkov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Sinkov), cryptanalyst
Daniel Sleator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Sleator), splay trees (Jewish mother)
Gustave Solomon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Solomon), error correction
Ray Solomonoff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Solomonoff), algorithmic information theory
Richard Stallman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman), GNU, FSF
Gerald Jay Sussman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Jay_Sussman), Scheme
Jeffrey D. Ullman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_D._Ullman), compilers
Leslie Valiant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Valiant), parallel computing
Andrew Viterbi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Viterbi), Viterbi algorithm
Peter J. Weinberger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_J._Weinberger), awk
Joseph Weizenbaum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Weizenbaum), ELIZA, artificial intelligence critic
Norbert Wiener (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Wiener), cybernetics
Terry Winograd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Winograd), SHRDLU
Jacob Wolfowitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Wolfowitz), information theory
Lotfi Zadeh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotfi_Zadeh), fuzzy logic (Jewish mother, Muslim father)


seen enough yet?????

=)

Are you sure these are all jews?

What if they are only jews by religion? What if they say they are jews but are really khazar johnny-come-latelys?

Anyway it just dawned on me. good jews.....


Parky
Bobby Fischer
Benjamin Freedman
Jack Bernstein
Peter Schiff
Murray Rothbard
Ludwig von mises


#1 Bad Jew
Adolf Hitler

[Thunder]

Are you sure these are all jews?



yes.

and btw, if Hitler's grandfather was a Jew (Schiklegruber), that does not make him a Jew. Only someone who's mother is a Jew, is Jewish. He was 3/4 German and 1/4 Jewish (ethnically).

[malcolmxwarrior]

yes.

and btw, if Hitler's grandfather was a Jew (Schiklegruber), that does not make him a Jew. Only someone who's mother is a Jew, is Jewish. He was 3/4 German and 1/4 Jewish (ethnically).

What about converts?

How can madeline albright still be a jewess if she converted to catholicism?

Parky = #1 best super jew.

[Thunder]

How can madeline albright still be a jewess .

i hate this word. why is it always used in an anti-Semitic context?

if Albright indeed formally converted to Christianity, then she is a traitor and is no longer a "spiritual" Jew. She is still of Jewish descent though.

And Nazis consider a Jude.

[ktesibios]

It might be worth mentioning that while a rumor of Hitler having a Jewish grandfather has been around since 1946 (it entered Western consciouness with Hans Frank at Nuremberg), it has been pretty definitively debunked.

The claim is that while working as a domestic in the home of a Jewish family named Frankenberg (or Frankenberger) in Graz, Hitler's grandmother, Maria Anna Schicklgruber, was impregnated by the son of the family. However, not only is there no record of Maria ever having lived in Graz nor of a Frankenberger family having lived there at the time, there were no Jews at all in Graz at the time of Hitler's father's birth. This is all covered in Joachim Fest's biography Hitler.

Parky is absolutely correct about one thing. The Nazi version of antisemitism was not based on religious considerations like anti-Jewish prejudice had been during most of Europe's history. It was based on the Nazis' lunatic theories of "race", in which one's beliefs and practices mattered naught compared to one's ancestry. In their world, a convert like Albright would have been classified as a Jew and subjected to the same persecution as all other Jews.

[malcolmxwarrior]

It might be worth mentioning that while a rumor of Hitler having a Jewish grandfather has been around since 1946 (it entered Western consciouness with Hans Frank at Nuremberg), it has been pretty definitively debunked.

The claim is that while working as a domestic in the home of a Jewish family named Frankenberg (or Frankenberger) in Graz, Hitler's grandmother, Maria Anna Schicklgruber, was impregnated by the son of the family. However, not only is there no record of Maria ever having lived in Graz nor of a Frankenberger family having lived there at the time, there were no Jews at all in Graz at the time of Hitler's father's birth. This is all covered in Joachim Fest's biography Hitler.

Parky is absolutely correct about one thing. The Nazi version of antisemitism was not based on religious considerations like anti-Jewish prejudice had been during most of Europe's history. It was based on the Nazis' lunatic theories of "race", in which one's beliefs and practices mattered naught compared to one's ancestry. In their world, a convert like Albright would have been classified as a Jew and subjected to the same persecution as all other Jews.


Hitler went at great lengths to hide his family ancestry. That's about all I know about that topic.

I'm not a hitler biographer.

[malcolmxwarrior]

i hate this word. why is it always used in an anti-Semitic context?

if Albright indeed formally converted to Christianity, then she is a traitor and is no longer a "spiritual" Jew. She is still of Jewish descent though.

And Nazis consider a Jude.

She's a traitor?

How come christians can't be of christian descent? Or muslims of muslim descent?

Or buddhist of buddhist descent?

Sounds kinda racist.

[malcolmxwarrior]

White supremacy, black supremacy, jewish supremacy.

It's all despicable.

[Thunder]

She's a traitor?

How come christians can't be of christian descent? Or muslims of muslim descent?

Or buddhist of buddhist descent?

Sounds kinda racist.

Judaism, like Hinduism, is associated with a specific ethnicity.

[malcolmxwarrior]

Judaism, like Hinduism, is associated with a specific ethnicity.

You got a point there. :D

[Caustic Logic]

Apologies for not being more engaged in the discussion on ethnicity and values. Jews and Black Muslims both bug me. But then, people do. But then, I feel sorry for them all and can't hate or even blame. Then I remember there are sucky things that do cluster more around some people than others. Then, I wonder what's up with that, is it just me? Then people start bickering, and Whatever.

On my second boat theory: I still haven't found any evidence from non-Israeli sources, not that there'd be any except the crew of the Liberty. Their not mentioning it is problematic. I've done up some graphics based on several sources (text and graphic) to look into it and found if there was a second ship, it'd have to be about 8 miles (give or take about one) to its rear port side - SE - to fit the location of the returns as described at 13:41. I think that would put it in radar range of the Liberty, perhaps visual with lenses?

So there are the probs - but in putting this together, almost all from official IDF sources, I've found that true or not, there's a well-painted picture of a second ship doing real shelling, and leaving on a different heading and speed from the Liberty. It's actually uncanny. I'm still organizing all the sources for posting, but here is the graphic version that shows how totally off these returns were for the Liberty, and how right-on for something else very non-random.

So as to not warp the page, a thumbnail: http://s133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/th_Liberty_vs_MTB_returns.jpg
Link to full-size (http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/Liberty_vs_MTB_returns.jpg)

Heading seen - 23 degrees off (and with a noticeable change)
speed - 23 knots off (560% error)
location: app. 8 miles off

And recall, this is on top of specific reports of 2 ships, of a ship seen shelling (not Lib), of the shelling itself, and all the many other incredible blunders that preceded and followed this 'freeze-frame.' Sources when up or on request.

Please, chew slowly, don't want people choking out there. Lurkers? Debunkers?

[Klimax]

Don't forget (as far as I saw) that shelling was reported(unconfirmed) and the search was conducted to evaluate said report.

No second ship/boat needed.

[fezzic]

Nice work CL. Being unfamiliar with the precise layout of the coastline, I did wonder why a course of 283 would end up at Port Said.

[Caustic Logic]

Don't forget (as far as I saw) that shelling was reported(unconfirmed) and the search was conducted to evaluate said report.

No second ship/boat needed.

Thanks for the comment! Shelling was reported, indeed, and reports were confirmed twice before action was taken. Said reports led to the area where only the Libertty - incapable of such attack - was discovered. How about that? Only later were these reports specifically de-confirmed by the ammo dump accidental explosions story. No second boat wanted then? Needed or not, there's a whole set of clues in the IDF records pointing right to such a ship, in a very narrow location. Just since it's buried in the last page now, again, here's what these clues show.

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/Liberty_vs_MTB_returns.jpg

Nice work CL. Being unfamiliar with the precise layout of the coastline, I did wonder why a course of 283 would end up at Port Said.
Indeed, and I was williing to write that off as just meaning "west," which generally describes the Liberty's heading. But lo and behole once I had everything mapped oout, a real line of 260 degrees points straight to Port Said from the location triagulated from all three given distance clues. That's four clues converging on one and only one narrow patch of sea, eight miles from the Liberty, on a much diff heading and way different speed.

MXW certainly has a point about accepting the IDF's word, and this might apply even more when their story is just implied but never stated. So I'm not saying there was a second ship, just that there's this blank spot shaped just like one, and I'm curious why.

First, does anyone not yet see how this is - at least arguably - more than coincidence?

Second, any thoughts on how or why such a story would be created if it's false, or why so many hints allowed if true? And if it's true, it's obviously worth pondering why there has been no mention of this second ship from the Liberty crew, then or later. It seems highly interesting to me; it provoked the IDF and got them attacked, and they could just propose they didn't see it cause it was out of visual range and their radar was jammed or whatever. And if it's untrue, they've never AFAIK put together the clues I just did to uncover the IDF's second ship lie. It's just absent.

[malcolmxwarrior]

Don't listen to the IDF spin. You only have to look at what happened this last december in gaza to show that they lie and deceive.

[Caustic Logic]

Don't listen to the IDF spin. You only have to look at what happened this last december in gaza to show that they lie and deceive.

Don't worry, I don't believe it. Or disbelieve it either. Hey, here's a head-scratcher: The IDF claims the earth is spherical! What do we do now?

[Klimax]

Hit reply too soon!Will repost it later!(Second time...)

[Caustic Logic]

Hit reply too soon!Will repost it later!(Second time...)

