Vince Foster and Ron Brown conspiracies [Archive]

BeAChooser

27th July 2008, 06:53 PM

There's already a very lengthy thread on Ron Brown, where your conspiracy theories were thoroughly dismantled by people much more knowledgeable than yourself about military aviation and crash responses.

Actually, Kevin, those threads show that those you claim dismantled the allegations actually knew very little about Air Force regulations or the facts in the Brown case. In them, they basically just regurgitated (or should I say chanted) the "official" position from an Air Force report that curiously failed to even mention that pathologists in the case had noted the wound's bullet like appearance and called for an autopsy at the time (which didn't happen on orders from the Whitehouse and JCS, by the way). That report also neglected to mention a number of other significant incriminating facts which I listed and sourced in those threads. None of which your debunkers ever addressed. They just ignored them (like you are now trying to do, Kevin). Or they wanted to pretend like *they* were experts in forensic pathology or aircraft crashes. Which I demonstrated wasn't true. For those who'd like to confirm this, here are the threads that Kevin refers to ... but for some reason (:)) fails to actually link you to:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87011 The first thread I discussed this topic on the forum. Will all the behaviors I noted above. :D

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90750 This one is especially good. In it, I even debate Kevin directly. You can watch Kevin (as I noted in this thread) "obfuscate, distort, mischaracterize, pretend ignorance, blatantly ignore facts and easy to understand logic, spin, and post illogical nonsense" and hope this allegation goes away. So do many of the other *debunkers*. It's good reading and very illuminating regarding Kevin, who claims to be a disinterested Australian but keeps jumping in to defend Clinton whenever he's mentioned. Like now. :D

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87840&page=3 Here, the death of Brown was debated along with some other scandals ... like Filegate. And surprise, surprise, some of the same people show up to defend the Clintons against those allegations too. :D

I maintain, Kevin, that those who bother to read the above threads will conclude your description of their content is nothing short of dishonest. I wonder why that dishonesty was necessary? :D

gtc

27th July 2008, 07:20 PM

Go post there some more if you have new evidence, and if not just link people to it instead of trying to derail every other thread into a rehash of that one.

He didn't actually bring it up in this thread.

albion

27th July 2008, 09:01 PM

The same reason we ignore the interesting facts of the Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Area 51, the Grassy Knoll, 9/11, USPS, IRS, Roswell, Fatima, the Philadelphia Experiment, Pearl Harbor, the Jews, Tri-Lateral commission, the Reptoids, Moon Hoax, Chemtrails, Alien Abductions, Red Neck Abductions (AKA "he's got purdy lips), Big Pharma, Little Petey, Thimeriasol, and Dolly Parton.

Though I ignore RNK's, I still won't go white water rafting in the South. That's just me though. I guess I'm a bit superstitious that way.

Are you trying to claim Deliverance wasn't a factually accurate documentary? :cool:

maxpower1227

27th July 2008, 10:01 PM

I maintain, Kevin, that those who bother to read the above threads will conclude your description of their content is nothing short of dishonest.

You are horribly mistaken. My previous comments to you were far too lenient.

RandFan

27th July 2008, 10:05 PM

You raise a lot of red herrings. But they have nothing to do with the facts in the Ron Brown or Vince Foster cases. I bought into the CT on both. It turns out they are as interesting as all the rest.

Such as the fact that ALL the pathologists on record (except one and I can prove he lied about the facts in the case and the opinions of the other pathologists) said the wound looked like a bullet wound and Ron Brown should have been autopsied. But then, you don't want to talk about what some of the best pathologists in the country at the time had to say. You'd rather talk about UFOs and other things I've said nothing about. You afraid of something? :D All of the CT I listed have similar facts that's why they are kept alive.

No, nothing in my list proves or disproves your CT. I'll concede that. However it's a very important point that the reason we ignore your CT is the same we ignore the rest.

RandFan

27th July 2008, 10:07 PM

Are you trying to claim Deliverance wasn't a factually accurate documentary? :cool: No. Aliens aren't the only with the anal probes.

BeAChooser

27th July 2008, 10:36 PM

All of the CT I listed have similar facts that's why they are kept alive.

What characteristics do we associate with those other CT theories?

1) They ignore any fact that proves them wrong. But I've addressed every single point made by my opponents on this topic. It has been YOUR side that has had to ignore factual points over and over.

2) They ignore or dismiss what real experts on the subject say. But I'm the one quoting the real experts in this case ... the pathologists. And they agree with me ... not you. It has been YOUR side that has been ignoring or dismissing out of hand what the real experts say.

3) They distort or lie about the facts and the statements of their opponents. But I've been very careful not to do that. It has been YOUR side (not necessarily you) in this debate that have employed those tactics.

4) They throw out red herrings and employ countless strawmen. Again, that's not a tactic I've used. That's a tactic YOUR side in this debate has employed.

Sorry, the Ron Brown allegation is nothing like those other CTs. Which is why you don't find threads where it's successfully debunked. So instead, your side has to resort to the sort of tactics you and Kevin tried here.

Kevin_Lowe

28th July 2008, 12:34 AM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87011 The first thread I discussed this topic on the forum. Will all the behaviors I noted above. :D

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90750 This one is especially good. In it, I even debate Kevin directly. You can watch Kevin (as I noted in this thread) "obfuscate, distort, mischaracterize, pretend ignorance, blatantly ignore facts and easy to understand logic, spin, and post illogical nonsense" and hope this allegation goes away. So do many of the other *debunkers*. It's good reading and very illuminating regarding Kevin, who claims to be a disinterested Australian but keeps jumping in to defend Clinton whenever he's mentioned. Like now. :D

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87840&page=3 Here, the death of Brown was debated along with some other scandals ... like Filegate. And surprise, surprise, some of the same people show up to defend the Clintons against those allegations too. :D

I maintain, Kevin, that those who bother to read the above threads will conclude your description of their content is nothing short of dishonest. I wonder why that dishonesty was necessary? :D

Quoted for posterity. I strongly encourage anyone interested in the Ron Brown matter to go to those threads, particularly the middle one, read what is posted there and come to their own conclusions.

I think most people who do this will end up sharing maxpower1227's view, that I have correctly characterised those threads and that BAC's statements about those threads are deluded, dishonest or both.

maxpower1227

28th July 2008, 04:06 AM

maxpower1227

28th July 2008, 04:10 AM

What characteristics do we associate with those other CT theories?

1) They ignore any fact that proves them wrong. But I've addressed every single point made by my opponents on this topic. It has been YOUR side that has had to ignore factual points over and over.

2) They ignore or dismiss what real experts on the subject say. But I'm the one quoting the real experts in this case ... the pathologists. And they agree with me ... not you. It has been YOUR side that has been ignoring or dismissing out of hand what the real experts say.

3) They distort or lie about the facts and the statements of their opponents. But I've been very careful not to do that. It has been YOUR side (not necessarily you) in this debate that have employed those tactics.

4) They throw out red herrings and employ countless strawmen. Again, that's not a tactic I've used. That's a tactic YOUR side in this debate has employed.

Sorry, the Ron Brown allegation is nothing like those other CTs. Which is why you don't find threads where it's successfully debunked. So instead, your side has to resort to the sort of tactics you and Kevin tried here.

