The USS Liberty and Conspiracy Theories

[FinnAgain]

So none of the examples examples given are good enough. Clear weather and good visibility with the large ship attacked? Not good enough, it was a bright moonlit night and not a bright sunny day. Clear weather and good visibility and a ship as massive and distinctive as a surfaced submarine? Doesn’t count because, well because it’s a submarine. Submarines don’t eat their porridge with milk, so they don’t count. PT boats in clear weather with good visibility flying American flags that tried radio, signal light, and visible signaling? Doesn’t count because… they’re smallish.

@Lantern

As for the example I am sure you understand the difference between mistaken identity and accidental fire.

As already pointed out, as the US military admitted to engaging in a coverup, we don’t know exactly what happened, only that the Americans said that the ship got in the way and the Russians said that it was 400 meters off the shore, let alone any AA nest. The point is, also, that during the Cold War with MAD on the table, if they hadn’t misidentified the ship in the first place they’d have taken exquisite care not to hit it. During the Cold War pilots wouldnt have figured “Hey, there’s a Russian ship in between me and my target. I guess if I shoot it up a bit on the way in that’ll be okay.”

@Lantern

The whole crux of the issue is whether the Israeli claim of mistaken identity is credible given the circumstances like excellent visibility, large differences between the Liberty and the Egyptian ship etc.

Then you should address the facts of the matter in question rather than asking for other examples.

Of course, this whole exercise is absurd. As pointed out, even rare things that
happen really happen. Yes, even if they’re really rare. If you want to allege that a specific instance didn’t transpire as reported, you need to discuss that specific instance not ask for how many times it’s been repeated. It seems as if your claim really is that it’s nearly impossible to incorrectly identify one large ship as another large ship while moving at velocity and without much training in naval identification. Except, by looking at the actual facts, we know that *not only is it not impossible but that it happened. *

And while I’m at it:

@Lantern

Why all the mystery?

Click on the hyperlinked quote box.
I don’t know what else I can say about that.

Besides, will you retract your claim if the NSA did indeed confirm that the attack was a tragic accident? You still haven’t retracted your claim that the CIA’s’ statement about how they’d consulted all available sources was wrong and it wasn’t a valid inquiry since its findings were published in a memo. Will anything change if I show you the NSA’s report?

Ah well… maybe I’m a glutton for punishment.

The NSA removed the report from their web page and created a new page after the FOIA request in 2003 which no longer includes the 1981 report. It seems to have been archived though.
You can see the conclusion that Cristol refers to in the first paragraph of the forward and the other remark on page 64, just where he cites it as being.

But I don’t figure that this changes your argument any, does it?

[Lantern]

About examples I asked for an attack by friendly planes on a large ship with excellent visibility. I think that seems reasonable enough given the facts of the Liberty incident. Of the two examples that remotely qualify, in the Turkestan one we can’t even establish that it was a deliberate attack on the ship. The US claim it was just accidental fire; the Soviets claim otherwise but I don’t see any evidence provided by them. Since the fundamental fact of the Liberty incident is that there was a deliberate attack (the dispute being who the Israelis thought they were attacking) the Turkestan attacks is a different class of incident.

The Lebrecht attack is the only incident mentioned so far which is remotely close to the Liberty. However visibility in night conditions with moonlight was not nearly as good as with the Liberty. And you had the huge difference that ships attacked the planes first. It was apparently only after this that the bombers decided to attack the ship. I would say these are very big differences which make a friendly fire attack more likely. And of course there are many other facts about the Liberty incident which make the mistaken identity story difficult to believe: the markings, the flag, the multiple overflights in the morning etc. So I still think I am correct that incidents similar to the Liberty, if they have ever happened, have been exceedingly rare in naval history.

Of course, this whole exercise is absurd. As pointed out, even rare things that
happen really happen. Yes, even if they’re really rare. If you want to allege that a specific instance didn’t transpire as reported, you need to discuss that specific instance not ask for how many times it’s been repeated.