Cool! I am hovering a bit, so thx for the accidental tip-off. :)

[Klimax]

Some interesting not quoted bits from CL referrenced source:
(http://www.gtr5.com/evidence/idfhr.htm)

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 Therefore, the chief of Naval Operations ordered21 (at 1205 hours) torpedo boat Division 914 to set out for El Arish. At this point, the Division commander was instructed to patrol only in the direction of El-Arish but he was not yet informed of the shelling of E1 Arish nor was he told what to look for in the area to which he was dispatched.

Possible first error:
Meanwhile, the enquiry at Supreme Command into the shelling of El-Arish continued and the Head of Operations Section was informed that no Israel Navy vessels were in the area but that three torpedo boats were on their way, The Head of Operations Section concluded that when the torpedo boats made contact with the vessel responsible for shelling the coast, they should request close air support from the IAF.
They assumed at that point at least partiall correctnes of report.

And second problem:
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. Standing Israel Navy operation procedures state explicitly: "When there are reports of an enemy in the theatre, and radar detects one or more ships sailing at a speed above 20 knots, they shall be considered hostile and no further identification shall be carried out."27 The given data created the impression at Naval Operations of an enemy ship, turning to escape in the direction of Port Said. The Chief of Naval Operations asked the Division to double-check their calculations. A second check confirmed the direction of the target, but her speed was corrected to 28 knots. Since the Israel Navy Division was cruising at the same speed as the target, and therefore could not intercept it the Division commander requested that IAF planes be dispatched.

Clear.In conjuction with other material present here and in the other thread,position of Liberty wasn't refreshed on situation board (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4603422&postcount=77)
and assumed out of loaction and not present in theater.Since no possible identification at the time and too high speed(still incorectly computed-possible too large margin of error of measurment)

Here are some possibilities for incorrect calc:
The CIC officer on torpedo boat T204 later presented several possible explanations for the mistaken estimate of the target's cruising speed. Either the radar screen "jumped", or the radar operator read the information incorrectly, or the statistics were incorrectly recorded on the CIC plot - or a combination of all the above. (The detection of the target at a range of 22 miles was also unusual, since normal detection range was considered to be 12 - 15 miles).

But there is a sentence which might point after all to second boat!However crew of Liberty would have to be blind and radar malfunction or it would have to have advance camouflage and radar stealth properties.Or is it possible to miss ship at 7 miles?

His intention was to have the planes attack the target ship and delay her until the torpedo boat division could arrive and enter combat.

No sinking,but delay.

However, this attack was delayed. Air Command informed Fleet Operations Control Center, of the discovery of the letters on the ship's side and Naval Operations/3 instructed the Division (at 1420 hours) not to attack since there was possibly a mistake in the identification of the vesse1.
and
However, the Division approached the target to within visual range and immediately realized that the ship was not a destroyer but rather a merchant or supply ship. An attempt was made to identify the vessel, although this was difficult due to the billowing clouds of smoke which enveloped the vessel; only her bow, part of her bridge and the tip of her mast could be discerned.

Points at problems with identification...

Photogalery USS Liberty hosted on czech server (http://forum.valka.cz/galerie/thumbnails.php?album=514&page=1)

one of possible view for fighters and other planes (http://forum.valka.cz/files/liberty_274.jpg)
(I didn't wrote link as it is in czech language,however if some will want,I will provide)

[Caustic Logic]

Some interesting not quoted bits from CL referrenced source:
(http://www.gtr5.com/evidence/idfhr.htm)

Possible first error:

They assumed at that point at least partiall correctnes of report.

And second problem:

Clear.In conjuction with other material present here and in the other thread,position of Liberty wasn't refreshed on situation board (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4603422&postcount=77) and assumed out of loaction and not present in theater.

Yes. Based on what, do you know?
"Mistake" is an assumption. And so is "design," of course.

Since no possible identification at the time and too high speed(still incorectly computed-possible too large margin of error of measurment)

Here are some possibilities for incorrect calc:

But there is a sentence which might point after all to second boat!

It's good you're looking into this, and you saw that. But I fear you're a few laps behind me here - I've got three IDF reports, plus a couple other sources combed through on this issue now. Got my stuff up - further evidence (http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/04/uss-liberty-mystery-ship-inquiry.html) of actual shelling (or an elaborate error?), reports of two ships (poss. error!), and the wrong on all counts radar reading we've been told about (oopsie data error).

However crew of Liberty would have to be blind and radar malfunction or it would have to have advance camouflage and radar stealth properties.Or is it possible to miss ship at 7 miles?

These are good questions, and I don't really know. Radar can be jammed - perhaps by a ship with the right equipment that's otherwise within radar range? As you saw the same line, it seems 15 mi is more normal range, but that cuts both ways - was the MTB's reading then closer than 22 (say, 17) putting it about 13 mi from Liberty, and diverging. Is it possible the crew DID see it, one way or another, and were "gotten to" so they're silent on it? ("Go ahead and rage on these points, you got Moorer, Rusk, Helms, Clifford, etc backing you - but don't talk about the ___ ship.")

Or is it just an elaborate construct of (possible) Israeli errors after all? Yes, this is ...possible.

[TSR]

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!

/
Ah, so this is yet another of your completely baseless accusations.
/



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.

/
I am well aware of that, but once again this was not your accusation. You offered the *denial* of nukes as justification for your knee jerk dismissal of all of Caustic's sources.

Yet another of your completely baseless accusations.
/



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.


/
Which of Caustic's sources, specifically, is a "recycled leader?"
/

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.


/
The problem is that you don't get to decide how everyone else uses the language.
/


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

/
As has been explained to you, the phrase was coined not to refer to all semetic people, but specifically to give "Jew hatred" a more rational sounding title.

What about this fact is confusing you?
/

The powers that be should change the name.
/
I'm sure they will get right on it, if you email them and ask... :rolleyes:
/

[Klimax]

Yes. Based on what, do you know?
"Mistake" is an assumption. And so is "design," of course.

Assumption of mine or their(IDF)?Since there is baseline based on history of conflicts,where we can see a lot of mistakes and friendly fire incidents and a lot of misidentifications than designed attacks to be masked as FF or misidentification,it should be assumed that it will be more liekly to see FF/MI than DA.

And than we can invoke game theory and properly carried out false-flag attack or DA will not be ever discernable from FF/MI!


It's good you're looking into this, and you saw that. But I fear you're a few laps behind me here - I've got three IDF reports, plus a couple other sources combed through on this issue now. Got my stuff up - further evidence (http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/04/uss-liberty-mystery-ship-inquiry.html) of actual shelling (or an elaborate error?), reports of two ships (poss. error!), and the wrong on all counts radar reading we've been told about (oopsie data error).


To tell the truth,this is on periphery of my interest.(There are other things to do...)
So I so far assume most probable explanation.


These are good questions, and I don't really know. Radar can be jammed - perhaps by a ship with the right equipment that's otherwise within radar range? As you saw the same line, it seems 15 mi is more normal range, but that cuts both ways - was the MTB's reading then closer than 22 (say, 17) putting it about 13 mi from Liberty, and diverging. Is it possible the crew DID see it, one way or another, and were "gotten to" so they're silent on it? ("Go ahead and rage on these points, you got Moorer, Rusk, Helms, Clifford, etc backing you - but don't talk about the ___ ship.")

Or is it just an elaborate construct of (possible) Israeli errors after all? Yes, this is ...possible.

Jamming is I suspect not easy and from certain distance ship or jamming equipment is visible.Secondary whose ship would that be?Egyptian? Israelis?

And then there is quality of equipment of theat day and margin of error of measurment.Is that known?Since computing speed from radar returns on big distance can have quite nice error and comparing it from two close sources won't eliminate it.

---

I will follow thread,but I don't think I am interested enough to do a lot of research as end of term is near.
However my suggestions are:eliminate any error of equipment and any error of measurment as source of strange/errorneous data,conclusions.
Then eliminate any possibility from domain of MI,procedural and tacticals including visibility,assumptions of Israelis and any failure on part of americans.
And why two ships and not one ship and sight-trick?(Sea Fata-morgana?)
Then explain what jamming,how it was carried out,who carried neccessary equipment and where it was stored unaffecting anything else and outer appearence of eq-carrier.
Next is explanation of failure of Israelis to eliminate any evidence and identification.(like using different aircrafts)
And another is why only cannons,rockets and napalm?(OE is to slow it down)
Next is why they were ordered to hold fire if they were ment to destroy it.
Another is attack by torpedos where so awfully done that no criticla damage was caused?
And why they used own torpboats and not masked them as egyptian?

Maybe more questions on CT can be raised.
However so far no significant holes in OT.Just some questions,which cannot be most probably asnwered without time machine or brand new source.And remember any memories can fail or brain create more details which are not true(but subject believes their correct),so any participants from both side unless backed-up by logs,diaries or other confirmation should be regarded as unreliable.

That's my take.

Klimax out

[Caustic Logic]

/
I am well aware of that, but once again this was not your accusation. You offered the *denial* of nukes as justification for your knee jerk dismissal of all of Caustic's sources.
Flat rejection is a a mistake, IMO, but he has a point about the reliability of sources who might be covering their own interests. The IDF, by the very nature of their mission especially in June 67, have clever plans, broken laws and customs, atrocities, they'd rather keep unknown.

When I first saw this story popping out in Oren's piece, I imagined he was some sneaky dissident, hinting at the real truth about the hushed-up second ship, prob. under Israeli control. (I suffer from "pronoia" as well, the hunch people are conspiring to help you out). Now I see this is the IDF story and has been from about the beginning.

The American side is silent on the ships issue. The Israelis have all this, in the open but not assembled. When we lack verification it's true, and the IDF are the ones saying it, and it would involve IDF war crimes, we should wonder.

