USS Liberty

[Caustic Logic]

It's quiet.

Almost......too quiet.

That's what I was thinking...

Que scary music.

Que?

I just check in every day to verify that this thread is still going. And in such detail.

The three of us have gone a ways into the radar issue, only to have it come out a math problem. The problem Yifrah passed to Cristol was apparently the first return was off by a factor of 6, meaning the distance between returns 1 and 2 were off enough to require 30 knots to cover - a double-check (averaging in new returns?) brought it down to 28. Given the variables, I think a math whiz might be able to figure out what they did and got wrong, using algebra. It would help to know what the time interval between returns was, but Cristol didn't seem to figure that out.

Soldier on guys.

I'm too far ahead of everyone already, taking a breather. This is also just one small corner of this stinking pile, and that's not even getting to the American side of this event.

Thanks for piping up, E.D. For the record tho, I never did find in this thread any "o-ver-whelming" evidence of friendly fire. Recommended post numbers?

 

[Eddie Dane]

Thanks for piping up, E.D. For the record tho, I never did find in this thread any "o-ver-whelming" evidence of friendly fire. Recommended post numbers?

tho?

I recommend all threads on this subject in their entirety, before they trail of in ridiculous detail.

It's like with the JFK assassination. You can spend a lifetime looking at who was where at what time and who they knew etc. etc. But the solution is quite straightforward: Oswald shot JFK and he acted alone. Apply Occam's razor to the evidence and that is the conclusion I come to.

I must admit that I'm seriously impressed with amount of detailed information you guys are able to dredge up. But let's get real: don't be surprised that nobody is giving input at this point. Not even JREF members are willing to start a debate about what kind of radar system the Israelis used, where they bought it, how they operated it, who was on duty during the incident, if this person had an eye condition, if this can be proven by dredging up the records from his optician, whether the records could have been falsified, how this optician died, if this was from a common heart disease in the Mediterranean in the sixties. All backed up with real evidence, but still an exercise in futility.

Abstract: ten year old kid in the mid sixties claims: "the dog ate my homework".
Now, one could conclude that this is not likely. it is statistically far more likely that the kid didn't make his homework and lied about the dog eating it, than that the dog actually ate his homework.

Or not? Could there be something to it after all?

What kind of dog was it? Check city records.
The dog died a year later? Could it have been a delayed effect of ingesting homework? Check veterinarian records.
Can canine digest cellulose? Massive data check.
No? Aren't we forgetting something? Of course! What kind of paper was used in schools at the time of the incident? More digging.
But wait! The school overstocked on paper the previous year, it may have been a different kind of paper.
Irrelevant! Kids use paper from home to use in school.
Etc. Etc. Etc.

Nobody is joining in because nobody has anything sensible to say about such detail and I suspect that hardly anybody is motivated to do more research at this point because most people are convinced that the CT has been debunked.

Even Gumboot, a poster who's usually willing to submit lots of detailed technical info, seems to have thrown in the towel.

Please don't see lack of input as a sign that the debunkers have been overwhelmed by all the evidence.

I don't mean to knock all your diligent research, but you are missing the big picture IMHO.

 

[gumboot]

tho?

I recommend all threads on this subject in their entirety, before they trail of in ridiculous detail.

It's like with the JFK assassination. You can spend a lifetime looking at who was where at what time and who they knew etc. etc. But the solution is quite straightforward: Oswald shot JFK and he acted alone. Apply Occam's razor to the evidence and that is the conclusion I come to.

I must admit that I'm seriously impressed with amount of detailed information you guys are able to dredge up. But let's get real: don't be surprised that nobody is giving input at this point. Not even JREF members are willing to start a debate about what kind of radar system the Israelis used, where they bought it, how they operated it, who was on duty during the incident, if this person had an eye condition, if this can be proven by dredging up the records from his optician, whether the records could have been falsified, how this optician died, if this was from a common heart disease in the Mediterranean in the sixties. All backed up with real evidence, but still an exercise in futility.

Abstract: ten year old kid in the mid sixties claims: "the dog ate my homework".
Now, one could conclude that this is not likely. it is statistically far more likely that the kid didn't make his homework and lied about the dog eating it, than that the dog actually ate his homework.

Or not? Could there be something to it after all?