I don’t think the exercise is absurd at all. What we are doing is establishing how common incidents like the Liberty are. If there were dozens of incidents with facts similar to the Liberty that would lend credence to the argument that it was just friendly fire.

Click on the hyperlinked quote box.

Fair enough. I didn’t realize the quote box was linked. It would have been nice if the full quote had been provided without ellipses but I will take it for now.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Lantern

Fair enough. The second and third incidents are not large ships; obviously PT boats and submarines would be more difficult to identify than a large ship like the Liberty.

PT boats are very distinct and the Japanese didn’t really have anything that resembled them. Submarines have a very distinct profile and are very different from cruisers.

The Liberty was named after its design style:Liberty Ships.. 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.

Size has nothing to do with it. When you are at sea, and untrained at sea identification, there is nothing to compare an object like a ship against to get a sense of scale.

[Malthus]

My question for those supporting the conspiracy is this: in your opinion, were the pilots “in on it” or not? That is, were the pilots actually doing the attacking told that they were supposed to attack a US ship and sent in knowing that they were supposed to attack a US ship, or were they in effect duped by those giving the orders?

[treis]

@FinnAgain

Yet again, you’re alleging that you know more about military aviation and navigation than the people who actually do it for a living.

Yeah I guess the guy that gave an ETA of an hour and a half must be some rookie dumbass.

@FinnAgain

Of course, as you’ve had to revise your position over time you are quite likely still wrong and your guess of “550” is about as accurate as your previous guess of 600. What that means, in a nutshell, is that you have no idea where the ship actually was at 1420,

Uh no that’s bullshit. I know exactly where it was 2 hours before the attack, and I know it’s exact speed and heading. Easy enough to calculate it’s location.

@FinnAgain

let alone where it would be by the time the captain made his determination to engage or how much closer it would have been by the time the F-4’s were ready to launch. You’re just guessing. The navigator, on the other hand, knew.

I’m pretty sure the captain didn’t ask the navigator 10 hours after the incident how long it would take to get planes over the Liberty.

@FinnAgain

And no, the math doesn’t support your claim as you’ve offered precisely no actual numbers as to exactly how fast the F-4 gets to maximum velocity (which is approx 1600, btw). Never mind the fact that the F-4 would be able to carry AIM-7s which would allow it to engage roughly 30 miles away from its target.

It’s not zero which makes the claimed flight time of 15-20 minutes impossible.

@FinnAgain

Rather than believing that a ship’s navigator had no idea where they were or that a captain had no idea how his own jets worked, I’m simply going to take the craaaaaaazy step of figuring that the Navy brass knows how planes work a supercarrier’s navigator knew where the ship was, and your claims about it being “physically impossible” are wrong.

And what of the ETA given of 1 hour and 30 minutes, do you just ignore that? We have two pieces of evidence here: (1) A ETA taken from radio logs that is supported by the physical evidence and (2) a flight time taken from a speech given 30 years after the incident that is contradicted by the physical evidence. There is absolutely no way a reasonable person would believe (2) over (1).

@FinnAgain

How many minutes would that take… exactly?

More than zero, which makes it impossible for them to be within Israeli radar. I don’t understand why you continue arguing this.

[treis]

@Jackmannii

I can understand some (particularly the U.S. military who were involved) continuing to beat the drum on this matter out of a sense that an injustice was committed and insufficient apologies/compensation/publicity provided.

What I don’t get is the insistence that some deep dark conspiracy must have been involved, other than that for some people it is necessary to have conspiracies.

Some people, in this case, includes the Secretary of State at the time, the head of the CIA, an ambassador, the head of the NSA among numerous other high level officials. That is the difference between this and most every other conspiracy theory. It isn’t the tin foil hat brigade leading the way. It is respected high level officials that had access to the best evidence.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Malthus

My question for those supporting the conspiracy is this: in your opinion, were the pilots “in on it” or not? That is, were the pilots actually doing the attacking told that they were supposed to attack a US ship and sent in knowing that they were supposed to attack a US ship, or were they in effect duped by those giving the orders?

