# was the Israeli attack on USS Liberty only an accident **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 28, 2006, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-israeli-attack-on-uss-liberty-only-an-accident/354626 "2006-04-28T17:43:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**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:** [May 1, 2006, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-israeli-attack-on-uss-liberty-only-an-accident/354626/41 "2006-05-01T18:36:50Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Yet another lie. Again, please read the actual transcript rather than believing second hand accounts. If you require, I will find a cite for you. Suffice it to say that it is the most baldfaced lie that crew members were not allowed to testify. They did. It’s on record. “Make of it what you will” is another lie? You’re beginning to sound like a frothing at the mouth Israeli apologist who can brook no indication, no matter how good, that Israel might have done this intentionally. How is it I am relying on “second hand accounts”? I quoted the _very guy_ (Captain Boston) charged with investigating the incident at the time and who has put out a _signed affadavit_ saying the investigation was seriously hobbled from the beginning and that the final report on record _was not_ the report he submitted. Captain Boston also states repeatedly that Admiral Kidd, who oversaw the investigation, agreed the Israelis knew what they were doing. I have provided quotes from _highly placed_ senior staff and military individuals who were involved. Among the people who at the time think the Israelis knew what was going on (and said so) are the then Secretary of State, Director of the CIA, Director of the NSA AND Lyndon Johnson (yep…him too). > [@](#): > > Last month, during a program on the Liberty at the Middle East Institute here, Parker said those on record as believing that the Israeli attack was deliberate include former secretary of state Dean Rusk, former CIA chief Richard Helms, Adm. Thomas Moorer (a former chief of naval operations) and a host of former directors of the National Security Agency, as well as then-President Lyndon B. Johnson. > > SOURCE: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8861-2003Jan31¬Found=true](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8861-2003Jan31¬Found=true) If you think all this is big time anti-Israeli try this: > [@](#): > > Clark Clifford, Chairman of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, drafted one such inquiry. Judge Cristol characterizes Clifford as angry, but finding Israel innocent of murder. Ennes infers darker meanings from the same document. > > “Something had gone terribly wrong,” Clifford wrote the President, “and then it had been covered up. I never felt the Israelis had made adequate restitution or explanation for their . . . unprovoked actions.” Clifford also termed “unbelievable” the explanation that the attack was accidental. The Liberty’s spotters, for example, had picked out the MTBs’ small hull marks, yet the Israeli attackers claimed never to have seen the U.S. ship’s much larger ones. Clifford, an intimate of Johnson’s and champion of Israel, urged the attackers be “punished,”… > > SOURCE: [http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/Articles03/PROwalsh06.htm](http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/Articles03/PROwalsh06.htm) The “lie” you seem so keen to bust me for is apparently a well held belief among many. Of course you might say the survivors of the Liberty have an axe to grind but we have Captain Boston claiming the “investigations” were bogus. We also have James Bamford making the same claim ( **Duckster** provides Bamford’s bonafides earlier in this thread). > [@](#): > > “There has never been a real investigation,” says James Bamford, author of “Body of Secrets,” a critically praised 2001 investigative history of the NSA that includes perhaps the most concise documented account of the attack on the Liberty. > > SOURCE: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8861-2003Jan31¬Found=true](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A8861-2003Jan31¬Found=true) And… > [@](#): > > Since 1967, survivors have pleaded for a more far-reaching government inquiry into the incident. But Judge Cristol argues that another would be a waste of time. Some 13 already have been conducted (five by Congress, one by the U.S. Navy, and several by Israel). And according to Cristol, while typically citing recklessness or inefficiency, all exonerate the Israeli attackers of deliberate intent. > > “False!” retorts Ennes. Of the 13 investigations cited by Judge Cristol, Ennes observes, “Most were not investigations. . . . They were merely reports to the boss from advisors . . . (and) mostly summaries and excerpts of the Naval Court of Inquiry report.” > > SOURCE: [http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/Articles03/PROwalsh06.htm](http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/Articles03/PROwalsh06.htm) As noted the Naval Court of Inquiry report (mentioned at the end of that last quote) is called into serious doubt by Captain Boston. I have provided numerous quotes from respectable sources all over this thread. So far you ( **Finn Again** ) have provided very few sources or direct evidence rebuttals rather being content to shriek about me being a liar on one or two narrow aspects of all this (for instance the shooting of the lifeboats is mentioned consistently by eyewitnesses nearly anywhere they talk about this). Is there a coverup here? Almost certainly. Conspiracy? Maybe. Certainly there is abundant evidence that simply does not add up as stated in the official records. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2006, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-israeli-attack-on-uss-liberty-only-an-accident/354626/42 "2006-05-01T19:31:25Z")
**TWEEEEET!!** This is another hot button topic on which various people will never agree. That being the case, there is no point in anyone accusing posters on the opposite side of the discussion of dishonesty. You are arguing for the peanut gallery at home (since no one with a firm conviction on this point will ever be swayed by the opposing arguments or citations) so stop hurting your own positions by resorting to the “you’re dishonest” defense. Cool down, everyone. [/Moderating] ---
**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:** [May 1, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-israeli-attack-on-uss-liberty-only-an-accident/354626/43 "2006-05-01T19:40:36Z")
Simply for the record, I have called his _cites_ dishonest, as in many cases their claimes are simply out and out falsehoods. ---
**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:** [May 1, 2006, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-israeli-attack-on-uss-liberty-only-an-accident/354626/44 "2006-05-01T23:35:29Z")
Speaking of which, for those playing along at home, [these are some pretty good sources.](http://www.thelibertyincident.com/documents.html) Including, but not limited to: [why the Conspiracy Theory of a ‘total news blackout’ is a lie.](http://www.thelibertyincident.com/gag-orders-debunked.html) [The actual Navy Inquiry record, proving that claims of the sailors being prohibited from talking about the attack and its motives are a lie.](http://www.thelibertyincident.com/docs/CourtOfInquiry.pdf) [Nowiki stating that the tapes did not support a deliberate attack with malice against a known American target.](http://www.thelibertyincident.com/nowicki.html) And [the email that he sent Bamford, whose content Bamford lied about, claiming that it said the exact opposite of what it actually did.](http://www.thelibertyincident.com/nowicki-email.html) [A piece on misidentification of targets at sea, check out the PDF as well.](http://www.thelibertyincident.com/perception.html) Etc, etc, etc… Like all Conspiracy Theories, this is patched together from distortions, misunderstandings, and outright fabrications. Read the documents for yourself, and see if the Conspiracy Theorists who describe them do so accurately. ---
**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:** [May 1, 2006, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-israeli-attack-on-uss-liberty-only-an-accident/354626/45 "2006-05-01T23:45:19Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > [The actual Navy Inquiry record, proving that claims of the sailors being prohibited from talking about the attack and its motives are a lie.](http://www.thelibertyincident.com/docs/CourtOfInquiry.pdf) Whoa! That one is a 728 page, 60+MB PDF file. I’ll read that one in detail if I decide to publish a book on it. Till then it is a bit much to wade through on behalf of a SDMB thread. Since you seem to have read it if you’d be willing to point out relevant parts that’d be great. Otherwise I will rely on analysis of others. I’m looking at the other links and will get back. ---
**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:** [May 2, 2006, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-israeli-attack-on-uss-liberty-only-an-accident/354626/46 "2006-05-02T00:25:20Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Whoa! That one is a 728 page, 60+MB PDF file. Yes, it is. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I’ll read that one in detail if I decide to publish a book on it. But not if you’re going to accuse many different governmental agencies of conspiracy and coverup and an ally of our of a deliberate attack which was totally unnecessary if they could jam the ship’s communications anyway? Seems that if you’re making such serious charges, it might be worth your while to actually read the source material, first. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Till then it is a bit much to wade through on behalf of a SDMB thread. Research. Aint it a bitch. Check page 39 of the inquiry 144 of the PDF to see the Cmdr talk about how he ordered the torpedo boats fired upon, and how they signaled before returning fire. Check page 40 of the inquiry, page 145 of the PDF where the Cmdr not only states that the torpedo boats did not machine gun life boats, or attempt to further sink the ship, but offered assistance. Or page 42 of the inquiry, 147 of the pdf where the Cmdr states that there were no bodies in the water and only lists the torpedo explosion as a possible source of those bodies and mentions nothing about the life boats being fired upon. Check page 57 of the inquiry, 152 of the PDF where