Oh, I'm sure you can think of more. Here's one:

5) They fail to utilize any real sources, instead relying on places like Newsmax, World Nut Daily, and.. apparently... Rense and WhatReallyHappened. Bravo on that by the way.

moon1969

28th July 2008, 06:23 AM

LOL even Kenneth Starr said that Vince Foster killed himself. Oh yeah and Richard Mellon Scaife tried to proove that Bill Clinton killed Ron Brown and Vince Foster. So I guess Hillary Clinton was right after all there was somekind of a vast right wing conspiracy. Didn"t Rush Limbaugh allso claim that Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster and Ron Brown? LOL even Jerry Falwell made a movie called The Clinton Chronicles. Bill Clinton even pardoned Susan McDougal.

BeAChooser

28th July 2008, 08:25 AM

5) They fail to utilize any real sources, instead relying on places like Newsmax, World Nut Daily, and.. apparently... Rense and WhatReallyHappened. Bravo on that by the way.

No, max, #5 is

5) They mischaracterize the sources of the other side's data. If you'd actually looked, you'd see that my sources included direct quotes from the pathologists and photographer in the case (did you know you could actually listen to them in audio recordings of interviews they gave at the time verifying everything written in the various articles from Newsmax, etc?), Aviation Week (a quite respectable magazine) , the Pittsburgh Tribune Review (second largest paper in Pittsburgh), CNN, AIM, court documents (remember it is a crime for a lawyer to submit something to a court that is factually untrue), and various government documents.

I challenge you to prove that ANY of the material reported as fact by Newsmax and Christopher Ruddy in the Ron Brown case is false. I've made this challenge repeatedly to folks on your side who try your tactic of attacking the messenger and you know what? NOT ONCE has your side actually attempted to meet that challenge. A classic sign of CT, by the way.

Why are you still hiding from the statements of the pathologists, max? :D

BeAChooser

28th July 2008, 08:29 AM

LOL even Kenneth Starr said that Vince Foster killed himself.

Quick question. Why did Kenneth Starr publically announce that the FBI files in the Filegate matter had been returned to the FBI when it turned out years later they were still sitting in the Whitehouse (see the statement of Special Prosecutor Ray who took over Starr's job)? Have an answer?

By the way, did you actually go and look at the what Starr did in his "investigation" of the Vince Foster matter? No? Thought not. :D

Drudgewire

28th July 2008, 08:40 AM

As I remember the Vince Foster conspiracy, it was in part based around the fact he had slept with Hillary and was privvy to some pillow talk.

The flaw in that argument is I can't think of a better reason for sucking on a tailpipe than having sex with Ms. Ack-ack. :p

applecorped

28th July 2008, 10:59 AM

The same reason we ignore the interesting facts of the Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Area 51, the Grassy Knoll, 9/11, USPS, IRS, Roswell, Fatima, the Philadelphia Experiment, Pearl Harbor, the Jews, Tri-Lateral commission, the Reptoids, Moon Hoax, Chemtrails, Alien Abductions, Red Neck Abductions (AKA "he's got purdy lips), Big Pharma, Little Petey, Thimeriasol, and Dolly Parton.

Though I ignore RNK's, I still won't go white water rafting in the South. That's just me though. I guess I'm a bit superstitious that way.

Dolly Parton? Please don't tell me they are fake!!!

dudalb

28th July 2008, 11:13 AM

Dude, trust me, give this one up. I'm a moderate-conservative, but you are just an embarrassment. Anyone who honestly believes the Clinton Body Count nonsense has completely jumped the shark and serves no purpose other than to give reasonable conservatives a bad name.
Amen. I was not a huge fan of Slick Willy, (Just as I am not a huge fan of Dubya) but always thought the conspiracy theories about Foster and Brown were silly.
BeAChooser is guilty of letting his hatred of Clinton overcome his reason; the same thing that the 9/11 Truthers are guilty of vis a vis Dubya.

BeAChooser

28th July 2008, 12:24 PM

As I remember the Vince Foster conspiracy, it was in part based around the fact he had slept with Hillary and was privvy to some pillow talk.

No, that's not it. Their relationship was a lot more involved and complicated than that. He was involved in their business dealings, for one. He was deputy White House counsel. But more important, he was the Clintons' personal lawyer. In other words, he knew where the bodies (figuratively) were. :D

Ask yourself why Hillary's chief of staff, Margaret Williams, was observed by secret service removing boxes of material from Foster's office immediately after the death, before park police arrived to seal it. Ask yourself why Craig Livingstone (who curiously Hillary denied even knowing) was seen by another Secret Serviceman removing items from Foster's office after it was sealed. Ask yourself why witnesses saw Bernard Nussbaum in Foster's office after his death. Ask yourself why three witnesses say Patsy Thomason, director of the White House's Office of Administration, was looking for the combination to Vincent Foster's safe. Two envelopes reported to be in the safe by Foster's secretary Deborah Gorham, addressed to Janet Reno and to William Kennedy III, disappeared. When asked the next day regarding rumors of the safe opening, Mack McLarty, White House Chief of Staff, told reporters Foster's office did not even have a safe. That claim is proven false in the final IOC report.

You remember that briefcase that Bernard Nussbaum opened and upended in front of Park Police, showing it to be empty? Three days later, Stephen Neuwirth, Associate Counsel to the President, announced that a suicide note was discovered in that briefcase. Do you know there are witnesses who saw boxes marked "Foster" in the Clinton WhiteHouse residence later on? You heard that a document connected to Whitewater, with Hillary's fingerprints on it, magically appeared in the residence a few days after the statute of limitation on the Whitewater matter expired? Well guess what? We know that documents connected to Whitewater were in Foster's office the day he died and were removed. SOME were later turned in.

Do you start to get the picture?

Do you know who Patrick Knowlton is? If not, maybe you should find out because you see, the three judges who supervised Ken Starr, forced Starr to include a twenty page addendum to his report on Foster that was largely made up of Patrick Knowlton's testimony on the harassment he endured for suggesting there was evidence the investigators overlooked. This addendum is the first time in US history that an independent counsel had criminal activity by his own staff attached to his report. You want to learn more, you can start here:

http://www.fbicover-up.com/

And then read this from AIM:

http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-the-independent-counsels-final-report/

and this:

http://www.aim.org/publications/special_reports/2003/jul15.html

Keep in mind that the evidence presented to the court by Knowlton stands uncontradicted. The rulings against Knowlton in the matter provided NO analysis whatsoever of the evidence.

It is certainly damning that Fiske and Starr both failed to tell the three judge panel and the public about an FBI memo to the Director of the FBI written two days after the death stating that the shot was fired into Foster's mouth without leaving an exit wound, which directly contradicts Starr, Fiske and the official autopsy report (which all concluded there was an exit wound in the back of the head). Is it any wonder that the government claims the official 35 mm photos of Foster at the scene of the crime were "underexposed" and deemed useless? Only one polaroid photo of Fosters head (of his neck actually) survived from the scene of the supposed suicide during the *investigation*. All the others (taken by several different people) simply disappeared.

And when Miquel Rodriguez (you know who he is? If not, you better read the links above) got hold of the original photograph, he had the Smithsonian institution blow it up. The blowups show a dime-sized wound on the right side of Foster’s neck about half way between the chin and the ear. A wound never mentioned by Fiske or Starr or in the official autopsy report.