We have this:

Fifteen years after the attack, an Israeli pilot approached Liberty survivors and then held extensive interviews with former Congressman Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey about his role. According to this senior Israeli lead pilot, he recognized the Liberty as American immediately, so informed his headquarters, and was told to ignore the American flag and continue his attack. He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested.

SOURCE: http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0693/9306019.htm

[Malthus]

@Whack-a-Mole

We have this:

I’m not asking for evidence here, but for an opinion.

I’m assuming from what you posted that you are of the opinion that the pilots were not “in” on the conspiracy. Is this correct?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@treis

Again, impossible. Max speed for an F-4 is ~1500 mph. A F-4 would have had to taken off at maximum speed for it to make it there in 20 minutes and climb to 20-30,000 feet without slowing.

As an aside it wouldn’t make it in that timeframe.

The combat range of an F-4 was about 600 miles (more or less depending on variant…the long range one in the cite is an RAF version and not built till after the Liberty incident, the other long range one was a reconnaissance variant so not suitable for combat…the F-4B had a 400 mile combat range). (cite)

Assuming even 400 miles to the Liberty the Phantom could not make it there and back. Yes, they can go longer ranges and make that trip but to get there in minimum time would require full afterburners the whole way. Afterburners suck gas like crazy. The plane had an 800 mile round-trip plus needing extra to actually fly CAP for the Liberty once there and so on.

In short, even the F-4 would have to make the trip at a much more sedate pace than max speed if it expected to engage Liberty’s attackers and hang around to continue protecting the ship (not to mention if it actually had to engage Israeli targets).

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Malthus

I’m not asking for evidence here, but for an opinion.

I’m assuming from what you posted that you are of the opinion that the pilots were not “in” on the conspiracy. Is this correct?

That is my take on it yes. I presume if they had been told ahead of time they were attacking a US ship then the pilots would never have radioed back with something along the lines of, “Hey, that is an American ship…are you sure you wanted this ship attacked?”

[Malthus]

@Whack-a-Mole

That is my take on it yes. I presume if they had been told ahead of time they were attacking a US ship then the pilots would never have radioed back with something along the lines of, “Hey, that is an American ship…are you sure you wanted this ship attacked?”

Then all of the accusations that the Liberty was obviously identifiable as a US ship are rendered incoherent in terms of a conspiracy. Indeed, they cut against it being a conspiracy, since the plotters must have assumed that the pilots would not notice it was a US ship. They were relying on the pilots carrying out their orders, which they would be all the less likely to do if they could easily tell it was a US ship.

Moreover, the notion that the pilots who failed to carry out the attack would be arrested for so doing make little sense, assuming a hoax - if the pilots were the dupes of a hoax, how could they be held responsible for not attacking a US ship without highlighting that the attack was a hoax? In short, what plausible explaination exists for arresting the pilot, assuming a conspiracy exists? The pilot behaved perfectly properly, albeit in such a manner as to foil the aim of the conspiracy.

[CurtC]

This thread is a little hard to follow. What exactly is the “conspiracy theory” under consideration?

There’s the idea that Israel’s commanders knew it was an American ship and attacked it anyway, then that foreknowledge was swept under the rug by the American military brass because the officials wanted to be on Israel’s side in the conflict. Is that what we’re debating, as opposed to the idea that it was all just a tragic mistake? Or is there a more sinister conspiracy theory?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Malthus

Then all of the accusations that the Liberty was obviously identifiable as a US ship are rendered incoherent in terms of a conspiracy. Indeed, they cut against it being a conspiracy, since the plotters must have assumed that the pilots would not notice it was a US ship. They were relying on the pilots carrying out their orders, which they would be all the less likely to do if they could easily tell it was a US ship.