Lt. Painter says that not only did they not get into the life boats but that they had already been strafed while on board, and were then kicked overboard. He also specifically states, rather than the lie that the torpedo boats were firing on the life boats, that the torpedo boats backed off and, in his opinion, were waiting for the Liberty to sink. Check page 59 of the inquiry, 154 of the PDF where Painter says that the flag was flying, again contradicting lies that the crew wasn’t allowed to testify as to whether or not the Israelis could have identified them and if it was malicious Check page 137 of the inquiry, 242 of the PDF to see the testimony directly talking about Israeli claims of it being accidental. This contradicts the lie that you have cited that he was prohibited from doing so. Etc, etc, etc… ---
**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:** [May 2, 2006, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-israeli-attack-on-uss-liberty-only-an-accident/354626/47 "2006-05-02T00:27:35Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Including, but not limited to: [why the Conspiracy Theory of a ‘total news blackout’ is a lie.](http://www.thelibertyincident.com/gag-orders-debunked.html) I’ll start with this one. I do not think anything in that post contradicts what sailors report being told aboard the ship which amounts to this: > [@](#): > > RADM Isaac Kidd, who had been named to head the Court, came on board the ship with his fellow court members, three captains, on June 9. During the next few days he spoke informally to crew members to prepare for questions and testimony. He warned the crewmen that they could speak to no one about the attack until after the hearing, and then could speak only in the exact terms stated by the Court. The crewmen said that he threatened “court martial or worse” to those who might disobey. > > SOURCE: [logogo.net is for sale | HugeDomains](http://logogo.net/08hearing.htm) So it seems all the details in the link **FinnAgain** provided do not contradict this piece nor does it contradict testimony given by crew members. The report given aboard the aircraft carrier seems to have been before the crew was warned and the two pieces cited allowing crew to speak to reporters does not change that they may have been warned initially as well as the directive that when they did talk about it they had to abide by the exact terms stated by the court. The bit about Admiral Kidd giving an interview seems to be no part of that. Admiral Kidd was not a member of the crew and was the Admiral who seems to have given the order. In short, the crew may well have been wanred as they said they were and then a few weeks later the restrictions were removed or lightened. ---
**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:** [May 2, 2006, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-israeli-attack-on-uss-liberty-only-an-accident/354626/48 "2006-05-02T00:43:27Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Research. Aint it a bitch. Yeah…it is a bitch: > [@](#): > > Declaration of Ward Boston, Jr.,Captain, JAGC, USN (Ret.) Counsel to the U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry’s investigation into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty > > I, Ward Boston, Jr. do declare that the following statement is true and complete: > > \ > > …I know that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the public is not the same one that I certified and sent off to Washington. > > SOURCE: [http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us\_ints/ul-boston.html](http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/ul-boston.html) This document is central to the whole issue and is what is being called into serious doubt. Rather than defending its veracity you are using it to defend itself. When someone points out that a particular piece if that document is wrong pointing to that same document and saying it is right cuz it said so doesn’t really work. ---
**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:** [May 2, 2006, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-israeli-attack-on-uss-liberty-only-an-accident/354626/49 "2006-05-02T00:45:56Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > This document… By that I mean the official naval 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:** [May 2, 2006, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-israeli-attack-on-uss-liberty-only-an-accident/354626/50 "2006-05-02T00:47:51Z")
Again you hold your sources to standards which are laughably ephemeral. And you allow them to lie and distort with impunity but still take them as valid cites. For instance: > [@Cited by you](#): > > That although Liberty was saved from almost certain destruction through the heroic efforts of the ship’s Captain, William L. McGonagle (MOH), and his brave crew, surviving crewmembers were later threatened with “court-martial, imprisonment or worse” if they exposed the truth; and were abandoned by their own government There was a window of about two weeks during which they weren’t allowed to talk, as the Inquiry had not been resolved. After it was, they were free to spread “The Truth[sup]tm[/sup]” Your cite is deliberately distorting the facts in order to cleave to an agenda. Your