I have my own issues with McCain as, I'm sure, many others do, but that does not mean that everything he has ever done is wrong. I'm somewhat familiar with the Forrestal incident and I can't recall anyone with any keen awareness of the circumstances indicating that McCain was the cause.
Nowhere on the face of history can you find real, verified, evidentiary claims from former crew that McCain started the fire. There are books full of sourced documents and quotes to the contrary.
Great video... 1. McCain did not start the US Forrestal fire as this accurate video points out. 2. McCain was not a "Songbird" that is made up propaganda. 3. McCain was not pardoned by Nixon... more propaganda. Lots of reasons to despise McCain but not for the reasons above.
WARNING: I am getting very very close to kicking ANYONE who insists McCain started the fire off the cliff. Here is a link to an interview with Dave Dollarhide. He was the pilot of the plane just forward of McCain. People should probably read it before bloviating about how McCain started the fire. www.powmiamemorial.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Conversation-with-Dave-Dollarhide.pdf Now, if you believe he did, but are capable of engaging in civil, intelligent, intellectually honest discourse, we can talk, but mindless parroting of zero I.Q. conspiracies will not happen. My channel, my rules. Deal with it.
@@jsnjcnt You have been somewhat civil in earlier posts. Don't ruin it. Also, I'll assume you now have read my statements about my stepfather. Do not make the mistake of supposing I do not know about WW2.
@@billyshafer3182 it has to do with you and everyone that has served in the armed forces. Sure maybe you weren't in ww2 but every soldier that sacrificed their lives or came back home deserves to be honored for their service. Thank you for your service to you and every other service man.
I'm not here to start an argument. But McCain's own Shipmates have stated that he started the fire! He was known to be an elitist because his father was an admiral basically apparently his shit did not stink like the rest of us! Shipmates describe that day as him being agitated because he was waiting in line to take off! Audibly irritated cursing acting erratic frustrated elitists are all the same! Where you choose to go with this is your own business! I believe John McCain absolutely is responsible 100% for the USS Forrestal fire!
His shipmates said no such thing. During flight ops the Air Boss controls the ship. No matter who your father is. Planes on a carrier do not wait in line. They come up one at a time. As the Air Boss orders them up. What you are saying is a total lie. VA-46 was on the Saratoga in 1969. Gave lectrues on the fire. Mc Cains name never came up. And no they were never told not to say anything about him.
@@rickchamberlain637 I'm calling you delusional or a liar. Produce those interviews or STFU and GTFO. But you can't, so you won't. So tell me, Einstein, what is the lie you claim they said? EXACTLY how did the fire start?
Good video James. Thank you for posting. Out of respect for you, I will keep my comments between us. I would like to know why this is such a passion for you? Do you follow any other Navy events? If you have time I'd like to hear the history of the Kitty Hawk, and Connie.
Nice turnaround. BTW, thanks for your service. Why the passion? I am a seeker of truth and make a big effort to not believe lies. I started this when I realized that I really wasn't sure myself about JMc being involved or not. As I've written, I have worked for a number of years with at least 2 people (ATC-1 J.J. Johnstone, and Lt. Bill Foster, A-8 driver) who knew JMc personally, served onboard with him and had him as an instructor. He was a good pilot and a real jerk. I have plenty of time (well, mostly). I'm 70% disabled, Blue Water Navy. Agent Orange gave me diabetes from drinking it during WESTPAC '72., so yeah, we can talk.
Never liked the man myself , but he didn't start the fire . A lot of people didn't like him cause him seeming to ride on daddy's coat tail . Plus he just wasn't that likable , his shit just didn't stink like the rest and it showed .
Good comment. I personally have 2 friends, JJ Johnston (E-6 ATC) and Bill Foster (O-3 F-8 Crusader pilot), both Vietnam vets. Bill had McCain as an instructor, and JJ knew McCain personally on a carrier. Both say he was a good pilot and both say he was a jerk, and both say he had nothing to do with the fire. Bill was also on USS Bonne Homme Richard well within visual range of Forrestal, and witnessed the fire. Both men have extensive experience and knowledge of flight deck operations, attack and fighter aircraft, and both say every single word of any one of the various conspiracy theories (and there are several) are simply false and exhibit profound lack of knowledge and understanding of flight deck ops and aircraft construction and systems. In other words, the theories are 100% bullshit.
McCain DIDN’T do it... The scenario that McCain caused the Forrestal fire by either/both ‘wet starting’/dropping his bombs either accidentally or deliberately is demonstrably false. The big reason that a ‘wet start could not have caused the accident is that it is physically impossible. There is no deck behind McCain’s plane parked on the deck edge. There is nowhere for another plane to be. Also, claims that McCain’s plane fired the Zuni are false. His A-4 Skyhawk was not loaded with Zuni’s, and as well, his plane was facing the ships island, not the aft flight deck. This fact is plainly seen in historic photos and video. i.ytimg.com/vi/1LrGK_uTPfs/hqdefault.jpg Reference: NAVAIR 01-40AVC-1 NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL A-4E/F AIRCRAFT 15 NOVEMBER 1968 SECTION III PART 3 PAGE 3-8 Quote: "BEFORE STARTING THE ENGINE Ascertain that the areas forward and aft of the aircraft are clear of personnel and loose objects. See figure 1-54 for danger areas. Make certain that fire fighting equipment is available and manned." "Starting the Engine On aircraft utilizing 3-phase, ac ground servicing electrical power during J52-P-408 engine start, application of both external electrical power and main generator electrical power to the electrical power contactor can cause damage to the contactor with a resultant hazard to the aircraft generator. PILOT CONTROLLED STARTS A pilot-controlled start requires a source of 3-phase 400Hz, 115/200 vac and a source of starter air modified to supply 28-vdc, and 115-vac, single phase electrical power. Pilot-controlled starts should be made whenever possible, to avoid starter motor overspeed. The time delay inherent in initiating or shutting off the starter air, when using hand signals, makes the ground-control start less desirable." Engines are started 15-20 min before launch. McCain’s plane had been running for some time when the accident occurred. If the above is challenged because the manual date is 1968, the earlier manual for A-4D aircraft dated before the accident says the same thing, and will be provided on request. aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2016/10/douglas-4ef-skyhawk-flight-manual.html www.carsonhowe.com/files/A4D-1_A4D-2_Flight_Manual.pdf “McCain dropped his bombs on deck in his panicked escape from his plane.” Physically impossible. Unbeknownst to conspiracy theorists, there is a safety interlock switch on the A-4 that disconnects power 100% from the weapons release system when the landing gear is down. He could have beaten on the bomb release button (the ‘pickle’) with a hammer and the bombs would not drop. Reference: NAVAIR 01-40AVC-1 NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL A-4E/F AIRCRAFT 15 NOVEMBER 1968 SECTION VIII PAGE 8-1 Quote: “When the landing gear handle is in the DOWN position an armament safety switch interrupts the power supply circuit to the MASTER armament switch and the gun charging circuit.”
I do have some questions if you don't mind so I can look into all of this. Other than the video we all have seen, what is a source? I'm open to anything. McCain or not, the fire parties were not properly trained and men died. Hind sight. The AO's as well at the time did things different. You know my opinion, but that is for later. I may be considering McCains action at the time to the Navy standards of today. I'm open to your side.
John, Bravo Zulu. Replying on YT is ponderous with long threads. I have no problem comm-ing with you email. Make a junk one if you want, mine is jamesgpobog at yahoo dot com Feel free to write me. I've just had a couple ephphanies concerning your 'passion' question. I'll mention them here, but don't want to air them in public but I have no problem discussing them with you email. First, I did something bad at the beginning of my active duty. As a hint, These are the three words I associate with my actions: cowardice, betrayal, and redemption. I just realized the fight I do about the Forrestal fire is part of that last word, redemption. Second, the link below is a vid that I am featured in. It is 30 minutes, and is a behind-the-scenes on Iowa BB61. In about the middle of the tape, I launch into comments about Clayton Hartwig, the sailor blamed for the gun explosion that killed 47 men inside turret #2. Notice a similarity? Injustice. Neither of the above 2 items I thought of until you asked the question. And yes, that really is me in the vid. 2 million+ views. I'm locally world famous... jamesgpobog at yahoo dot com th-cam.com/video/dW83U4bkC_k/w-d-xo.html Looking forward to corresponding with you.
A couple more things. Two books: "Sailors To The End", and "FIRE FIRE FIRE ON THE FLIGHT DECK AFT ! THIS IS NOT A DRILL !!!" Both contain LOTS of crew interviews and stories. Then there is the USS Forrestal Assoc. and Ken Killmeyer is the historian and compiler of Fire On the Flight Deck.
You certainly and clearly defended McCain well, I have no horse in this race but I am curious In your Picture there was MORE FIRE underneath of McCains Jet than any other jet on deck. What was the cause ?? You did explain a lot to defend McCain but you have not explained What caused the fire and how did the fire get underneath McCains jet more than any other jet on deck in its INITIAL COMBUSTION ??? What was the Cause ???
"You certainly and clearly defended McCain well, " I have done no such thing. I am NOT defending McCain. I am exposing that the stories that he started the fire are complete rubbish, physically impossible. "I have no horse in this race ..." Nor have I. "but I am curious In your Picture there was MORE FIRE underneath of McCains Jet than any other jet on deck. What was the cause ??" I disagree. There are at least 3 more planes to the left of McCain that are not even visible. This was not a fire like carriers have all the time, this was huge. As to how th flame got under McCain, there is debate if the rocket hit White or McCain. If it hit McCain's plane , there's your answer. If it hit White, the shrapnel from that impact ruptured McCain's tank and added his fuel to the fire. Those tanks hold several hundred gallons of fuel each. That's a lot of fuel. "You did explain a lot to defend McCain" Once again, I am NOT defending McCain. I am NOT a fanboi. As I have said many many times, my family lost $500,000 in the Keating scandal. There is PLENTY to fault him for, starting the fire is NOT one of them. "but you have not explained What caused the fire and how did the fire get underneath McCains jet more than any other jet on deck in its INITIAL COMBUSTION ??? What was the Cause ???" See above. Pre-flight safety procedures were intentionally violated that allowed a power surge when Phantom #110 switched from external to internal power. A Zuni rocket launched, flew across the flight deck at an angle, from stbd to port, hitting one crewman, taking his arm, then continued into the A4's parked along the port edge of the aft flight deck. It ruptured either White's (A-4 Shyhawk ##405) or McCain's (#416) centerline drop tank spilling and igniting several hundred gallons of JP-5 jet fuel (essentially kerosene), and knocking old WWII deteriorated bombs off McCain's plane. 90 seconds later, those cooked off, and we know the rest. Virtually the entire event is on PLAT camera video, and lots of the ensuring events are captured in still pix. One problem (there are lots others) that the "he-did-it" crowd has never produced a single vid or pic that supports their false narrative.
@@jamespobog3420 -- NO i have not -- point me in that direction to the proper citation and I will try and look it up OR if you have a PDF you can send it if you like. Thnx
I wanted to pass on one more fact about the spilled fuel. The drop tanks are pressurized and each holds 400 gallons. Two were ruptured, McCain's and White's. That's 800 gallons of JP-5 on the deck. That's a LOT of fuel. For civilian understanding, JP-5 is essentially kerosene.
Thank you for your videos on this topic. I appreciate the focus on facts. That is all I want the facts, not someone's crazy and hateful ramblings. Nor do I want a biased video. Why do people continue to blame McCain? I love your channel.
Wow, thanks much. I've been getting a lot of subscribers lately, mostly (I think) from "chemtrail" pages where I'm also trying to get people to see the truth. The crazy theories become like religion to people. People blame McCain probably for political reasons. I'm no fan because of political/historical reasons (the Keating scandal where my parents lost half a million dollars), but none of that matters or is relevant to the start of the fire and that's all I've been looking at. Thanks again!
Attempting to paint the guy as a hero because he retreated to safety is actually quite humorous. The only difference between a Hero and a Coward is the decision made in a split second on which way to run. In his own words reviewing the Spain Electrical Wire incident he stated he was clowning around- You haven't proved a damn thing other than you seem to like the man.
Absolute horseshit. You cannot find a single word I have written where I defend McCain or claim to like him. I don't. What I DO like is TRUTH, and the TRUTH is that McCain did not start the fire. The Spanish incident, Hanoi Hilton, post war politics, et al are simply off the table. I don't give a rip. I am discussing one thing and one thing only, the Forrestal fire. I am presenting FACTS, historical facts backed up with known, objective, verifiable, falsifiable evidence. You, on the other hand revert to form for Bleevers, i.e. ad hominem. Shoot the messenger Sorry, that is simply major fail. Do you have a single relevant comment to make, or is your seething hatred all you have? Where have I "painted him as a hero"? You fault me for explaining why he and the other pilots of Forrestal went to their ready rooms...it was their GQ station..., yet you feel no shame at all painting McCain with the smear of a known, disproved hoax, with not a particle of evidence to back up your lies. That right there is intellectual dishonesty. Think I'm wrong? Prove it. Produce legitimate evidence to the contrary. Hint: TH-cam vids by hack conspiracy theorists don't count. There is PLENTY to blame McCain for in his military, private, and public life, but the bullshit of the Forrestal fire is not one of them.\
And you AIK . Don't have a clue what you are talking about. ALL pilots were under orders. If their was a fire on the flight deck. To get off the deck and report to your ready room.He never claimed to be a hero. Billy J Shafer USS Saratoga CVA 60 1968-1972.
@@jamespobog3420 We can't forget the bar fights he was in. I was a new 3rd class. Got stuck on SP duty in Naples. Got a call to report to one bar. VA-46 and VA-113 were going at it. I didn't know if it was ok for an enlisted man to touch an officer.
Maybe not a "wet start", possibly a missile accidentally fired, who knows? Would like answers to two things from credible sources about how he went down and watched the flight deck fire being fought from the inside the side on CCTV, and he was the only non wounded person who left the ship as soon as departures where possible. I also was not a big fan of his Hanoi announcements which in he condemned the USA for their bombing of the North. His flight history as a pilot left lots to question as to why he really was allowed to remain a pilot. His character as a man was also less then stellar in regards to morals, oaths and other important issues people judge character by. He got by in life in my opinion on the back of having Admirals in the family and being able to parlay his POW experience to gain some political power and notoriety.