What kind of dog was it? Check city records.
The dog died a year later? Could it have been a delayed effect of ingesting homework? Check veterinarian records.
Can canine digest cellulose? Massive data check.
No? Aren't we forgetting something? Of course! What kind of paper was used in schools at the time of the incident? More digging.
But wait! The school overstocked on paper the previous year, it may have been a different kind of paper.
Irrelevant! Kids use paper from home to use in school.
Etc. Etc. Etc.

Nobody is joining in because nobody has anything sensible to say about such detail and I suspect that hardly anybody is motivated to do more research at this point because most people are convinced that the CT has been debunked.

Even Gumboot, a poster who's usually willing to submit lots of detailed technical info, seems to have thrown in the towel.

Please don't see lack of input as a sign that the debunkers have been overwhelmed by all the evidence.

I don't mean to knock all your diligent research, but you are missing the big picture IMHO.

I think Eddie Dane has a point here. I have a sort of criteria which I like to think of as my "brain line". The brain line is the arbitrary point at which I feel I've presented sufficient information to deal with the basic thrust of a theory.

If the dissenting voice hasn't seen reason by this point, it's reasonably to conclude they either have no brain or are not using it properly, in which case further effort by myself is pointless.

Case in point is the NORAD conspiracy theories relating to 9/11. I carefully assembled together a host of information on the matter, and presented it. It was far from a complete picture, but it reached the brain line, as far as I was concerned.

Now, there's still people who post here who are continuing to dredge through FAA recordings and radar data, and they're uncovering some interesting stuff. More power to them. I admire their efforts.

But frankly what they're doing is just a waste of time (that is, as far as bringing vital information to the argument - but then I think they do it for their own interest, so that's fine).

My interest in the matter doesn't run that deep, so I've stopped my work, and you'll note I seldom post in this subforum any more - I much prefer the punching bag of Politics and Current Events when my brain is idle.

As far as my interest in the USS Liberty incident goes, I'm satisfied that I've reached the brain line. There's no plausible evidence that the attack was intentional, and lots of plausible evidence that it was an accident.

If you're personally interested in the matter, and want to dig deeper, great. Don't stop on my account. But just don't expect to have too many people wanting to discuss what you uncover.

My rule is a simple one. Only ever cross the brain line for reasons of personal interest. Never cross the brain line for the sake of someone else.

 

[Eddie Dane]

I'd like to add that we all get wiser from all the research. I've learned a lot about what level of technology the Americans and the Israelis used at that time in history. And I find that reasonably interesting.

But it is not adding anything to the CT discussion.

I've actually grown to see it as those English and German murder mystery TV shows, where the murder mystery takes a back seat and we get to have a peek into the lives of the characters. The murder investigation is just an excuse for the detective to ask questions and expose the lives and secrets of the characters.

So don't let me discourage you from delving deeper. Just don't expect me to join in.

I don't think you'll discover that the butler did it. But you might dig up some dirt about the time when he was running a whorehouse and had a gay affair.

Now where is that smiley that eats popcorn?

 

[Caustic Logic]

I think Eddie Dane has a point here. I have a sort of criteria which I like to think of as my "brain line". The brain line is the arbitrary point at which I feel I've presented sufficient information to deal with the basic thrust of a theory.

He's definitely got a point. I've been dominating things here, and I'm a total nerd and get all detailed, and also sometimes wrong and confused. I have a similar line, laid down less often but further out perhaps than yours, which i finall invoked regarding the CIT kids, and Ultima1, etc.

If the dissenting voice hasn't seen reason by this point, it's reasonably to conclude they either have no brain or are not using it properly, in which case further effort by myself is pointless.

I know this is in ref to your overall brain line thing, but since you're apparently invoking that clause here... the gloves iz off dood.

Case in point is the NORAD conspiracy theories relating to 9/11. I carefully assembled together a host of information on the matter, and presented it. It was far from a complete picture, but it reached the brain line, as far as I was concerned.

You did some stellar work there I never have given its due look. Just a quick scan and I got the idea most of my own were probably wrong and dropped it. Kudos.

As far as my interest in the USS Liberty incident goes, I'm satisfied that I've reached the brain line. There's no plausible evidence that the attack was intentional, and lots of plausible evidence that it was an accident.

