There seem to be some differencies between the Invincible that went to war...
Invincible

And the one that came back in 17 September:
Illustrious?

Such as the phalanx system that seems to appear in the photograph
Phalanx?

Also, these pictures here show Hermes and Illustrious meeting in the South Atlantic in June-July. However the British government says Illustrious was in the UK on August.
Hermes and Illustrious
You can see Hermes meeting another carrier in the South Atlantic that should not be there according to the british government.
Illustrious and Hermes

The theory would be that the british government conceals the lose of the Invincible with its sister ship Illustrious until another carrier was built in secret.

I don't know if that is plausible but thats the idea. And believe it or not there are further discrepancies that took place those days that might allow people to think of this theory.

The first british announcement was on June 1 1982, when the Ministry of War announced that the Argentinean Air Force attacked the bulk of the Atlantic Conveyor, not the Invincible, and one of the attackers was shot down. But the attack on the Atlantic Conveyor took place on May 25 and far away from the attack on the 30.

The second british announcement dismissed the last stating that in actuallity the ship attacked was the Avenger and that this ship had downed two attackers with Sea Dart missiles. But this ship was not equipped with this system at that time.

A third version extracted from the book "The Battle for the Falklands" (or so I believe it is translated) by Hastings and Jenkins 1983 states this:
"On may 30 the battle group survived another air attack by Exocet, when the Avenger managed to shoot down the missile with a 4.5 inchs gun, 45 seconds after the alarm". There is no mention of other aircrafts attacking the Avenger.

The fourth version, and the official British version: two A4C were shot down with Sea Dart by HMS Exeter and a 4.5 inch gun from Avenger may have hit another. The Exocet missile could have impacted on the bulk of the Atlantic Conveyor or intercepted by the Avenger's anti-missile system, and the pilots may have mistaken the silhouete of the Atlantic Conveyor with that of the Invincible.

It's all too blurry to understand what happened that day and the english versions don't help much.
I for one, don't know what to believe.

The stuff Merman posted is the same boilerplate that gets posted fairly frequently on Argentinian message boards.  I particularly enjoyed the claims that the replacement Invincible was built at Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Mississippi (where the LHAs and LHDs were built).  Because yeah that would have gone unnoticed.

It is simply not possible for an event of that magnitude to have gone unreported by any of the thousands of personnel and media on board that ship and the surrounding vessels.

As far as photographic evidence, here you go:

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k90/in_a_coma_dial_999/illinv.jpg">

This is a picture of Illustrious (foreground, Phalanx guns visible) and Invincible (background, no Phalanx).

Illustrious and Invincible could never have been photographed together before the war.  Immediately upon returning to Portsmouth, Invincible underwent a refit which included fitting of Phalanx.  Obviously, this picture could also never have been taken after the refit (or "new construction" as has been claimed).

So, the above photo could only have been taken on 27 or 28 August 82.  Clearly, Invincible is neither sunk nor badly damaged.

Didn't the RN immediately start a backfit program of its ships with Phalanx and Goalkeeper, once  the fleet returned from the Falklands? Weren't the Invincibles the first in the que? 

Herald

Yes, exactly.  Invincible had Sea Dart launchers but no CIWS of any kind during the Falklands.  As soon as she returned home, she had a refit (from 18 September 1982 to February 1983) during which 2 20 mm Vulcan Phalanx Mk 15 CIWS guns and 2 20 mm GAM-B01 guns were added.  Illustrious was rushed into commision during the war, and two Phalanx guns were actually fitted while she was underway.  Ark Royal was completed with three Phalanx guns, which she still has today.

In later refits, both Invincible and Illustrious had their two Phalanx guns removed and replaced with three Goalkeeper.

Shouldn't this two ships have the same length?
They don't appear to have the same lenght in this picture. They are fairly close to one another but you can notice quite a difference in lenght there.

They do have the same length.  The fish-eye lens used to take the image makes it look as though the two ships are much closer together than they really were.  This is also why Illustrious appears to be bulging toward the camera.

Another thing about the two photos that are often posted to show that Illustrious and Hermes were operating together "when they should not have been"

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/6192/hmshermesandhmsillustrious1982.jpg">

I do not doubt that the above photo shows Illustrious and Hermes.  However, there is no reason to suppose that this photo was actually taken in the South Atlantic.  Clearly, the two ships' companies are greeting one another, which they would not be doing in a war zone.  Further, Illustrious has one Harrier and one helicopter on deck.  If indeed Illustrious was secretly replacing Invincible, where are all her aircraft?  And why is her crew complement so small?

What I suspect is that this photo shows Hermes on her way back from the South Atlantic meeting Illustrious during her workup.  Illustrious was commissioned underway on 20 June 1982.  Hermes left for Portsmouth on 4 July and arrived on 21 July.  Some of Hermes' aircraft were transferred to 809 Squadron, which then transferred to Illustrious, and Illustrious set sail for the Falklands on 2 August.

There is no reason to suppose that Illustrious, which was on her abbreviated shakedown cruise and awaiting her air wing, could not have encountered Hermes on her way back to Portsmouth.  The two ships were both based in Portsmouth at the time, and both were underway, so they would obviously have to have been in proximity.

Martin Carrol

 

So he says the attack was directed on the Avenger on may 25, but that day the Atlantic Conveyor was struck by an Exocet. He is obviously wrong, he is relating the attack of may 30. Ok, just a memory mishap.

 

The thing is that this young man who saw it all relates an attack that doesn't correspond to any of the known versions.

The first british announcement was on June 1 1982, when the Ministry of War announced that the Argentinean Air Force attacked the hull of the Atlantic Conveyor, not the Invincible, and one of the attackers was shot down. But the attack on the Atlantic Conveyor took place on May 25 and far away from the attack of the 30. Martin says the missile was directed at them.

The official British version: two A4C were shot down with Sea Dart by HMS Exeter and a 4.5 inch gun from Avenger may have hit another. The Exocet missile could have impacted on the hull of the Atlantic Conveyor or intercepted by the Avenger's anti-missile system, and the pilots may have mistaken the silhouete of the Atlantic Conveyor with that of the Invincible. Martin remembers the missile heading straight at them, so maybe the silhouete of the Avenger resembles that of the Invincible?

 

How could it be that not even an eyewitness of the attack of may 30 agrees with the official version of the facts. I mean, was the missile heading toward the wreck of the Atlantic Conveyor (attacked 5 days before away from the attack of the 30), or the Avenger? And what were the odds of a 4.5 shell shooting down an Exocet back then?

 

This inconsistencies doesn't mean the Invincible was hit, I know that, but couldn't it be there is something not fitting entirely here?