"Maybe not a "wet start", possibly a missile accidentally fired, who knows?" But we DO know, since the accident is on tape. A rocket DID fire accidentally. It came from F4 Phantom #110 parked on the stbd/aft corner of the flight deck, and the rocket struck either A4 Skyhawk #405 (White) or #416 (McCain) starting the fire. "Would like answers to two things from credible sources about how he went down and watched the flight deck fire being fought from the inside the side on CCTV, and he was the only non wounded person who left the ship as soon as departures where possible." Those are closely related items, and stem from a basic misunderstanding of how Naval aviation works. Pilots and their plane DO NOT BELONG TO THE SHIPS CREW. Their duty lies, and they answer to, their squadron. He went to his ready room because THAT WAS HIS GQ STATION. Why do pilots go to their ready rooms instead of fighting the fire? IT'S NOT THEIR JOB, in fact, untrained firefighters were a major part of the spread of the fire. They go to the ready room so the squadron gets a head count. "Who's missing?". Exactly the same as a man overboard. McCain did exactly what his squadron orders told him to do. About the second part of your question,... 1. Source the assertion that he left ASAP, and was the only non-wounded to do so. 2. Study the history of USS Oriskany. You will find out that in July, 1967 Oriskany had lost almost half of her pilots and needed more desperately. That's why McCain et al went to Oriskany. They chose to stay in the war, fighting. After that, I care not, since my oft-repeated focus is ONLY the cause of the fire. But I will say this. I know several Vietnam Vet ex-Navy aviators, Bill F., an F8 driver on the Bon Homme Richard who witnessed the fire at a distance, and JJ, an E-6 ATC on Kearsarge and Midway. Bill went on to be a commercial airline pilot, and JJ worked the tower at LAX for 30+ years. Both knew McCain personally. Both say he was a good pilot, and both said he could be a real jerk. Lastly, the whole "Admirals" thing is a red herring. Completely irrelevant. First, Grandpa Admiral died in 1945., Second, Daddy Admiral had a command half way around the world in Europe. Despite what people think, even at the top, Admirals have to answer for their actions to the CNO, and SECNAV, as well, that is the reason military investigations are BOARDS. The idea that McCain was covered by daddy is laughable fantasy. Everything else you mention has nothing to do with the cause of the fire.
I have read the book about the cause of the zuni rocket launch and it makes sense the electric system and the "speedy" procedure " of powering the plane were the Also wonder about the decision to use the old bombs. I do not blame the ordnance officer. The flight deck of an aircraft carrier is a hazardous place .
The fim evidence I’ve seen can credibly support your conclusions and the circumstances advocated in documentaries seem plausible to indicate no A4 crew was at fault. McCain would have suffered from a lack of training had he been used to fight the fire.
Reminds me of a joke. A cop pulls over an old lady for speeding . He asks for her driver's license and registration. When she opens her wallet,he notices a conceal-carry permit. He asks, "Ma'am, do you have a weapon in your possession at this time?" She responds that she has a .38 Special in her purse, a .45 in her glove box, a 9mm Glock in the center console, a shotgun in the trunk. "Jesus, lady," says the cop. "What are you so afraid of?" The old lady looks him in the eye and says, "Not a godam thing."
I have seen, many times, similar drawings of Dealey Plaza with vehicles and red line drawings showing the many possible angels shots could have been fired, and yet the conclusion is still one gunman made the shots. So it is the old saying lies can figure and figures can lie. Why classify all documents if this was just an accident?. He also had all POW RECORDS SEALED. HAVING TWO ADMIRALS AS FATHER AND GRANDFATHER SURE DOES HELP. I AM STILL NOT CONVINCED. PLUS WHAT IS THE NAVY DOING IN A COMBAT ZONE WITH SO MANY INEXPERIENCED SAILORS ON DUTY. AND WHERE IS PROOF THAT IS MCCAIN AIRCRAFT? MAYBE THE HOT START TURNED THE AIRCRAFT IN POSITION SHOWING IT'S ENGINE POINTED OUT OVER THE DECK. PLUS I BELIEVE DATE OF REPORT WAS CHANGED BY 10 DAYS. I will admit Dave Smalls explanation is an excellent engineering accounting of the incident, I just don't trust the Navy, Gulf of Tonkin a good example.
" have seen, many times, similar drawings of Dealey Plaza with vehicles and red line drawings showing the many possible angels shots could have been fired, and yet the conclusion is still one gunman made the shots. " I'll ignore the apples/oranges. Dealey Plaza was photographed in a completely different way, Kennedy being the central figure. On Forrestal the object was the entire aft flight deck as well as the catapults. The PLAT camera was on the 08 level near PriFly and was not locked down until after the explosions started. The field of view is rather wide, so we have a good view of the aft flight deck starting only a second or two after the Zuni fired. Still photos also fix, without question, positions of the planes. " Why classify all documents if this was just an accident?." All documents? The JAG report is an online PDF file. Not sure what records you mean. "He also had all POW RECORDS SEALED." Not relevant to the cause of the fire. "HAVING TWO ADMIRALS AS FATHER AND GRANDFATHER SURE DOES HELP." Except is doesn't. Admirals are not omnipotent. They have to follow orders, protocol and procedures just like everyone else. His command at the time was half way around the world, CINCUSNAVEUR, based in London. He had no authority to do a damn thing for his son. No matter if you are any rank of Admiral, there is ALWAYS someone who outranks you and hates your guts. To do what is claimed is not possible. BTW, seems you do not know that Grandpa died in 1945. "PLUS WHAT IS THE NAVY DOING IN A COMBAT ZONE WITH SO MANY INEXPERIENCED SAILORS ON DUTY." Not sure who you are referring to.There are ALWAYS 'Boots' on ships. "AND WHERE IS PROOF THAT IS MCCAIN AIRCRAFT?" Pilots are assigned to specific planes. McCain's A-4E Skyhawk was number 416. Both that fact and the fact that where specific planes were spotted as well as eyewitness testimony from hundreds of sailors is a matter of record. In addition, Dave Dollarhide, in the plane just forward of McCain is alive. I have his email (actually available publicly). There is also an interview online where he talks about events. "MAYBE THE HOT START TURNED THE AIRCRAFT IN POSITION SHOWING IT'S ENGINE POINTED OUT OVER THE DECK." Sorry, shoulda/woulda/coulda is grasping at straws. This illustrates a lack of knowledge about flight deck operations, and this is a good example. Your idea is impossible for many reasons, but the simplest one is that you are unaware that every plane on the aft flight deck had their wheels chocked and it is possible that some of the were chained down. Another reason is that the move you imagine is so radical and impossible. If McCain was just then starting his plane, there would be several people standing around the plane, as well as a start cart. No such personnel or equipment is evident on vid or stills. All photographic evidence shows a scene as described in the JAG report. "PLUS I BELIEVE DATE OF REPORT WAS CHANGED BY 10 DAYS. " Never heard that. Please source. And as well it is irrelevant to the cause of the fire. "I just don't trust the Navy, Gulf of Tonkin a good example. " (....sigh...) Well, that is hardly relevant, but I will say that the problem there is that it presupposes some sort of coverup, and two men can keep a secret if one of them is dead. This is the problem with immagined large conspiracies. They require hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of people to be involved, and it also presupposes that the evidence is faked. If the evidence was faked, that means that real evidence exists(ed). So where is it? This is especially true in photo labs. When 'good' pix come along it is amazing how many extra copies...bootlegs...get made. Where are they? Someone has them, no?
james pobog Hello James, thanks for taking a considerable amount of your time and expertise to acquaint me with a new look at the details of the Forrestal incident. This is the kind of information that should be more available to the public. However for today's generations it is too far back in time for them to take the time to be interested or concerned. Without going back to military accidents as far back as WWII, I am relatively certain this is one of the largest "non enemy induced tragedies" of war, and your analysis has me up to about a 4 Sigma level of confidence now, (99.99) However there are still as you say "not revalent" factors that apply. You might consider them philosophical and still not relavent, however it is part of the time line of war. Gulf of Tonkin is revalent as it shows the degree of deception the military is capable of obeying. Legacy dependents DO have an umbrella of heritage on their shoulders whether influential from a career or attitude/personality perspective. Case in point Chesty Pullers son. Yes there is someone that always out ranks you, but you don't get those stars on your shoulders without knowing how to manage that. I still think there were to many new boots on board, even considering the size of an aircraft carrier, especially during an all out combat launch. Today the situation is worse because the weapons systems far exceed the educational level of the age of people operating them. It is hard to focus on war when you can go below decks and get a Starbucks while on duty. Or email your family from a fire Base or ship on deployment in a hazardous area. Back to weapons systems, they are too sophisticated for operators - different point here from above -- the F-35 is far to advance than the best level of pilots we have. The F-22 is a better dog fighter. We lost just about 50%, in some cases more of all aircraft sent to Vietnam. One embarrassment were the F-4's. Shot down by Mig -15 and 17's because the Air Force never understood true aerial combat of that war and sent the initial F4's in without guns. There were NO Sandies left at the end of the war. For 25 years we fought the war with vertually no tactics that resulted in huge losses of men, aircraft AND equipment., ( maybe Tet had some strategy). Woodrow Wilson has the most blood on his hands back in 1918 for getting us involved in the war. If the military wants something to go away - it goes away, disappears. And does not take 1000's of people to make it happen. There are 14 known intelligence agencies in the military establishment, most don't talk to one another and we actually outsource intelligence gathering to independent companies -- that is frickin brilliant. What were the ocean conditions the day of the accident, ( it is impossible to program all the physics variables into the magnitude of this accident, blocks do not insure holding back an aircraft ) . Was the ship headed into the wind, what was the pitch of the deck? Leaking fuel does not provide great traction). Over all I don't believe all protocols for arming that many aircraft in the small amount of deck space were followed and many safety issues due to senior enlisted and officers assumptions that the new boots knew what they were doing were assumed. The North Vietnamese knew the names of pilots assigned to all carriers in theater, for the ground based combat Air Force it was the same thing except worse - they could be hit or sabotaged). Most of the time they knew when airstrikes were launched - both land or sea . The Buff's had a little better advantage due to their operational altitude until the last few years when Vietnam acquired Russian SAM's and introduction of Mig - 21. All of the above may not seem relavent to one accident, but they can be factored in - it is what is known as the Butterfly Affect. If Woodrow Wilson had made the right decision in 1918 this accident never would have happened as well as the war. The above is not presented in a "conspiracy mode", just the facts, many before 1967, but all in place during 1967 . I just wanted to say there ARE relavent contributions outside of the "accident" that do apply, based on military culture. If I were a judge listening to your analysis of the accident I would totally agree with your conclusion and dismiiss the case as solved. However in the grand scheme of the military establishment and the Vietnam War, and personal experience too lengthy to share not to mention the fact I only know you by an Internet name, I do believe this accident could have been avoided, and that some aspects were not revealed, possibly because of war time requirements. You are either an afficinado of Navy history, or maybe crew member. But like that old saying about Las Vegas, what goes into the Pentagon stays in the Pentagon. The only thing that is not relavent to our discussion is the deplorable cyber security our military uses today - but that is another story. Thanks again James for you input and oppinions, I do honor every individual who dedicates a portion or all of their lives to the military and I know the sacrifices of the men on the USS Forrestal are still remembered by families and people who know about this portion of the war.
"Hello James, thanks for taking a considerable amount of your time and expertise to acquaint me with a new look at the details of the Forrestal incident". My pleasure. "This is the kind of information that should be more available to the public." On one hand it is. After all, we have virtually the entire knowledge base of humanity on these little black screens in front of us. On the other, IMHO, there is some dynamic going on that i can't quite define. It seems Orwellian, up is down, bad is good, black is white, etc. It disturbs me greatly that ignorance is widely accepted as a virtue, and intellectual honesty is widely condemned as a vice. "However for today's generations it is too far back in time for them to take the time to be interested or concerned." And with that, the wisdom of ages is ignored/forgotten/rejected. The important things are when are the Grammys on and who is screwing who. "Without going back to military accidents as far back as WWII, I am relatively certain this is one of the largest "non enemy induced tragedies" of war, and your analysis has me up to about a 4 Sigma level of confidence now, (99.99")" I am humbled. There has been a small handful of folks like you who have joined my Diogenes club. I was going to mention Slapton Sands, but then remembered that yes, that WAS enemy induced. Yeah, Forrestal was a big deal. "However there are still as you say "not relevant" factors that apply. You might consider them philosophical and still not relevant, however it is part of the time line of war. Gulf of Tonkin is relevant as it shows the degree of deception the military is capable of obeying." Don't misunderstand, I do not necessarily think they are irrelevant, they are simply irrelevant to my discussion of the cause of the fire. As to your point about "the military", is it something that is unique to the U.S.? I am thinking of Rommel, Yamamoto, von Stauffenberg, the camp commander in The Great Escape, Schwarzkopf, et al. Men who are not ideologues, but honest military professionals who recognize as such, their military responsibilities to their countries. Vietnam, Tonkin incident I do not lay on the military, rather politicians. And while there are in fact honest politicians, I think they probably are in the minority.
"Legacy dependents DO have an umbrella of heritage on their shoulders whether influential from a career or attitude/personality perspective. Case in point Chesty Pullers son." Well, though I am not familiar with Puller's son, I would counter with Admiral Morrison's son, Jim. "Yes there is someone that always out ranks you, but you don't get those stars on your shoulders without knowing how to manage that." LOL...and what immediately pops into my head is a line from National Lampoon's 'Deteriorata'; "Know what to kiss, and when." "I still think there were to many new boots on board, even considering the size of an aircraft carrier, especially during an all out combat launch." Curious...have you been in the military? I'm not sure boots can be blamed, I think it was the level of training in specific areas, especially damage control/firefighting. Things changed a lot after Forrestal. If you are referring to the slacking of safety procedures, I think that was more bad judgment in reaction to perceived performance inadequacies. "Today the situation is worse because the weapons systems far exceed the educational level of the age of people operating them. It is hard to focus on war when you can go below decks and get a Starbucks while on duty. Or email your family from a fire Base or ship on deployment in a hazardous area." Boy, you like cans of worms, don't you?I disagree about exceeding education levels, the Navy is all volunteer, and only takes the best. It's when the draft exists that it becomes problematic. "Back to weapons systems, they are too sophisticated for operators - different point here from above -- the F-35 is far to advance than the best level of pilots we have." Source, please? "We lost just about 50%, in some cases more of all aircraft sent to Vietnam." Not arguing, just need a source. "One embarrassment were the F-4's. Shot down by Mig 15 and 17's because the Air Force never understood true aerial combat of that war and sent the initial F4's in without guns." Misplaced faith in tech over reality. "There were NO Sandies left at the end of the war." That was a GREAT plane. Yeah, there is bad decision making at the top sometimes, same thing with the A-10. One of the greatest attack planes in history, and it's not wanted.But a lot of that can be congress and budget driven. "For 25 years we fought the war with virtually no tactics, (and) that resulted in huge losses of men, aircraft AND equipment." IMHO that gets hung around the necks of Johnson, McNamara, Westmorland, and congress...not to mention the media. Overall, we kicked ass. Not sure what you mean "25" years... " Woodrow Wilson has the most blood on his hands back in 1918 for getting us involved in the war." No argument from me. "If the military wants something to go away - it goes away, disappears. And does not take 1000's of people to make it happen. There are 14 known intelligence agencies in the military establishment, most don't talk to one another and we actually outsource intelligence gathering to independent companies - that is frickin brilliant." All that is outside my knowledge.