[Caustic Logic]

Assumption of mine or their(IDF)?
Of yours. The top people at least in IDF would know whether this was all mistake or mostly design.

Since there is baseline based on history of conflicts,where we can see a lot of mistakes and friendly fire incidents and a lot of misidentifications than designed attacks to be masked as FF or misidentification,it should be assumed that it will be more liekly to see FF/MI than DA.

And than we can invoke game theory and properly carried out false-flag attack or DA will not be ever discernable from FF/MI!

Game theory... I don't remember that exactly from College - the 'prisoner's dilemma' is coming to mind, and this seems like an interesting angle, re: the politics of the aftermath.

I'm not a big scholar of friendly fire and how stupendous errors happen all the time. For all I know, real false flag ops are common enough that militaries routinely do small FF incidents to provide the noise to disguise their big FF ops. ;)

To tell the truth,this is on periphery of my interest.(There are other things to do...)
So I so far assume most probable explanation.


Thanks, so that's one reason to presume mistaken identity - it's not interesting enough to carefully study. ;)

Jamming is I suspect not easy and from certain distance ship or jamming equipment is visible.Secondary whose ship would that be?Egyptian? Israelis?

Israeli or American, I'd presume. I'm actually not convinced about jamming. We hear reports of a "jamming sound" and blocked channels, but at least one channel was open and they got messages out. IMO, they said "unidentified jets" for fear if they said "Israeli" there'd be no response. Anyway, if they were trying to silence and erase the ship and all signs of their own presence, it failed. And as you point out there are technical problems with the notion, tho I don't feel it's been disproven.

ETA: Oops, forgot you meant radar jamming. :p I'd clearly suspect the mystery ship(s) in question. Don't know how that stuff works...

And then there is quality of equipment of theat day and margin of error of measurment.Is that known?Since computing speed from radar returns on big distance can have quite nice error and comparing it from two close sources won't eliminate it.

It's not known by me. But I have a hard time visualizing a ship moving x distance between returns would show up on-screen as almost 6X between. Plus - consider this - app 15 mi range normal, their first return shows at 22 mi, acc. to this IDF map (http://www.gtr5.com/image-viewer.htm?gallery/maps4-1.gif), that reading was taken 28 miles from the Liberty. So if 22 is at all problematic, where was the target really? Closer or further?

I will follow thread,but I don't think I am interested enough to do a lot of research as end of term is near.

Absolutely, keep your priorities right end up or you'll end up like me with college debt but no degree. After that, however, re-consider.

However my suggestions are:eliminate any error of equipment and any error of measurment as source of strange/errorneous data,conclusions.
This would be a coup if I could show the Israeli details impossible for one ship. I'm not a radar or radar jamming expert, and not sure where to find such detailed info, but I'll look into it. Just showing improbability is enough for me.
Then eliminate any possibility from domain of MI,procedural and tacticals including visibility,assumptions of Israelis and any failure on part of americans.
Impossibly high hurdle. Identification happens in peoples' brains, and I don't know how to *know* what they were thinking. I don't deal in possibles, in case you didn't notice, but probabilities.

And why two ships and not one ship and sight-trick?(Sea Fata-morgana?)
Never heard of that, sounds like BS for this example.

Then explain what jamming,how it was carried out,who carried neccessary equipment and where it was stored unaffecting anything else and outer appearence of eq-carrier.
If possible, that would be amazing.

And then more of those mile high hurdles. Sorry, not deterred, I have no need to run on your track. Still laps ahead on my own. ;)

However so far no significant holes in OT.Just some questions,which cannot be most probably asnwered without time machine or brand new source

Lol, you're okay.

And remember any memories can fail or brain create more details which are not true(but subject believes their correct),so any participants from both side unless backed-up by logs,diaries or other confirmation should be regarded as unreliable.

That's my take.

I'll add that logs and such can be altered if there is a cover-up going on, don't be naiive. But that's a good point for the knee-jerk CTists who believe every little memory flicker of the godlike Liberty crew, so long as it furthers the purposeful attack storyline. (I tend to believe them on stuff, BTW, just with reservations).

Klimax out[/QUOTE]

[TSR]

Flat rejection is a a mistake, IMO, but he has a point about the reliability of sources who might be covering their own interests.

.
And flat rejection is all zie has to offer, since he has not even bothered to educate zirself on who those sources are/
.

[Caustic Logic]

.
And flat rejection is all zie has to offer, since he has not even bothered to educate zirself on who those sources are/
.

I thot the correct terminology was "zhe" and "hirself" (attempted gender neutral as proposed by "gender queers"), I just say "he" since that usually does it. :)

[Caustic Logic]

I'm fishing around for info from the Liberty side of things re: any hints. Found the Deck Log - PDF (http://www.thelibertyincident.com/docs/Logs1-24.pdf). It's all handwritten, mostly 'scanned' at decent quality. It features the radar bearing log for 8 June. Well that should clear things up!
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/Radar_Log_raw.jpg
Well, there's a thumb-out and piece of paper over the time after 11:45 and pretty much all else is washed out. Luckily it's shown again, flat and half-readable. There's nothing after 11:45, there's another timeline running under it, things are superimposed, I can't make heads or tails of it!
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/bearing_log_raw.jpg

[Klimax]

Of yours. The top people at least in IDF would know whether this was all mistake or mostly design.

OK.


Game theory... I don't remember that exactly from College - the 'prisoner's dilemma' is coming to mind, and this seems like an interesting angle, re: the politics of the aftermath.

I'm not a big scholar of friendly fire and how stupendous errors happen all the time. For all I know, real false flag ops are common enough that militaries routinely do small FF incidents to provide the noise to disguise their big FF ops. ;)

:cool:

Thanks, so that's one reason to presume mistaken identity - it's not interesting enough to carefully study. ;)

What else,when majority of sources where processed,reprocessed and again reprocessed countless times meaning that anybody else has very little chance to get different conclusion withouth missinterpretation...

Not that it is not interesting,but it is at the end of a realy long queue of other interests...

Israeli or American, I'd presume. I'm actually not convinced about jamming. We hear reports of a "jamming sound" and blocked channels, but at least one channel was open and they got messages out. IMO, they said "unidentified jets" for fear if they said "Israeli" there'd be no response. Anyway, if they were trying to silence and erase the ship and all signs of their own presence, it failed. And as you point out there are technical problems with the notion, tho I don't feel it's been disproven.

ETA: Oops, forgot you meant radar jamming. :p I'd clearly suspect the mystery ship(s) in question. Don't know how that stuff works...

What the hell would be second USN ship do it there and not be in docs?If there would be sort of secret op,then all bets off.

It's not known by me. But I have a hard time visualizing a ship moving x distance between returns would show up on-screen as almost 6X between. Plus - consider this - app 15 mi range normal, their first return shows at 22 mi, acc. to this IDF map (http://www.gtr5.com/image-viewer.htm?gallery/maps4-1.gif), that reading was taken 28 miles from the Liberty. So if 22 is at all problematic, where was the target really? Closer or further?

Cannot parse.6x between??? :confused:
And since jets found Liberty,radar return had to be sufficiently close to correct position,that figthers could find it.



Absolutely, keep your priorities right end up or you'll end up like me with college debt but no degree. After that, however, re-consider.

At least in CR no college debt.(It's relativly free)


This would be a coup if I could show the Israeli details impossible for one ship. I'm not a radar or radar jamming expert, and not sure where to find such detailed info, but I'll look into it. Just showing improbability is enough for me.

You can show details impossible,but yet there is error of equipment or error in measurment.

Impossibly high hurdle. Identification happens in peoples' brains, and I don't know how to *know* what they were thinking. I don't deal in possibles, in case you didn't notice, but probabilities.


Once MI -> FFI!
With that no FFO needed.

Never heard of that, sounds like BS for this example.


Some optical illusion.But not sure myself,but optics can be quite tricky...


If possible, that would be amazing.

And then more of those mile high hurdles. Sorry, not deterred, I have no need to run on your track. Still laps ahead on my own. ;)


Jets couldn't jamm.TB didn't have it and were not there.And what jamming equipment would be needed to "blind" ship like Liberty("electronic warfare"!)
Or how to operate(shelling) while being small enough to escape radar detection.

I'll see what equipment/ships were available,but it will take some time.

[Klimax]

I'm fishing around for info from the Liberty side of things re: any hints. Found the Deck Log - PDF (http://www.thelibertyincident.com/docs/Logs1-24.pdf). It's all handwritten, mostly 'scanned' at decent quality. It features the radar bearing log for 8 June. Well that should clear things up!
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/Radar_Log_raw.jpg
Well, there's a thumb-out and piece of paper over the time after 11:45 and pretty much all else is washed out. Luckily it's shown again, flat and half-readable. There's nothing after 11:45, there's another timeline running under it, things are superimposed, I can't make heads or tails of it!
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/bearing_log_raw.jpg

Is there any transcript of paper?It's still hard to read...

[Caustic Logic]

Hey, I guess I crashed out a little early last night. I'm working on a transcript with a few ??? spots, but it's mostly intelligible. One page is a bearing log that's simple (the first one) and the second is the same somehow superimposed on a lat-long chart. ??? So I'm doing page two which is two separate transcripts muddling each other. Neither seems to have any hint of radar on moving objects. I probably won't even bother...

headings: time, lat, long, int (initials), ??? left blank. Time, bearing, range, point. Points listed seem to be El Arish, N.L., mountain, Mt. top, Rt. side, PT. An expert could be more sure what each means, plus the numbers. Lat-Long runs on the hour from 11:00pm thru early morning and up to 1:00 pm - apparently they got sidetracked before 2:00. Bearing chart stops sometime after 11:45 (not sure the system there). Actual value numbers are a bit harder to pull out in total.