Moreover, the notion that the pilots who failed to carry out the attack would be arrested for so doing make little sense, assuming a hoax - if the pilots were the dupes of a hoax, how could they be held responsible for not attacking a US ship without highlighting that the attack was a hoax? In short, what plausible explaination exists for arresting the pilot, assuming a conspiracy exists? The pilot behaved perfectly properly, albeit in such a manner as to foil the aim of the conspiracy.

I do not think this tells us much one way or another except that the folks back at the base were intent on sinking that ship despite information that it was an American ship.

If you assume this was a long planned thing then maybe. Still, I do not think it is unusual for the higher-ups to not fill in all the why’s and wherefor’s of an attack. If your commanders tell you to shoot “X” then they expect you to shoot “X”, no questions asked. All part of the military mindset. The fewer people who know the “plan” the fewer who can talk about it later.

As for arresting the pilot I am pretty sure if you disobey orders that will see you arrested in any military on the planet. Period. At your trial you can try and make the case that the orders were illegal or something but you will still be arrested at the outset. The military takes a dim view of soldiers second-guessing orders. Not sure if the guy was ultimately convicted/punished or not.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@CurtC

This thread is a little hard to follow. What exactly is the “conspiracy theory” under consideration?

There’s the idea that Israel’s commanders knew it was an American ship and attacked it anyway, then that foreknowledge was swept under the rug by the American military brass because the officials wanted to be on Israel’s side in the conflict. Is that what we’re debating, as opposed to the idea that it was all just a tragic mistake?

That is pretty much it.

[Malthus]

@Whack-a-Mole

I do not think this tells us much one way or another except that the folks back at the base were intent on sinking that ship despite information that it was an American ship.

It tells us that a deliberate and pre-meditated attempt to sink a US ship is unlikely.

If the plotters wished to attack a US ship and claim it as an accident, they were going about it in the least plausable manner - assuming that the US ship looked like a US ship (which they would allegedly know, from overflights).

If you assume this was a long planned thing then maybe. Still, I do not think it is unusual for the higher-ups to not fill in all the why’s and wherefor’s of an attack. If your commanders tell you to shoot “X” then they expect you to shoot “X”, no questions asked. All part of the military mindset. The fewer people who know the “plan” the fewer who can talk about it later.

I do not think that the military assumes that soldiers will carry out FF attacks even though they know for sure the target is not the enemy, but I’ll allow posters who have actually served answer this one.

In any event, the conspiracy assumes this was not just any attack - it was a deliberate attack on the US. Relying on pilots not to use their initiative to not attack what was (allegedly) a clear and obvious US ship as part of the plan seems most idiotic; the plan to use pilots not in on the plot would make a lot more sense if the Liberty was easily confused with a legitimate target.

As for arresting the pilot I am pretty sure if you disobey orders that will see you arrested in any military on the planet. Period. At your trial you can try and make the case that the orders were illegal or something but you will still be arrested at the outset. The military takes a dim view of soldiers second-guessing orders. Not sure if the guy was ultimately convicted/punished or not.

For failing to carry out an attack that was clearly on a mistaken target, attacking which would cause a major international incident? Again, I’ll let the military types address this.

However, assuming it is true, it renders the “they arrested him!” facoid quite irrelevant to the conspiracy, as they would presumably arrest him if it wasn’t a conspiracy.

[Algher]

@FinnAgain

And just assuming that this won’t be ignored like the facts of the CIA and NSA investigations were:
page 4.

US forces fired on a Russian merchant ship in a harbor, with a flag flying, with a hammer and sickle painted on its stack, in excellent visibility. Yet rather obviously they weren’t aiming at starting WW III. Shit happens.

Now can we please get off the [del]“But what other steel framed buildings have collapsed from fire”[/del] “But what other ships were shot at after being misidentified” diversion?