" What were the ocean conditions the day of the accident," Weather was not a factor. It was a nice, sunshiny day, the seas were normal. This can be seen in photos, both from Forrestal as well as other ships. "( it is impossible to program all the physics variables into the magnitude of this accident, blocks do not insure holding back an aircraft )." Um, yeah, they kinda do in normal conditions. And don't forget, if conditions were bad, the planes would also be chained. "Was the ship headed into the wind," You bet it was. That's how you launch planes. It is also recorded in the deck log (which I have). "what was the pitch of the deck?" Normal. If you were not in the Navy, you'd be surprised at how little movement there is on a carrier in all but the roughest seas. I have been on Kitty Hawk in 35-foot seas when escorting destroyers were getting beaten up. I have seen them take white water over the bridge and green water over the forward gun. The carrier is nice and gentle. "Leaking fuel does not provide great traction)." It also creates an extreme fire hazard. That is why there are firefighters standing by, and white shirt safety observers all over the place, as well as that being the reason why ANY sort of horseplay such as a so'-called 'wet start' is zero and I mean zero tolerance. That zero tolerance is not limited to being 'official'. One guy deliberately and repeatedly causing a deliberate malfunction of his plane that endangers every single one of the 3000 to 5000 souls on board would have a very very short existence on board. Nights are dark, and the ocean is large. "Over all I don't believe all protocols for arming that many aircraft in the small amount of deck space were followed" Correct. They weren't. "and many safety issues due to senior enlisted and officers assumptions that the new boots knew what they were doing were assumed." Not quite correct. Flight deck training manuals (which I have) require a long period of a boot 'shadowing' an experienced flight deck crewman. FNG's are and were not thrown in the pool to sink or swim. There are a million ways to die on a flight deck, and though many are solo, not all are, as we have seen.
Not trying to be a denier nor conspirator here so anyone that takes my question either way my apologies in advance. I'm sure a "wet start" would produce a significant amount of noise. I've seen normal, conventional starts at air shows and the pop at ignition is fairly loud. Not no big boom or bang but a considerable amount of noise. Could that noise produced been more or less like a so called "butterfly effect " of cause. Plane being prepped for launch, crewman doing something around the Zuni and jumped triggering something that overall caused the incident?
Thanks for your civil question. Not trying to be a denier nor conspirator here so anyone that takes my question either way my apologies in advance." "I'm sure a "wet start" would produce a significant amount of noise." Not really. And lets not forget that McCain's plane is not the only one involved. There is a flight deck full of planes running/being started, as well as 4 catapults launching planes. You want loud? Stand on an active flight deck. Even if your point were true, it would not be heard at all. "I've seen normal, conventional starts at air shows and the pop at ignition is fairly loud. Not no big boom or bang but a considerable amount of noise." Remember, an air show is NOT an active flight deck. See above. "Could that noise produced been more or less like a so called "butterfly effect " of cause. Plane being prepped for launch, crewman doing something around the Zuni and jumped triggering something that overall caused the incident?" Nope. You are talking about experienced professionals, men (and sometimes boys) who do this activity virtually every day, sometimes around the clock. You ever see experienced artillerymen? Guns go off unexpectedly around them all the time and they don't even flinch. The 'noise' point is a red herring. These guys live in constant, extremely loud noise, noise so loud that double hearing protection is mandatory (it's probably triple today), noise so loud that communication is by hand signal. Then there is distance, McCain's plane was about 120-150 feet away from the F4 that launched the rocket. Now let's look at the psychology of a hot shot pilot pull the kind of stunt McCain is accused of. Horseplay...of any kind...is simply not tolerated on a flight deck. Ever. I think the reason is obvious. Do you think someone who had a reputation for pulling such stunts would 1.Keep their wings, and 2. Have any sort of career? What McCain is accused of is so dangerous, so completely unacceptable because it is not just a prank, it is something that put the lives of every single man on board at risk. In a sense you could think of it as attempted murder. Now add to that the nutball theory that those same people who had almost been killed cover for the man. Hey, that's where the conspiracy theories take us. It is often claimed that 'witnesses' say McCain did it. The problem with that is that no such legitimate "witness" can be produced. The source is always "A friend of my cousin's barber...". Absolute crap. The fact is that there are plenty of eyewitnesses to the contrary. Dave Dollarhide, in the plane just forward of McCain calls bullshit on the whole conspiracy theory. He was not only there, he was right next to McCain. Now tell me why he would lie and cover for McCain if McCain almost killed him? Same goes for the entire ship's company. There is a Forrestal Veterans Assoc. Why would they cover? There are a couple EXCELLENT books on the subject, one of them not so much a narrative, but a compilation of first person eyewitness stories about the incident, compiled by the Forrestal Assoc. HISTORIAN. These are ALL men who were almost killed and who lost friends. There is not a single word about McCain doing something wrong. Why? Occam's Razor gives the answer. He didn't do anything wrong. Lots of pie hole flapping on the conspiracy side that by it's content proves one thing, the flappers know less than zero about the Navy, carrier flight ops, navy damage control, fighter/attack squadrons, ad nauseum. When you talk to people with actual experience and knowledge, suggesting the conspiracy will be met with laughing, mocking ridicule.
I know a little on being an artilleryman. While never served in our military (health issue stopped me,didnt stop my desire) I'm a civil war reenactor part time on artillery. NCWAA qualified. I've been close to a 12 pdr mtn Howie when it went off and served on a 24 pdr bronze Napoleon. Very loud indeed even with plugs in. And yes indeed in heat of barrage you do tend to phase out noise.
@@chvfd687 Noise? Flight ops on a carrier is a non stop exposure to a constant 140db and that's just idle. It goes up from there while taxing and full military power.160db is considered lethal.Its not just what you hear. Your teeth literally dance in your jaw.. You can feel all your organs moving around. Some aircraft types are so loud the squadron techs get rotated out every so many launches.
@@h.r.puffnstuff8705 Yep. I think it's hilarious when Bleever clowns post the stupidest, most ridiculous comments about carrier flight decks. They think they're so smart, but in reality they just prove prima facie that they are ignorant fools. One idiot actually asked why, after the fire started, McCain didn't taxi his plane off the edge of the ship and then punch out. Others often claim that munitions release buttons are armed, with zero safety redundancy, and weapons can be launched/dropped on an active flight deck just by accidentally bumping a button. I sincerely hope those intellectual midgets never reproduce.
I don’t have all the facts so I can’t judge McCain or not , but I use to like him all through the 80-90’s but then once I saw how he was acting towards Trump I understood that he too was involved in selling out our country and that he as a Republican was just as Guilty as the Democratic’s . I use to like Bush jun , until I found out that he was Good friends with the obamas and they still go out to eat and do Holliday things together to this day . Also Bush Sn. Got on tv and said they will make a new world order and it will be successful etc. Then trump won and I realized that the obamas the bushes Mccain and many other Rep and Dem who I like. I realized they all had an agenda for the NWO.. this is not American. I other country should make any laws regarding any America. That’s why I support trump and everyone’s eyes were opened when they realized and saw even the Rep working with the Democrats, the House on foreign relations , NAFTA .. they were all saying one thing but working together behind closed doors. This is why Americans voted Trump .. the UN nobody should have power over America but Americans. So drain that swamp Mr. Trump .. Trump 2020.
Off topic, so no comment from me and I'll let it stand because it's not massively inflammatory. If you have any on topic questions or comments, go right ahead...
After all these years and him being buried, it's AFFF under the bridge at this point. Man, if he did wet start that's seriously f'd up. If he didn't, then a good officer got tarnished.
My point is that I desire TRUTH to prevail. I think it DOES matter, because to let lies slide gives you the revisionist history like the Holocaust deniers or claims of a moon landing hoax, not to mention chemtrails. IMHO, to paraphrase Barry Goldwater, 'Extremism in defense of TRUTH is no vice.' I would encourage you to do some research, or ask me about your doubts. As stated, your doubt is simply not possible for several reasons, depending on alleged scenario claimed. Wet starts do not produce the claimed result, and ultimately, there was no plane or flight deck behind McCain only ocean, so there was no pilot to startle or missile to cook off.
You should have taken the time to locating a few of the veteran survivors who were actually right there on the carrier when the fire started & who had seen the cause of the fire that had KILLED many young who are the TRUE HERO'S on that Day & they would have told you & this includes my Uncle who had suffered 3rd degree burns on his back & legs, My Uncle and Many of the Other Survivors Would tell You that JOHN MCCAIN IS/WAS 100% RESPONSIBLE For The Death's from this Disaster
Liar. Produce the names of those you claim. Produce your evidence of exactly HOW the fire started. I want to read your own words describing the source of the fire. I'll wait. BTW, I HAVE done my research and read the stories of HUNDREDS of survivors. NO ONE, including Dave Dollarhide, who was in the plane right next to McCain the claims you say.
I didn't think you could produce any such witnesses., and I was correct. If you say there are, PRODUCE THEM. See, unlike you I can provide legitimate sources LOADED with surviving crew interviews. 1. the book 'Sailors To The End' 2. The book 'FIRE ! FIRE ! FIRE ON THE FLIGHT DECK AFT !! THIS IS NOT A DRILL !!! 3. The USS Forrestal Assoc www.uss-forrestal.com/ If you are right, that last should be chock full of anti-McCain vitriol...
@ Lynn Frank Here's a link to a survivor, Dave Dollarhide, who was in a plane right next to McCain. He talks about McCain and the fire in several places. www.powmiamemorial.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Conversation-with-Dave-Dollarhide.pdf
You guys doth protest a little too loudly! If McCain weren't involved in the Forrestal fire, it WAS NOT for lack of trying, His subsequent behaviour as a PoW (and later as a politician) confirms his unscrupulous mindset.
"You guys doth protest a little too loudly! ' Uh, no. All I am doing is showing that the "McCain-did-it" scenario is simply impossible, and therefore bullshit. "If McCain weren't involved in the Forrestal fire, it WAS NOT for lack of trying, ..." Care to translate that? Are you saying McCain was actively trying to sabotage the Forrestal? "His subsequent behaviour as a PoW (and later as a politician) confirms his unscrupulous mindset." Don't care. That is not on the table. This vid deals with one thing, and one thing only, the cause of the Forrestal fire, and in that context, McCain had zero to do with it other than being a victim of it, just like thousands of Forrestal crew.
@Tess Sanders "Sir! Not if your Daddy and Grand-daddy were Admirals! And got you out of all your s***." Um, are you aware that Grandpa died when McCain III (the man in question) was 9 years old? IF you are in fact a navy vet, then you should know that's not the way the Navy works. You might think it does, but you sure as hell can provide nothing that proves it. Not only that, but lets consider the implications. A young pilot is a hotshot loose cannon jerk, constantly breaking things and endangering both himself and others. A parent is going to do that to their kid? Enable him to continue down a path of manslaughter and self destruction? And if that person DOES finally kill himself or others (like `143 Forrestal sailors), a parent fees no sorrow or remorse for the foolhardy act of enabling him? Really? Please. Think. "Back in the day BEFORE politics and cover-up we all knew him as a "hot dog" I can-do-anything jerk!" So what? That point is not on the table, this is ONLY about the cause of the fire. Nevertheless, I work with 2 ex Navy (I am ex Navy myself), an ATC and a F-8 driver. Both knew him personally and the pilot had him as an instructor. Both say he could be a real jerk. But that is a non-sequitur to the cause of the fire. "Maybe us old-timers just remember the truth." And maybe you don't. If you have PROOF, real, legally acceptable evidence, produce it. Otherwise you are just parroting hearsay lies. "(US NAVY WAVE VIETNAM)" At this point in time I have no reason to doubt you, so for now I will say (and mean) thank you for your service. I am also a 'Nam vet, Blue Water Navy, and exposed to Agent Orange in 1972. Mispillion, AO105.
Please note your threat to "kick my ass" has been deleted. However, I will extend an invitation to you. Come visit me on the Battleship Iowa. In person. And then attempt to carry out your threat. I ain't hard to find. So, McCain trained at tour base, huh? Well I work with 2 retired Navy, one an F-8 driver and one an E-6 ATC. Both served with McCain, and both were on a first name basis with him. Both say he was a good pilot (anyone who thinks shitty pilots can execute night carrier landings is an idiot), but was also extremely capable of being a complete jerk...sort of like you. and where the fuck do you get this 'anti-American" bullshit? I ain't no McCain fanboi, never have been, never will be, and you cannot find a single word in any of my posts where I express the slightest admiration for him. See, there was this little thing called the "Keating Scandal" that cost my elderly parents a half million dollars. My little mom wanted to borrow a gun so she could shoot him. No, Junior, you have it all wrong, which is not surprising from hat-filled low intellects. My posts deal with one thing and one thing only, the cause of the Forrestal fire. If you have any civil followup on point comments, you are welcome to post them, and we can have a civil intellectual discussion. Vomit more of your risible ad hominem and you are gone for good. Your turn. Make it count...
John McCain had nothing to do with that fire, other than almost becoming a casualty of it. The fire started when a Zuni rocket, mounted on an F-4 Phantom that was parked on the starboard side of the flight deck, misfired, and hit an A-4 Skyhawk that was parked on the port side. And before you start spouting that tired 'wet start' BS, look at the FACT that McCain's A-4 was parked with its exhaust pointing toward the ocean. Even if he had done a 'wet start', there was nothing behind him but air and water. I saw the films from the flight deck numerous times while I was in the Navy.
@@bobmarlowe3390 Forget telling the truth Bob. These idiots can't handle it. The lies are much more fun to them. Billy J Shafer USS Saratoga CVA 60 1968-1972
"Hans Eckhardt Thx, it's a shame when veterans are dragged into the dirt." Indeed. Sorry, Hans, I accidentally deleted your post. My apologies...
