Posted on 05/27/2017 7:31:36 AM PDT by Revski
Evidence? Of testimonials that in the evidence I provided showed that the incident was covered up due to the father and grandfather of McCain was. If I were to go on your evidence, Nixon would have fulfilled out his remaining term. What you considered as evidence really isn’t. Who killed JFK we all believe Booth did it. However there is evidence that Booth could not have killed JFK. Was Booth killed in a fire in a barn after he killed Lincoln, there is evidence of the autopsy that it is not Booth on the table but we have pictures of it. Your evidence is subjective and you believe your evidence and discount any other. This makes you closed minded to the incident when there are others out there who say McCain was a coward and sung in Hanoi Hilton. I have reviewed your evidence but since there are claims of a coverup then the matter is still not decided and from I know of McCain I more apt to believe he did do a wet start which caused an electrical spike to launch a missile that was erroneously armed by the other the other pilot. McCain was known for doing wet starts which make this all the more believable. Something you apparently haven’t researched enough on.
“. McCain’s tail was hanging over the flight deck, towards the sea; so how could a wet start on his part set off a Zuni rocket on the other side of the carrier?”
________________________________________
Right here proves you have no idea what a wet start is. When you find out you will be enlightened. It doesn’t matter whether the tail was hanging over the side or not. And once you find out what a wet start is you will also know why it is not only frowned upon, but pilots get in trouble for doing them.
McCain is a murderer and a traitor not just for the Forrestal Fire but also for what happened in Hanoi Hilton.
You don't even understand your own conspiracy theory. The whole point of the McCain's-wet-start-caused-the-disaster theory was that a big jet of flame cooked off a rocket on an aircraft behind McCain's. One can only believe this if you have no idea where the aircraft were positioned and where the rocket came from. That's why the fact that McCain's ass was pointed off the deck matters.
Show me the testimony of anyone who stated they saw McCain have a wet start at that time. You can't.
Explain how a wet start on one side of a carrier caused a missile launch from the other side of the carrier. You can't.
I know McCain didn't cause the Forrestal fire because he's still alive. I'm supposed to accept the idea that it was a common belief in the Navy that McCain was directly responsible for the deaths of 134 sailors and no one tossed him off the back of the Oriskany, one dark night, in the three months before he was shot down? Officers were getting fragged for far less in the Army at that same time. Maybe they were more tolerant in the Navy...
Yeah, I know - cover-up.
2- days after the incident captain, John K. Beling, believed an “extreme wet start” had created “a thick tongue of flame” that set off the Zuni.
Apple, R.W. Jr., “FORRESTAL TOLL MAY REACH 125; 69 STILL MISSING; Rescue Teams Press Search but Little Hope Remains for the Other Crewmen SHIP WAS NEARLY LOST She Leaves Vietnam Combat Zone for Subic Bay Base –Tales of Heroism Told” New York Times 31 July 1967; A1.
Never was it reported? That is the New York Times.
I don't know what you're talking about - I quoted that NYT story in post 17. You should read it again.
Correction, Post 18.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.