Yes, and those pilots were tried in a military courtroom. It was a well known incident, and the pilots ADMITTED to purposely targeting that ship.

Now - are you claiming that Israeli pilots did not undergo ship recognition exercises as part of their training? That is fairly standard training for pilots. I grew up playing poker with ship and plane recognition cards from WWII, Korea and Vietnam and had my own deck in the 80s. The Naval Institute Proceedings issue has comments from US Pilots regarding how poorly it would look for a US pilot to claim to hit an Egyptian freighter when the ship was a US spy ship. US spy ships have a very distinct profile, the antennas and dish are very prominent, the coloration, bow and flag are noticeable as well. We must have had the dumbest Israeli squadron (and torpedo boats) in the history of Israels military operating that day.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@Whack-a-Mole

We have this:

There is strong evidence this ‘pilot’ was a con-artist, if he existed at all. 16 years later and the man isn’t even named.

[Jackmannii]

@treis

It isn’t the tin foil hat brigade leading the way. It is respected high level officials that had access to the best evidence.

All these people alleged and remain(ed) convinced of a conspiracy and coverup?

Could you provide a citation to that effect?

[Malthus]

@Algher

Yes, and those pilots were tried in a military courtroom. It was a well known incident, and the pilots ADMITTED to purposely targeting that ship.

Now - are you claiming that Israeli pilots did not undergo ship recognition exercises as part of their training? That is fairly standard training for pilots. I grew up playing poker with ship and plane recognition cards from WWII, Korea and Vietnam and had my own deck in the 80s. The Naval Institute Proceedings issue has comments from US Pilots regarding how poorly it would look for a US pilot to claim to hit an Egyptian freighter when the ship was a US spy ship. US spy ships have a very distinct profile, the antennas and dish are very prominent, the coloration, bow and flag are noticeable as well. We must have had the dumbest Israeli squadron (and torpedo boats) in the history of Israels military operating that day.

Yet Whack-a-Mole is busy presenting evidence that Israeli pilots were not in on the conspiracy and were, allegedly, arrested for (correctly) identifying the boat as US and refusing to attack it.

I’ll ask you the same question I asked him - are you of the opinion that the pilots were “in on” the plan to attack a US ship deliberately, or were they being duped by the plotters?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Jackmannii

All these people alleged and remain(ed) convinced of a conspiracy and coverup?

Could you provide a citation to that effect?

I can.

Israeli authorities subsequently apologized for the accident, but few in Washington could believe that the ship had not been identified as an American naval vessel. Later, an interim intelligence memorandum concluded that the attack was a mistake and “not made in malice against the U.S.” When additional evidence was available, more doubt was raised…

<snip>

I had no role in the board of inquiry that followed, or the board’s finding that there could be no doubt that the Israeli’s knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty. I have yet to understand why it was felt necessary to attack this ship or who ordered the attack.

SOURCE: Richard Helms was the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 1966-1973

But I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous."

SOURCE: Dean Rusk, Johnson’s Secretary of State

I do not know to this day at what level the attack on the LIBERTY was authorized and I think it is unlikely that the full truth will ever come out. Having been for so long a staunch supporter of Israel, I was particularly troubled by this incident; I could not bring myself to believe that such an action could have been authorized by Levi Eshkol. Yet somewhere inside the Israeli government, somewhere along the chain of command, something had gone terribly wrong–and then had been covered up. I never felt the Israelis made adequate restitution or explanation for their actions…

SOURCE: Clark Clifford, then Counsel to the President

“I found it hard to believe that it was, in fact, an honest mistake on the part of the Israeli air force units. I still find it impossible to believe that it was. I suspect that in the heat of battle they figured that the presence of this American ship was inimical to their interests, and that somebody without authorization attacked it.”

SOURCE: Navy Undersecretary Paul Warnke

As senior legal counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry it was my job to help uncover the truth regarding Israel’s June 8th 1967 bombing of the USS Liberty.