6 ปีที่แล้ว +1
James, good job. There so many idiots and ignorant people creating posts based on fake information even to the point of saying the IG rigged the report. The have no clue what a wet start (or hot start as we called them in the AF) is and how often it occured on engine start back then. No knowledge of the facts but drink plenty of the Trump juice There has never been more proof of the saying “I read it on the Internet or I saw it on youtube so it MUST be true”. You believe in either unfounded or half assed truths and statements making claims of McCain’s role in the Forrestal disaster. You do not read the accident investigations or official reports instead relying on bullcrap stories of people that were never there and rhetoric based on hatred of the man. Inferences of how his father and grandfather influenced reports. Total and complete misunderstanding the “wet start” and the resulting flames. In my twenty years on the flightline, I saw many hot starts as they are really called and not one of them ever presented and real danger unless you had a total brain fart and stood aft of the engines during start. Now, if McCain really did a Wet Start, how in the hell do these flames do a 180 and cross the flight deck to the F4’s and ignite a Zuni? If you look at how the aircraft are parked, the A4’s exhausts are all facing out the port side and the F4’s exhaust the starboard side. Explain that little inconsistency. If you believe that McCain had anything to do with the fire, you are sadly mistaken and a fool. I do get a kick out of the fools that claim that he was such a bad pilot that he got himself shot down. Yep, couldn’t outrun, out turn and his x-ray vision failed when he didn’t see that darn SAM accelerating to up to Mach 4 coming up from under him. If you believe this, you are dumber than a box of rocks and have no concept of the issue. www.snopes.com/fact-check/john-mccain-fire-uss-forrestal/ th-cam.com/video/drXW4QZVHNI/w-d-xo.html www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/USS%20FORRESTAL%20FIRE%2012%20AUG% 2069%20PT%201.pdf
Dave Smallberries, here's one thing I DO know about McCan't. When his nation needed him to stem the tide of socialism in a free land, he failed them. He chose a personal grudge or a political maneuver over helping stop the socialist revolution. Why fly, fight and be tortured for freedom if you're gonna come home and turn red? Fuck him and good riddance.
So, I guess the eyewitnesses to this incident don't count for much, either? I'm sorry, I served with two of these men a few years later as they joined my squadron, and their word of what happens matches what I've heard from a couple of other aviators during that time. Wherever McCain went, trouble followed. As far as his shoot down, McCain stated, himself, that the SAM missile sheared the nose off his A4-B Skyhawk and tore the wing up. The SAM missile in use that day was a rear-intercept, heat seeker that approaches from the stern. So, which way was McCain going? Speculation is he was bugging-out of the action and flew into it. And The SAM of that era didn't go Mach 4 or no pilot would have ever evaded one. I had two fired at me in Vietnam and evaded both of them, and I assure you my F4-N Phantom, on its best day, couldn't reach Mach 4. Time to start listening to the men who were there, without an agenda, instead of mixing up such a cocktail of hate that the facts suffer. And now that he's deceased, it's time to grow up and let it go. As far as Trump commenting, consider the source.
@@jamespobog3420 - Sure, for $10,000 a copy because you deserve to pay for questioning officer witnesses. And, by the way, the reports on this incident were "rigged" or "jammed" because that's how senior officers protected their offspring and their own legacy. I saw it happen too many times.
Interesting videos on this subject and comments, thanks for sharing. I had never heard the angle on McCain until today, so I naturally became curious. While I couldn’t stand the guy politically that has nothing to do with asserting he essentially committed a war crime! While I have no experience in this arena I typically am a doubter of govt answers on anything. I am not doubting your account either as common sense makes the conspiracy version highly unlikely. All that said, in your experience and research do you believe the official version of fire starting events? Power surge accident? Not saying a cover up or lying necessarily but was it the right call scientifically in your opinion?
First, let me say that I wish every skeptic were as civil and open minded as you are. The entire Bleever bunch should learn from your example. Bravo Zulu. I do not base my conclusions exclusively on the Navy report, I look at the entire body of evidence that I have collected. When 'evidence is talked about, Bleevers display complete ignorance of the meaning of that word. To them, (this goes for most all conspiracy theorists...chemtrails, flat earth, fake moon landings, etc. ad nauseum) when presented with a youtube nutball conspiracy vid and a known, documented historical photo, from a known, verifiable source (like say, Life Magazine), their claim is always that the vid is FACT!!!!!!!!!!, and the historic photo is a fake. So my approach is based on logic, reason, and historical evidence. I accept the Navy report, because it matches the known historical documents. I will also say categorically that no Bleever has ever produced the slightest shred of evidence (the real stuff I'm talking about) to support their anti-McCain narrative. Not a shred. It is 100% speculation and lies. I have another vid where I challenge Bleevers to take a blank diagram or photo of Forrestal's empty flight deck and mark it up illustrating their narrative. There has been not a single taker. Not one. The only response I get from Bleevers is ad hominem. No one has ever taken one of my points and discussed it directly. It's ONLY "Oh yeah? Well so's yer old man!!!" Look at these threads and find my posts. I have written several essays on things like the photographic evidence, flight deck horseplay, Navy carrier command structure, etc. Bleever responses to those are simply non-existent. Also, look carefully at Bleever narratives of the accident. There are at least 10 different versions, none of which come close to matching known facts, and some of which are ridiculous pretzel logic that is stupefying. I mean seriously.....McCain does a 'wet start', cooking off a Zuni on the plane behind him. Really? That is proven false with one pic. One. No ship behind McCain for a plane to be on. Prima facie that the Bleevers are doing nothing but parroting other haters, and not turning one page of research. Sad, really.
Sean I was on the USS Saratoga CVA 60 a year later. If you knew carriers like I do and James does. You would know what has been said McCain is a lie. I will try and explain.. There was a short that caused the Zuni rocket to take off. No one really knows why it did. McCains plane was parked as you see it in the video. There was no one behind him. The bombs that went off. Were from WWII. Thin skinned and should not have been used. But the Navy was trying to save money by using old stock. The Captain and several officers protested there use. But they were ordered to use them 134 people paid for that mistake. If those bombs had not been used. There may not have been such a disaster. McCain was not known as johnny wet start. His father being an Admiral had nothing to do with anything. Do some real research and learn the truth. Do not believe the lies.
james pobog thanks for the info and clarifying guys. I still don’t like McCain but attributing a horrible accident to him is not only wrong but is beyond irresponsible. Common sense unfortunately doesn’t exist much in this day and age!
Sean M Diogenes has found his honest man. You get my point. I care not for the man either and echo your comments. And that's it. That is the ONLY point I am making. The rest is distraction, not to mention speculation and opinion. Bravo zulu, Sir.
@@jsnjcnt physically impossible. He was in an A-4 on the port side of the ship facing starboard towards the bow and the Missile came from an F-4 on the aft end of the ship facing forward towards the portside bow. OOH, Maybe he had a remote control and launched it that way.
@@christsrevenge8030 The Forrestal was a carrier. It was scrapped recently. The fire happened in the late 60's. Two EXCELLENT books, www.amazon.com/dp/B00188V7Y6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1 www.amazon.com/Fire-Flight-Deck-This-Drill/dp/1546248587/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=forrestal+fire&qid=1571853792&sr=8-1 Both are must-reads. Both give firsthand accounts. The second Is a little harder to read, it seems repetitious, but what is being given is multiple firsthand accounts of specific moments, that is, the instant of the rocket launch might be told from a good number of people, all about the same instant.
I’m sorry, but I noticed “McCain” on the roster. 27 jets went out. Was that an old roster list? I don’t understand anyone watching tv while friends and crew are dying. There is something in between this video and the whole story, I feel. Not American. Why was his nickname “Wet start Johnny”? The cooks didn’t name him that. It was either his wife, or the pilots he flew with. Merely sing logics. No slights intended. If the accident did not happen wouldn’t have the USS Forrester continue to stick around the bay of Tonkin? The truth only lies with the men who were there and died, and those pilots and crew on deck. No one else. To be burnt to death prepping a mission to burn villagers is sadly ironic.
@ Jonathon Appleseed "I’m sorry, but I noticed “McCain” on the roster. 27 jets went out. Was that an old roster list?" As far as I know, that is the roster from that day. That's kind of an esoteric point, as there is not a lot of ready room pix from that day, why should there be? The fire sure as hell wasn't scheduled... "I don’t understand anyone watching tv while friends and crew are dying. There is something in between this video and the whole story, I feel. " Good question. I have answered it before and it is a very simple reason. This is not well known among civilians, and I dare say even among Navy personnel who have never served on a carrier. Flight squadrons are NOT part of the ship's crew. They are members of that particular squadron, and that is where their orders come from. That means that with very few exceptions, the General Quarters station of pilots IS THEIR READY ROOM. McCain went there because that was his orders. The reason for that is this. That is how a ship, in an emergency, figures out who is missing. Same thing for Man Overboard. Everyone musters and heads are counted. As far as grabbing a fire hose, you must remember that the fire was before training and firefighting changes brought about by, well, the Forrestal fire. At that time training was different and at a different level. After the fire things were a whole lot more tightened up and expanded. A historical fact from the Forrestal fire was that untrained personnel who jumped in to fight the fire were a major cause of it's spread, the main reason being that oil fire smothering foam kept getting washed away by water hoses and the fuel spread more by that water. "Not American." That's OK. You are asking more legitimate questions than any "McCain-did-it" bleevers. "Why was his nickname “Wet start Johnny”? I do not know for a fact that it ever really was, but I am not saying it wasn't. That would need to be sourced. I know 2 people, a pilot and an air traffic controller who knew him personally, both Vietnam vets (as am I). Both said he was a good pilot, but could also be a very arrogant jerk. "The cooks didn’t name him that. It was either his wife, or the pilots he flew with." Third possibility is that McCain haters tagged him with that to support their agenda. Whatever the truth is about that is, I can say this...Nowhere, at any time, on any carrier, would 'wet start' horseplay be tolerated on a flight deck. Simply would not be accepted. A pilot would not do that more than once and would be lucky to keep his wings. Now add to that the fact that many more that just a few A-4 pilots say that a deliberate "wet start" cannot be done on an A-4. Now add to that that ANY person on an active flight deck can shut flight ops down completely if an unsafe/dangerous condition is seen, and it is not hard to do. a gesture to the correct person and the deck closes in seconds. "Merely (u)sing logics." Me too. That's a good thing. "No slights intended." None taken. " If the accident did not happen wouldn’t have the USS Forrester continue to stick around the bay of Tonkin?" Yep, absolutely. Spent lots of time there myself. "The truth only lies with the men who were there and died, and those pilots and crew on deck. No one else." I understand your statement, but disagree that Truth is not discoverable. That's what investigation boards are about. "To be burnt to death prepping a mission to burn villagers is sadly ironic." Again, I heare you, but disagree on this point. The mission was NOT "to burn villagers." America does not work that way, despite what Haters of America say. War sucks, and good people die on both sides. (Parenthetically, for reasons I won't go into now, WW2 was a different dynamic with the bombing of German and Japanese cities. Doesn't make it right, just different motivation.) Good post. Keep thinking...
Jonathon I was on the USS Saratoga CVA 60 a year later. We were shown the deck films many times. No body called him wet start Johnny. Because an A4 cannot do a wet start. Even if it could his airplane was pointing off the flight deck. Nothing behind him. His name was on the flight board. Because he was flying that day. What you read about him from most people. Are nothing but lies. Told by people that have no idea how things work on a carrier.
Another ignorant lemming. The fact that you believe the long de-bunked hoax about McCain is prima facie proof you have not the faintest clue as to what you are claiming. No, McCain did NOT cause the Forrestal fire, and my presentation proves it. If you think I'm wrong, explain exactly how and why I'm wrong. Oh wait....you can't. Just another low intellect troll.
@@jamespobog3420 Now James you should not ask them to prove. Something they can't. I am still waiting on the pictures of the plane. Behind McCains and it has been 4 years. Matbe someday.
@Harry Browneigh Nice LIE Harry. But I am my own man. Never met James but maybe I will someday.Joined the Navy in 1968. USS Saratoga CVA 60 3 years 10 months.Two years reserve. Joined the Texas National Guard. HHC 249th Signal Company 17 years. 10 years in charge of fuel section. Then took over as Motor sargent. Funny I don't see you'r service record.
![ILLSLICK - THE KING'S LANDING [Freestyle]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/feIJJnNkTfk/mqdefault.jpg)
![โรงเรียนห้ามรัก โดนจับได้ตาย...!! [เอิร์นไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4u02Sbr556Q/mqdefault.jpg)
I have my own issues with McCain as, I'm sure, many others do, but that does not mean that everything he has ever done is wrong. I'm somewhat familiar with the Forrestal incident and I can't recall anyone with any keen awareness of the circumstances indicating that McCain was the cause.
Nowhere on the face of history can you find real, verified, evidentiary claims from former crew that McCain started the fire. There are books full of sourced documents and quotes to the contrary.
You are correct McCain had nothing to do with it. What you hear are lies told by people. That have no idea what thet are talking about
Billy Shafer couldn’t agree more.
Great video... 1. McCain did not start the US Forrestal fire as this accurate video points out. 2. McCain was not a "Songbird" that is made up propaganda. 3. McCain was not pardoned by Nixon... more propaganda. Lots of reasons to despise McCain but not for the reasons above.
WARNING: I am getting very very close to kicking ANYONE who insists McCain started the fire off the cliff.
Here is a link to an interview with Dave Dollarhide. He was the pilot of the plane just forward of McCain. People should probably read it before bloviating about how McCain started the fire.
www.powmiamemorial.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Conversation-with-Dave-Dollarhide.pdf
Now, if you believe he did, but are capable of engaging in civil, intelligent, intellectually honest discourse, we can talk, but mindless parroting of zero I.Q. conspiracies will not happen.
My channel, my rules. Deal with it.
Kick kick. Where are you? Go to ww2 and see what it is like.
@@jsnjcnt
You have been somewhat civil in earlier posts. Don't ruin it.
Also, I'll assume you now have read my statements about my stepfather. Do not make the mistake of supposing I do not know about WW2.
@@jsnjcnt What does WWII. Have to do with anything.
Billy J Shafer USS Saratoga CVA 60 1967-1972
@@billyshafer3182 it has to do with you and everyone that has served in the armed forces. Sure maybe you weren't in ww2 but every soldier that sacrificed their lives or came back home deserves to be honored for their service. Thank you for your service to you and every other service man.