Also, I did my wonderful cool map in statute miles, which is disaster if the IDF was using nautical. It would mean the location of return was about aat Lib's loc - but speed and heading are still suspiciously off, there's still two-ship reports, and the suspected shelling to explain...

[fezzic]

I think that the second image is typical of bleed through you get when the overlaying paper is not completely opaque -- I've had this kind of thing happen, though not to the same extent, on ordinary white paper. Possibly some kind of onion skin type paper or something thin enough that the reproduction lamp bled through to the page underneath.

The top one seems to be radar bearings and range to El Arish while the underlying page is latitude and longitude.


ETA (rather than new post) Might also note that locations on the day in question as noted in the deck log were by dead reckoning. Probably why they would use radar on identifiable land masses to confirm where they (approximately) were.

[Klimax]

Also, I did my wonderful cool map in statute miles, which is disaster if the IDF was using nautical. It would mean the location of return was about aat Lib's loc - but speed and heading are still suspiciously off, there's still two-ship reports, and the suspected shelling to explain...

I think it was in nauticals...

[Caustic Logic]

I think it was in nauticals...

I would guess so as well which means I'm an idiot for not considering that. It doesn't change anything for the whole story, just blows up my alternate return area 8 mi away thing.

Fezzic: I think that's probably what happened here. Not too professional for a Navy court, but no harm I can see... yet. ;)

Resp to Klimax earlier:

Not that it is not interesting,but it is at the end of a realy long queue of other interests...

Fer sure, it's just cool to me you even find this interesting enough to chat about.

What the hell would be second USN ship do it there and not be in docs?If there would be sort of secret op,then all bets off.

To clarify, I was talking radio jamming, and was thinking from the air - the surveillance planes that recorded the attack - er, the time right after it. Just a side thought I've had, don't even know if it's possible let alone makes sense - shouldn't have even mentioned it.

Cannot parse.6x between??? :confused:
Liberty reported and uncontested speed at the time: 5 knots, which is about as fast as I can walk on land. Radar return speed was 28, which is almost 6 times that, or 6X, meaning 6 times the distance between radar returns. If radars can be off by 560% like that, project a target further and further from where it truly is, why did anyone even bother using them to gauge speed? Especially when that speed seems to be the only tip-off you needed to decide who to sink.

And since jets found Liberty,radar return had to be sufficiently close to correct position,that figthers could find it.
Acc. to the second ship theory, yes, that would be the idea. I don't think there was, at least not physically. [ghost ship anyone?]

At least in CR no college debt.(It's relativly free)
And it seems to work - your English is way better than my Czech. I've been wondering where and how to finish my degree... what's rent like there? :D

You can show details impossible,but yet there is error of equipment or error in measurment.

Once MI -> FFI!
With that no FFO needed.
There are problems with that formula I don't feel like cataloguing right now.

Some optical illusion.But not sure myself,but optics can be quite tricky...

Jets couldn't jamm.TB didn't have it and were not there.And what jamming equipment would be needed to "blind" ship like Liberty("electronic warfare"!)
Or how to operate(shelling) while being small enough to escape radar detection.
I won't argue these points. I know only the barest basics of anything involved...

I'll see what equipment/ships were available,but it will take some time.
Finals!

[Klimax]

I would guess so as well which means I'm an idiot for not considering that. It doesn't change anything for the whole story, just blows up my alternate return area 8 mi away thing.


Depends what story...


Fer sure, it's just cool to me you even find this interesting enough to chat about.


You're welcome. :D


To clarify, I was talking radio jamming, and was thinking from the air - the surveillance planes that recorded the attack - er, the time right after it. Just a side thought I've had, don't even know if it's possible let alone makes sense - shouldn't have even mentioned it.


Maybe,but theoretically... putting it aside.


Liberty reported and uncontested speed at the time: 5 knots, which is about as fast as I can walk on land. Radar return speed was 28, which is almost 6 times that, or 6X, meaning 6 times the distance between radar returns. If radars can be off by 560% like that, project a target further and further from where it truly is, why did anyone even bother using them to gauge speed? Especially when that speed seems to be the only tip-off you needed to decide who to sink.


That clarified it.(I took it originally 6X times between,but points? distance? and not realising you took it little differently :o)
Aside from technical standpoint,maybe some false return(your ghostship?) from sea or like that.

Needs check!


Acc. to the second ship theory, yes, that would be the idea. I don't think there was, at least not physically. [ghost ship anyone?]


Possible,but see above-needs check!


And it seems to work - your English is way better than my Czech. I've been wondering where and how to finish my degree... what's rent like there? :D


But does it speak positively about my english or your czech? ;)
Rent depends on place.Prague is expensive(obviously...),but dormitory/college is good choice there.Rest of cities with universities are not that bad regarding rent.


There are problems with that formula I don't feel like cataloguing right now.


Would like to see them sometime.I cannot find any.(not suprising ;))


I won't argue these points. I know only the barest basics of anything involved...


Not that I am expert as well...


Finals!

I know.That's why I said "takes time". :D
Don't worry,my intentions are not to get thrown out of universities for second time...

[Caustic Logic]

Some insights:
Capt McGonagle to NCOI:
LTJG PAINTER came onto the bridge after general
quarters to assume the watch as the officer of the deck. As he assumed
the officer of the deck watch, he indicated that he was having
difficulty in obtaining an accurate ship's fix. At that time, and the
time was approximately 1400, I personally sighted the Minaret at El Arish
to be on a bearing of 142 from the ship and the range as I recall from
the radar was approximately 25.5 miles. I do not know that this radar
range can be verified from the records available at this time.
Confirmation that the bearing log from 12:00 on is not "available."

Ensign David Lucas, who was apparently in charge of surface lookouts, told the NCOI between 12:00 and 1300, “more smoke was visible and the land itself was barely visible. This was through the telescope or high powered binoculars on the 04 level.”
That's just about 20 nmi. How about ships? How far away? Lucas on lookouts:
"They had received refresher training, this was sometime since we left Rota on.the 2nd of June, and had been refreshed on reporting all surface contacts to include relative bearing, approximate range, and target angle. Had also been given refreshers on reporting aircraft properly, on elevation, what angle, other factors pertaining to properly reporting all surface and air contacts to the officer of the deck. This had been stressed heavily in the first week in June, before we did reach our operating area.”
Officer of the deck's notes show no reports of surface craft on June 8 prior to the attack. The main deck log does mention two ships sighted June 7, in this same vigilant mode:
1420 sighted unidentified merchant ship bearing 198, distance about 4800 yards. Identified asmerchant ship as Bencleugh, registry unknown. […] 1430 sighted merchant ship Ioanis Asptiotis Greek registry, bearing 019, distance about 1500 yards.
These were about 2.37nm and 0.74nm distant. There were almost certainly other ships around further out, but these were apparently too far away to notice or care about. So lack of visual contact is not much of a problem.

But, their radar had a range of up to 24.5 miles anyway, judging by ranges given in the chart. This was for a large object called "nearest land (N.L.), not a piddling warship. I hear the Liberty did pick up the MTBs at a range of about 16-18 mi, have to dig that back up. A ship of any size then would have to be probably 20 mi plus away, to not show on radar.

So it's a little ambiguous, but not looking too good for the second mystery ship hypothesis, leaving one wondering where prolonged shelling reports and two ships approaching reports came from in the minutes just after Liberty was erased from the IDF combat info system. The strange radar reading grossly off in all other ways is also left mysterious without another ship, and being in about the right location for Liberty another ship would be ruled out anyway unless under Romulan cloaking shield.

So, the apparent second ship is actually comprised of nothing but a floating ball of random errors, but with set properties, location, speed, direction, and quite uncanny timing! The ball lightning of the earth's coincidence field! The Liberty, like other such politically potent placements of naval units, as always, was the lightning rod.

[fezzic]

Note naval radars don't give speed. They give direction/bearing and distance. They are not like police radar guns used for speed enforcement.

Remember this was back in 1967 way before the home PC and such. The IDF picked up equipment surplus and made do with what they could get. It seems unlikely that they would get some kind of super radar system that would read out all kinds of minutely accurate information, much less put it into a MTB.


As far as the repos of the deck log and such go... I don't think the repos were considered supremely important to the Court of Inquiry and, anyway, they had access to the originals if it should turn out to be necessary.

[Caustic Logic]

Note naval radars don't give speed. They give direction/bearing and distance. They are not like police radar guns used for speed enforcement.

Remember this was back in 1967 way before the home PC and such. The IDF picked up equipment surplus and made do with what they could get. It seems unlikely that they would get some kind of super radar system that would read out all kinds of minutely accurate information, much less put it into a MTB.


Regarding equipment failure, I'd like to ask has anyone ever seen an explicit explanation offered by a reputable source? We've had a couple of opinions thrown out by commenting IDF individuals, but these mean little. The IDF itself I'd consider reputable, in that they'd rather not straight up lie about a verifiable technical issue. So what have they offered? That 1982 official history by Algon had every opportunity to explore the issues with their own equipment. The best they could offer was
"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." [emph mine]

The "since" presumption is based on the Liberty's top speed, 18 kts, well under the 28 they got. It's still "astounding." How much more astounding would it be if the "since" was followed with "the Liberty was traveling at only five knots."?

[Klimax]

The "since" presumption is based on the Liberty's top speed, 18 kts, well under the 28 they got. It's still "astounding." How much more astounding would it be if the "since" was followed with "the Liberty was traveling at only five knots."?


