Operation Cyanide and the USS Liberty (was: Navy crew remembers 1967 Israeli attack)

(Issac Goldberg) wrote in message . com...

# If that was the goal, then Israel made (at least...) six mistakes:
# 1) Attack with a Mirage, a plane with a unique shape that only Israel had.

% Only Israel had the Mirage? Didn't France have any, or was the entire
% production run of Mirages sold to Israel?

A Mirage could not fly from France to Al-Arish, you idiot.

Ever hear of a thing called an aircraft carrier?

Sending an aircraft carrier through the Med., without the Sixth
Fleet realizing that, would be a neat trick.
Landing Mirage 3, that did not have a hook, on the 265 metter
deck of the Clemenceau would be an even more interesting tricks.
(Yes, I saw a Mirage 3 close by. Unlike other planes I saw close
by (A4, F4, F15), it did not have a hook.)

Anyway, the point that you make a real effort to miss, is that the
Liberty crew missed the unique, "tail with no horizontal" shape of
the Mirage. Somehow the LVA expected a Mirage to recognize the
Liberty, even though none of them recognized the Mirage...

The fact that you need to resort to name calling indicates
that you feel your arguments are too weak to stand on their
own. If you were confident in your assertions, there would
be no need to engage in name calling.

You deserve no respect because you make no effort to back your claims.
E.g. when you made the claim of Mirage 3 landing on aircraft carrier,
I took the time to search what aircraft carrier France had in 1967.
I found in http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...clemenceau.htm
some data like:
@Length 265.00 m
.................................................. ...........
@Aircraft F-8E (40 aircrafts)
(From the picture it is obvious that the runway is shorter.)

I looked for data about Mirage landing distance, and could not
find the exact number, but some interesting claims. E.g.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...ult+Mirage+III
@The delta wing has a number of limitations. Delta-winged aircraft have
@a long take-off run, since flaps are not practical as they would
@simply force the nose down; high landing speed;
(To me, "high landing speed" sounds like "a problem with short runways.")

I continued to search and found some data about landing distances of
other airplanes, e.g. http://antislashe.free.fr/mirages.htm
@ Minimum Take-off Distance Minimum Landing Distance
@Mirage 2000 1,650 ft. (503m) 2,000 ft. (610m)
@F16 C 1,500 ft. (457m) 3,000 ft. (914m)
@F18 C 1,700 ft. (518m) 2,500 ft. (762m)

You did not waste anytime to check if your claims make any sense.
It is not "a honest mistake," it is "laziness."

wrote:

(Yes, I saw a Mirage 3 close by. Unlike other planes I saw close
by (A4, F4, F15), it did not have a hook.)

You've seen an F-15 with a tailhook? Where?

Bobbi

---
Roberta Hatch '65 Panhead
Dykes on Bikes, San Francisco, CA (This space for rent)

#(Yes, I saw a Mirage 3 close by. Unlike other planes I saw close
#by (A4, F4, F15), it did not have a hook.)

Roberta Hatch wrote in message ...
You've seen an F-15 with a tailhook? Where?

Israeli Airforce, 1978.
It was a small one, like the A4's tailhook.

It seems like other people saw the same thing, e.g.:
################################################## ######
From: )
Subject: Does the F117 have a tailhook?
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Date: 1997/02/04

I don't diasagree about the F-117 not having a tailhook. However, according to
Clancy's Fighter Wing, the F-15 has a tailhook. However I have no idea what it
is used for, as the gear are not string enough for cats and traps.

################################################## ########################

sci.military.naval, talk.politics.mideast, rec.aviation.military.naval

wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:

# If that was the goal, then Israel made (at least...) six mistakes:
# 1) Attack with a Mirage, a plane with a unique shape that only Israel had.

% Only Israel had the Mirage? Didn't France have any, or was the entire
% production run of Mirages sold to Israel?

A Mirage could not fly from France to Al-Arish, you idiot.

Ever hear of a thing called an aircraft carrier?

Sending an aircraft carrier through the Med., without the Sixth
Fleet realizing that, would be a neat trick.

Hillel's errors are revealed, and Hillel tries changing the
subject. Again.

I refuted your assertions that:

1) Only Israel had the Mirage, and

2) A Mirage could not fly from France to Al-Arish.

The Sixth fleet has nothing to do with your two mistakes.

Just like all the other 'it-was-an-accident' proponents,
you are unable to admit a mistake, even when it is a whopper.
Instead you use name calling and try to change the subject.
It's an indication that you feel you have a very weak case,
since there would be no need for you to call people names if
you had a strong case.

Must be good drugs on the planet you live on
in that area the IAF was the only airforce with that plane. and any coming
from France would have been picked up on RADAR

--
"I have seen the worst that man can do.and I can still laugh loudly"
R.J. Goldman

http://www.usidfvets.com

and

http://www.stopfcc.com


"Issac Goldberg" wrote in message
om...
sci.military.naval, talk.politics.mideast, rec.aviation.military.naval

wrote:
(Issac Goldberg) wrote:

# If that was the goal, then Israel made (at least...) six mistakes:
# 1) Attack with a Mirage, a plane with a unique shape that only Israel
had.

% Only Israel had the Mirage? Didn't France have any, or was the entire
% production run of Mirages sold to Israel?

A Mirage could not fly from France to Al-Arish, you idiot.

Ever hear of a thing called an aircraft carrier?

Sending an aircraft carrier through the Med., without the Sixth
Fleet realizing that, would be a neat trick.

Hillel's errors are revealed, and Hillel tries changing the
subject. Again.

I refuted your assertions that:

1) Only Israel had the Mirage, and

2) A Mirage could not fly from France to Al-Arish.

The Sixth fleet has nothing to do with your two mistakes.

Just like all the other 'it-was-an-accident' proponents,
you are unable to admit a mistake, even when it is a whopper.
Instead you use name calling and try to change the subject.
It's an indication that you feel you have a very weak case,
since there would be no need for you to call people names if
you had a strong case.