@@jsnjcnt The fact remains. McCain had nothing to do with anything. Just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I'm not here to start an argument. But McCain's own Shipmates have stated that he started the fire! He was known to be an elitist because his father was an admiral basically apparently his shit did not stink like the rest of us! Shipmates describe that day as him being agitated because he was waiting in line to take off! Audibly irritated cursing acting erratic frustrated elitists are all the same! Where you choose to go with this is your own business! I believe John McCain absolutely is responsible 100% for the USS Forrestal fire!
His shipmates said no such thing. During flight ops the Air Boss controls the ship. No matter who your father is. Planes on a carrier do not wait in line. They come up one at a time. As the Air Boss orders them up. What you are saying is a total lie. VA-46 was on the Saratoga in 1969. Gave lectrues on the fire. Mc Cains name never came up. And no they were never told not to say anything about him.
@@rickchamberlain637 I'm calling you delusional or a liar. Produce those interviews or STFU and GTFO. But you can't, so you won't.
So tell me, Einstein, what is the lie you claim they said? EXACTLY how did the fire start?
Liar. Nobody on ship claimed McCain started the fire.
Good video James. Thank you for posting. Out of respect for you, I will keep my comments between us. I would like to know why this is such a passion for you? Do you follow any other Navy events? If you have time I'd like to hear the history of the Kitty Hawk, and Connie.
Nice turnaround. BTW, thanks for your service.
Why the passion? I am a seeker of truth and make a big effort to not believe lies. I started this when I realized that I really wasn't sure myself about JMc being involved or not. As I've written, I have worked for a number of years with at least 2 people (ATC-1 J.J. Johnstone, and Lt. Bill Foster, A-8 driver) who knew JMc personally, served onboard with him and had him as an instructor. He was a good pilot and a real jerk.
I have plenty of time (well, mostly). I'm 70% disabled, Blue Water Navy. Agent Orange gave me diabetes from drinking it during WESTPAC '72., so yeah, we can talk.
Never liked the man myself , but he didn't start the fire . A lot of people didn't like him cause him seeming to ride on daddy's coat tail . Plus he just wasn't that likable , his shit just didn't stink like the rest and it showed .
Good comment. I personally have 2 friends, JJ Johnston (E-6 ATC) and Bill Foster (O-3 F-8 Crusader pilot), both Vietnam vets. Bill had McCain as an instructor, and JJ knew McCain personally on a carrier. Both say he was a good pilot and both say he was a jerk, and both say he had nothing to do with the fire. Bill was also on USS Bonne Homme Richard well within visual range of Forrestal, and witnessed the fire. Both men have extensive experience and knowledge of flight deck operations, attack and fighter aircraft, and both say every single word of any one of the various conspiracy theories (and there are several) are simply false and exhibit profound lack of knowledge and understanding of flight deck ops and aircraft construction and systems. In other words, the theories are 100% bullshit.
I am so sick of hearing McCain caused it.....THANK YOU
McCain didn't cause anything.
He was a incompetent boob and a coward.HE DID CAUSE IT YOU IDIOT.
@@rayslack4120 No, he did not. certainly just because you lie and say he did. Lay out the scenario in detail. Oh wait....you can't.
McCain DIDN’T do it...
The scenario that McCain caused the Forrestal fire by either/both ‘wet starting’/dropping his bombs either accidentally or deliberately is demonstrably false. The big reason that a ‘wet start could not have caused the accident is that it is physically impossible. There is no deck behind McCain’s plane parked on the deck edge. There is nowhere for another plane to be. Also, claims that McCain’s plane fired the Zuni are false. His A-4 Skyhawk was not loaded with Zuni’s, and as well, his plane was facing the ships island, not the aft flight deck.
This fact is plainly seen in historic photos and video.
i.ytimg.com/vi/1LrGK_uTPfs/hqdefault.jpg
Reference:
NAVAIR 01-40AVC-1
NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL
A-4E/F AIRCRAFT
15 NOVEMBER 1968
SECTION III
PART 3
PAGE 3-8
Quote:
"BEFORE STARTING THE ENGINE
Ascertain that the areas forward and aft of the aircraft are clear of personnel and loose objects. See figure 1-54 for danger areas. Make certain that fire fighting equipment is available and manned."
"Starting the Engine
On aircraft utilizing 3-phase, ac ground servicing electrical power during J52-P-408 engine start, application of both external electrical power and main generator electrical power to the electrical power contactor can cause damage to the contactor with a resultant hazard to the aircraft generator.
PILOT CONTROLLED STARTS
A pilot-controlled start requires a source of 3-phase 400Hz, 115/200 vac and a source of starter air modified to supply 28-vdc, and 115-vac, single phase electrical power.
Pilot-controlled starts should be made whenever possible, to avoid starter motor overspeed. The time delay inherent in initiating or shutting off the starter air, when using hand signals, makes the ground-control start less desirable."
Engines are started 15-20 min before launch. McCain’s plane had been running for some time when the accident occurred.
If the above is challenged because the manual date is 1968, the earlier manual for A-4D aircraft dated before the accident says the same thing, and will be provided on request.
aviationarchives.blogspot.com/2016/10/douglas-4ef-skyhawk-flight-manual.html
www.carsonhowe.com/files/A4D-1_A4D-2_Flight_Manual.pdf
“McCain dropped his bombs on deck in his panicked escape from his plane.”
Physically impossible. Unbeknownst to conspiracy theorists, there is a safety interlock switch on the A-4 that disconnects power 100% from the weapons release system when the landing gear is down. He could have beaten on the bomb release button (the ‘pickle’) with a hammer and the bombs would not drop.
Reference:
NAVAIR 01-40AVC-1
NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL
A-4E/F AIRCRAFT
15 NOVEMBER 1968
SECTION VIII
PAGE 8-1
Quote: “When the landing gear handle is in the DOWN position an armament safety switch interrupts the power supply circuit to the MASTER armament switch and the gun charging circuit.”
No, you have a fantasy. My comments are NOT opinion, they are evidential FACTS. Deal with it.
I do have some questions if you don't mind so I can look into all of this. Other than the video we all have seen, what is a source? I'm open to anything. McCain or not, the fire parties were not properly trained and men died. Hind sight. The AO's as well at the time did things different. You know my opinion, but that is for later. I may be considering McCains action at the time to the Navy standards of today. I'm open to your side.
John, Bravo Zulu. Replying on YT is ponderous with long threads. I have no problem comm-ing with you email. Make a junk one if you want, mine is jamesgpobog at yahoo dot com Feel free to write me.
I've just had a couple ephphanies concerning your 'passion' question. I'll mention them here, but don't want to air them in public but I have no problem discussing them with you email.
First, I did something bad at the beginning of my active duty. As a hint, These are the three words I associate with my actions: cowardice, betrayal, and redemption. I just realized the fight I do about the Forrestal fire is part of that last word, redemption.
Second, the link below is a vid that I am featured in. It is 30 minutes, and is a behind-the-scenes on Iowa BB61. In about the middle of the tape, I launch into comments about Clayton Hartwig, the sailor blamed for the gun explosion that killed 47 men inside turret #2. Notice a similarity? Injustice. Neither of the above 2 items I thought of until you asked the question. And yes, that really is me in the vid. 2 million+ views. I'm locally world famous...
jamesgpobog at yahoo dot com
th-cam.com/video/dW83U4bkC_k/w-d-xo.html
Looking forward to corresponding with you.
A couple more things. Two books: "Sailors To The End", and "FIRE FIRE FIRE ON THE FLIGHT DECK AFT ! THIS IS NOT A DRILL !!!"
Both contain LOTS of crew interviews and stories. Then there is the USS Forrestal Assoc. and Ken Killmeyer is the historian and compiler of Fire On the Flight Deck.
You certainly and clearly defended McCain well, I have no horse in this race but I am curious In your Picture there was MORE FIRE underneath of McCains Jet than any other jet on deck. What was the cause ?? You did explain a lot to defend McCain but you have not explained What caused the fire and how did the fire get underneath McCains jet more than any other jet on deck in its INITIAL COMBUSTION ??? What was the Cause ???
"You certainly and clearly defended McCain well, "
I have done no such thing. I am NOT defending McCain. I am exposing that the stories that he started the fire are complete rubbish, physically impossible.
"I have no horse in this race ..."
Nor have I.
"but I am curious In your Picture there was MORE FIRE underneath of McCains Jet than any other jet on deck. What was the cause ??"
I disagree. There are at least 3 more planes to the left of McCain that are not even visible. This was not a fire like carriers have all the time, this was huge. As to how th flame got under McCain, there is debate if the rocket hit White or McCain. If it hit McCain's plane , there's your answer. If it hit White, the shrapnel from that impact ruptured McCain's tank and added his fuel to the fire. Those tanks hold several hundred gallons of fuel each. That's a lot of fuel.
"You did explain a lot to defend McCain"
Once again, I am NOT defending McCain. I am NOT a fanboi. As I have said many many times, my family lost $500,000 in the Keating scandal. There is PLENTY to fault him for, starting the fire is NOT one of them.
"but you have not explained What caused the fire and how did the fire get underneath McCains jet more than any other jet on deck in its INITIAL COMBUSTION ??? What was the Cause ???"
See above. Pre-flight safety procedures were intentionally violated that allowed a power surge when Phantom #110 switched from external to internal power. A Zuni rocket launched, flew across the flight deck at an angle, from stbd to port, hitting one crewman, taking his arm, then continued into the A4's parked along the port edge of the aft flight deck. It ruptured either White's (A-4 Shyhawk ##405) or McCain's (#416) centerline drop tank spilling and igniting several hundred gallons of JP-5 jet fuel (essentially kerosene), and knocking old WWII deteriorated bombs off McCain's plane. 90 seconds later, those cooked off, and we know the rest. Virtually the entire event is on PLAT camera video, and lots of the ensuring events are captured in still pix. One problem (there are lots others) that the "he-did-it" crowd has never produced a single vid or pic that supports their false narrative.
BTW, Have you read the JAG report? I can provide it if you wish...
@@jamespobog3420 -- NO i have not -- point me in that direction to the proper citation and I will try and look it up OR if you have a PDF you can send it if you like. Thnx
www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/USS%20FORRESTAL%20FIRE%2012%20AUG%2069%20PT%201.pdf
www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/USS%20FORRESTAL%20FIRE%2012%20AUG%2069%20PT%202.pdf
www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/USS%20FORRESTAL%20FIRE%2012%20AUG%2069%20PT%203.pdf
I wanted to pass on one more fact about the spilled fuel.
The drop tanks are pressurized and each holds 400 gallons. Two were ruptured, McCain's and White's. That's 800 gallons of JP-5 on the deck. That's a LOT of fuel.
For civilian understanding, JP-5 is essentially kerosene.
Thank you for your videos on this topic. I appreciate the focus on facts. That is all I want the facts, not someone's crazy and hateful ramblings. Nor do I want a biased video. Why do people continue to blame McCain? I love your channel.
Wow, thanks much. I've been getting a lot of subscribers lately, mostly (I think) from "chemtrail" pages where I'm also trying to get people to see the truth. The crazy theories become like religion to people.
People blame McCain probably for political reasons. I'm no fan because of political/historical reasons (the Keating scandal where my parents lost half a million dollars), but none of that matters or is relevant to the start of the fire and that's all I've been looking at.
Thanks again!
Attempting to paint the guy as a hero because he retreated to safety is actually quite humorous. The only difference between a Hero and a Coward is the decision made in a split second on which way to run. In his own words reviewing the Spain Electrical Wire incident he stated he was clowning around- You haven't proved a damn thing other than you seem to like the man.
Absolute horseshit. You cannot find a single word I have written where I defend McCain or claim to like him. I don't. What I DO like is TRUTH, and the TRUTH is that McCain did not start the fire.
The Spanish incident, Hanoi Hilton, post war politics, et al are simply off the table. I don't give a rip. I am discussing one thing and one thing only, the Forrestal fire. I am presenting FACTS, historical facts backed up with known, objective, verifiable, falsifiable evidence. You, on the other hand revert to form for Bleevers, i.e. ad hominem. Shoot the messenger Sorry, that is simply major fail.
Do you have a single relevant comment to make, or is your seething hatred all you have? Where have I "painted him as a hero"? You fault me for explaining why he and the other pilots of Forrestal went to their ready rooms...it was their GQ station..., yet you feel no shame at all painting McCain with the smear of a known, disproved hoax, with not a particle of evidence to back up your lies. That right there is intellectual dishonesty.
Think I'm wrong? Prove it. Produce legitimate evidence to the contrary. Hint: TH-cam vids by hack conspiracy theorists don't count.
There is PLENTY to blame McCain for in his military, private, and public life, but the bullshit of the Forrestal fire is not one of them.\
And you AIK . Don't have a clue what you are talking about. ALL pilots were under orders. If their was a fire on the flight deck. To get off the deck and report to your ready room.He never claimed to be a hero. Billy J Shafer USS Saratoga CVA 60 1968-1972.
@@jamespobog3420 We can't forget the bar fights he was in. I was a new 3rd class. Got stuck on SP duty in Naples. Got a call to report to one bar. VA-46 and VA-113 were going at it. I didn't know if it was ok for an enlisted man to touch an officer.
@@billyshafer3182
Guess I'm lucky, never seen a single bar fight ever.
James. Just think of a fresh 3rd class that didn't know what to do. Lucky for me that was my one and only fight.
Maybe not a "wet start", possibly a missile accidentally fired, who knows? Would like answers to two things from credible sources about how he went down and watched the flight deck fire being fought from the inside the side on CCTV, and he was the only non wounded person who left the ship as soon as departures where possible. I also was not a big fan of his Hanoi announcements which in he condemned the USA for their bombing of the North. His flight history as a pilot left lots to question as to why he really was allowed to remain a pilot. His character as a man was also less then stellar in regards to morals, oaths and other important issues people judge character by. He got by in life in my opinion on the back of having Admirals in the family and being able to parlay his POW experience to gain some political power and notoriety.
"Maybe not a "wet start", possibly a missile accidentally fired, who knows?"
But we DO know, since the accident is on tape. A rocket DID fire accidentally. It came from F4 Phantom #110 parked on the stbd/aft corner of the flight deck, and the rocket struck either A4 Skyhawk #405 (White) or #416 (McCain) starting the fire.
"Would like answers to two things from credible sources about how he went down and watched the flight deck fire being fought from the inside the side on CCTV, and he was the only non wounded person who left the ship as soon as departures where possible."
Those are closely related items, and stem from a basic misunderstanding of how Naval aviation works.