<snip>

Admiral Kidd and I were given only one week to gather evidence for the Navy’s official investigation, though we both estimated that a proper Court of Inquiry would take at least six months.

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.

I am certain the Israeli pilots and commanders who had ordered the attack knew the ship was American.

SOURCE: WARD BOSTON, JR., CAPTAIN, JAGC, USN (RET.)

“I don’t think that there’s any doubt that it was deliberate… [It is] one of the great cover-ups of our military history.”

SOURCE: David G. Nes, who at the time served as deputy head of the American mission in Cairo

“elaborate charade… American leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of its citizens.”

SOURCE: George Ball, then Under Secretary of State

“The [USS Liberty incident] Navy Court [of Inquiry] was directed to inquire into ‘all the pertinent fact and circumstances leading to and connected with’ the 8 June 1967 attack on the Liberty. That it did not and could not possibly have done so is apparent from the Navy’s official record. …critically important witnesses [were never] officially questioned concerning their observations or experiences during the attack.”

SOURCE: Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, former U.S. Navy JAG

That there is compelling evidence that Israel’s attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Undersecretary of State George Ball, former CIA director Richard Helms, former NSA directors Lieutenant General William Odom, USA (Ret.), Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN (Ret.), and Marshal Carter; former NSA deputy directors Oliver Kirby and Major General John Morrison, USAF (Ret.), and former Ambassador Dwight Porter, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon in 1967;

SOURCE: Adm. Thomas Moorer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1970 to 1974

Joined by:
General Raymond G. Davis,
US Marine Corps, (moh)* former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps

Rear Admiral Merlin Staring,
US Navy, (ret.) former Judge Advocate General of the Navy

Ambassador James Akins,
(ret.) former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia

That the attack was deliberate “just wasn’t a disputed issue” within the National Security Agency

SOURCE: Former NSA Director retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom on 3 March 2003 in an interview for Naval Institute Proceedings

“I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship.”

SOURCE: NSA Deputy Director Oliver Kirby

“. . . the commander of the Sixth Fleet was informed by the Washington Intelligence Apparatus that it had evidence that the Liberty was going to be attacked and to provide protection for it. That message was never really acted upon, and the ship was dead in the water when it was hit. So the end result was no accident.”

SOURCE: Raymond Tate, Deputy Assistant SecNav and Deputy Director, NSA, “Worldwide C3I and Telecommunications” (1980, pp. 25-47)

“The highest officials of the [Johnson] administration, including the President, believed it ‘inconceivable’ that Israel’s ‘skilled’ defense forces could have committed such a gross error.”

SOURCE: Lyndon Johnson’s biographer Robert Dallek in Flawed Giant, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 430-31)

Former NSA/CIA Director Admiral Bobby Inman “flatly rejected” the Cristol/Israeli claims that the attack was an accident

SOURCE: 5 March 2003 interview for Naval Institute Proceedings

Of four former NSA/CIA seniors with inside knowledge, none was aware of any agency official who dissented from the position that the attack was deliberate

SOURCE: David Walsh, writing in Naval Institute Proceedings

“Those sailors who were wounded, who were eyewitnesses, have not been heard from by the American public. . . [Their story] leaves no doubt but what this was a premeditated, carefully reconnoitered attack by Israeli aircraft against our ship.”

SOURCE: US Senator Adlai Stevenson III in interview with Wm. J. Small, UPI, for publication September 28, 1980

“I have read the Navy investigation of the Liberty, and the evidence adduced there, and I have read the Israeli court of inquiry records, and based upon their own records of the investigation, I cannot agree that it was accidental.”

SOURCE: Senator Bourke Hickenlooper; From transcript of May, 1968, Senate Foreign Relations Hearing on Foreign Assistance Act of 1968, page 444.

Pretty sure I could come up with more.

Clearly a loony conspiracy theory bunch if ever there was one. :rolleyes: