# The USS Liberty and Conspiracy Theories **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 15, 2009, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101 "2009-07-15T12:37:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101/181 "2009-07-16T20:48:47Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > We boarded the crippled ship at sea and interviewed survivors. The evidence was clear. We both believed with certainty that this attack was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew."\* Ten to one odds that this same claim gets brought up in the next thread. Three to one odds it gets brought up again in this one. Someone cites Boston (whose claims about Kidd’s beliefs are falsified by Kidd’s own handwritten letter to Cristol anyways) saying that Kidd thought something, that Kidd himself never publicly stated and that Boston waited to reveal until Kidd was dead and couldn’t comment on it… and Boston claims it in such a manner as to falsify his own claim by both saying that an investigation would take half a year and that the investigation could actually be completed in a tiny fraction of that time. Or, of course, that Boston was admitting he was prejudiced to the matter and had made up his mind before he was able to conduct the kind of investigation that he himself said was necessary. _And this is used as proof!_ And, of course, it proves that virtually the entire US government, the Navy, and our intelligence services were all in on it and despite their public statements ‘everybody’ at those agencies really knew the truth (but still signed off on everything anyways) and never issued a contradictory report, ever. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101/182 "2009-07-16T20:51:25Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > This isn’t a very convincing line - an appeal to authority and to secret knowledge, and to general opinions within certain gov’t agencies. So they are liars? All of them? All of those NSA Directors, CIA Directors, Deputy NSA Directors, Admirals and so on? It is inconceivable to you that they have access to information you do not? Your opinion trumps their expert opinion why? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101/183 "2009-07-16T21:01:57Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Well, yes. That’s exactly what **Finn** and others are arguing. > > It is those _supporting_ the conspiracy who dispute it. Technically, as the conspiracy theory requires its perpetrators to be Genius Fools, they’re arguing both sides of the issue. 1. Genius: Israel knew that they could neutralize the ship and that one of the world’s two superpowers would not only roll right over, they’d institute a massive coverup to suppress the truth. Fools: But they could have actually sunk the ship in the first place, killed all its crew and used unmarked planes to hide their true identity and there’d have been no need for the massive conspiracy in the US to hide their actions. Instead they chose to let the crew survive and let the US know that exactly what had happened. 1. Genius: The IAF was so awesome that friendly fire and the fog of war cannot effect them and pilots who aren’t used to naval ID can still nail it bang on . Fools: But in deciding to kill the ship, the elite IAF forgot to bring anti-Ship weaponry and used anti personnel weaponry instead. 1. Genius: The IAF overflew the Liberty and must have conclusively identified it at once and even though it was several hours after their last overflight, they still would have definitively known what the ship was despite the fact that the intel was stale. Fools: But they didn’t take the time to get a special squadron of pilots who were in on the evil plot and who could be trusted to lie about it later. 1. Genius: The Israelis could have totally neutralized the _Liberty_’s ability to intercept communications by totally jamming their comms system. Fools: But they were too stupid to know that this would render the ship useless and decided to destroy it anyways. And back to 1. Obviously the key to the whole conspiracy was thermite. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101/184 "2009-07-16T21:06:42Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > If that wasn’t clear enough, \*both \*governments wanted to avoid the mess of having the screwup become public, given the regional political and diplomatic situation at the time, so both played a role in trying to hide it. We can even see some evidence of this in Captain McGonagle’s Medal of Honor citation. To my knowledge he is the only living recipient who was not given his medal by the President personally and was relegated to a navy yard to receive it (at the least by the time McGonagle received his medal this was tradition). Further, his citation makes no mention of the Israelis. I have not read every [Medal of Honor citation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Medal_of_Honor_recipients_for_World_War_II) there is but all I have read explicitly mention who the person was fighting against. > [@](#): > > **Medal of Honor citation of Captain William L. McGonagle** : > > ``` > "For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty as Commanding Officer, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) in the Eastern Mediterranean on 8-9 June 1967. Sailing in international waters, the Liberty was attacked without warning by jet fighter aircraft and motor torpedo boats which inflicted many casualties among the crew and caused extreme