Pilots and their plane DO NOT BELONG TO THE SHIPS CREW. Their duty lies, and they answer to, their squadron. He went to his ready room because THAT WAS HIS GQ STATION.
Why do pilots go to their ready rooms instead of fighting the fire? IT'S NOT THEIR JOB, in fact, untrained firefighters were a major part of the spread of the fire. They go to the ready room so the squadron gets a head count. "Who's missing?". Exactly the same as a man overboard. McCain did exactly what his squadron orders told him to do.
About the second part of your question,...
1. Source the assertion that he left ASAP, and was the only non-wounded to do so.
2. Study the history of USS Oriskany. You will find out that in July, 1967 Oriskany had lost almost half of her pilots and needed more desperately. That's why McCain et al went to Oriskany. They chose to stay in the war, fighting.
After that, I care not, since my oft-repeated focus is ONLY the cause of the fire. But I will say this. I know several Vietnam Vet ex-Navy aviators, Bill F., an F8 driver on the Bon Homme Richard who witnessed the fire at a distance, and JJ, an E-6 ATC on Kearsarge and Midway. Bill went on to be a commercial airline pilot, and JJ worked the tower at LAX for 30+ years. Both knew McCain personally. Both say he was a good pilot, and both said he could be a real jerk.
Lastly, the whole "Admirals" thing is a red herring. Completely irrelevant. First, Grandpa Admiral died in 1945., Second, Daddy Admiral had a command half way around the world in Europe. Despite what people think, even at the top, Admirals have to answer for their actions to the CNO, and SECNAV, as well, that is the reason military investigations are BOARDS. The idea that McCain was covered by daddy is laughable fantasy.
Everything else you mention has nothing to do with the cause of the fire.
I have read the book about the cause of the zuni rocket launch and it makes sense the electric system and the "speedy" procedure " of powering the plane were the Also wonder about the decision to use the old bombs. I do not blame the ordnance officer. The flight deck of an aircraft carrier is a hazardous place .
The bombs were a definite concern. No one wanted them, but it was all that was available.
The fim evidence I’ve seen can credibly support your conclusions and the circumstances advocated in documentaries seem plausible to indicate no A4 crew was at fault. McCain would have suffered from a lack of training had he been used to fight the fire.
Careful James. Telling the truth can get you in trouble.
Reminds me of a joke.
A cop pulls over an old lady for speeding . He asks for her driver's license and registration. When she opens her wallet,he notices a conceal-carry permit. He asks, "Ma'am, do you have a weapon in your possession at this time?" She responds that she has a .38 Special in her purse, a .45 in her glove box, a 9mm Glock in the center console, a shotgun in the trunk. "Jesus, lady," says the cop. "What are you so afraid of?" The old lady looks him in the eye and says, "Not a godam thing."
I have seen, many times, similar drawings of Dealey Plaza with vehicles and red line drawings showing the many possible angels shots could have been fired, and yet the conclusion is still one gunman made the shots. So it is the old saying lies can figure and figures can lie. Why classify all documents if this was just an accident?. He also had all POW RECORDS SEALED. HAVING TWO ADMIRALS AS FATHER AND GRANDFATHER SURE DOES HELP. I AM STILL NOT CONVINCED. PLUS WHAT IS THE NAVY DOING IN A COMBAT ZONE WITH SO MANY INEXPERIENCED SAILORS ON DUTY. AND WHERE IS PROOF THAT IS MCCAIN AIRCRAFT? MAYBE THE HOT START TURNED THE AIRCRAFT IN POSITION SHOWING IT'S ENGINE POINTED OUT OVER THE DECK. PLUS I BELIEVE DATE OF REPORT WAS CHANGED BY 10 DAYS.
I will admit Dave Smalls explanation is an excellent engineering accounting of the incident, I just don't trust the Navy, Gulf of Tonkin a good example.
" have seen, many times, similar drawings of Dealey Plaza with vehicles and red line drawings showing the many possible angels shots could have been fired, and yet the conclusion is still one gunman made the shots. "
I'll ignore the apples/oranges. Dealey Plaza was photographed in a completely different way, Kennedy being the central figure. On Forrestal the object was the entire aft flight deck as well as the catapults. The PLAT camera was on the 08 level near PriFly and was not locked down until after the explosions started. The field of view is rather wide, so we have a good view of the aft flight deck starting only a second or two after the Zuni fired. Still photos also fix, without question, positions of the planes.
" Why classify all documents if this was just an accident?."
All documents? The JAG report is an online PDF file. Not sure what records you mean.
"He also had all POW RECORDS SEALED."
Not relevant to the cause of the fire.
"HAVING TWO ADMIRALS AS FATHER AND GRANDFATHER SURE DOES HELP."
Except is doesn't. Admirals are not omnipotent. They have to follow orders, protocol and procedures just like everyone else. His command at the time was half way around the world, CINCUSNAVEUR, based in London. He had no authority to do a damn thing for his son. No matter if you are any rank of Admiral, there is ALWAYS someone who outranks you and hates your guts. To do what is claimed is not possible.
BTW, seems you do not know that Grandpa died in 1945.
"PLUS WHAT IS THE NAVY DOING IN A COMBAT ZONE WITH SO MANY INEXPERIENCED SAILORS ON DUTY."
Not sure who you are referring to.There are ALWAYS 'Boots' on ships.
"AND WHERE IS PROOF THAT IS MCCAIN AIRCRAFT?"
Pilots are assigned to specific planes. McCain's A-4E Skyhawk was number 416. Both that fact and the fact that where specific planes were spotted as well as eyewitness testimony from hundreds of sailors is a matter of record. In addition, Dave Dollarhide, in the plane just forward of McCain is alive. I have his email (actually available publicly). There is also an interview online where he talks about events.
"MAYBE THE HOT START TURNED THE AIRCRAFT IN POSITION SHOWING IT'S ENGINE POINTED OUT OVER THE DECK."
Sorry, shoulda/woulda/coulda is grasping at straws. This illustrates a lack of knowledge about flight deck operations, and this is a good example. Your idea is impossible for many reasons, but the simplest one is that you are unaware that every plane on the aft flight deck had their wheels chocked and it is possible that some of the were chained down. Another reason is that the move you imagine is so radical and impossible. If McCain was just then starting his plane, there would be several people standing around the plane, as well as a start cart. No such personnel or equipment is evident on vid or stills. All photographic evidence shows a scene as described in the JAG report.
"PLUS I BELIEVE DATE OF REPORT WAS CHANGED BY 10 DAYS. "
Never heard that. Please source. And as well it is irrelevant to the cause of the fire.
"I just don't trust the Navy, Gulf of Tonkin a good example.
"
(....sigh...) Well, that is hardly relevant, but I will say that the problem there is that it presupposes some sort of coverup, and two men can keep a secret if one of them is dead. This is the problem with immagined large conspiracies. They require hundreds and hundreds if not thousands of people to be involved, and it also presupposes that the evidence is faked. If the evidence was faked, that means that real evidence exists(ed). So where is it? This is especially true in photo labs. When 'good' pix come along it is amazing how many extra copies...bootlegs...get made. Where are they? Someone has them, no?
james pobog Hello James, thanks for taking a considerable amount of your time and expertise to acquaint me with a new look at the details of the Forrestal incident. This is the kind of information that should be more available to the public. However for today's generations it is too far back in time for them to take the time to be interested or concerned. Without going back to military accidents as far back as WWII, I am relatively certain this is one of the largest "non enemy induced tragedies" of war, and your analysis has me up to about a 4 Sigma level of confidence now, (99.99) However there are still as you say "not revalent" factors that apply. You might consider them philosophical and still not relavent, however it is part of the time line of war. Gulf of Tonkin is revalent as it shows the degree of deception the military is capable of obeying. Legacy dependents DO have an umbrella of heritage on their shoulders whether influential from a career or attitude/personality perspective. Case in point Chesty Pullers son. Yes there is someone that always out ranks you, but you don't get those stars on your shoulders without knowing how to manage that. I still think there were to many new boots on board, even considering the size of an aircraft carrier, especially during an all out combat launch. Today the situation is worse because the weapons systems far exceed the educational level of the age of people operating them. It is hard to focus on war when you can go below decks and get a Starbucks while on duty. Or email your family from a fire Base or ship on deployment in a hazardous area. Back to weapons systems, they are too sophisticated for operators - different point here from above -- the F-35 is far to advance than the best level of pilots we have. The F-22 is a better dog fighter. We lost just about 50%, in some cases more of all aircraft sent to Vietnam. One embarrassment were the F-4's. Shot down by Mig -15 and 17's because the Air Force never understood true aerial combat of that war and sent the initial F4's in without guns. There were NO Sandies left at the end of the war. For 25 years we fought the war with vertually no tactics that resulted in huge losses of men, aircraft AND equipment., ( maybe Tet had some strategy). Woodrow Wilson has the most blood on his hands back in 1918 for getting us involved in the war. If the military wants something to go away - it goes away, disappears. And does not take 1000's of people to make it happen. There are 14 known intelligence agencies in the military establishment, most don't talk to one another and we actually outsource intelligence gathering to independent companies -- that is frickin brilliant. What were the ocean conditions the day of the accident, ( it is impossible to program all the physics variables into the magnitude of this accident, blocks do not insure holding back an aircraft ) . Was the ship headed into the wind, what was the pitch of the deck? Leaking fuel does not provide great traction). Over all I don't believe all protocols for arming that many aircraft in the small amount of deck space were followed and many safety issues due to senior enlisted and officers assumptions that the new boots knew what they were doing were assumed.
The North Vietnamese knew the names of pilots assigned to all carriers in theater, for the ground based combat Air Force it was the same thing except worse - they could be hit or sabotaged). Most of the time they knew when airstrikes were launched - both land or sea . The Buff's had a little better advantage due to their operational altitude until the last few years when Vietnam acquired Russian SAM's and introduction of Mig - 21.
All of the above may not seem relavent to one accident, but they can be factored in - it is what is known as the Butterfly Affect. If Woodrow Wilson had made the right decision in 1918 this accident never would have happened as well as the war. The above is not presented in a "conspiracy mode", just the facts, many before 1967, but all in place during 1967 . I just wanted to say there ARE relavent contributions outside of the "accident" that do apply, based on military culture.
If I were a judge listening to your analysis of the accident I would totally agree with your conclusion and dismiiss the case as solved. However in the grand scheme of the military establishment and the Vietnam War, and personal experience too lengthy to share not to mention the fact I only know you by an Internet name, I do believe this accident could have been avoided, and that some aspects were not revealed, possibly because of war time requirements. You are either an afficinado of Navy history, or maybe crew member. But like that old saying about Las Vegas, what goes into the Pentagon stays in the Pentagon. The only thing that is not relavent to our discussion is the deplorable cyber security our military uses today - but that is another story.
Thanks again James for you input and oppinions, I do honor every individual who dedicates a portion or all of their lives to the military and I know the sacrifices of the men on the USS Forrestal are still remembered by families and people who know about this portion of the war.
"Hello James, thanks for taking a considerable amount of your time and expertise to acquaint me with a new look at the details of the Forrestal incident".
My pleasure.
"This is the kind of information that should be more available to the public."
On one hand it is. After all, we have virtually the entire knowledge base of humanity on these little black screens in front of us. On the other, IMHO, there is some dynamic going on that i can't quite define. It seems Orwellian, up is down, bad is good, black is white, etc. It disturbs me greatly that ignorance is widely accepted as a virtue, and intellectual honesty is widely condemned as a vice.
"However for today's generations it is too far back in time for them to take the time to be interested or concerned."
And with that, the wisdom of ages is ignored/forgotten/rejected. The important things are when are the Grammys on and who is screwing who.
"Without going back to military accidents as far back as WWII, I am relatively certain this is one of the largest "non enemy induced tragedies" of war, and your analysis has me up to about a 4 Sigma level of confidence now, (99.99")"
I am humbled. There has been a small handful of folks like you who have joined my Diogenes club. I was going to mention Slapton Sands, but then remembered that yes, that WAS enemy induced. Yeah, Forrestal was a big deal.
"However there are still as you say "not relevant" factors that apply. You might consider them philosophical and still not relevant, however it is part of the time line of war. Gulf of Tonkin is relevant as it shows the degree of deception the military is capable of obeying."
Don't misunderstand, I do not necessarily think they are irrelevant, they are simply irrelevant to my discussion of the cause of the fire. As to your point about "the military", is it something that is unique to the U.S.? I am thinking of Rommel, Yamamoto, von Stauffenberg, the camp commander in The Great Escape, Schwarzkopf, et al. Men who are not ideologues, but honest military professionals who recognize as such, their military responsibilities to their countries. Vietnam, Tonkin incident I do not lay on the military, rather politicians. And while there are in fact honest politicians, I think they probably are in the minority.
"Legacy dependents DO have an umbrella of heritage on their shoulders whether influential from a career or attitude/personality perspective. Case in point Chesty Pullers son."
Well, though I am not familiar with Puller's son, I would counter with Admiral Morrison's son, Jim.
"Yes there is someone that always out ranks you, but you don't get those stars on your shoulders without knowing how to manage that."
LOL...and what immediately pops into my head is a line from National Lampoon's 'Deteriorata'; "Know what to kiss, and when."
"I still think there were to many new boots on board, even considering the size of an aircraft carrier, especially during an all out combat launch."
Curious...have you been in the military? I'm not sure boots can be blamed, I think it was the level of training in specific areas, especially damage control/firefighting. Things changed a lot after Forrestal. If you are referring to the slacking of safety procedures, I think that was more bad judgment in reaction to perceived performance inadequacies.
"Today the situation is worse because the weapons systems far exceed the educational level of the age of people operating them. It is hard to focus on war when you can go below decks and get a Starbucks while on duty. Or email your family from a fire Base or ship on deployment in a hazardous area."
Boy, you like cans of worms, don't you?I disagree about exceeding education levels, the Navy is all volunteer, and only takes the best. It's when the draft exists that it becomes problematic.
"Back to weapons systems, they are too sophisticated for operators - different point here from above -- the F-35 is far to advance than the best level of pilots we have."
Source, please?
"We lost just about 50%, in some cases more of all aircraft sent to Vietnam."
Not arguing, just need a source.
"One embarrassment were the F-4's. Shot down by Mig 15 and 17's because the Air Force never understood true aerial combat of that war and sent the initial F4's in without guns."
Misplaced faith in tech over reality.
"There were NO Sandies left at the end of the war."
That was a GREAT plane. Yeah, there is bad decision making at the top sometimes, same thing with the A-10. One of the greatest attack planes in history, and it's not wanted.But a lot of that can be congress and budget driven.