own quote says > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > After the incident the survivng crew was warned on pain of court martial or prison to not talk about the event. Againk this obfuscates the fact that they were only prohibited from talking before the inquiry, and that after it they were free to ramble on all they liked. Oh, I’m sorry, am I “shrieking”? :rolleyes: > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I agree but that does nto stop one from asking why the government felt compelled in this case to silence the Liberty crew regarding being attacked (beyond the assumption that the government/military would probably be happiest if they never had to publically acknowledge what they had for breakfast much less anything else). Again, the same problem. They did not ‘feel compelled to’ “silence” anybody, this is just a distortion. They simply had them not speak their stories before the Inquiry, and then they were free to talk to whomever they wanted. ---
**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:** [May 2, 2006, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-israeli-attack-on-uss-liberty-only-an-accident/354626/51 "2006-05-02T00:56:20Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > This document is central to the whole issue and is what is being called into serious doubt. No, it isn’t. It’s hearsay spoken nearly 40 years after the fact centered around supposed quotes of a man who is already dead. Besides, they would have taken oaths to see justice done. Was he lying then, or is he lying now? > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Rather than defending its veracity you are using it to defend itself. I’ll get my tinfoil hat out later. The simple fact of the matter, that not one single sailor said “Hey, they made stuff up, I didn’t say that!” that not one single aide, or what have you, came forward, puts this ‘revelation’ highly into doubt. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > When someone points out that a particular piece if that document is wrong Pardon me for “frothing” but you seem to have missed the fact that the man telling you these things is a self admitted liar. Claiming hearsay “evidence”. From a dead man. That he lied about for close to fourty years, even if he is to be believed. But sure, if you really want you can believe someone who tells you that he’s a liar and tries to convince you that a man who is already dead told him that someone else told him something. ---
**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:** [May 2, 2006, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-israeli-attack-on-uss-liberty-only-an-accident/354626/52 "2006-05-02T04:00:33Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > No, it isn’t. It’s hearsay spoken nearly 40 years after the fact centered around supposed quotes of a man who is already dead. Besides, they would have taken oaths to see justice done. Was he lying then, or is he lying now? - If you read Boston’s sworn statement he says that what he turned in to the court is not the document that became part of the official court record. - They were given one week to investigate when they told Admiral McCain it would take six months for a proper investigation. - Some 60 affidavits collected from the crew were not entered into the record. - Boston (and anyone else) was prohibited from going to Israel for this investigation. The Israelis were apparently allowed to investigate themselves and submit that to the court of inquiry (note that when the USS Cole was attacked or the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon occurred US investigators went to those countries). I’d say the above throws the official inquiry into serious doubt and that is not even adding in things like spy plane intercepts that were not included or listening post intercepts that an Ambassador says never made it in and so on. > [@](#): > > The simple fact of the matter, that not one single sailor said “Hey, they made stuff up, I didn’t say that!” that not one single aide, or what have you, came forward, puts this ‘revelation’ highly into doubt. I think that is their point. No one said, “I didn’t say that!”, because they have not been allowed to formally (in a Congressional hearing for instance) say anything. They want their day in court so to speak. > [@](#): > > Pardon me for “frothing” but you seem to have missed the fact that the man telling you these things is a self admitted liar. Claiming hearsay “evidence”. From a dead man. That he lied about for close to fourty years, even if he is to be believed. Sorry Admiral Kidd is dead and cannot answer to this. Much of what Boston relates are conversations he had with Kidd personally. Is that hearsay? I suppose it is (hearsay rules always confused my neophyte understanding of law). The part about Johnson ordering the inquiry to a specific result definitely seems to be hearsay. ---
**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:** [May 2, 2006, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-israeli-attack-on-uss-liberty-only-an-accident/354626/53 "2006-05-02T04:51:16Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > - If you read Boston’s sworn statement he says that what he turned in to the court is not the document that