Do not forget that measurments by two boats ,which are close to themselves cannot be taken as two completely independent measurments as the angle for radars was too small making error checking by them useless.For perfect check you'd need around 10 to 20 degrees I think,but this is calculatable.

Good,another thing to be checked out...

[Caustic Logic]

Do not forget that measurments by two boats ,which are close to themselves cannot be taken as two completely independent measurments as the angle for radars was too small making error checking by them useless.For perfect check you'd need around 10 to 20 degrees I think,but this is calculatable.

Good,another thing to be checked out...

Ach! You screwed up what I was imagining to be the awkward silence of the stumped. It makes sense that if one did it wrong the other might too, I'll grant that, since they're close together. But... I wish you luck figuring out the problem they had better than the IDF's official explanation was able to. After finals, win a big prize by demonstrating how this all lines up honestly with legitimate radar returns. I'm willing to assist but no promises! So far, my guess is the 30 knots dash to Port Said came from somewhere other than their radar screens. Somewhere more - ephemeral.

[Klimax]

Ach! You screwed up what I was imagining to be the awkward silence of the stumped. It makes sense that if one did it wrong the other might too, I'll grant that, since they're close together. But... I wish you luck figuring out the problem they had better than the IDF's official explanation was able to. After finals, win a big prize by demonstrating how this all lines up honestly with legitimate radar returns. I'm willing to assist but no promises! So far, my guess is the 30 knots dash to Port Said came from somewhere other than their radar screens. Somewhere more - ephemeral.

Will see to it.And silence was due to problems in RL(like BSOD in Win7 due driver),than being stumped.(there are very few things which would do it.)

[fezzic]

I read that both boats, prior to the torpedo attack, identified the Liberty as that Eyptian ship, "El Q-something or other", however.

I also read, by Cristol so YMMV, that the speed determination was done from the command boat by the CIC officer on it. He made a calculation and passed along that target (Liberty) was doing 30 kts and (according to Cristol's recital) was told to confirm it, redid the calculation and came up with 28 kts.

Cristol said that anything over 20 kts was normally considered a warship so confirming the speed of a target would be reasonable.

He also said that the radars on the MTBs were WWII surplus Kevin-Huges radars and only one was true motion (looked up what that meant and didn't know that kind of radar existed).

It might have been helpful if the IDF had documented the CIC officer's calculations. Probably very embarassing to the young guy though.

[Caustic Logic]

I read that both boats, prior to the torpedo attack, identified the Liberty as that Eyptian ship, "El Q-something or other", however.

Yes, this is a good point - no radar error was responsible for their visual misidentification. So we know something is wrong with their eyes, translating things into Egyptian warships. So when the radar says - to their eyes - that thing is jetting to Port Said, I'm not so sure it's a technical problem with the radar.

I also read, by Cristol so YMMV, that the speed determination was done from the command boat by the CIC officer on it. He made a calculation and passed along that target (Liberty) was doing 30 kts and (according to Cristol's recital) was told to confirm it, redid the calculation and came up with 28 kts.

Cristol said that anything over 20 kts was normally considered a warship so confirming the speed of a target would be reasonable.

All that jives with how I understand it, more or less. The 'over 20 knots' thing, IMO, has something to do with the 'radar problem.'

He also said that the radars on the MTBs were WWII surplus Kevin-Huges radars and only one was true motion (looked up what that meant and didn't know that kind of radar existed).

Thanks for that, I'll check on what "true motion" means.

It might have been helpful if the IDF had documented the CIC officer's calculations. Probably very embarassing to the young guy though.
I didn't know they didn't, but it's somehow not surprising.

[fezzic]

About the ship ID, they probably had the IDF Navy ship identification book of Egyptian and other possible enemy ships onboard. Given that they don't realize the possibility of the "unknown" being a USN ship, they would hurriedly search the book for a likely identification and come up with "El Q-whatsis".

The relatively sizes of Liberty and El Q would not matter all that much, if they were not steaming side by side, and they would be looking for points of similarity rather than points of differences. Fine differences would have been overlooked as they see, "yep, one stack, superstructure about admidships, etc."

Naturally, if one of the boat commanders or crewmen were very familiar with the El Qes... whatever, they might have spoken up saying, "the ship there is too big to be El Qsdffsd" but obviously none of them were that familiar with it.

[Klimax]

Yes, this is a good point - no radar error was responsible for their visual misidentification. So we know something is wrong with their eyes, translating things into Egyptian warships.

All that jives with how I understand it, more or less. The 'over 20 knots' thing, IMO, has something to do with the 'radar problem.'


Visual ID I leave aside.Radar is below.

I read that both boats, prior to the torpedo attack, identified the Liberty as that Eyptian ship, "El Q-something or other", however.

...

He also said that the radars on the MTBs were WWII surplus Kevin-Huges radars and only one was true motion (looked up what that meant and didn't know that kind of radar existed).

Kevin-Huges radar from WW2.I think source of first error found...

For some interesting basic info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RADAR
(See Interference,clutter and jamming)

[Klimax]

True motion radar:
A radar set which provides a true-motion radar presentation on the plan-position indicator, as opposed to the relative-motion, true-or-relative-bearing, presentation most commonly used.

Representation:
A radar plan-position indicator presentation in which the center of the scope represents the same geographic position, until reset, with all moving objects, including the user's own craft, moving on the scope.

Source:http://www.answers.com/topic/true-motion-radar and http://www.answers.com/topic/true-motion-radar-presentation

True-motion patent:
http://www.google.cz/patents?hl=cs&lr=&vid=USPAT3085241&id=RxFGAAAAEBAJ&oi=fnd&dq=United+States+Patent+3085241

But there was something more interesting:
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1968/1968%20-%201058.html

Relative-motion radar displays are extremely difficult to interpret.Boats, buoys, and islands race across the screen. A stabilised truemotion display would increase radar effectiveness greatly.

[Caustic Logic]

ETA: fezzic: Good points on visual comp - well-put, I'll come back to it. I think it's El Quseir, or just EQ for nickname.

Kevin-Huges radar from WW2.I think source of first error found...

I think I missed the part where it was shown that Kevin-Hughes radar from WWII is known to be prone to such magnificent errors. That is cool we at least have a lead that's Google-able. Just so we understand what we're asking this glitch to do:
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/radar_6min_comp.jpg [just for proportion of error - I don't know its rate of return or anything]
If this IS a known problem, then it's verging on a war crime for the IDF to have employed these in deciding who to sink.

On your research for radar, That last link is great - I think we're all in a little over our heads here, but that passage - from 1968 to boot! - helps explain the difference. As I read it, the center of the radar plot/plan is you, so the center moves, and different objects probably at different rates - like looking out the window of a speeding car. whereas true motion shows you everything moving as it is, like a satellite view. ??. It seems to me, as it mentions buoys and such zipping by, that the problem is less with distant, slow-moving objects you're steadily gaining on. That one of these would appear to be racing ahead of you at about your pace, it would have to appear to keep hovering near the same spot or slowly inching towards you, when in Reality it's getting way closer.

If it's so that one MTB had true motion radar, and that that system had a better chance of getting an accurate reading, I'd wager a guess, just my own opinion, that the first reading and the corroboration were done on the other two without ever being checked by the third. Or, better yet, since it's new technology, claim you did check it, it said five knots and you dismissed this fancy new junk, no way it's going THAT slow! That's what I'd say.

[Klimax]

I think I missed the part where it was shown that Kevin-Hughes radar from WWII is known to be prone to such magnificent errors. That is cool we at least have a lead that's Google-able. Just so we understand what we're asking this glitch to do:
http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q62/chainsawmoth/127-911/radar_6min_comp.jpg [just for proportion of error - I don't know its rate of return or anything]
If this IS a known problem, then it's verging on a war crime for the IDF to have employed these in deciding who to sink.

Don't know this ATM.One thing,it might not be know at that time and coupled with clutter,it could result in unpredictable readings.Or radar could return relativly correct info,but operators did error...


On your research for radar, That last link is great - I think we're all in a little over our heads here, but that passage - from 1968 to boot! - helps explain the difference. As I read it, the center of the radar plot/plan is you, so the center moves, and different objects probably at different rates - like looking out the window of a speeding car. whereas true motion shows you everything moving as it is, like a satellite view. ??. It seems to me, as it mentions buoys and such zipping by, that the problem is less with distant, slow-moving objects you're steadily gaining on. That one of these would appear to be racing ahead of you at about your pace, it would have to appear to keep hovering near the same spot or slowly inching towards you, when in Reality it's getting way closer.

If it's so that one MTB had true motion radar, and that that system had a better chance of getting an accurate reading, I'd wager a guess, just my own opinion, that the first reading and the corroboration were done on the other two without ever being checked by the third. Or, better yet, since it's new technology, claim you did check it, it said five knots and you dismissed this fancy new junk, no way it's going THAT slow! That's what I'd say.

It mentions boats as well.And don't forget that ship doing radar search was speeding quite a lot.

Just a thought,couldn't operator misread radar thinking that target has same or greater speed than themself? (So far I cannot formulate thought properly)
(If you substract from TB speed Liberty's speed,result looks closer to reported speed)

Just for completness:
High speeds and relatively short radar ranges (low flight profile) are typical operating conditions that make it difficult to determine true motion.

[fezzic]

Found online that sample the book thing which showed me pages from The Liberty Incident by Jay Cristol.

In the book, in one presumed chapter?, he apparently talked with the CIC officer about what happened. It was not a dialog though.

Anyway, the radar had an 18 inch diameter scope so if the max range was, say 24 miles, that was represented by the 9 inches from the center to the edge.