damage to the ship. Although severely wounded during the first air attack, Captain (then Commander) McGonagle remained at his battle station on the badly damaged bridge and, with full knowledge of the seriousness of his wounds, subordinated his own welfare to the safety and survival of his command. Steadfastly refusing any treatment which would take him away from his post, he calmly continued to exercise firm command of his ship. Despite continuous exposure to fire, he maneuvered his ship, directed its defense, supervised the control of flooding and fire, and saw to the care of the casualties. Captain McGonagle's extraordinary valor under these conditions inspired the surviving members of the Liberty's crew, many of them seriously wounded, to heroic efforts to overcome the battle damage and keep the ship afloat. Subsequent to the attack, although in great pain and weak from the loss of blood, Captain McGonagle remained at his battle station and continued to conn his ship for more than seventeen hours. It was only after rendezvous with a United States destroyer that he relinquished personal control of the Liberty and permitted himself to be removed from the bridge. Even then, he refused much needed medical attention until convinced that the seriously wounded among his crew had been treated. Captain McGonagle's superb professionalism, courageous fighting spirit, and valiant leadership saved his ship and many lives. His actions sustain and enhance the finest traditions of the United States Naval Service." > > ``` > > SOURCE: [http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/pers-us/uspers-m/w-mcgngl.htm](http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/pers-us/uspers-m/w-mcgngl.htm) See if you can find the word “Israel” in the above quote. Odd behavior when the captain is receiving our highest honor for protecting his ship and doing everything right himself. Usually we trumpet our MoH recipients and proudly display them to the country and the world. We are saying these are the people we are most proud of. Why hide it? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101/185 "2009-07-16T21:07:55Z")
[QUOTE=FinnAgain] Obviously the key to the whole conspiracy was thermite. [/QUOTE] They used nano-termites (or possibly nano-thermite…I always get them confused). And, you forgot the space weasels… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101/186 "2009-07-16T21:13:21Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Ten to one odds that this same claim gets brought up in the next thread. > Three to one odds it gets brought up again in this one. > > Someone cites Boston (whose claims about Kidd’s beliefs are falsified by Kidd’s own handwritten letter to Cristol anyways) saying that Kidd thought something, that Kidd himself never publicly stated and that Boston waited to reveal until Kidd was dead and couldn’t comment on it… and Boston claims it in such a manner as to falsify his own claim by both saying that an investigation would take half a year and that the investigation could actually be completed in a tiny fraction of that time. Or, of course, that Boston was admitting he was prejudiced to the matter and had made up his mind before he was able to conduct the kind of investigation that he himself said was necessary. I am not seeing the contradiction here at all. It is perfectly possible to see powerful evidence early which convinces you of a position and still believe that conducting a full formal investigation with all the bureaucratic and procedural hoops involved will take months. What is the contradiction? Boston’s article is powerful evidence of the abysmal quality of the Navy enquiry, coming as it does from the chief counsel of that enquiry.You are right that it will be mentioned in the next thread because it’s highly relevant to understanding this story. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101/187 "2009-07-16T21:18:29Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So they are liars? All of them? All of those NSA Directors, CIA Directors, Deputy NSA Directors, Admirals and so on? It is inconceivable to you that they have access to information you do not? Your opinion trumps their expert opinion why? You are compounding two fallacies here: 1. Appeal to Authority: > **[Argument from authority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)** > > An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ab auctoritate, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam) is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) is used as evidence to support an argument. The argument from authority is often considered a logical fallacy and obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible. > While all sources agree this is not a valid form of logical proof, and therefore, obtaining knowledge in this way is fallible, there i... As pointed out, this isn’t necessarily a fallacy under every circumstance (authority can add weight to an argument). Only where authority is cited, as here, as absolute and trumping all other argument and logic. 1. Excluded Middle/False Dilemma: > **[False dilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)** > > A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives, presenting the viewer with... As in, ‘either all of these authorities are correct, or they are all liars’. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101/188 "2009-07-16T21:19:13Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > And, you forgot the space weasels… I was going to mention them, but everybody at the NSA told me it’d be a bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101/189 "2009-07-16T21:27:10Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > I am not seeing the contradiction here at all. It is perfectly possible to see powerful evidence early which convinces you of a position and still believe that conducting a full formal investigation with all the bureaucratic and procedural hoops involved will take months. What is the contradiction? . If the evidence is “powerful” enough that you can be “convinced” of a conclusion, then half a year isn’t required, as you’d just have said yourself that the evidence was powerful enough to be convincing. Or, Boston was prejudiced and the evidence was not strong enough, but he’d already made up his mind. Also notice that Boston did not claim that due to bureaucracy and procedural hoops that the investigation would take half a year, but to be done right it’d take half a year. If his objection was to red tape, then why’d he object to the Navy doing away with the red tape and conducting a speedy investigation? Or does it only require vastly more time when it comes to a different conclusion than he did? > [@Lantern](#): > > Boston’s article is powerful evidence of the abysmal quality of the Navy enquiry, coming as it does from the chief counsel of that enquiry. No, it isn’t. Not even close. To start with, he held this under his hat for years. And years. And years. And by his own admission he swore an oath to see justice done and then willfully violated that oath, but we should totally trust him now. And luckily enough, he just so happened to wait until the only person who could confirm or deny his claims happened to die. And we have proof that he lied about Kidd’s beliefs in any case. Yes, I know you don’t think that a handwritten letter in which Kidd praises Cristol and his findings means that he really had any admiration for Cristol or his findings, but… > [@Lantern](#): > > You are right that it will be mentioned in the next thread because it’s highly relevant to understanding this story. You misspelled “because this topic is a game of whack a mole and even when a source is shown to be contradictory, false, or irrational it’s just put on the back burner and reposted a bit later on again.” ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101/190 "2009-07-16T21:36:00Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > You are compounding two fallacies here: > > 1. Appeal to Authority: > > [Argument from authority - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority) > > As pointed out, this isn’t necessarily a fallacy under every circumstance (authority can add weight to an argument). Only where authority is cited, as here, as absolute and trumping all other argument and logic. > > 1. Excluded Middle/False Dilemma: > > [False dilemma - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma) > > As in, ‘either all of these authorities are correct, or they are all liars’. I know what “appeal to authority” is and I will remember to debunk any expert you ever cite as worthless because it is an appeal to authority. That is absurd of course because that is exactly what we do in GD. We provide cites to people who have some reason to be considered expert in their field. Now, of course they could be wrong. But unless you’ve got better info to provide or you can show these people are either knowingly lying or misguided then I’d say their opinion far and away trumps the likes of FinnAgain’s rants. It would be one thing if I provided one cite from one low level weenie. Instead I provided cite upon cite upon cite from pretty much as top level people as you can get for this thing, including many directly involved and in a position to get the good info, and they all agree this was more than a mere mistake. Your only answer to that is “appeal to authority” so it somehow doesn’t count in your world. Did you forget the cites from **Lantern** on the first page regarding the testimony of Gotcher and Forslund? > [@](#): > > **DECLARATION OF JAMES RONALD GOTCHER** > > I, James R. Gotcher, do declare under penalty of perjury that the following statement is true and complete, and based entirely upon my personal knowledge gained through direct observaton, unless specifically stated otherwise: > > 1. My true, full, and correct name is James Ronald Gotcher, III. > > 2. I am a resident of the State of California. > > 3. On June 8, 1967, I was a Sergeant in the United States Air Force, assigned to the 6924th Security Squadron, Da Nang, Republic of Vietnam. > > 4. During the early evening (local time) of June 8, 1967 we received a CRITIC message, informing us that USS Liberty was under attack by Israeli aircraft. Shortly thereafter, we began receiving rough translations of the Israeli air to air and air to ground communications. > > 5. The next day, we received the final translations of the intercepts. There will virtually no difference between the two versions. > > 6. While I have a clear recollection of reading transcripts of conversations between pilots and controllers, I do not recall ever reading anything similar to the transcripts recently released by the National Security Agency concerning Israeli helicopter pilots. > > 7. It was clear from the explicit statements made about �the American ship� by both the aircraft crews and the controllers that the aircraft were flying a planned mission to find and sink USS