Evidence you're invoking the clause...
The attack was absolutely intentional and well-coordinated. What's at question is whether their continued, heedless, dunder-headed lack of understanding this was an American vessel was accidental or willful ignorance. Neither can be proven absent on-the-scene brain scans or 1005 saturation with bugs in the IDF HQs. But my lord, they claim to have missed a lot of clues.
http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/04/boat-to-boat-recognition.html

I decided last night, Gumboot, to revisit all your posts, as that's what has been pointed to as any kind of de-bunk. So thanks for popping back to thread you helped shape, and I'm going back now. There are more posts by you than I remember, but so far it seems your major theme is the US deserved the attack for snooping, the Israelis warned us they'd shoot anyone there, and that's just what happened. So arguably, the best case it was accident is because if it HAD been intentional, it would be justified and they wouldn't have to lie?

My rule is a simple one. Only ever cross the brain line for reasons of personal interest. Never cross the brain line for the sake of someone else.

Don't worry, I'm a reasonable chap, and I'm sue on closer inspection I'll find the "aha!" point where you showed how it was accident. I'll then have some reaction.

 

[fezzic]

I think that the key element in the Liberty incident was that the CIC officer calculated, however he did it, that Liberty/target was doing 30 knots. As far as I can tell, pretty much everything flowed from that initial mistake.

By determining the target was doing 30 knots, the MTBs knew they couldn't close before it would be too dangerous -- close to Port Said -- so they called in air support. Even if Liberty's marker was on the situation plot or somebody in HQ remembered (with the marker removed) that Liberty was potentially somewhere in the area, the report that the target was doing 30 knots would have ruled out Liberty.

By "ROE" (my word) a target doing 30 knots (actually >20knots) was considered a warship. No further identification was needed.

The IAF jets were concerned about hitting the wrong target since there was supposedly four warships out there -- one presumed hostile and 3 Israeli. Once they confirmed who was the Israeli, they proceeded to attack the presumed hostile target which was Liberty.

At this point, like in most friendly fire incidents, somebody noticed that something was not right. It might have been unexpected and only seen for a moment, but by reporting it that began to cast doubt on the intial assumption that the target had to be a hostile warship. But what was not answered immediately was 'who were they'?

Step back a bit and redo the events...

The CIC officer informs the MTB commander (who tells HQ) that the target is moving about 5 knots. MTB commander would know that DIV 914 would overhaul it quickly and well before the target would reach Port Said. No need to call on the IAF to help.

If anybody had remembered Liberty, the slow movement of the target might have jogged their memory and its presence might have been mentioned to the MTBs. But this would not be decisively important.

The MTBs would be on the alert, but the slow speed of the target would assure them that it probably was not a warship -- a warship that shelled the Israelis would presumably be fleeing for safety -- so they'd look pretty closely because the target may not be hostile and the "ROE" only apply if it was going > 20 knots. The possibility that the target is a neutral or friendly or Russian would be real and they'd want to not shoot up anybody but the enemy.

Chances are good that Mcgonagle would have been worried about the approaching gunboats but his flag would be flying, there would be no smoke and fires to obscure the ship, he would not have fired on the gunboats, and he might have directly answered the gunboats, especially if he determined they were Israeli, instead of challenging them back -- for instance his signal lights would have been operational.

Probable result, no incident.

As I think I may have mentioned back aways, the friendly fire explanation seems most plausible. It fits the events as we understand them. There was no need to invoke various motivations, all unprovable, about Israel to get to something other than what some might say is an all too common friendly fire mistake. However if someone wants to go the deliberate attempt to sink Liberty route, that is their perogative.

I like when a thread delves into a more technical presentation of things, so long as they are not tooooo technical, rather than going around in circles casting aspertions on poster's motivations.

 

[Caustic Logic]

I think that the key element in the Liberty incident was that the CIC officer calculated, however he did it, that Liberty/target was doing 30 knots. As far as I can tell, pretty much everything flowed from that initial mistake.

Unfortunately, that wasn't quite the first mistake, nor anywhere near the last. This was a perfect storm of blunders. A little too perfect, of course.

Even if Liberty's marker was on the situation plot or somebody in HQ remembered (with the marker removed) that Liberty was potentially somewhere in the area, the report that the target was doing 30 knots would have ruled out Liberty.