Then there is the matter of the x-rays. You see, a Supplemental Criminal Incident Record of the U.S. Park Police states "Dr. Beyer stated that X-rays indicated there was no evidence of bullet fragments in the head." Dr. Beyer was the Deputy Virginia Medical Examiner. The X-ray box on the autopsy report was checked "yes." But, curiously, in testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, Dr. Beyer said that he had been planning to take X-rays but never did. Claimed the equipment was broken and had been for weeks. Asked whether Robert Fiske had ever talked to him he said "no". Asked whether Fiske had sent investigators to the hospital, or to the company that services the X-ray machine", he said "Not that I am aware of."

The original report by Dr. Donald Haut, the only doctor to visit the crime scene, lists the cause of death as a "self-inflicted gunshot wound mouth to neck." Yet according to the official report, Foster blew a 1 by 1 ¼ inch hole in the upper part of his skull. "There is no other trauma identified that would suggest a circumstance other than suicide," concluded Fiske’s panel of pathologists. Dr. Haut’s report was not included in the documents released by the government. It was discovered in June 1997 at the National Archives by Patrick Knowlton.

Four of the rescue workers testified in secret before the Whitewater grand jury that they saw trauma to the side of Foster’s head or neck. This information was submitted to Kenneth Starr in a memorandum from Miquel Rodriguez summing up the proceedings of the Whitewater grand jury. Keep that in mind as your read in the above links what Rodriguez says about this case being a cover up.

Now you'd think if there was a 1 by 1 ¼ inch hole in the back of Fosters head there would have been brain matter and blood all over the scene. But Corey Ashford, the Emergency Medical Services technician, who had to pick up and move the body didn't observe any. He said he didn't get a drop of blood on his white uniform, or on his gloves. He said there was no blood on the ground underneath the body. Roger Harrison, who helped Cory, didn’t see any blood either. No blood on the ground. No blood on the body. No blood on anybody who had touched it. Corey Ashford didn't see an exit wound. Or Richard Arthur. Or Sgt Gonzalez. In fact, NONE of the paramedics who where there report seeing the 1 by 1 ¼ inch hole claimed by Fiske and Starr to be in the back of Foster’s skull. Nor did they found any bone fragments on the ground near the body.

At the FairFax County Morgue, the doctor on duty was Julian Orenstein. In his FBI statement it says he lifted the body in order "to locate and observe the exit wound on the decedent's head." Notice that it doesn't actually say he saw the exit wound ... but you might think he did reading that. But he didn't. Contacted later, he admitted "I never saw one directly." And a copy of the handwritten notes of the FBI interviews, which Christopher Ruddy obtained via a FOIA lawsuit against the Office of the Independent Counsel does not mention Orenstein trying to locate an exit wound. Apparently, that was added to his statement after the fact.

And what about the official autopsy photos? Given all of the above, and all the rest that Knowlton documents at his website, you'd think the government would want them released to stop all these allegations of foul play that are circulating. Clear autopsy photos showing only a wound where the official report claims is a wound would likely do that. But in a recent FOIA ruling, the court has refused to release them to the public. They say the privacy rights of the Foster family outweigh the public's interest in seeing them. Do you know that was the first time that the Supreme Court has ruled that a public figure's privacy rights under the FOIA can be extended after his death to members of his family? Do you know that the US government joined with the Foster family to prevent the release? It seems, they'd rather have these allegations floating about, discrediting the whole government, then clear the matter up by simply releasing four photos? Go figure. :D

Oh there are plenty of reasons to suspect foul play in this case. I just listed but a few of them above. Just read the Knowlton website. There are literally hundreds of inconsistencies and incriminating facts that the so-called *debunkers* don't want to touch. Just like in the Ron Brown case. :D

BeAChooser

28th July 2008, 12:35 PM

I was not a huge fan of Slick Willy

It's remarkable how many of those who make your claim show up to defend the Clintons against accusations of impropriety while attacking Republicans day in and day out. :D

but always thought the conspiracy theories about Foster and Brown were silly.

Thinking that and proving that are two different things. One takes some effort which you clearly haven't even been willing to expend. :D

BeAChooser is guilty of letting his hatred of Clinton overcome his reason

No, I'd say the cases I've made in the Ron Brown and Foster instances ... or in FileGate, RapeGate, Chinagate, and Campaign Finance gate ... are quite reasoned. Which is why, unlike you, I'm able to and willing to supply sources to back up everything I suggest. Go ahead, dubalb, prove that Hillary didn't know Craig Livingstone, like she claimed:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/20000327_xnjdo_new_photos5.jpg

:D

Drudgewire

28th July 2008, 03:55 PM

:words:

:words:

:words:

And what about the official autopsy photos? Given all of the above, and all the rest that Knowlton documents at his website, you'd think the government would want them released to stop all these allegations of foul play that are circulating.

:words:

CTers vastly overestimate how much people in the real world care about these silly theories because they vastly underestimate how irrelevant they are to everyone else. I'm sure government will release the autopsy photos right after that new investigation into 9/11 to "answer all those questions the American people have." :p

beachnut

28th July 2008, 04:31 PM

Ron Brown was killed with a friend of mine in an Accident. To say otherwise, that it was not an accident, is pure ignorance. I can say this because I am trained in aircraft accident investigation and understand how the accident happen, from well before the flight to impacting the mountain. All the lies about it are not even plausible to rational people after you study all the lies. If there was something to it I would have a Pulitzer Prize to redeem my friend who flew the Jet and died, and the many supervisors fired for contributing to the accident would not of been FIRED! So sad to see people fall for lies. I was

If you actually study Ron Brown's and the Pilot I had flown with deaths, the only CT was exposed by the use of unsafe approach plates, one of the causes of the ACCIDENT. To make up pure lies about Ron Brown's death, is pure political bias, and thus fiction and in the wrong sub forum.

Sad that someone can see the idiots ideas of 9/11 truth makes up the same kind of ideas about Ron Brown's death. For me to figure out the accident is easy and I see most of the claims about CT are false. Why can I see it, not because I am superior, I was trained to have investigate aircraft accidents for the USAF. Being formally trained puts me ahead of pure bs spewed by Ron Brown CTers. The false claims of bullets in the head are made by crackpots and were not supported by further study. So, either you think Rob Brown's death is a CT, and support crackpot ideas, or you go with the facts and can figure out the accidents root cause, much more interesting and as intriguing in a technical way than the idiot CT ideas. I mean it was like a Payton Place for Colonels and Generals making up rules and ignoring flight rules and regulations. Not that I think regulations are great, but some things can not be waived and one of them is a mountain against an airplane. To learn why the accident happen takes time, most CTers opt out for the easy hearsay lies of bullets and junk ideas from people who have cherry picked their evidence to support what becomes a nut case conclusion. Why waste time with facts and learning what happen, when you know based on lies. The lazy way is the easiest.

Anyone who has enough time can figure out Ron Brown's accident and will find it comes down to a simple piece of paper, about half the size of notebook paper! Pathetic are those who blindly believe others without evidence.