Liberty. > > 8. My understanding of what I read led me to conclude that the Israeli pilots were making every effort possible to sink USS Liberty and were very frustrated by their inability to do so. > > 9. Approximately ten days to two weeks later, we received an internal NSA report, summarizing the Agency�s findings. The report stated, in no uncertain terms, that the attack was planned in advance and deliberately executed. The mission was to sink USS Liberty. > > 10. A few days after the report arrived, another message came through directing the document control officer to gather and destroy all copies of both the rough and final intercept translations, as well as the subsequently issued report. > > 11. After the destruction of those documents, I saw nothing further on this subject. > > 12. I have read the translated transcripts, released by the Israeli government, which purport to be actual transcripts of the air to ground communications between the controllers and the attacking aircraft. I know this document to be a fabrication because I have read the actual intercepts and they were nothing like this. It is not possible that the differences could be due to different translations being used. > > 13. If called upon to testify, I am competent to testify to all of the foregoing on the basis of direct observation and personal knowledge. > > SOURCE: [http://www.ussliberty.org/gotcher.htm](http://www.ussliberty.org/gotcher.htm) > [@](#): > > **Statement by former Air Force intelligence analyst Stephen Forslund** : > > \ > > On the day of the attack on the Liberty, I read yellow teletype sheets that spewed from the machines in front of me all day. We obtained our input from a variety of sources including the NSA. The teletypes were raw translations of intercepts of Israeli air-to-air and air-to-ground communications between jet aircraft and their ground controller. I read page after page of these transcripts that day as it went on and on. The transcripts made specific reference to the efforts to direct the jets to the target which was identified as American numerous times by the ground controller. Upon arrival, the aircraft specifically identified the target and mentioned the American flag she was flying. There were frequent operational transmissions from the pilots to the ground base describing the strafing runs. The ground control began asking about the status of the target and whether it was sinking. They stressed that the target must be sunk and leave no trace. The pilots stated they had made several runs and the target was still floating. The ground control station re-iterated that it was urgent that the target be sunk, leaving no trace. There was a detectable level of frustration evident in the transmissions over the fact that the aircraft were unable to accomplish the mission quickly and totally. > > SOURCE: [http://www.ussliberty.org/forslund.htm](http://www.ussliberty.org/forslund.htm) Is it an “appeal to authority” to cite testimony from people who actually read transcripts? ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101/191 "2009-07-16T21:42:23Z")
> [@](#): > > If the evidence is “powerful” enough that you can be “convinced” of a conclusion, then half a year isn’t required, as you’d just have said yourself that the evidence was powerful enough to be convincing. Well remember that an inquiry would deal with more issues than just that of Israeli culpability. A formal inquiry properly done would investigate every aspect of the attack including for example the appropriateness of the actions of the sailors. Secondly it is quite possible the evidence A,B,C is sufficient to establish a conclusion but the interests of completeness you also investigate D,E and F which add to our understanding of the issue without being strictly necessary. You want to gather all the possible evidence even if you feel the evidence you have is sufficient. So there is no real contradiction and certainly not enough to establish that Boston is some kind of massive fabricator. The same goes with that letter that you are so excited about. At most it suggests that Boston was perhaps wrong about the relationship between Cristol and Kidd: hardly that central an issue. It certainly doesn’t show that Kidd agreed with everything Cristol believed. Like I said it was quite vague about what exactly it was that Kidd was agreeing to. Without the relevant context it doesn’t really tell you much. And certainly that letter doesn’t prove that Boston was just making up stuff about what happened at the Navy inquiry. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101/192 "2009-07-16T21:51:05Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > FinnAgain Not that your little game of “I can’t heaaaaaaar you but I’m going to keep taling about you” isn’t cute and all, but how about you either retract or substantiate the bit of creative writing in which you claimed that while the NSA and CIA actually went on record as saying that the attack was an accident, that (according to the secret evidence you have), they really said the exact opposite. Still waiting for those official agency cites where the NSA and CIA claimed that the attack wasn’t an accident. Wouldn’t want to rant at you though and get you to prove your claims or retract them if they’re fictional. That’d be just awful of me. Just awful. And hah, Gotcher? Do I really need to lay odds on how quickly this one will be reposted again or if you’ll retract that mistake either? [ > [@](#): > > On