Fair point, but once they started reporting a ship that matched the Liberty, if they'd been thinking about it, that ignorance may not have lasted. Guy that removed it also removed himself and left no marker, no notes, no clue to the next guy. The Liberty was not rediscovered til after 15:30, underneath all that smoke, listing away.

I like when a thread delves into a more technical presentation of things, so long as they are not tooooo technical, rather than going around in circles casting aspertions on poster's motivations.

Agreed, and I'm really not sure we were too technical/boring yet for my tastes, but verging close anyway. I'll have to leave the rest of your post now and focus on Gumboot's pivotal findings. At the risk of again seeming awkwardly obsessive and pariah-like, first seven posts for now.

Post #9

According to the Israelis the torpedo boats were dispatched to assist the Liberty once it became clear the boat was American, and signaled in accordance with this, upon which the Liberty fired at them so they defended themselves and returned fire.

I think you may be confused. The firing was before the torpedoing, the 2-way flashing where the Liberty identified herself and MTBs offered assistance came after. But yes, it appears the first shots came from the Liberty.

#59 – Of all the reasons I’ve seen the attack was ordered, being too close to the shore was not one of them, but good attempt at justification. We should refund that $6 million!

Biting my tongue again...

#88 – sorry, but it’s “pretty clear” that anyone who can unquestioningly chalk all that up to dumb luck might just be beyond help. I will add that Israeli sources often – and rightly - cite the US ‘errors’ in allowing the ship so close as a big part of the problem. This does nothing to cancel out their own mistakes, and IMO just amplifies the problems that both sides made a string of improbable errors leading to the tragedy. I don’t think it came out like it was supposed to.

#99 – location is not irrelevant. You yourself said part of the problem was their getting too close to the shore, and being in the location no US ships were said to be, as well as in the right location to be mistakenly sunk. Location is very important. We had spy planes too, but these were apparently in a better location and didn't get whacked and shot down as they should have, damn spies.

#101 – same as JM, but since we’re playing semantics, replace “crime” with “act of war.”

The Navy Court of Inquiry found that the Saratoga received radio transmissions from the Liberty and successfully passed these on to the 6th Fleet. This would indicate that radio jamming did not occur.

I’m agnostic on jamming, but this could also show the real jamming was incomplete, leaving one frequency open. The crew reports trying multiple frequencies, all overloaded with that buzzsaw jamming sound, before they found the one open. Exact names and frequencies evade me now but I’m sure you know this is true. Clearly tho if they meant to silence the ship, they did fail, and that complicates that particular CT. Good point.

On the shooting of life rafts, I'll also concede, as I already have, that this is unprovable. It may or may not be true, and may indicate nothing more than another simple war crime rather than anything conspiratorial if true. Folks take it as a sign they wanted no survivors, but then why didn't they actually sink the ship? That's a question that's always baffled me - they said themselves that was their goal, but failed with a 1/6 average.

#102

According to the logs the closest the MTBs ever closed was 2000 yards which is quite a considerable distance. In addition, since Joe here was the signalman he can confirm that smoke from the fires made it impossible for him to read the MTBs signals, just as the Israelis claim they could not see his signals clearly. Thus we cannot assume the MTBs saw the US flag.

No we cannot, tho the Libery was able to see their “quite small” flag, and their hull markings, from that distance. 2000 yards is just over a mile, which is close enough to try signaling. Actually I think they may have gotten closer than that, but ... Eventually from this or whatever distance they saw and identified the flag, perhaps with fancy binoculars. Could YOu see a 13-foot flag from a mile off with binoculars? Or a 10x25-foot block of letters saying GTR5? I really don't go around testing these things, but I imagine I could. They saw the flashes from their machine guns at 2000 yards, and the signals saying “no thank you” later on. Just – not - at the right time. Torpedo hit, 14:35 PM. Machine gunning the ship, perhaps rafts, etc. from 14:35-15:05. Signals saying “US Naval Vessel” about 15:03, sighting of US flag and deciding these are Americans was at 15:30.

I know, I know... boooorrrrrring!

#107
again, why ain’t they man enough then to just admit they hit a US ship? They did warn us, it was justified in every way? You American kids shoot us with machine guns, we decide you’re Egyptians again and sink you with torpedos! Stupid Yank Arbs…
The MTB Log records “detected firing flashes” at 14:35, apparently taken as a negative response to their own flashing. They then recorded the identification as El Quiser at 14:37, and their counter-attack commencing at 14:40. 2,000 yards. Six million dollars.