Allen773

28th July 2008, 04:46 PM

Dubbi

28th July 2008, 04:51 PM

Actually, Kevin, those threads show that those you claim dismantled the allegations actually knew very little about Air Force regulations or the facts in the Brown case. In them, they basically just regurgitated (or should I say chanted) the "official" position from an Air Force report that curiously failed to even mention that pathologists in the case had noted the wound's bullet like appearance and called for an autopsy at the time (which didn't happen on orders from the Whitehouse and JCS, by the way). That report also neglected to mention a number of other significant incriminating facts which I listed and sourced in those threads. None of which your debunkers ever addressed. They just ignored them (like you are now trying to do, Kevin). Or they wanted to pretend like *they* were experts in forensic pathology or aircraft crashes. Which I demonstrated wasn't true. For those who'd like to confirm this, here are the threads that Kevin refers to ... but for some reason (:)) fails to actually link you to:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87011 The first thread I discussed this topic on the forum. Will all the behaviors I noted above. :D

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90750 This one is especially good. In it, I even debate Kevin directly. You can watch Kevin (as I noted in this thread) "obfuscate, distort, mischaracterize, pretend ignorance, blatantly ignore facts and easy to understand logic, spin, and post illogical nonsense" and hope this allegation goes away. So do many of the other *debunkers*. It's good reading and very illuminating regarding Kevin, who claims to be a disinterested Australian but keeps jumping in to defend Clinton whenever he's mentioned. Like now. :D

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87840&page=3 Here, the death of Brown was debated along with some other scandals ... like Filegate. And surprise, surprise, some of the same people show up to defend the Clintons against those allegations too. :D

I maintain, Kevin, that those who bother to read the above threads will conclude your description of their content is nothing short of dishonest. I wonder why that dishonesty was necessary? :D

You remind me of someone.

BeAChooser

28th July 2008, 05:03 PM

CTers vastly overestimate how much people in the real world care about these silly theories because they vastly underestimate how irrelevant they are to everyone else.

Well apparently whatever I said was relevant enough to involve you in this thread. Note that I didn't call you here or make you post on this thread. You did that yourself and you had to go out of your way to do it. And not just post once, but now twice. Why I bet you're next going to tell us you weren't a fan of Bill Clinton either. :rolleyes:

Now there are a zillions things we could talk about in the Foster case (since that seems to be the one that peaked your interest). Let's just focus on one for now. The suicide note. The one that first wasn't in the briefcase and a few days later was. ;)

The government refused to release photocopies of the reconstructed note and fought efforts by The Wall Street Journal to obtain a copy under the Freedom of Information Act. Eventually a copy was leaked to the WSJ, however. Three noted and independent handwriting experts then looked at the published note. All were board certified and all three declared the note an obvious forgery.

And here's another twist. Reed Irvine (of AIM) met with Sergeant Larry Lockhart, the U.S. Capitol Police handwriting expert who the government said concluded that the note was written by Foster. He showed Lockhart a sheet of paper with 12 words that were found in both the Foster letter that had been used to authenticate the note and the note itself. They had been copied and enlarged. Lockhart was told that these words came from two documents, neither of which was identified. He was asked if, in his professional opinion, all 12 words had been written by the same person. Lockhart conclude "very possibly" and "probably" they were not. He pointed out indications of conscious efforts to imitate Foster's handwriting by the person who wrote the note. At that point he didn't know that he was reversing the opinion he gave the Park Police. When he was told that, he acknowledged that he had not used any enlargements for his 1993 analysis.

Now, for your edification, the note was undated and unsigned. It said nothing whatever about suicide or farewells to family and friends. Curiously, the beginning and the end of the note are written in first person but the middle part is written in third person (and, curiously, exonerates the Clintons of all sorts of allegations). Finally, note that FBI failed to find Foster's fingerprints on the note. That in itself is very curious. Oh yes, the note was torn into pieces ... which the three experts said is a red flag.

And just incase you supported Hillary in the primaries ... there is this: the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee concluded that Hillary was one of the first persons to see the alleged suicide note and that it was her instructions that Bill Clinton NOT be informed of its existence and that the note NOT be turned over to law enforcement. And it wasn't until about 28 hours later (4 hours after Bill learned about the note anyway). These facts are documented in the OIC report. Now a number of Clinton staffers swore under oath that the first lady had no role whatsoever in the handling of Foster's note. Yet a memo was discovered, written by White House lawyer Miriam Nemetz, who quotes then-White House chief of staff Mack McLarty saying Mrs. Clinton "was very upset and believed the matter required further thought and the president should not yet be told". I think those staffers should have been charged with perjury, don't you?

You go on being uninterested about "silly theories", Drudgewire. Since you obviously have nothing substantive to offer this debate. :D

Drudgewire

28th July 2008, 05:17 PM

You go on being uninterested about "silly theories", Drudgewire. Since you obviously have nothing substantive to offer this debate. :D

I didn't say I was uninterested. I'm a reformed CTer, believe me I spent many a day telling folks Vince was murdered by the evil Clintons.

But regardless of which side of the issue I was on, you missed my point. NOBODY ELSE DOES. It's a fact of life, and when you bury yourself in these CTs it gets harder to see how little anyone else cares. Been there, done that, grew up, and started questioning those who were just questioning the official stories. It's when you reach that level of objectivity that you begin to watch them fall apart... and very few of them present a more shining example of this than Vince Foster and Ron Brown.

Have you ever looked for the explanations of these "suspicious facts?" No, because you went in with a confirmation bias (and I can't stand the Clintons. If there's an anti-Christ, I'd lay even money on it being Hills) and any explanations which were good enough for investigators get dismissed as part of the cover up to you.

I'll become interested in a good CT again when someone presents NEW information that makes people outside of their own paranoid community stand up and take notice, and when that somebody didn't already have an agenda the CT conveniently fit into before falling hook, line and sinker for it.

I'm not holding my breath. :rolleyes:

Megalodon

28th July 2008, 05:43 PM

I'd seriously LOVE to have been a fly on the wall during the planning meetings for this particular hit :rolleyes:. What is it with these conspirators choosing unnecessarily complicated means to achieve their goals? It reminds me of the people who believe that the gubmint blew up the Murrah Building in OKC by planing explosives INSIDE the building, when they wanted to create the illusion that it was an ANFO bomb in a truck outside the building. Apparently it would have been too easy to ACTUALLY detonate an ANFO bomb in a truck outside the building to create the desired illusion.

Main MIB: Gentlemen, we will now clear the final details of the target removal. Agent 1, you will disable the beacon...

Agent 1: Check.

Main MIB: Agent 2, you will place the decoy beacon in the mountainside, to insure the crash of the plane...

Agent 2: Check.

Main MIB: Angent 3, you will infiltrate the plane and shoot the target on the head and exit the plane before the crash...

Agent 3:..... Say what?!?

BeAChooser

28th July 2008, 06:11 PM

Ron Brown was killed with a friend of mine in an Accident. To say otherwise, that it was not an accident, is pure ignorance. I can say this because I am trained in aircraft accident investigation and understand how the accident happen

Yeah, yeah, beachnut. We've all heard you claim the pilot was a friend and we've all heard you call me ignorant. We've all heard you call anyone who posts anything that doesn't agree with your version of what happened a liar. And we've all heard you claim you're an expert on crashes. Anyone who wants to see you do that need only go read the first two threads I linked earlier, especially the second where you regurgitate the official story without even telling folks your source (I had to do that). And if they read post #90 of that thread, they'll find my reasoned response to what you claimed ... which I still stand by.

One of my comments was that your source (Flight Safety Digest) was written long before it became known that pathologists at the examination of Brown's body voiced concerns about gunshot and called for an autopsy. It was written before the photo of the wound and the first set of x-rays (presuming there was indeed a second set as claimed by the government) were posted on the internet ... x-rays and photos that showed the pathologist who examined Brown's body, Gormley, lied when he said there was nothing unusual about the x-rays and there was only bone visible in the wound.