became part of the official court record. Because someone retyped it, and, evidently, The Conspiracy not only cut out a part where Painter says that the life boats were fired upon, but adds in some stuff that has Painter saying that the life boats were already shot up and that the torpedo boats didn’t fire on them. And nobody noticed. For 36 years. Moreoever, even if Painter’s testimony was changed, somehow without anybody realizing at all, McGonagle’s testimony still supports Painter’s “conspiracy” testimony of the torpedo boats not firing on the life boats. Funny that Boston would claim one was “conspiracy” tampering, but not remark on the other. Or was McGonagle ‘in on it’? > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > - They were given one week to investigate when they told Admiral McCain it would take six months for a proper investigation. Who is ‘they’? What confirmation is there for this other than by a self admitted liar like Boston? Even if true, one hurried investigation does not negate the fact that there were **nine** others. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > - Some 60 affidavits collected from the crew were not entered into the record. Cite? (A real cite, not a conspiracy page) Moreover, even if they weren’t entered into the record, why is that necessarily important? Do you need 60 people saying the same thing if you have officers who can testify to it, anyways? > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > - Boston (and anyone else) was prohibited from going to Israel for this investigation. The Israelis were apparently allowed to investigate themselves and submit that to the court of inquiry (note that when the USS Cole was attacked or the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon occurred US investigators went to those countries). So back during Gulf War I, when American A 10 pilots killed British troops by accident, and then Britain didn’t insist on interviewing them and America wouldn’t give their direct testimony to the coroner’s inquest… it was a diabolical coverup, too? America meant to murder British soldiers, for no reason at all, and then Britain helped cover it up? And, also, note that your analogy is worthless. You’re comparing a friendly fire incident with terrorist attacks where we didn’t know all the details, and couldn’t exactly ask the terrorists. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I’d say the above throws the official inquiry into serious doubt and that is not even adding in things like spy plane intercepts that were not included or listening post intercepts that an Ambassador says never made it in and so on. The spy plane interecepts, which you’ve already handwaved away, were the major piece of evidence that the IDF had mistaken the identity of the Liberty. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I think that is their point. No one said, “I didn’t say that!”, because they have not been allowed to formally (in a Congressional hearing for instance) say anything. They want their day in court so to speak. Riiiiight… so they can get up in front of the History Channel to give testimony directly at odds with their previous stories, but they can’t say that they didn’t say what they’re on record as saying? And nobody else, in 36 years, happened to notice that the testimony was forged? Nobody? > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Sorry Admiral Kidd is dead and cannot answer to this. Ya don’t say? Maybe Boston was lying about Kidd’s relationship with the ‘judge turned scholar’? [Why, it looks like he was.](http://www.thelibertyincident.com/kidd.html) I am shocked. Just shocked. Awful shame that Boston could only mis-remember certain things after Kidd happened to die. Funny that he waited 36 years to claim that, earlier, he was lying. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Much of what Boston relates are conversations he had with Kidd personally. Is that hearsay? Doesn’t it strike you as odd, at all, that Kidd told nobody other than Boston, or that Boston waited 36 years, till after Kidd was dead, to say a word about it? ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-israeli-attack-on-uss-liberty-only-an-accident/354626/54 "2006-05-02T08:09:54Z")
Just saw this very long thread, about something that happened decades ago. But this part of the original quote struck me as odd: > [@](#): > > a system that delivered real-time intercepts to Washington by bouncing a stream of microwaves off the moon. > . . . > At 0800 hrs So you can bounce microwave signals off the moon at 8am? That makes me real skeptical about all the rest of the quotes from this guy. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-israeli-attack-on-uss-liberty-only-an-accident/354626/55 "2006-05-02T12:21:30Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Just saw this very long thread, about something that happened decades ago. > > But this part of the original quote struck me as odd: > So you can bounce microwave signals off the moon at 8am? > > That makes me real skeptical about all the rest of the quotes from this guy. Of course you can, the Moon doesn´t show up only at night. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-the-israeli-attack-on-uss-liberty-only-an-accident/354626.md?page=2)