 

[Klimax]

Before getting back to event itself,I'd like to point ojut that there are only few things interesting or good to learn for me:
Radar,its flaws and technology
Error of measurment in practise
Optics
Military technology and equipment

And maybe few more.Sorry CL,but I am not catching up anything.You are not ahead of me as I am not on the same track as you.(I am not anylonger that interested in CT,except its debunking)

Back to original scheduled topic...
And BTW:I have drawn line only for stupidity,not detail of debate...

 

[Caustic Logic]

Before getting back to event itself,I'd like to point ojut that there are only few things interesting or good to learn for me:
Radar,its flaws and technology
Error of measurment in practise
Optics
Military technology and equipment

And maybe few more.

For sure, you'll want to not forget the history of friendly fire incidents, effects of small rooms on speed calculations, unreliability of witness memory, and origins of anti-semitic conspiracy theories. All also highly relevant.

Sorry CL,but I am not catching up anything.You are not ahead of me as I am not on the same track as you.(I am not anylonger that interested in CT,except its debunking)

Back to original scheduled topic...
And BTW:I have drawn line only for stupidity,not detail of debate...

Thanks for saying sorry, and also for being patient for a while. I don't mean to cause anyone harm or come across obnoxious, I just have to call it as I see it. It can't help but seem ugly in a case like this. Also, I'm on or a toe over some other lines here as i approach my own brain line for this forum as a whole, on this subject. Plus I have to sign in twice now for every post, not sure why : I'll consider my mission here pretty well accomplished and again lay low. At least on this. Some CTs just aren't as much fun as others. I get it.

Cheers all.

 

[Klimax]

For sure, you'll want to not forget the history of friendly fire incidents, effects of small rooms on speed calculations, unreliability of witness memory, and origins of anti-semitic conspiracy theories. All also highly relevant.

Maybe,maybe not,it depends on outcome of previous.

Thanks for saying sorry, and also for being patient for a while. I don't mean to cause anyone harm or come across obnoxious, I just have to call it as I see it. It can't help but seem ugly in a case like this. Also, I'm on or a toe over some other lines here as i approach my own brain line for this forum as a whole, on this subject. Plus I have to sign in twice now for every post, not sure why : I'll consider my mission here pretty well accomplished and again lay low. At least on this. Some CTs just aren't as much fun as others. I get it.

Cheers all.

First:No problem and everybody needs to have hobby.BUT there is so far too slim chance to uncover something new and revealing,sure thing for amateurs.

Underlined:???

Boldedon't like responses? or what is problem?

Italics:There are several possibilities.Broken file keeping track of cookies,bad setting(s),forgot to mark "log automatically".Maybe few were missed.

And last:Maybe not fun,but depends how one approaches it.(But those listed things are interesting bits,but not exactly neccessary for CT-debunking/confirming)

 

[Caustic Logic]

Hi, Klimax, sorry for the delay. I got myself frustrated enough I had to just not even type anything for a bit. Yes, got myself frustrated. I could just shrug and walk away, unlike some more directly involved. But nooo, I had to try and argue the point with people intent on not seeing it, a recipe for brain-popping.

Underlined:???

That being "It can't help but seem ugly in a case like this" means any attempt to question an Israeli attack of this sort it will appear ugly to many, as you are blaming Jews for something sinister, which is a no-no, since the Nazis also did that, etc. Fact is it is an ugly accusation, as well as an ugly reality, however you slice it.

Boldedon't like responses? or what is problem?

Quite a few of them I don't like, but I do appreciate people adding any opinions or thoughts to the discussion. It's important to know what people think, even if it is unpleasant. I could keep going, but I need to stop the pop before it happens. Also, if I'm right, I'm certainly pissing someone off by bringing all this up.

Even if I'm wrong, just keeping the issue alive at all is dangerous. Almost everyone on the U.S. side who knows anything about the affair feels it was an intentional attack on a U.S. ship. It's absolute political dynamite - a mood shift at the White House and this vast body of 'anti-Israel kooks' could become something much different.

Please not almost all sources claiming to "close the case," and it's been tried several times, are Israeli and/or highly sympathetic. The U.S. has been remarkably weak in support of it's official but oh-so-thin line of "yeah, what they said." I've heard it said the incident could, in the right circumstances, be the undoing of Israel. That would be more awkward than either my rambling or (almost) everyone else's silence here.