Like I asked in that thread, beachnut ... would you mind sharing with us whether when those aspects of the crash came to light, Flight Safety Digest (or whatever your source for what you posted was) told its readers anything about them? If not, why didn't they? It seems to me that allegations by military pathologists of a bullet in the head of a passenger of a military plane would be relevant to a discussion of "flight safety" on CT-43A.

And I'm curious, beachnut. Would you mind telling us why your source claimed that "they found all the passengers except one died of blunt force injuries. One died of thermal inhalation injuries. They found out the cause of death with an autopsy. Autopsy performed by the US Armed Forces Institute of Pathology." You see, that's false. There is one very important passenger whose cause of death was NOT determined by an autopsy ... it turns out on orders from the Whitehouse and JCS, according to the pathologist who did the external "examination" of Ron Brown. And if FSD didn't know that, it can only be because the report they based their article on forget to mention that or because it falsely claimed everyone was autopsied. So which was it, beachnut? How curious that the only person who by law on that flight had to have an autopsy is the one person who did not get one. :D

And why didn't your source mention that the SIB was skipped? That should have been known to them at the time the article was written. Skipped for the first time in Air Force history (except for a clear cut case where friendly fire was the cause). Why wouldn't they tell their readers that, beachnut? Now when I asked you this, you declared the SIB is the same stuff as the AIB. Then why did the Air Force even bother with SIBs, beachnut? In fact, if our readers go check out post #90 of the second link, they'll find you didn't even know that Part I of the SIB is releasable. Strange ... for someone claiming to be an expert in crash investigations. :D

My questions for you remains the same as before. If you REALLY were a friend of the pilot of that plane as you claim, one would think you wouldn't be content to let his name and reputation be smeared, when he might not have been responsible. You never did tell us what the family felt about being lied to in the AIB report and in the letter the acting Secretary of the Air Force sent them. Remember that letter and the lies it contained? If they knew there was a chance their loved one didn't make a mistake but was murdered, don't you think they'd like that question resolved ... even now? Isn't it curious that a document the Air Force gave the Brown family members (and your pilot's family, by the way) AND THEIR LAWYERS left out such crucial facts as the concerns of the pathologists that day about a possible bullet wound and the original x-rays of Brown's head? And if you really care about the military like you claim, why would you let the military pathologists and photographer in this case be punished ... just because they asked good questions?

So you go ahead and stick to the official story, beachnut. Keep repeating it all you want. Because each time it serves as a good example of how similar your side's response to this allegation is to that of 911 Twoofers. You obfuscate, distort, ignore, demean, lie and throw out adhominems attacking the intelligence of the other side. All while actually losing the debate. And by the way, I distinctly remember you claiming "I will not talk about Brown any more." Guess you couldn't help yourself. :rolleyes:

BeAChooser

28th July 2008, 06:16 PM

Why do we even bother giving this guy the time of day? He still thinks that Saddam Hussein had a role to play in 9/11 and still buys the Bush Administration's propaganda about Saddam's WMD capability (or lack of, really).

Allen, I don't recall you offering any actual debate on those topics. You just a cheerleader for those who do? And should I remind you of rule 11 (see the second post of this thread)? If you want to participate on this thread perhaps you could offer something substantive about the Ron Brown or Vince Foster cases? If you can't, then why are you here? Because you are a Democrat? ;)

BeAChooser

28th July 2008, 06:17 PM

You remind me of someone.

Well don't keep us in suspense. If you have an accusation to make, make it. But be sure you can back it up. :D

Undesired Walrus

28th July 2008, 06:22 PM

BeAChooser, when are you planning on contacting the authorities in order to report this outrageous crime?

Megalodon

28th July 2008, 06:22 PM

BaC:

The only problem with your theory is that it requires either:

-an operational (let's call him flying ninja) doing the hit on the plane, despite the fact that they were all going to die in the crash, and exiting it in-flight at low altitude (which would be pretty much impossible);

-an operational arriving first to the crash-site, finding the target alive (among the cadavers of the rest of the people on board) and shooting him (as opposite to e.g. bashing his head in with anything heavy found in the crash) .

Both are equally ridiculous, and allow everybody to laugh at you, which is exactly what's happening...

BeAChooser

28th July 2008, 06:47 PM

I'm a reformed CTer, believe me I spent many a day telling folks Vince was murdered by the evil Clintons.

Did you now.

But regardless of which side of the issue I was on, you missed my point. NOBODY ELSE DOES.

Actually, that's where you are wrong. The problem is that most people are simply unaware of the facts. They don't know the facts in the Ron Brown case. They still think bad weather was the reason Brown died and they are completely ignorant of the testimony of the military pathologists and photographer or what the x-rays shows. They've never heard of Knowlton. Because people like you let those who wish those facts to go away control the debate on forums and what we read in the media.

I say we mustn't let that happen. We must remind people when the opportunities arise that what they heard was not the real story. It wasn't just about an "affair" with an intern. When you get people one on one and show them what we learned about these particular "conspiracies", it's not unusual for them to say "gee, I never knew". And then maybe next time they'll be a little more skeptical of those liberal mainstream sources.

Been there, done that, grew up, and started questioning those who were just questioning the official stories. It's when you reach that level of objectivity

Actually, you haven't done that here. You've tried to attack the messenger, not the facts behind the message. And I wouldn't call what you do "objectivity". :D

that you begin to watch them fall apart... and very few of them present a more shining example of this than Vince Foster and Ron Brown.

Does it really look to you like I or the cases I'm making for Foster and Brown are falling apart. :D

Have you ever looked for the explanations of these "suspicious facts?" No, because you went in with a confirmation bias

Clearly you haven't even bothered to read the three threads I linked regarding Ron Brown. I've challenged the other side over and over to show any of what I've posted is false. And the response has been silence.

I can't stand the Clintons.

It's fascinating how often I hear that from people defending the Clintons against the accusations of FileGate, Chinagate, RapeGate, Campaign Finance Gate, and the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Brown and Foster. If I were skeptical, I might think ...

I'll become interested in a good CT again when someone presents NEW information that makes people outside of their own paranoid community stand up and take notice

Like an autopsy of Ron Brown's body? That's all I've been asking for. But strange thing is, your side of this debate doesn't want that to happen. They appear all the time when this topic is raised to dismiss it. Just like you're now trying to do. But I think in these two cases there is already more than enough information to convince anyone who has a logical, unbiased mind that there was foul play and that the investigations were a sham. If that doesn't satisfy you, I suspect nothing would ... and that makes me wonder.

Do you remember what Shippers and the House Managers were told during the Clinton impeachment trial? Schippers quoted Senator Ted Stevens saying "Henry (BAC - speaking to Henry Hyde of the House Managers), I don't care if you prove he raped a woman and then stood up and shot her dead---you're not going to get 67 votes?" After Stevens made that comment, Shippers said, "I just watched one hundred Senators raise their right hand to God and swear to do equal and impartial justice. I'm only a Democrat from Chicago, but are you telling me that the Senators are going to ignore that oath also?" Stevens' response: "You're damn right they are." Are you really content to let them get away with that, Drudgewire?

BeAChooser

28th July 2008, 06:55 PM

BeAChooser, when are you planning on contacting the authorities in order to report this outrageous crime?