The CIC had a dead reckoning tracer, motor driven, that displayed the boat's position on a map table. The radar operator told the CIC officer range and bearing to the target then a short time later would give an updated range and bearing. The CIC officer marked the map and then measured the distance between the two marks. Then depending on whether this was a one minute or two minute, etc. interval would multiply by appropriate conversion to get speed.

When the CIC officer first calculated speed, he came out with 30 kts. When he was ordered to confirm the speed, he recalculated (it seems from the same marks he had made) and came up with 28 kts. The CIC officer told Cristol he thought the initial information must/might? have been incorrect (after the fact). No way to prove that now -- either the radar operator gave the wrong bearing or the CIC officer marked it wrong, but who would want to admit that.

Presumably based on how big the radar screen was, the probable maximum range that could be displayed, one could figure out how badly the operator had to screw up in order to accidentally mislead everyone.

It would seem likely that the operator made an error in the target's bearing as range was probably less subject to error. That could make the distance between the two marks long enough to get a 30 kts result when calculating the target's speed. Since the boat commander likely was upstairs running the boat, he would probably not normally see the plot and any error as to course might then disappear as he navigates by eyeball. The only time he needs to refer to the CIC would be to get a course to go somewhere, say back to base.

I might have to actually get that book, hopefully in paperback and cheap. :)

[Caustic Logic]

Found online that sample the book thing which showed me pages from The Liberty Incident by Jay Cristol.
Got it now too. Worth a read, some nice details... I have to make fun of Cristol a little bit tho:
The radar operator watched a round radar screen shaped much like a large dinner plate. [...] The round radar screen is about 18 inches in diameter.
Good, good, it's round, big and round like a big plate, has a diameter, so it's round... :D
Also, referring to the tiny movements of the blips on screen:
"If the target was moving at five knots, it would move away 1/32 of an inch [per minute on the screen]. Dealing with such tiny measurements [...] is a recipe for error."
When you're squinting at those blips moving barely perceptible tiny fractions of an inch, it's only natural to think -what, that's still the first dot? The thing isn't moving at all? It's escaping towards Port Said, bearing 260, 30 knots, gonna need backup? This stuff just isn't helping so far.


I'll look at that conversation you cited. It's bound to be interesting. Technical points, no comment til then, or at least tomorrow, too late now.

The CIC officer told Cristol he thought the initial information must/might? have been incorrect (after the fact). No way to prove that now -- either the radar operator gave the wrong bearing or the CIC officer marked it wrong, but who would want to admit that.

Must/might, huh? They've how long to figure this stuff out? I'll reserve further comment...

[Caustic Logic]

So the book says one guy read the screen and orally told the other guy - CIC officer Yifrah, the range and bearing. Yifrah plotted these out on the big table, used the differences times whatever, maybe again times 6, or something. Mistakes happen, usually in bundles of hundreds.

Otherwise, bump for a thread that's growing in views but not comments. Considering the gravity of the subject, I'd call that silence awkward.

[Eddie Dane]

So the book says one guy read the screen and orally told the other guy - CIC officer Yifrah, the range and bearing. Yifrah plotted these out on the big table, used the differences times whatever, maybe again times 6, or something. Mistakes happen, usually in bundles of hundreds.

Otherwise, bump for a thread that's growing in views but not comments. Considering the gravity of the subject, I'd call that silence awkward.

It's quiet.

Almost......too quiet.

Que scary music.

I just check in every day to verify that this thread is still going.
And in such detail.

Soldier on guys.

[Caustic Logic]

It's quiet.

Almost......too quiet.

That's what I was thinking...

Que scary music.
Que? ;)

I just check in every day to verify that this thread is still going. And in such detail.

The three of us have gone a ways into the radar issue, only to have it come out a math problem. The problem Yifrah passed to Cristol was apparently the first return was off by a factor of 6, meaning the distance between returns 1 and 2 were off enough to require 30 knots to cover - a double-check (averaging in new returns?) brought it down to 28. Given the variables, I think a math whiz might be able to figure out what they did and got wrong, using algebra. It would help to know what the time interval between returns was, but Cristol didn't seem to figure that out.

Soldier on guys.
I'm too far ahead of everyone already, taking a breather. This is also just one small corner of this stinking pile, and that's not even getting to the American side of this event.

Thanks for piping up, E.D. For the record tho, I never did find in this thread any "o-ver-whelming" evidence of friendly fire. Recommended post numbers?

[Eddie Dane]

Thanks for piping up, E.D. For the record tho, I never did find in this thread any "o-ver-whelming" evidence of friendly fire. Recommended post numbers?

tho? ;)

I recommend all threads on this subject in their entirety, before they trail of in ridiculous detail.

It's like with the JFK assassination. You can spend a lifetime looking at who was where at what time and who they knew etc. etc. But the solution is quite straightforward: Oswald shot JFK and he acted alone. Apply Occam's razor to the evidence and that is the conclusion I come to.

I must admit that I'm seriously impressed with amount of detailed information you guys are able to dredge up. But let's get real: don't be surprised that nobody is giving input at this point. Not even JREF members are willing to start a debate about what kind of radar system the Israelis used, where they bought it, how they operated it, who was on duty during the incident, if this person had an eye condition, if this can be proven by dredging up the records from his optician, whether the records could have been falsified, how this optician died, if this was from a common heart disease in the Mediterranean in the sixties. All backed up with real evidence, but still an exercise in futility.

Abstract: ten year old kid in the mid sixties claims: "the dog ate my homework".
Now, one could conclude that this is not likely. it is statistically far more likely that the kid didn't make his homework and lied about the dog eating it, than that the dog actually ate his homework.

Or not? Could there be something to it after all?

What kind of dog was it? Check city records.
The dog died a year later? Could it have been a delayed effect of ingesting homework? Check veterinarian records.
Can canine digest cellulose? Massive data check.
No? Aren't we forgetting something? Of course! What kind of paper was used in schools at the time of the incident? More digging.
But wait! The school overstocked on paper the previous year, it may have been a different kind of paper.
Irrelevant! Kids use paper from home to use in school.
Etc. Etc. Etc.

Nobody is joining in because nobody has anything sensible to say about such detail and I suspect that hardly anybody is motivated to do more research at this point because most people are convinced that the CT has been debunked.

Even Gumboot, a poster who's usually willing to submit lots of detailed technical info, seems to have thrown in the towel.

Please don't see lack of input as a sign that the debunkers have been overwhelmed by all the evidence.

I don't mean to knock all your diligent research, but you are missing the big picture IMHO.

[gumboot]

tho? ;)

I recommend all threads on this subject in their entirety, before they trail of in ridiculous detail.

It's like with the JFK assassination. You can spend a lifetime looking at who was where at what time and who they knew etc. etc. But the solution is quite straightforward: Oswald shot JFK and he acted alone. Apply Occam's razor to the evidence and that is the conclusion I come to.

I must admit that I'm seriously impressed with amount of detailed information you guys are able to dredge up. But let's get real: don't be surprised that nobody is giving input at this point. Not even JREF members are willing to start a debate about what kind of radar system the Israelis used, where they bought it, how they operated it, who was on duty during the incident, if this person had an eye condition, if this can be proven by dredging up the records from his optician, whether the records could have been falsified, how this optician died, if this was from a common heart disease in the Mediterranean in the sixties. All backed up with real evidence, but still an exercise in futility.

Abstract: ten year old kid in the mid sixties claims: "the dog ate my homework".
Now, one could conclude that this is not likely. it is statistically far more likely that the kid didn't make his homework and lied about the dog eating it, than that the dog actually ate his homework.

Or not? Could there be something to it after all?

What kind of dog was it? Check city records.
The dog died a year later? Could it have been a delayed effect of ingesting homework? Check veterinarian records.
Can canine digest cellulose? Massive data check.
No? Aren't we forgetting something? Of course! What kind of paper was used in schools at the time of the incident? More digging.
But wait! The school overstocked on paper the previous year, it may have been a different kind of paper.
Irrelevant! Kids use paper from home to use in school.
Etc. Etc. Etc.

Nobody is joining in because nobody has anything sensible to say about such detail and I suspect that hardly anybody is motivated to do more research at this point because most people are convinced that the CT has been debunked.

Even Gumboot, a poster who's usually willing to submit lots of detailed technical info, seems to have thrown in the towel.

Please don't see lack of input as a sign that the debunkers have been overwhelmed by all the evidence.

I don't mean to knock all your diligent research, but you are missing the big picture IMHO.



I think Eddie Dane has a point here. I have a sort of criteria which I like to think of as my "brain line". The brain line is the arbitrary point at which I feel I've presented sufficient information to deal with the basic thrust of a theory.

If the dissenting voice hasn't seen reason by this point, it's reasonably to conclude they either have no brain or are not using it properly, in which case further effort by myself is pointless.

Case in point is the NORAD conspiracy theories relating to 9/11. I carefully assembled together a host of information on the matter, and presented it. It was far from a complete picture, but it reached the brain line, as far as I was concerned.

Now, there's still people who post here who are continuing to dredge through FAA recordings and radar data, and they're uncovering some interesting stuff. More power to them. I admire their efforts.

But frankly what they're doing is just a waste of time (that is, as far as bringing vital information to the argument - but then I think they do it for their own interest, so that's fine).

My interest in the matter doesn't run that deep, so I've stopped my work, and you'll note I seldom post in this subforum any more - I much prefer the punching bag of Politics and Current Events when my brain is idle.

As far as my interest in the USS Liberty incident goes, I'm satisfied that I've reached the brain line. There's no plausible evidence that the attack was intentional, and lots of plausible evidence that it was an accident.

If you're personally interested in the matter, and want to dig deeper, great. Don't stop on my account. But just don't expect to have too many people wanting to discuss what you uncover.

My rule is a simple one. Only ever cross the brain line for reasons of personal interest. Never cross the brain line for the sake of someone else.

[Eddie Dane]

I'd like to add that we all get wiser from all the research. I've learned a lot about what level of technology the Americans and the Israelis used at that time in history. And I find that reasonably interesting.

But it is not adding anything to the CT discussion.

I've actually grown to see it as those English and German murder mystery TV shows, where the murder mystery takes a back seat and we get to have a peek into the lives of the characters. The murder investigation is just an excuse for the detective to ask questions and expose the lives and secrets of the characters.

So don't let me discourage you from delving deeper. Just don't expect me to join in.

I don't think you'll discover that the butler did it. But you might dig up some dirt about the time when he was running a whorehouse and had a gay affair.:)

Now where is that smiley that eats popcorn?

[Caustic Logic]

I think Eddie Dane has a point here. I have a sort of criteria which I like to think of as my "brain line". The brain line is the arbitrary point at which I feel I've presented sufficient information to deal with the basic thrust of a theory.

He's definitely got a point. I've been dominating things here, and I'm a total nerd and get all detailed, and also sometimes wrong and confused. I have a similar line, laid down less often but further out perhaps than yours, which i finall invoked regarding the CIT kids, and Ultima1, etc.

If the dissenting voice hasn't seen reason by this point, it's reasonably to conclude they either have no brain or are not using it properly, in which case further effort by myself is pointless.

I know this is in ref to your overall brain line thing, but since you're apparently invoking that clause here... the gloves iz off dood.

Case in point is the NORAD conspiracy theories relating to 9/11. I carefully assembled together a host of information on the matter, and presented it. It was far from a complete picture, but it reached the brain line, as far as I was concerned.
You did some stellar work there I never have given its due look. Just a quick scan and I got the idea most of my own were probably wrong and dropped it. Kudos.

As far as my interest in the USS Liberty incident goes, I'm satisfied that I've reached the brain line. There's no plausible evidence that the attack was intentional, and lots of plausible evidence that it was an accident.
Evidence you're invoking the clause...
The attack was absolutely intentional and well-coordinated. What's at question is whether their continued, heedless, dunder-headed lack of understanding this was an American vessel was accidental or willful ignorance. Neither can be proven absent on-the-scene brain scans or 1005 saturation with bugs in the IDF HQs. But my lord, they claim to have missed a lot of clues.
http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/04/boat-to-boat-recognition.html

I decided last night, Gumboot, to revisit all your posts, as that's what has been pointed to as any kind of de-bunk. So thanks for popping back to thread you helped shape, and I'm going back now. There are more posts by you than I remember, but so far it seems your major theme is the US deserved the attack for snooping, the Israelis warned us they'd shoot anyone there, and that's just what happened. So arguably, the best case it was accident is because if it HAD been intentional, it would be justified and they wouldn't have to lie?

My rule is a simple one. Only ever cross the brain line for reasons of personal interest. Never cross the brain line for the sake of someone else.
Don't worry, I'm a reasonable chap, and I'm sue on closer inspection I'll find the "aha!" point where you showed how it was accident. I'll then have some reaction.

[fezzic]

I think that the key element in the Liberty incident was that the CIC officer calculated, however he did it, that Liberty/target was doing 30 knots. As far as I can tell, pretty much everything flowed from that initial mistake.

By determining the target was doing 30 knots, the MTBs knew they couldn't close before it would be too dangerous -- close to Port Said -- so they called in air support. Even if Liberty's marker was on the situation plot or somebody in HQ remembered (with the marker removed) that Liberty was potentially somewhere in the area, the report that the target was doing 30 knots would have ruled out Liberty.

By "ROE" (my word) a target doing 30 knots (actually >20knots) was considered a warship. No further identification was needed.

The IAF jets were concerned about hitting the wrong target since there was supposedly four warships out there -- one presumed hostile and 3 Israeli. Once they confirmed who was the Israeli, they proceeded to attack the presumed hostile target which was Liberty.

At this point, like in most friendly fire incidents, somebody noticed that something was not right. It might have been unexpected and only seen for a moment, but by reporting it that began to cast doubt on the intial assumption that the target had to be a hostile warship. But what was not answered immediately was 'who were they'?

Step back a bit and redo the events...

The CIC officer informs the MTB commander (who tells HQ) that the target is moving about 5 knots. MTB commander would know that DIV 914 would overhaul it quickly and well before the target would reach Port Said. No need to call on the IAF to help.

If anybody had remembered Liberty, the slow movement of the target might have jogged their memory and its presence might have been mentioned to the MTBs. But this would not be decisively important.

The MTBs would be on the alert, but the slow speed of the target would assure them that it probably was not a warship -- a warship that shelled the Israelis would presumably be fleeing for safety -- so they'd look pretty closely because the target may not be hostile and the "ROE" only apply if it was going > 20 knots. The possibility that the target is a neutral or friendly or Russian would be real and they'd want to not shoot up anybody but the enemy.

Chances are good that Mcgonagle would have been worried about the approaching gunboats but his flag would be flying, there would be no smoke and fires to obscure the ship, he would not have fired on the gunboats, and he might have directly answered the gunboats, especially if he determined they were Israeli, instead of challenging them back -- for instance his signal lights would have been operational.

Probable result, no incident.

As I think I may have mentioned back aways, the friendly fire explanation seems most plausible. It fits the events as we understand them. There was no need to invoke various motivations, all unprovable, about Israel to get to something other than what some might say is an all too common friendly fire mistake. However if someone wants to go the deliberate attempt to sink Liberty route, that is their perogative.

I like when a thread delves into a more technical presentation of things, so long as they are not tooooo technical, rather than going around in circles casting aspertions on poster's motivations.

[Caustic Logic]

I think that the key element in the Liberty incident was that the CIC officer calculated, however he did it, that Liberty/target was doing 30 knots. As far as I can tell, pretty much everything flowed from that initial mistake.

Unfortunately, that wasn't quite the first mistake, nor anywhere near the last. This was a perfect storm of blunders. A little too perfect, of course.

Even if Liberty's marker was on the situation plot or somebody in HQ remembered (with the marker removed) that Liberty was potentially somewhere in the area, the report that the target was doing 30 knots would have ruled out Liberty.

Fair point, but once they started reporting a ship that matched the Liberty, if they'd been thinking about it, that ignorance may not have lasted. Guy that removed it also removed himself and left no marker, no notes, no clue to the next guy. The Liberty was not rediscovered til after 15:30, underneath all that smoke, listing away.

I like when a thread delves into a more technical presentation of things, so long as they are not tooooo technical, rather than going around in circles casting aspertions on poster's motivations.

Agreed, and I'm really not sure we were too technical/boring yet for my tastes, but verging close anyway. I'll have to leave the rest of your post now and focus on Gumboot's pivotal findings. At the risk of again seeming awkwardly obsessive and pariah-like, first seven posts for now.

Post #9
According to the Israelis the torpedo boats were dispatched to assist the Liberty once it became clear the boat was American, and signaled in accordance with this, upon which the Liberty fired at them so they defended themselves and returned fire.

I think you may be confused. The firing was before the torpedoing, the 2-way flashing where the Liberty identified herself and MTBs offered assistance came after. But yes, it appears the first shots came from the Liberty.

#59 – Of all the reasons I’ve seen the attack was ordered, being too close to the shore was not one of them, but good attempt at justification. We should refund that $6 million!

Biting my tongue again...

#88 – sorry, but it’s “pretty clear” that anyone who can unquestioningly chalk all that up to dumb luck might just be beyond help. I will add that Israeli sources often – and rightly - cite the US ‘errors’ in allowing the ship so close as a big part of the problem. This does nothing to cancel out their own mistakes, and IMO just amplifies the problems that both sides made a string of improbable errors leading to the tragedy. I don’t think it came out like it was supposed to.

#99 – location is not irrelevant. You yourself said part of the problem was their getting too close to the shore, and being in the location no US ships were said to be, as well as in the right location to be mistakenly sunk. Location is very important. We had spy planes too, but these were apparently in a better location and didn't get whacked and shot down as they should have, damn spies.

#101 – same as JM, but since we’re playing semantics, replace “crime” with “act of war.”
The Navy Court of Inquiry found that the Saratoga received radio transmissions from the Liberty and successfully passed these on to the 6th Fleet. This would indicate that radio jamming did not occur.
I’m agnostic on jamming, but this could also show the real jamming was incomplete, leaving one frequency open. The crew reports trying multiple frequencies, all overloaded with that buzzsaw jamming sound, before they found the one open. Exact names and frequencies evade me now but I’m sure you know this is true. Clearly tho if they meant to silence the ship, they did fail, and that complicates that particular CT. Good point.

On the shooting of life rafts, I'll also concede, as I already have, that this is unprovable. It may or may not be true, and may indicate nothing more than another simple war crime rather than anything conspiratorial if true. Folks take it as a sign they wanted no survivors, but then why didn't they actually sink the ship? That's a question that's always baffled me - they said themselves that was their goal, but failed with a 1/6 average.