Then that in itself is annoying, that the U.S. can just get one ship attacked and hold it over someone's head like that. What touchy, petty bullies! Especially when there's reason to suspect they originally colluded by placing the target for the IDF. No, ooops, another string of mistakes... Did something go wrong? Did the US back out on its half of the deal, and leave the Isrealis exposed with the smoking gun? Unanswerable questions need to be considered as unanswered.

In 2003, Admiral Moorer called the attack a deliberate "act of war" against the United States. That's heavy. On the other hand, same guy was appointed CNO June 5 IIRC, almost exactly as the Liberty was sent in, the war started, and the Liberty failed to get recalled. I'm not sure I trust Moorer.

I recognize dynamite and actually would like to defuse it. Truth, not vengeance. But that's pretty lofty, and just a sentiment. So I made my noise, there's my peace. Lurkers, check it out for yourselves, the facts and also your own mindsets.

I wasn't really paranoid about the logging-in thing - it followed my first log-out in like a year, probably me, will fix it later.

And last:Maybe not fun,but depends how one approaches it.(But those listed things are interesting bits,but not exactly neccessary for CT-debunking/confirming)

This issue just isn't and shouldn't be fun. And it's less in the realm of CTs than in politically sensitive military-diplomatic stuff with potential for triggering serious problems if the debate were conclusively resolved. Does the JREF even have a forum for that?

 

[fezzic]

Once this moves beyond a fairly technical discussion of the incident to one of motivation, it is going to leave me behind. I would have nothing but my opinion to offer as to motivation. Being convinced that it was a friendly fire incident, I would say that one can't argue (to me) that some speculative motive has any real weight in the absence of some kind of hard fact specific to the motive.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Bump again.

I found some minor disinfo supporting a CT point that had fooled me briefly until I double-checked. Explained here:
http://12-7-9-11.blogspot.com/2009/07/where-are-americans.html

Manufactured evidence had strongly implied attacking pilots saw the flag. The tapes related in true order as now acknowledged do not support this. The IDF says they never saw the flag, even during AM recon, until the helicopters after. And EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN with first-hand knowledge says they indeed did recieve reports of a flag during the attack.

The trustworthy Dr. Nowicki:

“For the record, we (my teammate and I) both heard and recorded the references to the U.S. flag made by the pilots and captains of the motor torpedo boats.” “[O]nly later in the afternoon did we hear references to [the] flag during the attacks.” ”As I recall, we recorded most, if not all, of the attack.”

These recordings don't exist, according to the NSA. That's good, since they contradict what the Isrealis say.

 

[fezzic]

Where did Dr. Nowicki's quote come from?

The first part of that quote seems, word for word, like a similar statement made by Nowicki in a letter to the Wall Street Journal.

I have no recollection of seeing the the remainder of the quote in any Nowicki documentation (naturally from the www.thelibertyincident.com) and I have taken a look to check.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Where did Dr. Nowicki's quote come from?

The first part of that quote seems, word for word, like a similar statement made by Nowicki in a letter to the Wall Street Journal.

I have no recollection of seeing the the remainder of the quote in any Nowicki documentation (naturally from the www.thelibertyincident.com) and I have taken a look to check.

First Quote, correct
http://www.libertyincident.com/nowicki-wsj.html
Second one from an attachment w/e-mail to Bamford
http://www.libertyincident.com/nowicki-evidence.html
Third one from the e-mail itself
http://www.libertyincident.com/nowicki-email.html

He still feels it was an accident, that as soon as they SAW THE FLAg DURING THE ATTACK they stopped. He says it was seen by both air and surface units, claiming to have recorded and heard both phases of attack. Presumably it was called off twice then, that part's not as clear.

So is the guy just confused and got all that from the non-attacking helicopters that are acknowledged to report the flag? He contradicts both the transcript witnesses (to thom it was no accident and they shot despite the flag) and the IDF story that no flag was visible during the attack, and NSA's public and final stance that the attack wasn't recorded. But Cristol pimps his acc't anyway since his (faulty?) memory leads him to believe it was a double accident.

Noone agrees with anyone here, it's confusing.

Case closed, huh?