Do you honestly think the authorities don't know all the facts I've noted? That should give you some cause for concern. But maybe your party affiliation is getting in the way. :D

By the way, do you know that James Riady (who had close ties to Ron Brown) stood up in a California courtroom and told a judge under a plea agreement that required he be honest and forthcoming that contrary to what Bill Clinton and the DNC had publically claimed, he never got any of the millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions back from them. The judge asked the prosecutor if that was true and the prosecutor told the judge "yes, to the best of our knowledge". And the Bush administration let Riady, Clinton and the DNC walk. That should concern anyone, regardless of party affiliation. :D

Drudgewire

28th July 2008, 07:02 PM

It's fascinating how often I hear that from people defending the Clintons against the accusations of FileGate, Chinagate, RapeGate, Campaign Finance Gate, and the circumstances surrounding the deaths of Brown and Foster. If I were skeptical, I might think ...

If you were skeptical you'd try to take your politics out of the equation and look for evidence instead of looking for evidence that supports your politics.

You're nothing of the sort, and that's the exact opposite of being open-minded. Skepticism is how most liberals who would love to see Bush impeached for lying about Iraq and the rest of his laundry list still manage to not believe the 9/11 horse:rule10. It's how most conservatives who hate Clinton for selling us out to China and the rest of his laundry list manage to not believe the body count horse:rule10.

Your last paragraph about the rape quote is quite telling. It couldn't possibly have less to do with the issue at hand, but to you it's evidence simply by virtue of "politicians are scumbags." Just because someone is capable of murder doesn't mean there are thousands of bodies in their basement. It still requires actually committing the crime. And as many have pointed out, it would be among the most stupid crimes in history.

Read my signature. It's what you're guilty of. So much of your stuff comes from suspect sources (worldnetdaily for instance) and so much more is bad information that has been passed around the CT universe for so long it's accepted as true by virtue of hearing it a lot. I hold out hope one day you'll grasp the notion of critical thinking as I did. It's not always as much fun as being paranoid, but in the end it's a lot more fulfilling.

BeAChooser

28th July 2008, 07:18 PM

The only problem with your theory is that it requires either:

There you go, putting the cart before the horse. Most law enforcement experts will tell you to first find out if a murder was committed. If expert pathologists are telling you that based on what x-rays and their visual examination show, there may be a bullet in the victim's head, you ask for an autopsy. You do this regardless of how difficult you might think it would have been to shoot that victim.

-an operational (let's call him flying ninja) doing the hit on the plane, despite the fact that they were all going to die in the crash, and exiting it in-flight at low altitude (which would be pretty much impossible);

And you presume a lot of assumptions as fact in your "scenario". Who says the hit had to be done on the plane? Who says that even if someone was on the plane they couldn't have escaped it. They lost contact with the plane when it was still 8 miles from the crash site. At altitude. That's what Aviation Week stated. Do you know that the rear door of the craft was found open when the first rescuers arrived? You can't even reliably tell us how many people were on the plane. They didn't find the passenger list.

You can't even reliably tell us how many of the passengers survived for any length of time after the crash. Judicial Watch found a confidential timeline in Warren Christopher's files (you know, one of the first men to show up in Florida in 2000 to contest the election for Al Gore) that was put together by Ira Sockowitz (who was supposed to have been on the plane but coincidentally missed it and who just happens to have connections to Chinagate), that says there were TWO survivors of the crash ... not just one like the government announced? Who was the second survivor, Megalodon?

-an operational arriving first to the crash-site, finding the target alive (among the cadavers of the rest of the people on board) and shooting him (as opposite to e.g. bashing his head in with anything heavy found in the crash)

As to the theory of an operative arriving at the site and finishing Brown off, keep in mind that if the bad guys spoofed the plane into hitting a mountain (as Aviation Week stated was a possibility given the missing beacon and the flight path), the bad guys would known where the plane was coming down. And the Air Force initially searched in an entirely wrong location ... over the Adriatic. The orders to do that seem a little suspicious, if you bother to look into the matter. Hours elapsed before the first official rescuers got to the crash site. Plenty of time for someone who was waiting to go in and make sure. And when the first rescuers supposedly did arrive, the AP reported they were met by some Americans. What a coincidence.

In any case, why are you so frantic to jump to the conclusion it was an accident when the pathologists are telling you it looked like a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied. Nervous? :D

gnome

28th July 2008, 07:20 PM

Do you honestly think the authorities don't know all the facts I've noted? That should give you some cause for concern. But maybe your party affiliation is getting in the way. :D

By the way, do you know that James Riady (who had close ties to Ron Brown) stood up in a California courtroom and told a judge under a plea agreement that required he be honest and forthcoming that contrary to what Bill Clinton and the DNC had publically claimed, he never got any of the millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions back from them. The judge asked the prosecutor if that was true and the prosecutor told the judge "yes, to the best of our knowledge". And the Bush administration let Riady, Clinton and the DNC walk. That should concern anyone, regardless of party affiliation. :D

I'm sensing a contradiction here...

You've accused anyone who disagrees with you of being a shill for the Clintons, and when some of them point out that they're conservatives and severely dislike Clinton, you cast doubt on their honesty. Yet, you claim that people who are confirmed political opponents of Clinton, who would find it a political bonanza to prove he committed murder at least twice... aren't interested either. Why do you suppose that is?

SezMe

28th July 2008, 07:23 PM

BAC, you and McCain have one characteristic in common. You drop in that big green smile at the most inappropriate places. I can't figure out why - in your case, I mean. Why do you do that?

Yeah, yeah, it's a derail. But it's not worth a whole new thread and when you give a clear, concise answer, I'll drop it.

Drysdale

28th July 2008, 07:34 PM

If you were skeptical you'd try to take your politics out of the equation and look for evidence instead of looking for evidence that supports your politics.

You're nothing of the sort, and that's the exact opposite of being open-minded. Skepticism is how most liberals who would love to see Bush impeached for lying about Iraq and the rest of his laundry list still manage to not believe the 9/11 horse:rule10. It's how most conservatives who hate Clinton for selling us out to China and the rest of his laundry list manage to not believe the body count horse:rule10.

Your last paragraph about the rape quote is quite telling. It couldn't possibly have less to do with the issue at hand, but to you it's evidence simply by virtue of "politicians are scumbags." Just because someone is capable of murder doesn't mean there are thousands of bodies in their basement. It still requires actually committing the crime. And as many have pointed out, it would be among the most stupid crimes in history.

Read my signature. It's what you're guilty of. So much of your stuff comes from suspect sources (worldnetdaily for instance) and so much more is bad information that has been passed around the CT universe for so long it's accepted as true by virtue of hearing it a lot. I hold out hope one day you'll grasp the notion of critical thinking as I did. It's not always as much fun as being paranoid, but in the end it's a lot more fulfilling.

Why does'nt someone just refute the accusations?

I see a lot of handwaving here saying BAC is full of it etc but not one specific claim debunked.

Why not?

Hokulele

28th July 2008, 07:36 PM

Why does'nt someone just refute the accusations?

I see a lot of handwaving here saying BAC is full of it etc but not one specific claim debunked.

Why not?

Because it was done to death in the three threads linked by BAC here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3895666#post3895666

BeAChooser

28th July 2008, 07:46 PM

If you were skeptical you'd try to take your politics out of the equation

How do you know I haven't? Do you know that I got thrown off FreeRepublic because I wouldn't let this drop after Bush was elected? I kept asking why Bush wasn't investigating and prosecuting these many crimes. You don't know me at all.

and look for evidence instead of looking for evidence that supports your politics.

