Comments on: Capt. William McGonagle’s remarkable vision, Superman’s got nothing on him.

By: JDavis

JDavis — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:43:28 +0000

“Finally, whether the attack as due to mistake(s) or not, it was technically a “Friendly Fire” incident. In other words, “Friendly Fire” does not preclude criminality, it simply indicates the origin of fire; i.e., a friendly v/s enemy force. I grant that the meaning of the term “Friendly Fire” is often taken to preclude criminality, but in fact it does not.”

But without there ever been an honest investigation or discussion of intentions of the attack by the attacker, crimality is nebulous and undefined. And I’m guilty of that.
IMHO, “Friendly Fire” like a psychiatric label to describe the unexplained is a very subjective term whether technical or not. “Friendly Fire” is a modern term conjectured to mitigate an event for public relations. Just as the modern adaptation of ‘conspiracy theory’ is used to miscategorize and mislabel honest inquiry and public discourse. A subtle cultural intimidation for ulterior motives and agendas.
After 40+ of cover up, it’s time to call a spade a spade. murder murder and lies lies without the spin. But your point is taken. And your commentary and insights always appreciated.

By: Ken

Ken — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:38:34 +0000

Generally, McGonalgle’s recall of events during the attack can’t be trusted. Several of my essays provide direct evidence showing that he was truly confused about many significant aspects of the attack. Likely, his faultly recall was a result of the stress, wound and blood loss he suffered during and after the attack. So, whether or not McGonagle actually saw an Israeli flag on one of the MTBs at 2000 yards, as they were headed straight toward him, is questionable.

It is extremely difficult to believe that the MTB captains did not see the 4′ letters “GTR” and the 8′ number “5″ on the ship’s bow. Immediately upon the helicopters’ arrival, one of the pilots spotted the letters and number and asked the MTB Division Commander (Oren) their meaning. Oren answered: “It means nothing.” The helicopter pilots also immediately spotted the American flag. Surely, if the helicopter pilots could quickly and easily see these identifying marks so could the attacking pilots and the MTB captains.

There is overwhelming direct and circumstantial evidence that, at least, the attackers were reckless, wanton and grossly negligent — and that both the USG and GOI conducted inadequate and flawed investigations. Additionally, I agree that it’s extremely difficult to believe that the attackers didn’t realize who or what they were attacking either before or shortly after they attacked; nonetheless, “smoking gun” evidence remains elusive.

So far, the best evidence of a guilty mind that I can find are the fraudlent gun camera photos presented in the IDF’s History Report: an innocent party should have no reason to create and present fraudlent evidence. Essays about the IDF’s fake gun camera photos are here:
http://usslibertyinquiry.googlepages.com/essay11
http://usslibertyinquiry.googlepages.com/essay12
http://usslibertyinquiry.googlepages.com/essay13

By: JDavis

JDavis — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 18:50:00 +0000

Thank you for the comments Ken, Your ruthless analysis and brutal honesty is always appreciated.

I still find it amazing with all the hell on Earth going around that an injured Capt. McGonagle could spot an Israel naval ensign yet all the IDF participants (naval and air) couldn’t see the 5-8 ft high hull numbers that were neither Arabic but Western and ‘freshly painted’. Or that the Liberty or the alleged El Quisir both never had the visible ship armaments necessary to fire from the sea at the IDF coastal forces. (an event that which never happened) and the Israeli stated reason and justification for the attack on USS Liberty. It’s a shame that the US Government never had an investigation to determine what was the real reason or Israel’s motivation. We know for sure that the crew was never asked.

By: Ken

Ken — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:01:55 +0000

In McGonagle’s Court of Inquiry he implies sighting the MTBs approaching when they were 15 Nautical Miles from the ship — near the end of the air attack. So, indeed, he must have been superman because the visual horizon was about 8 nautical miles for a person at McGonagle’s height on the bridge. (At the most, only the extreme top of the MTBs’ masts would have been visible to McGonagle at 15 NM.)

Additionally, the MTBs must have been on hydrofoils; otherwise, how did they travel from McGonagle’s claimed 15 NM at the end of the air attack to about one mile of the ship in about 15 minutes?

For more information see: http://usslibertyinquiry.googlepages.com/essay20

By the way, the “Holiday flag” is not the largest flag in the Navy — it was the largest flag in USS Liberty. Regardless, a Court of Inquriy exhibit and photographic evidence supports the replacement flag’s size was 5′ x 9.5′ — not a 9′ x 17′ Holiday flag. For a full analysis see: http://usslibertyinquiry.googlepages.com/essay17

Also, the MTB attack had not yet started when Sixth Fleet received Liberty’s distress message (about 10 minutes after the air attack began); thus, the attack did not end at that time. The MTB attack stopped at about the same time IDF helicopters arrived at the ship, immediately spotted the American flag, and questioned the MTBs behavior — per NSA transcripts of communications recorded between the helicopter pilots and ground control; and Cout of Inquiry testimony, with the exception of McGonagle’s.

Finally, whether the attack as due to mistake(s) or not, it was technically a “Friendly Fire” incident. In other words, “Friendly Fire” does not preclude criminality, it simply indicates the origin of fire; i.e., a friendly v/s enemy force. I grant that the meaning of the term “Friendly Fire” is often taken to preclude criminality, but in fact it does not.