"For 25 years we fought the war with virtually no tactics, (and) that resulted in huge losses of men, aircraft AND equipment."
IMHO that gets hung around the necks of Johnson, McNamara, Westmorland, and congress...not to mention the media. Overall, we kicked ass. Not sure what you mean "25" years...
" Woodrow Wilson has the most blood on his hands back in 1918 for getting us involved in the war."
No argument from me.
"If the military wants something to go away - it goes away, disappears. And does not take 1000's of people to make it happen. There are 14 known intelligence agencies in the military establishment, most don't talk to one another and we actually outsource intelligence gathering to independent companies - that is frickin brilliant."
All that is outside my knowledge.
" What were the ocean conditions the day of the accident,"
Weather was not a factor. It was a nice, sunshiny day, the seas were normal. This can be seen in photos, both from Forrestal as well as other ships.
"( it is impossible to program all the physics variables into the magnitude of this accident, blocks do not insure holding back an aircraft )."
Um, yeah, they kinda do in normal conditions. And don't forget, if conditions were bad, the planes would also be chained.
"Was the ship headed into the wind,"
You bet it was. That's how you launch planes. It is also recorded in the deck log (which I have).
"what was the pitch of the deck?"
Normal. If you were not in the Navy, you'd be surprised at how little movement there is on a carrier in all but the roughest seas. I have been on Kitty Hawk in 35-foot seas when escorting destroyers were getting beaten up. I have seen them take white water over the bridge and green water over the forward gun. The carrier is nice and gentle.
"Leaking fuel does not provide great traction)."
It also creates an extreme fire hazard. That is why there are firefighters standing by, and white shirt safety observers all over the place, as well as that being the reason why ANY sort of horseplay such as a so'-called 'wet start' is zero and I mean zero tolerance. That zero tolerance is not limited to being 'official'. One guy deliberately and repeatedly causing a deliberate malfunction of his plane that endangers every single one of the 3000 to 5000 souls on board would have a very very short existence on board. Nights are dark, and the ocean is large.
"Over all I don't believe all protocols for arming that many aircraft in the small amount of deck space were followed"
Correct. They weren't.
"and many safety issues due to senior enlisted and officers assumptions that the new boots knew what they were doing were assumed."
Not quite correct. Flight deck training manuals (which I have) require a long period of a boot 'shadowing' an experienced flight deck crewman. FNG's are and were not thrown in the pool to sink or swim. There are a million ways to die on a flight deck, and though many are solo, not all are, as we have seen.
Not trying to be a denier nor conspirator here so anyone that takes my question either way my apologies in advance. I'm sure a "wet start" would produce a significant amount of noise. I've seen normal, conventional starts at air shows and the pop at ignition is fairly loud. Not no big boom or bang but a considerable amount of noise. Could that noise produced been more or less like a so called "butterfly effect " of cause. Plane being prepped for launch, crewman doing something around the Zuni and jumped triggering something that overall caused the incident?
Thanks for your civil question.
Not trying to be a denier nor conspirator here so anyone that takes my question either way my apologies in advance."
"I'm sure a "wet start" would produce a significant amount of noise."
Not really. And lets not forget that McCain's plane is not the only one involved. There is a flight deck full of planes running/being started, as well as 4 catapults launching planes. You want loud? Stand on an active flight deck. Even if your point were true, it would not be heard at all.
"I've seen normal, conventional starts at air shows and the pop at ignition is fairly loud. Not no big boom or bang but a considerable amount of noise."
Remember, an air show is NOT an active flight deck. See above.
"Could that noise produced been more or less like a so called "butterfly effect " of cause. Plane being prepped for launch, crewman doing something around the Zuni and jumped triggering something that overall caused the incident?"
Nope. You are talking about experienced professionals, men (and sometimes boys) who do this activity virtually every day, sometimes around the clock. You ever see experienced artillerymen? Guns go off unexpectedly around them all the time and they don't even flinch.
The 'noise' point is a red herring. These guys live in constant, extremely loud noise, noise so loud that double hearing protection is mandatory (it's probably triple today), noise so loud that communication is by hand signal. Then there is distance, McCain's plane was about 120-150 feet away from the F4 that launched the rocket.
Now let's look at the psychology of a hot shot pilot pull the kind of stunt McCain is accused of. Horseplay...of any kind...is simply not tolerated on a flight deck. Ever. I think the reason is obvious. Do you think someone who had a reputation for pulling such stunts would 1.Keep their wings, and 2. Have any sort of career? What McCain is accused of is so dangerous, so completely unacceptable because it is not just a prank, it is something that put the lives of every single man on board at risk. In a sense you could think of it as attempted murder. Now add to that the nutball theory that those same people who had almost been killed cover for the man. Hey, that's where the conspiracy theories take us. It is often claimed that 'witnesses' say McCain did it. The problem with that is that no such legitimate "witness" can be produced. The source is always "A friend of my cousin's barber...". Absolute crap. The fact is that there are plenty of eyewitnesses to the contrary. Dave Dollarhide, in the plane just forward of McCain calls bullshit on the whole conspiracy theory. He was not only there, he was right next to McCain. Now tell me why he would lie and cover for McCain if McCain almost killed him? Same goes for the entire ship's company.
There is a Forrestal Veterans Assoc. Why would they cover?
There are a couple EXCELLENT books on the subject, one of them not so much a narrative, but a compilation of first person eyewitness stories about the incident, compiled by the Forrestal Assoc. HISTORIAN. These are ALL men who were almost killed and who lost friends. There is not a single word about McCain doing something wrong. Why? Occam's Razor gives the answer. He didn't do anything wrong.
Lots of pie hole flapping on the conspiracy side that by it's content proves one thing, the flappers know less than zero about the Navy, carrier flight ops, navy damage control, fighter/attack squadrons, ad nauseum. When you talk to people with actual experience and knowledge, suggesting the conspiracy will be met with laughing, mocking ridicule.
I know a little on being an artilleryman. While never served in our military (health issue stopped me,didnt stop my desire) I'm a civil war reenactor part time on artillery. NCWAA qualified. I've been close to a 12 pdr mtn Howie when it went off and served on a 24 pdr bronze Napoleon. Very loud indeed even with plugs in. And yes indeed in heat of barrage you do tend to phase out noise.
@@chvfd687 Noise? Flight ops on a carrier is a non stop exposure to a constant 140db and that's just idle. It goes up from there while taxing and full military power.160db is considered lethal.Its not just what you hear. Your teeth literally dance in your jaw.. You can feel all your organs moving around. Some aircraft types are so loud the squadron techs get rotated out every so many launches.
@@h.r.puffnstuff8705
Yep. I think it's hilarious when Bleever clowns post the stupidest, most ridiculous comments about carrier flight decks. They think they're so smart, but in reality they just prove prima facie that they are ignorant fools. One idiot actually asked why, after the fire started, McCain didn't taxi his plane off the edge of the ship and then punch out. Others often claim that munitions release buttons are armed, with zero safety redundancy, and weapons can be launched/dropped on an active flight deck just by accidentally bumping a button.
I sincerely hope those intellectual midgets never reproduce.
I don’t have all the facts so I can’t judge McCain or not , but I use to like him all through the 80-90’s but then once I saw how he was acting towards Trump I understood that he too was involved in selling out our country and that he as a Republican was just as Guilty as the Democratic’s . I use to like Bush jun , until I found out that he was Good friends with the obamas and they still go out to eat and do Holliday things together to this day . Also Bush Sn. Got on tv and said they will make a new world order and it will be successful etc. Then trump won and I realized that the obamas the bushes Mccain and many other Rep and Dem who I like. I realized they all had an agenda for the NWO.. this is not American. I other country should make any laws regarding any America. That’s why I support trump and everyone’s eyes were opened when they realized and saw even the Rep working with the Democrats, the House on foreign relations , NAFTA .. they were all saying one thing but working together behind closed doors. This is why Americans voted Trump .. the UN nobody should have power over America but Americans. So drain that swamp Mr. Trump .. Trump 2020.
Off topic, so no comment from me and I'll let it stand because it's not massively inflammatory.
If you have any on topic questions or comments, go right ahead...
Brian Johnson sick moron.
Well said!!!!! TRUMP 2020!!!!!
Mike Hughes You must be a Hillary lap dog?
After all these years and him being buried, it's AFFF under the bridge at this point. Man, if he did wet start that's seriously f'd up. If he didn't, then a good officer got tarnished.
My point is that I desire TRUTH to prevail. I think it DOES matter, because to let lies slide gives you the revisionist history like the Holocaust deniers or claims of a moon landing hoax, not to mention chemtrails.
IMHO, to paraphrase Barry Goldwater, 'Extremism in defense of TRUTH is no vice.'
I would encourage you to do some research, or ask me about your doubts. As stated, your doubt is simply not possible for several reasons, depending on alleged scenario claimed. Wet starts do not produce the claimed result, and ultimately, there was no plane or flight deck behind McCain only ocean, so there was no pilot to startle or missile to cook off.
@@jamespobog3420 come on now on the chemtrails
@@johnrhodes101875
No such thing. And yes, I have looked.
You should have taken the time to locating a few of the veteran survivors who were actually right there on the carrier when the fire started & who had seen the cause of the fire that had KILLED many young who are the TRUE HERO'S on that Day & they would have told you & this includes my Uncle who had suffered 3rd degree burns on his back & legs, My Uncle and Many of the Other Survivors Would tell You that JOHN MCCAIN IS/WAS 100% RESPONSIBLE For The Death's from this Disaster
Liar. Produce the names of those you claim. Produce your evidence of exactly HOW the fire started. I want to read your own words describing the source of the fire. I'll wait.
BTW, I HAVE done my research and read the stories of HUNDREDS of survivors. NO ONE, including Dave Dollarhide, who was in the plane right next to McCain the claims you say.
Absolute nonsense. The Navy investigation mentions nothing of the sort.
I didn't think you could produce any such witnesses., and I was correct. If you say there are, PRODUCE THEM.
See, unlike you I can provide legitimate sources LOADED with surviving crew interviews.
1. the book 'Sailors To The End'
2. The book 'FIRE ! FIRE ! FIRE ON THE FLIGHT DECK AFT !! THIS IS NOT A DRILL !!!
3. The USS Forrestal Assoc
www.uss-forrestal.com/
If you are right, that last should be chock full of anti-McCain vitriol...
@ Lynn Frank
Here's a link to a survivor, Dave Dollarhide, who was in a plane right next to McCain. He talks about McCain and the fire in several places.
www.powmiamemorial.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Conversation-with-Dave-Dollarhide.pdf
Notice the destroyer in the back ground. Took a good man to get that close.
IIRC, that is Rupertus. They got closer than that.
@@michaelraub9351 I was on the Saratoga CVA 60. A year later. Saw the deck films many times.
You guys doth protest a little too loudly!
If McCain weren't involved in the Forrestal fire, it WAS NOT for lack of trying,
His subsequent behaviour as a PoW (and later as a politician) confirms his unscrupulous mindset.
"You guys doth protest a little too loudly! '
Uh, no. All I am doing is showing that the "McCain-did-it" scenario is simply impossible, and therefore bullshit.
"If McCain weren't involved in the Forrestal fire, it WAS NOT for lack of trying, ..."
Care to translate that? Are you saying McCain was actively trying to sabotage the Forrestal?
"His subsequent behaviour as a PoW (and later as a politician) confirms his unscrupulous mindset."
Don't care. That is not on the table. This vid deals with one thing, and one thing only, the cause of the Forrestal fire, and in that context, McCain had zero to do with it other than being a victim of it, just like thousands of Forrestal crew.
@Tess Sanders
"Sir! Not if your Daddy and Grand-daddy were Admirals!
And got you out of all your s***."
Um, are you aware that Grandpa died when McCain III (the man in question) was 9 years old? IF you are in fact a navy vet, then you should know that's not the way the Navy works. You might think it does, but you sure as hell can provide nothing that proves it. Not only that, but lets consider the implications. A young pilot is a hotshot loose cannon jerk, constantly breaking things and endangering both himself and others. A parent is going to do that to their kid? Enable him to continue down a path of manslaughter and self destruction? And if that person DOES finally kill himself or others (like `143 Forrestal sailors), a parent fees no sorrow or remorse for the foolhardy act of enabling him? Really? Please. Think.
"Back in the day BEFORE politics and cover-up we all knew him as a "hot dog" I can-do-anything jerk!"
So what? That point is not on the table, this is ONLY about the cause of the fire. Nevertheless, I work with 2 ex Navy (I am ex Navy myself), an ATC and a F-8 driver. Both knew him personally and the pilot had him as an instructor. Both say he could be a real jerk. But that is a non-sequitur to the cause of the fire.
"Maybe us old-timers just remember the truth."
And maybe you don't. If you have PROOF, real, legally acceptable evidence, produce it. Otherwise you are just parroting hearsay lies.
"(US NAVY WAVE VIETNAM)" At this point in time I have no reason to doubt you, so for now I will say (and mean) thank you for your service. I am also a 'Nam vet, Blue Water Navy, and exposed to Agent Orange in 1972. Mispillion, AO105.
Please note your threat to "kick my ass" has been deleted. However, I will extend an invitation to you. Come visit me on the Battleship Iowa. In person. And then attempt to carry out your threat. I ain't hard to find.
So, McCain trained at tour base, huh? Well I work with 2 retired Navy, one an F-8 driver and one an E-6 ATC. Both served with McCain, and both were on a first name basis with him. Both say he was a good pilot (anyone who thinks shitty pilots can execute night carrier landings is an idiot), but was also extremely capable of being a complete jerk...sort of like you.
and where the fuck do you get this 'anti-American" bullshit? I ain't no McCain fanboi, never have been, never will be, and you cannot find a single word in any of my posts where I express the slightest admiration for him. See, there was this little thing called the "Keating Scandal" that cost my elderly parents a half million dollars. My little mom wanted to borrow a gun so she could shoot him.
No, Junior, you have it all wrong, which is not surprising from hat-filled low intellects. My posts deal with one thing and one thing only, the cause of the Forrestal fire. If you have any civil followup on point comments, you are welcome to post them, and we can have a civil intellectual discussion. Vomit more of your risible ad hominem and you are gone for good.
Your turn. Make it count...
@Tess Sanders
Yeah...I didn't think so.
It was not for a lack of trying....So you think Senator McCain is a murderous psychopath. I know what bin to put you in. Thank you. #TrashCan
Jonny wet start. Look it up.
Why look up a lie.