You are quite obviously avoiding any actual discussion of the "evidence". If you wanted to do that, you could go to one of those 3 threads I mentioned and comment on that which I offered. Or counter what I posted about the Foster case here. You don't. Maybe because the evidence doesn't support YOUR politics?

The fact is, I have presented evidence ... a mountain of it ... from many credible sources ... including the forensic pathologists and eyewitnesses to both events. Your side is the one that has NOT presented any evidence ... just a regurgitation of the official story that the Clinton adminstration put out and which my evidence easily demonstrates is full of inconsistencies and outright lies.

Your last paragraph about the rape quote is quite telling. It couldn't possibly have less to do with the issue at hand, but to you it's evidence simply by virtue of "politicians are scumbags."

Let me ask you, regardless of whether it has anything to do with the issue at hand (and it does because you'll find that most of those people who dismiss the Brown and Foster allegations also dismiss the rape allegations out of hand), do you believe, based on the evidence, that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted and in some cases even raped a large number of women? Hmmmm?

Just because someone is capable of murder doesn't mean there are thousands of bodies in their basement.

Nice strawman. I haven't claimed there are thousands of bodies nor claimed that I think Brown or Foster were murdered just because Clinton was perhaps capable of it. In fact, all I've actually claimed is that the Clinton administration, and now the Bush administration, may have covered up two murders. I didn't say who actually committed them. Just that the Clintons certainly appeared to have motive in both cases for wanting it done.

Read my signature. It's what you're guilty of. So much of your stuff comes from suspect sources (worldnetdaily for instance)

You are absolutely wrong. You didn't even bother to check out the veracity of ANYTHING I've posted. You are attacking the messenger, not the message. Not the facts.

And so much more is bad information

Who says? YOU? NONE of you have proven any of it is bad information. I'll make the same challenge to you that I've made to all the others. Prove that anything I've posted regarding the Brown or Foster deaths is false. Prove that Christopher Ruddy is wrong about anything he stated as fact. Did you ever bother to listen to the various interviews that the pathologists (like Cogswell) and the photographer gave on radio shows ... like Larry Elders? I rather doubt it. They verified everything that Ruddy's articles claimed they'd said ... every fact that he claimed about the examination of Brown's body. Or are you so CT you think they manufactured those recordings ... faking the pathologist's and photographer's voices? If you search around, you may even still find some of those audio recordings. But I bet you won't bother to do that because you already think you know the truth. :rolleyes:

And of course you were a Clinton critic. :D

Drudgewire

28th July 2008, 07:53 PM

Because it was done to death in the three threads linked by BAC here.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3895666#post3895666

Exactly. Done here, I'm off to spank it to a picture of Chelsea. :rolleyes:

BeAChooser

28th July 2008, 07:57 PM

Yet, you claim that people who are confirmed political opponents of Clinton, who would find it a political bonanza to prove he committed murder at least twice... aren't interested either.

You mean like Bush? You really should go back to FreeRepublic and listen to the reasons the biggest Bush supporters gave for moving on where the allegations of crimes involving the Clintons were concerned ... once Bush got elected. And as to why they didn't before that? Do you think there are no skeletons in the Republican house? What do you think Filegate was all about? What do you think Stephanopolis was talking about when he mentioned "mutual assured destruction"? Whose side do you think the media was on at the time? Hmmmmm? :D

BeAChooser

28th July 2008, 08:01 PM

Why does'nt someone just refute the accusations?

Yes, why doesn't someone?

Drysdale, visit those three threads I linked and tell us if you REALLY think they refuted the accusations like they claim. If so, post a few examples of where they did here and we'll see if you can defend that claim. If not, I welcome your support. :D

BeAChooser

28th July 2008, 08:03 PM

Exactly. Done here, I'm off to spank it to a picture of Chelsea.

Bye bye. Clinton critic. :rolleyes:

gnome

28th July 2008, 08:07 PM

You mean like Bush? You really should go back to FreeRepublic and listen to the reasons the biggest Bush supporters gave for moving on where the allegations of crimes involving the Clintons were concerned ... once Bush got elected. And as to why they didn't before that? Do you think there are no skeletons in the Republican house? What do you think Filegate was all about? What do you think Stephanopolis was talking about when he mentioned "mutual assured destruction"? Whose side do you think the media was on at the time? Hmmmmm? :D

If you believe the Clintons had so much power that even the most powerful Republicans were afraid to drop an anvil on them, how in the world did Hillary lose the nomination to a junior senator?

Allen773

28th July 2008, 08:22 PM

Allen, I don't recall you offering any actual debate on those topics. You just a cheerleader for those who do? And should I remind you of rule 11 (see the second post of this thread)? If you want to participate on this thread perhaps you could offer something substantive about the Ron Brown or Vince Foster cases? If you can't, then why are you here? Because you are a Democrat? ;)
I don't offer something substantive because it'd go right over your head. If you're not listening to the arguments others have offered (which you haven't been), why would you listen to my arguments which would utilize the same evidence? It's redundant and pointless.

And not offering debate is better than offering ********, which appears to be your hobby. Take care now.

Megalodon

28th July 2008, 09:08 PM

And you presume a lot of assumptions as fact in your "scenario". Who says the hit had to be done on the plane?

What? The CT of the day is that the hit was done elsewhere and the body dumped in the crash-site? Are you out of your mind? Can't you fetch that a bit farther?

Who says that even if someone was on the plane they couldn't have escaped it. They lost contact with the plane when it was still 8 miles from the crash site. At altitude.

Well, the fact that it was a military plane full of people, who probably would have made a big fuss when someone got shot in the head in front of them.

That's what Aviation Week stated. Do you know that the rear door of the craft was found open when the first rescuers arrived?

Yes, because crashing is so becoming to the structural integrity of a airplane.

You can't even reliably tell us how many of the passengers survived for any length of time after the crash. Judicial Watch found a confidential timeline in Warren Christopher's files (you know, one of the first men to show up in Florida in 2000 to contest the election for Al Gore) that was put together by Ira Sockowitz (who was supposed to have been on the plane but coincidentally missed it and who just happens to have connections to Chinagate), that says there were TWO survivors of the crash ... not just one like the government announced? Who was the second survivor, Megalodon?

What second survivor? You claim there was one, you find out who this mysterious survivor is.

As to the theory of an operative arriving at the site and finishing Brown off, keep in mind that if the bad guys spoofed the plane into hitting a mountain (as Aviation Week stated was a possibility given the missing beacon and the flight path), the bad guys would known where the plane was coming down.

Possible is different from probable.

And the Air Force initially searched in an entirely wrong location ... over the Adriatic. The orders to do that seem a little suspicious, if you bother to look into the matter. Hours elapsed before the first official rescuers got to the crash site. Plenty of time for someone who was waiting to go in and make sure. And when the first rescuers supposedly did arrive, the AP reported they were met by some Americans. What a coincidence.

The AP reported? Great... And those americans (presumably assassins) just entered the crashed plane, found their victim, and instead of crushing his skull, or stabbing him with a piece of debris shot him in the head...

In any case, why are you so frantic to jump to the conclusion it was an accident when the pathologists are telling you it looked like a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied. Nervous? :D

Frantic? Nervous? You are a loony...