#102
According to the logs the closest the MTBs ever closed was 2000 yards which is quite a considerable distance. In addition, since Joe here was the signalman he can confirm that smoke from the fires made it impossible for him to read the MTBs signals, just as the Israelis claim they could not see his signals clearly. Thus we cannot assume the MTBs saw the US flag.
No we cannot, tho the Libery was able to see their “quite small” flag, and their hull markings, from that distance. 2000 yards is just over a mile, which is close enough to try signaling. Actually I think they may have gotten closer than that, but ... Eventually from this or whatever distance they saw and identified the flag, perhaps with fancy binoculars. Could YOu see a 13-foot flag from a mile off with binoculars? Or a 10x25-foot block of letters saying GTR5? I really don't go around testing these things, but I imagine I could. They saw the flashes from their machine guns at 2000 yards, and the signals saying “no thank you” later on. Just – not - at the right time. Torpedo hit, 14:35 PM. Machine gunning the ship, perhaps rafts, etc. from 14:35-15:05. Signals saying “US Naval Vessel” about 15:03, sighting of US flag and deciding these are Americans was at 15:30.

I know, I know... boooorrrrrring!

#107
again, why ain’t they man enough then to just admit they hit a US ship? They did warn us, it was justified in every way? You American kids shoot us with machine guns, we decide you’re Egyptians again and sink you with torpedos! Stupid Yank Arbs…
The MTB Log records “detected firing flashes” at 14:35, apparently taken as a negative response to their own flashing. They then recorded the identification as El Quiser at 14:37, and their counter-attack commencing at 14:40. 2,000 yards. Six million dollars.

[Klimax]

Before getting back to event itself,I'd like to point ojut that there are only few things interesting or good to learn for me:
Radar,its flaws and technology
Error of measurment in practise
Optics
Military technology and equipment

And maybe few more.Sorry CL,but I am not catching up anything.You are not ahead of me as I am not on the same track as you.(I am not anylonger that interested in CT,except its debunking)

Back to original scheduled topic...
And BTW:I have drawn line only for stupidity,not detail of debate...

[Caustic Logic]

Before getting back to event itself,I'd like to point ojut that there are only few things interesting or good to learn for me:
Radar,its flaws and technology
Error of measurment in practise
Optics
Military technology and equipment

And maybe few more.

For sure, you'll want to not forget the history of friendly fire incidents, effects of small rooms on speed calculations, unreliability of witness memory, and origins of anti-semitic conspiracy theories. All also highly relevant.

Sorry CL,but I am not catching up anything.You are not ahead of me as I am not on the same track as you.(I am not anylonger that interested in CT,except its debunking)

Back to original scheduled topic...
And BTW:I have drawn line only for stupidity,not detail of debate...

Thanks for saying sorry, and also for being patient for a while. I don't mean to cause anyone harm or come across obnoxious, I just have to call it as I see it. It can't help but seem ugly in a case like this. Also, I'm on or a toe over some other lines here as i approach my own brain line for this forum as a whole, on this subject. Plus I have to sign in twice now for every post, not sure why :tinfoil: I'll consider my mission here pretty well accomplished and again lay low. At least on this. Some CTs just aren't as much fun as others. I get it.

Cheers all.

[Klimax]

For sure, you'll want to not forget the history of friendly fire incidents, effects of small rooms on speed calculations, unreliability of witness memory, and origins of anti-semitic conspiracy theories. All also highly relevant.

Maybe,maybe not,it depends on outcome of previous.


Thanks for saying sorry, and also for being patient for a while. I don't mean to cause anyone harm or come across obnoxious, I just have to call it as I see it. It can't help but seem ugly in a case like this. Also, I'm on or a toe over some other lines here as i approach my own brain line for this forum as a whole, on this subject. Plus I have to sign in twice now for every post, not sure why :tinfoil: I'll consider my mission here pretty well accomplished and again lay low. At least on this. Some CTs just aren't as much fun as others. I get it.

Cheers all.
First:No problem and everybody needs to have hobby.BUT there is so far too slim chance to uncover something new and revealing,sure thing for amateurs.

Underlined:???

Bolded:Don't like responses? or what is problem?

Italics:There are several possibilities.Broken file keeping track of cookies,bad setting(s),forgot to mark "log automatically".Maybe few were missed.

And last:Maybe not fun,but depends how one approaches it.(But those listed things are interesting bits,but not exactly neccessary for CT-debunking/confirming)

[Caustic Logic]

Hi, Klimax, sorry for the delay. I got myself frustrated enough I had to just not even type anything for a bit. Yes, got myself frustrated. I could just shrug and walk away, unlike some more directly involved. But nooo, I had to try and argue the point with people intent on not seeing it, a recipe for brain-popping.

Underlined:???
That being "It can't help but seem ugly in a case like this" means any attempt to question an Israeli attack of this sort it will appear ugly to many, as you are blaming Jews for something sinister, which is a no-no, since the Nazis also did that, etc. Fact is it is an ugly accusation, as well as an ugly reality, however you slice it.

Bolded:Don't like responses? or what is problem?

Quite a few of them I don't like, but I do appreciate people adding any opinions or thoughts to the discussion. It's important to know what people think, even if it is unpleasant. I could keep going, but I need to stop the pop before it happens. Also, if I'm right, I'm certainly pissing someone off by bringing all this up.

Even if I'm wrong, just keeping the issue alive at all is dangerous. Almost everyone on the U.S. side who knows anything about the affair feels it was an intentional attack on a U.S. ship. It's absolute political dynamite - a mood shift at the White House and this vast body of 'anti-Israel kooks' could become something much different.

Please not almost all sources claiming to "close the case," and it's been tried several times, are Israeli and/or highly sympathetic. The U.S. has been remarkably weak in support of it's official but oh-so-thin line of "yeah, what they said." I've heard it said the incident could, in the right circumstances, be the undoing of Israel. That would be more awkward than either my rambling or (almost) everyone else's silence here.

Then that in itself is annoying, that the U.S. can just get one ship attacked and hold it over someone's head like that. What touchy, petty bullies! Especially when there's reason to suspect they originally colluded by placing the target for the IDF. No, ooops, another string of mistakes... Did something go wrong? Did the US back out on its half of the deal, and leave the Isrealis exposed with the smoking gun? Unanswerable questions need to be considered as unanswered.

In 2003, Admiral Moorer called the attack a deliberate "act of war" against the United States. That's heavy. On the other hand, same guy was appointed CNO June 5 IIRC, almost exactly as the Liberty was sent in, the war started, and the Liberty failed to get recalled. I'm not sure I trust Moorer.

I recognize dynamite and actually would like to defuse it. Truth, not vengeance. But that's pretty lofty, and just a sentiment. So I made my noise, there's my peace. Lurkers, check it out for yourselves, the facts and also your own mindsets.

I wasn't really paranoid about the logging-in thing - it followed my first log-out in like a year, probably me, will fix it later.

And last:Maybe not fun,but depends how one approaches it.(But those listed things are interesting bits,but not exactly neccessary for CT-debunking/confirming)
This issue just isn't and shouldn't be fun. And it's less in the realm of CTs than in politically sensitive military-diplomatic stuff with potential for triggering serious problems if the debate were conclusively resolved. Does the JREF even have a forum for that?

[fezzic]

Once this moves beyond a fairly technical discussion of the incident to one of motivation, it is going to leave me behind. I would have nothing but my opinion to offer as to motivation. Being convinced that it was a friendly fire incident, I would say that one can't argue (to me) that some speculative motive has any real weight in the absence of some kind of hard fact specific to the motive.

[Caustic Logic]

Bump again.

I found some minor disinfo supporting a CT point that had fooled me briefly until I double-checked. Explained here:
http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/07/where-are-americans.html

Manufactured evidence had strongly implied attacking pilots saw the flag. The tapes related in true order as now acknowledged do not support this. The IDF says they never saw the flag, even during AM recon, until the helicopters after. And EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN with first-hand knowledge says they indeed did recieve reports of a flag during the attack.

The trustworthy Dr. Nowicki:
“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.” “[O]nly later in the afternoon did we hear references to [the] flag during the attacks.” ”As I recall, we recorded most, if not all, of the attack.”

These recordings don't exist, according to the NSA. That's good, since they contradict what the Isrealis say.

[fezzic]

Where did Dr. Nowicki's quote come from?

The first part of that quote seems, word for word, like a similar statement made by Nowicki in a letter to the Wall Street Journal.

I have no recollection of seeing the the remainder of the quote in any Nowicki documentation (naturally from the www.thelibertyincident.com (http://www.thelibertyincident.com)) and I have taken a look to check.

[Caustic Logic]

Where did Dr. Nowicki's quote come from?

The first part of that quote seems, word for word, like a similar statement made by Nowicki in a letter to the Wall Street Journal.

I have no recollection of seeing the the remainder of the quote in any Nowicki documentation (naturally from the www.thelibertyincident.com (http://www.thelibertyincident.com)) and I have taken a look to check.

First Quote, correct
http://www.libertyincident.com/nowicki-wsj.html
Second one from an attachment w/e-mail to Bamford
http://www.libertyincident.com/nowicki-evidence.html
Third one from the e-mail itself
http://www.libertyincident.com/nowicki-email.html

He still feels it was an accident, that as soon as they SAW THE FLAg DURING THE ATTACK they stopped. He says it was seen by both air and surface units, claiming to have recorded and heard both phases of attack. Presumably it was called off twice then, that part's not as clear.

So is the guy just confused and got all that from the non-attacking helicopters that are acknowledged to report the flag? He contradicts both the transcript witnesses (to thom it was no accident and they shot despite the flag) and the IDF story that no flag was visible during the attack, and NSA's public and final stance that the attack wasn't recorded. But Cristol pimps his acc't anyway since his (faulty?) memory leads him to believe it was a double accident.

Noone agrees with anyone here, it's confusing.

Case closed, huh?