John McCain had nothing to do with that fire, other than almost becoming a casualty of it. The fire started when a Zuni rocket, mounted on an F-4 Phantom that was parked on the starboard side of the flight deck, misfired, and hit an A-4 Skyhawk that was parked on the port side. And before you start spouting that tired 'wet start' BS, look at the FACT that McCain's A-4 was parked with its exhaust pointing toward the ocean. Even if he had done a 'wet start', there was nothing behind him but air and water. I saw the films from the flight deck numerous times while I was in the Navy.
@@bobmarlowe3390 Forget telling the truth Bob. These idiots can't handle it. The lies are much more fun to them.
Billy J Shafer USS Saratoga CVA 60 1968-1972
"Hans Eckhardt
Thx, it's a shame when veterans are dragged into the dirt."
Indeed. Sorry, Hans, I accidentally deleted your post. My apologies...
James, good job. There so many idiots and ignorant people creating posts based on fake information even to the point of saying the IG rigged the report. The have no clue what a wet start (or hot start as we called them in the AF) is and how often it occured on engine start back then. No knowledge of the facts but drink plenty of the Trump juice
There has never been more proof of the saying “I read it on the Internet or I saw it on youtube so it MUST be true”.
You believe in either unfounded or half assed truths and statements making claims of McCain’s role in the Forrestal disaster. You do not read the accident investigations or official reports instead relying on bullcrap stories of people that were never there and rhetoric based on hatred of the man. Inferences of how his father and grandfather influenced reports. Total and complete misunderstanding the “wet start” and the resulting flames. In my twenty years on the flightline, I saw many hot starts as they are really called and not one of them ever presented and real danger unless you had a total brain fart and stood aft of the engines during start.
Now, if McCain really did a Wet Start, how in the hell do these flames do a 180 and cross the flight deck to the F4’s and ignite a Zuni? If you look at how the aircraft are parked, the A4’s exhausts are all facing out the port side and the F4’s exhaust the starboard side. Explain that little inconsistency.
If you believe that McCain had anything to do with the fire, you are sadly mistaken and a fool.
I do get a kick out of the fools that claim that he was such a bad pilot that he got himself shot down. Yep, couldn’t outrun, out turn and his x-ray vision failed when he didn’t see that darn SAM accelerating to up to Mach 4 coming up from under him. If you believe this, you are dumber than a box of rocks and have no concept of the issue.
www.snopes.com/fact-check/john-mccain-fire-uss-forrestal/
th-cam.com/video/drXW4QZVHNI/w-d-xo.html
www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/USS%20FORRESTAL%20FIRE%2012%20AUG%
2069%20PT%201.pdf
I really don't think this needs to be politicized. This bullshit story has been around for much much longer than 2 years..
Dave Smallberries, here's one thing I DO know about McCan't. When his nation needed him to stem the tide of socialism in a free land, he failed them. He chose a personal grudge or a political maneuver over helping stop the socialist revolution. Why fly, fight and be tortured for freedom if you're gonna come home and turn red? Fuck him and good riddance.
So, I guess the eyewitnesses to this incident don't count for much, either? I'm sorry, I served with two of these men a few years later as they joined my squadron, and their word of what happens matches what I've heard from a couple of other aviators during that time. Wherever McCain went, trouble followed. As far as his shoot down, McCain stated, himself, that the SAM missile sheared the nose off his A4-B Skyhawk and tore the wing up. The SAM missile in use that day was a rear-intercept, heat seeker that approaches from the stern. So, which way was McCain going? Speculation is he was bugging-out of the action and flew into it. And The SAM of that era didn't go Mach 4 or no pilot would have ever evaded one. I had two fired at me in Vietnam and evaded both of them, and I assure you my F4-N Phantom, on its best day, couldn't reach Mach 4. Time to start listening to the men who were there, without an agenda, instead of mixing up such a cocktail of hate that the facts suffer. And now that he's deceased, it's time to grow up and let it go. As far as Trump commenting, consider the source.
Produce your imaginary aviators. Dare ya.
@@jamespobog3420 - Sure, for $10,000 a copy because you deserve to pay for questioning officer witnesses. And, by the way, the reports on this incident were "rigged" or "jammed" because that's how senior officers protected their offspring and their own legacy. I saw it happen too many times.
Interesting videos on this subject and comments, thanks for sharing. I had never heard the angle on McCain until today, so I naturally became curious. While I couldn’t stand the guy politically that has nothing to do with asserting he essentially committed a war crime!
While I have no experience in this arena I typically am a doubter of govt answers on anything. I am not doubting your account either as common sense makes the conspiracy version highly unlikely.
All that said, in your experience and research do you believe the official version of fire starting events? Power surge accident? Not saying a cover up or lying necessarily but was it the right call scientifically in your opinion?
First, let me say that I wish every skeptic were as civil and open minded as you are. The entire Bleever bunch should learn from your example. Bravo Zulu.
I do not base my conclusions exclusively on the Navy report, I look at the entire body of evidence that I have collected. When 'evidence is talked about, Bleevers display complete ignorance of the meaning of that word. To them, (this goes for most all conspiracy theorists...chemtrails, flat earth, fake moon landings, etc. ad nauseum) when presented with a youtube nutball conspiracy vid and a known, documented historical photo, from a known, verifiable source (like say, Life Magazine), their claim is always that the vid is FACT!!!!!!!!!!, and the historic photo is a fake.
So my approach is based on logic, reason, and historical evidence. I accept the Navy report, because it matches the known historical documents. I will also say categorically that no Bleever has ever produced the slightest shred of evidence (the real stuff I'm talking about) to support their anti-McCain narrative. Not a shred. It is 100% speculation and lies. I have another vid where I challenge Bleevers to take a blank diagram or photo of Forrestal's empty flight deck and mark it up illustrating their narrative. There has been not a single taker. Not one. The only response I get from Bleevers is ad hominem. No one has ever taken one of my points and discussed it directly. It's ONLY "Oh yeah? Well so's yer old man!!!"
Look at these threads and find my posts. I have written several essays on things like the photographic evidence, flight deck horseplay, Navy carrier command structure, etc. Bleever responses to those are simply non-existent.
Also, look carefully at Bleever narratives of the accident. There are at least 10 different versions, none of which come close to matching known facts, and some of which are ridiculous pretzel logic that is stupefying. I mean seriously.....McCain does a 'wet start', cooking off a Zuni on the plane behind him. Really? That is proven false with one pic. One. No ship behind McCain for a plane to be on. Prima facie that the Bleevers are doing nothing but parroting other haters, and not turning one page of research. Sad, really.
Sean I was on the USS Saratoga CVA 60 a year later. If you knew carriers like I do and James does. You would know what has been said McCain is a lie. I will try and explain..
There was a short that caused the Zuni rocket to take off. No one really knows why it did.
McCains plane was parked as you see it in the video. There was no one behind him.
The bombs that went off. Were from WWII. Thin skinned and should not have been used. But the Navy was trying to save money by using old stock. The Captain and several officers protested there use. But they were ordered to use them
134 people paid for that mistake.
If those bombs had not been used. There may not have been such a disaster.
McCain was not known as johnny wet start.
His father being an Admiral had nothing to do with anything.
Do some real research and learn the truth. Do not believe the lies.
What Billy said.
james pobog thanks for the info and clarifying guys. I still don’t like McCain but attributing a horrible accident to him is not only wrong but is beyond irresponsible. Common sense unfortunately doesn’t exist much in this day and age!
Sean M
Diogenes has found his honest man. You get my point. I care not for the man either and echo your comments.
And that's it. That is the ONLY point I am making. The rest is distraction, not to mention speculation and opinion.
Bravo zulu, Sir.
Sorry. History will bare this out....
Johnny wet start, oh wait they covered it up. His dad was high up in the military.
won't a wet start be fine since there was no one behind him? His jet was on the edge of the ship with engine facing the ocean.
@@michaelloteyro7074 you may be right. He could have accidentally launched the missile though.
@@jsnjcnt physically impossible. He was in an A-4 on the port side of the ship facing starboard towards the bow and the Missile came from an F-4 on the aft end of the ship facing forward towards the portside bow. OOH, Maybe he had a remote control and launched it that way.
@@jsnjcnt th-cam.com/video/1LrGK_uTPfs/w-d-xo.html
@@jsnjcnt Since the A-4 did not carry missiles. How could he have launched one.
Lucky no personal got hurt or killed.
Stop the idiocy, or you're gone.
There were 134 killed, and 161 injured in the Forrestal fire. Do you understand cause/effect?
james pobog. Oh ok. That seems like alot of people. Forrestal fire? Thought this attack occurred on an aircraft carrier?
@@christsrevenge8030
The Forrestal was a carrier. It was scrapped recently. The fire happened in the late 60's. Two EXCELLENT books,
www.amazon.com/dp/B00188V7Y6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
www.amazon.com/Fire-Flight-Deck-This-Drill/dp/1546248587/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=forrestal+fire&qid=1571853792&sr=8-1
Both are must-reads. Both give firsthand accounts. The second Is a little harder to read, it seems repetitious, but what is being given is multiple firsthand accounts of specific moments, that is, the instant of the rocket launch might be told from a good number of people, all about the same instant.
@John Goglia Yes they did and McCain had nothing to do with it.
I’m sorry, but I noticed “McCain” on the roster. 27 jets went out. Was that an old roster list? I don’t understand anyone watching tv while friends and crew are dying. There is something in between this video and the whole story, I feel. Not American. Why was his nickname “Wet start Johnny”? The cooks didn’t name him that. It was either his wife, or the pilots he flew with. Merely sing logics. No slights intended. If the accident did not happen wouldn’t have the USS Forrester continue to stick around the bay of Tonkin? The truth only lies with the men who were there and died, and those pilots and crew on deck. No one else. To be burnt to death prepping a mission to burn villagers is sadly ironic.
@ Jonathon Appleseed
"I’m sorry, but I noticed “McCain” on the roster. 27 jets went out. Was that an old roster list?"
As far as I know, that is the roster from that day. That's kind of an esoteric point, as there is not a lot of ready room pix from that day, why should there be? The fire sure as hell wasn't scheduled...
"I don’t understand anyone watching tv while friends and crew are dying. There is something in between this video and the whole story, I feel. "
Good question. I have answered it before and it is a very simple reason.
This is not well known among civilians, and I dare say even among Navy personnel who have never served on a carrier. Flight squadrons are NOT part of the ship's crew. They are members of that particular squadron, and that is where their orders come from. That means that with very few exceptions, the General Quarters station of pilots IS THEIR READY ROOM. McCain went there because that was his orders. The reason for that is this. That is how a ship, in an emergency, figures out who is missing. Same thing for Man Overboard. Everyone musters and heads are counted.
As far as grabbing a fire hose, you must remember that the fire was before training and firefighting changes brought about by, well, the Forrestal fire. At that time training was different and at a different level. After the fire things were a whole lot more tightened up and expanded. A historical fact from the Forrestal fire was that untrained personnel who jumped in to fight the fire were a major cause of it's spread, the main reason being that oil fire smothering foam kept getting washed away by water hoses and the fuel spread more by that water.
"Not American."
That's OK. You are asking more legitimate questions than any "McCain-did-it" bleevers.
"Why was his nickname “Wet start Johnny”?
I do not know for a fact that it ever really was, but I am not saying it wasn't. That would need to be sourced. I know 2 people, a pilot and an air traffic controller who knew him personally, both Vietnam vets (as am I). Both said he was a good pilot, but could also be a very arrogant jerk.
"The cooks didn’t name him that. It was either his wife, or the pilots he flew with."
Third possibility is that McCain haters tagged him with that to support their agenda. Whatever the truth is about that is, I can say this...Nowhere, at any time, on any carrier, would 'wet start' horseplay be tolerated on a flight deck. Simply would not be accepted. A pilot would not do that more than once and would be lucky to keep his wings. Now add to that the fact that many more that just a few A-4 pilots say that a deliberate "wet start" cannot be done on an A-4. Now add to that that ANY person on an active flight deck can shut flight ops down completely if an unsafe/dangerous condition is seen, and it is not hard to do. a gesture to the correct person and the deck closes in seconds.
"Merely (u)sing logics." Me too. That's a good thing.
"No slights intended."
None taken.
" If the accident did not happen wouldn’t have the USS Forrester continue to stick around the bay of Tonkin?"
Yep, absolutely. Spent lots of time there myself.
"The truth only lies with the men who were there and died, and those pilots and crew on deck. No one else."
I understand your statement, but disagree that Truth is not discoverable. That's what investigation boards are about.
"To be burnt to death prepping a mission to burn villagers is sadly ironic."
Again, I heare you, but disagree on this point. The mission was NOT "to burn villagers." America does not work that way, despite what Haters of America say. War sucks, and good people die on both sides. (Parenthetically, for reasons I won't go into now, WW2 was a different dynamic with the bombing of German and Japanese cities. Doesn't make it right, just different motivation.)
Good post. Keep thinking...
Jonathon I was on the USS Saratoga CVA 60 a year later. We were shown the deck films many times. No body called him wet start Johnny. Because an A4 cannot do a wet start. Even if it could his airplane was pointing off the flight deck. Nothing behind him. His name was on the flight board. Because he was flying that day.
What you read about him from most people. Are nothing but lies. Told by people that have no idea how things work on a carrier.
@@jamespobog3420 this Appleseed guy has been around for years propagating the same stuff.... Just another troll... Thanks for the upload
Jonanthon You must be on some VERY GOOD drugs.
It must have been a terrible thing knowing you were responsible for all that death & destruction. RIP John McCain
Another ignorant lemming. The fact that you believe the long de-bunked hoax about McCain is prima facie proof you have not the faintest clue as to what you are claiming.
No, McCain did NOT cause the Forrestal fire, and my presentation proves it. If you think I'm wrong, explain exactly how and why I'm wrong. Oh wait....you can't.
Just another low intellect troll.
Willie You should learn the truth. Before you talk bull sh!t. Billy J Shafer USS Saratoga CVA 60 1968-1972.
@@jamespobog3420 Now James you should not ask them to prove. Something they can't. I am still waiting on the pictures of the plane. Behind McCains and it has been 4 years. Matbe someday.
@@billyshafer3182 LOL.....
@Harry Browneigh Nice LIE Harry. But I am my own man. Never met James but maybe I will someday.Joined the Navy in 1968. USS Saratoga CVA 60 3 years 10 months.Two years reserve. Joined the Texas National Guard. HHC 249th Signal Company 17 years. 10 years in charge of fuel section. Then took over as Motor sargent.
Funny I don't see you'r service record.