Friday January 3, 2003, at 11:48:01, Ron Gotcher posted an e-mail to Mr. R [redacted] which stated in part: > > ``` > After my discharge, I worked for the agency [NSA] at Fort Meade. I saw the internal report on the attack, as did most agency employees. The report conclusively established that the attack was deliberate. > > ``` > > In response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request 50412, the NSA responded: > > ``` > Our records reflect that Mr. James Ronald Gotcher, III has **never** been affiliated with this agency. (Emphasis added.) > > ``` ]([http://www.thelibertyincident.com/gotcherdebunked.html](http://www.thelibertyincident.com/gotcherdebunked.html)) And yet more conspiracy lunacy. The Israelis were adamant that the target be sunk and no trace left, but too damn stupid to use anti-ship weaponry. And, of course, the NSA as actually said that no such recordings exist and have never released anything of the sort for any FOIA request. But Forslund saw something that doesn’t exist and he’d like to tell us about its contents. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101/193 "2009-07-16T22:01:54Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > The ‘Grand’ part of this conspiracy comes from the claims that very high levels in this country ‘knew’ Israel attacked what it knew was a US ship. Those officials went to very great pains, for no discernible reason, to cover the whole thing up. If you take off the spin that is exactly what happened according to the Secretary of State: > [@](#): > > "I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. Officially we accepted the story that it was an accident but unofficially we told Israel that we thought they were full of shit. Why did we accept it officially? Probably because high level officials didn’t see any benefit from making an issue out of it. That’s the best I can come up with. Can you explain why a bunch of high level officials would, for no discernible reason, all make the same basic claim unless they had good reason to believe it to be true? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101/194 "2009-07-16T22:04:02Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > Well remember that an inquiry would deal with more issues than just that of Israeli culpability. Boston’s complaint wasn’t that the inquiry was right about its findings or that it should have studied more about the appropriateness of the actions of the sailors, but that they were wrong in their conclusion about whether or not it was an accident. A finding which he, himself, admits was perfectly possible to arrive it given much less time than he demands. > [@Lantern](#): > > Secondly it is quite possible the evidence A,B,C is sufficient to establish a conclusion but the interests of completeness you also investigate D,E and F which add to our understanding of the issue without being strictly necessary. Again you’re putting words into his mouth and spinning hat he actually said. Boston didn’t claim that the Navy inquiry had taken the appropriate time to come to a conclusion but needed more time in the interest of completeness" but that they hadn’t taken enough time to reach the correct basic conclusion. Even though he did so himself in a fraction of the time he claimed was required. > [@Lantern](#): > > At most it suggests that Boston was perhaps wrong about the relationship between Cristol and Kidd: hardly that central an issue. Obviously, if Kidd supported and endorsed Cristol’s work and his findings, then he didn’t feel that they were wrong. > [@Lantern](#): > > Like I said it was quite vague about what exactly it was that Kidd was agreeing to. :dubious: > [@](#): > > This has been reassuring to me - even after so many years. You have done a splendid job pulling all of the loose ends together, and having the integrity to clearly > cite those few that will probably never come fully together. What are you unclear on? You think all those loose ends he pulled together were really a knitting project? > [@Lantern](#): > > And certainly that letter doesn’t prove that Boston was just making up stuff about what happened at the Navy inquiry. Of course you’re right. Why would Kidd endorsing the results of the Navy inquiry and Cristol’s analysis of the incident have anything to do with Boston’s claims that Kidd did not endorse the results of the Navy inquiry or Cristol’s analysis of the incident? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101/195 "2009-07-16T22:20:23Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It is just not possible they have inside knowledge that we don’t? Because you are sure our government dutifully laid out all available evidence? It is unheard of for our government to cook the books (so to speak)? You know, you’re right. It _is_ entirely possible for a slew of government and military officials from the President on down to supposedly lay out the available evidence and swear up and down that there was a deliberate, dastardly attack on our navy - and for it to be found out later that they “cooked the books” and were utterly mistaken or lied. The star example is the Tonkin Gulf Incident, where purported unprovoked attacks by North Vietnamese patrol boats on U.S. vessels were used as the prime justification for getting us deeply embroiled in the Vietnam War. > [@](#): > > It works both ways. Yes. It does. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2009, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101/196 "2009-07-16T22:51:38Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I know what “appeal to authority” is and I will remember to debunk any expert you ever cite as worthless because it is an appeal to authority. > > That is absurd of course because that is exactly what we do in GD. We provide cites to people who have some reason to be considered expert in their field. > > Now, of course they could be wrong. But unless you’ve got better info to provide or you can show these people are either knowingly lying or misguided then I’d say their opinion far and away trumps the likes of FinnAgain’s rants. > > It would be one thing if I provided one cite from one low level weenie. Instead I provided cite upon cite upon cite from pretty much as top level people as you can get for this thing, including many directly involved and in a position to get the good info, and they all agree this was more than a mere mistake. > > Your only answer to that is “appeal to authority” so it somehow doesn’t count in your world. > > Did you forget the cites from **Lantern** on the first page regarding the testimony of Gotcher and Forslund? > > Is it an “appeal to authority” to cite testimony from people who actually read transcripts? I’ll leave aside the new cites you have attached (I see that Gotcher at least is somewhat dubious), and address the argument. An “appeal to authority” can indeed add value to an argument, where that authority has some expertise on point. Thing is, most of your “high level” cites are mere expressions of incredultity. For example, you have quoted the President as expressing incredulity, and _the reason allegedly given_ is not some superior knowledge on his part, but the mere gut feeling that the Israelis were too darn smart to mess up so badly. Where you end up using “appeal to authority” in a fallacious manner, is where you _insist_ that we accept your cites as trumping logic that points in the other direction, with the ‘threat’ that if we disbelieve your cites we _must_ assume that all of these honourable gentlemen are “knowingly lying”. This is the sort of black-an-white thinking that is a perfect example of the ‘false dilemma’. There is lots of other positions between “these guys are all correct” and “these guys are all lying”. They can, for example, like the President, be expressing a gut feeling based on a dubious premise (i.e., that the highly skilled Israeli armed forces could not make such a mistake) subsequently disproved (i.e, actual inquiry into the facts demonstrates that it was most likely a mistake). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101/197 "2009-07-17T02:03:19Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > The Liberty was named after its design style:[Liberty Ships.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_ship). Thousands were built during WW2 and by the time of the Six Day War there were still plenty around. It was a generic design and resembles many other cargo ships. The profile of the Egyptian ship the Liberty was mistaken for was actually very similar, albeit larger. Well, here is one error that I can clearly correct. The Liberty was actually a [Victory Ship](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_ship), not a [Liberty Ship](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_ship). (The _Victory_ class was the follow-up to the _Liberty_ class and is notable for the raised fo’c’sle readily seen in every photo of the _USS Liberty_.) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2009, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101/198 "2009-07-17T02:04:51Z")
That said, this is wandering back into the realm of personal jabs and everything useful (and much that is useless) has been posted, so I am closing it before I have to strart handing out Warnings. [/Modding] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101/199 "2009-07-18T03:50:49Z")
In response to the appeal in ATMB, I have re-opened this thread. I do so with a gnawing feeling that the “additional” information will be a bit incendiary. Please remember that this thread has already been closed, once, for edging toward more heat than light and do try to keep it civil. [/Modding] ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2009, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101/200 "2009-07-18T04:05:50Z")
Still waiting for those cites about how the NSA and CIA ever, at any point, said, implied or conveyed via smoke signal that the attack was deliberate rather than an accident. On one side, we have the actual reports which say the exact opposite. And yet, Mole want to assure us (and has, in fact, repeated several times) that the NSA and CIA said that the attack was deliberate rather than accidental. I know that Mole has made quite a point of ignoring all of the factual refutations (any retraction on Gotcher yet, either?) while mentoning me quite often, but facts have a stubbornness that can not be done away with by ignorning the person relating them. So, how about that cite as to the NSA and CIA saying the exact opposite of what they actually, clearly, and unambiguously stated. Or are we back at Conspiracy Central whereby ‘everybody’ at those agencies were In On The Truth but issued not one official statement or report? A real cite would be nice, not more non sequitur incredulity or claims that “everybody” felt a certain way as backed up by… nothing. Still waiting. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uss-liberty-and-conspiracy-theories/503101.md?page=11)