And guess what... It wouldn't have mattered. Someone who claims that their government crashed a plane, killing several people, and used several different operatives to confirm the hit of one single target wouldn't let something like an autopsy report get in their way. As soon as it came out that it was an accident, there would be even more cries of cover-up. More men in black and flying ninjas doing crimes after crimes... Your imagination is the limit - literally!

And they would have got away with it to, if it weren't for those pesky kids and their interwebs...

BeAChooser

28th July 2008, 09:25 PM

If you believe the Clintons had so much power that even the most powerful Republicans were afraid to drop an anvil on them, how in the world did Hillary lose the nomination to a junior senator?

Perhaps being such a newcomer (and a Democrat at that), they never got a chance to look in his FBI file? And you and I both know the Clinton's lost the support of the media. But that happened only recently. :D

BeAChooser

28th July 2008, 09:29 PM

I don't offer something substantive because it'd go right over your head.

Yeah. Sure it would, Democrat.

If you're not listening to the arguments others have offered (which you haven't been)

That's a lie. Anyone reading this or any of the threads I've linked will see that I addressed each and every point that anyone raised. It is YOUR side of this argument that has been studiously avoiding arguments and facts presented by the other side. Just as you're doing now, Allen.

Take care now.

Bye Bye. Figured that would the the outcome of your *visit*. :D

Allen773

28th July 2008, 09:32 PM

Yeah. Sure it would, Democrat.

That's a lie. Anyone reading this or any of the threads I've linked will see that I addressed each and every point that anyone raised. It is YOUR side of this argument that has been studiously avoiding arguments and facts presented by the other side. Just as you're doing now, Allen.

Bye Bye. Figured that would the the outcome of your *visit*. :D
Wow, is "Democrat" supposed to be an insult now? Are we allowed to say it on television anymore?

The rest of your "argument" isn't worth addressing, Republican. :p

BeAChooser

28th July 2008, 10:09 PM

The CT of the day is that the hit was done elsewhere and the body dumped in the crash-site?

Who suggested that? I certainly didn't. But clearly you haven't bothered to read the threads I linked because I did outline what might have happened.

Quote:
Who says that even if someone was on the plane they couldn't have escaped it. They lost contact with the plane when it was still 8 miles from the crash site. At altitude.

Well, the fact that it was a military plane full of people, who probably would have made a big fuss when someone got shot in the head in front of them.

Who said he was shot on the plane? I didn't. You really need to pay attention Megalodon, rather than continuing to throw out strawmen and red herrings. I (and Aviation Week) merely suggested the plane was spoofed into flying into mountain. Losing communications when it was still 8 miles from the airport likely would have helped that happen. IF that took someone on board to make that happen, then perhaps they had to exit the plane. I doubt anyone would have noticed until they did, and once that person was gone what could the plane have done but try to land as it did since it had no communication with the airport.

Yes, because crashing is so becoming to the structural integrity of a airplane.

The rear of the plane was found intact. Here's an image of it:

http://archive.newsmax.com/rbrown/photo3.shtml

Look closely and you'll see that the door of the plane is OPEN, not ripped off, not deformed in any way as far as I can tell. But regardless, the issue isn't the door anyway but whether expert forensic pathologists examined Brown's body and stated at the examination that the wound in his head looked like a bullet wound and he needed an autopsy. And they did. But he still didn't get one. Because the Whitehouse and JCS ordered there be no autopsy. That's what the examining pathologist later admitted.

What second survivor? You claim there was one

Megalodon, I didn't claim that. The timeline that Ira Sockowitz (of Chinagate fame) sent to Warren Christopher (Clinton's Secretary of State at the time) claimed that. You do know what I'm talking about, don't you? Or are you that uninformed?

Possible is different from probable.

The difference between possible and probable is a judgment call. And so far I haven't seen any evidence of good judgment from you. :D

The AP reported? Great...

What? You didn't know this? Don't you know anything about the news reports from that time? :)

And those americans (presumably assassins) just entered the crashed plane, found their victim, and instead of crushing his skull, or stabbing him with a piece of debris shot him in the head...

Well if they'd crushed his skull or stabbed him with a piece of debris, it would have been very difficult to avoid an autopsy. Remember, the pathologist who examined the body and decided not to do an autopsy gave as his reason that there was no penetration of the skull (he could still see bone in the hole). Of course, it turns out those were lies that he later had to retract. :D

Frantic? Nervous?

Well, you just seem a little concerned about this allegation being investigated. But maybe I'm wrong. Would you join me in calling for an exhumation and autopsy of Brown's body?

Someone who claims that their government crashed a plane

I didn't say "the government" crashed the plane. You really need to stop claiming I've said things I did not.

, killing several people,

Over 30 died, to be more precise.

and used several different operatives to confirm the hit

And I didn't say they used several different operatives. Please, Megalodon, pay attention to what I actually do say. Maybe going and reading those three threads I link would help you.

of one single target wouldn't let something like an autopsy report get in their way.

What autopsy report? There was no autopsy. That's the problem, Megalodon. All the real experts in this case say there should have been one. Even the expert who examined the body and helped the Clinton administration cover up the facts initially admits this now. :D

BeAChooser

28th July 2008, 10:16 PM

Wow, is "Democrat" supposed to be an insult now?

Yes. You want to know what an informed Democrat is nowadays?

It's someone who stands for

Perjury (by nearly everyone defending Clinton!), Obstruction of Justice (so many instances that one can hardly list them all), Witness Tampering (Betty Currie, Sid Blumenthal, the Talking Points, etc), Intimidation of Witnesses (of Willey and Tripp, for starters), Bribery (Vernon Jordan's "Missions", Monica's Condo Offer, Betty Currie's Brand New House), Sexual Harassment (Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, etc.), Sexual Assault Of Women (nearly a dozen women that we know of), Rape (of Jane Doe #5 and possibly 3 other women), Fraudulent Campaign Funding Practices (including money laundering via Buddist monks, selling U.S. Trade Mission seats, the White House coffees, making illegal telephone calls, etc), Corruption Of The IRS (audits of anyone who challenges Clinton), Corruption of the Department Of Justice (Reno's refusal to appoint an IOC to investigate Campaign Finance and Filegate, as well as FBI complicity in Travelgate and the Vince Foster coverup), Drug Use In the White House (why was there cocaine on the dress? why won't Clinton release his medical records? Clinton's brother stated on videotape during a police drug sting that Bill was a cocaine user. What are all these rumors about Mena?), Blackmail (what do you think Filegate was all about), Mean-Spirited Smearing (Carville, Flynt, Blumenthal, Cliff, etc), Perjury DURING An Impeachment Trial (definitely Blumenthal and probably Jordan), TREASONOUS Selling Of Secrets And Restricted Technology To Countries That Threaten the United States (as detailed in the Cox Report and many other sources), Lax Security Practices (for example, Monica's Top Secret clearance with NO background check), Security Violations (Stuffing secret documents down pants and socks), A Non-Free Press (NBC and FOX News were THREATENED not to report rape by Clinton of Jane Doe #5), A Controlled Press (NBC doesn't report the rape), A Biased Press (CNN and others conduct fraudulent polls to support Clinton, the media misrepresents or doesn't report facts that harm Clinton ... such as the Blumenthal perjury and the Broaddrick story), Jury Nullification (that's what democratic senators did in the trial), Mob Rule (what's left if the rule of law means nothing), Trashing The Constitution (excessive use of executive privilege and executive orders in order to escape justice and bypass our government's critical system of checks and balances), Corruption Of The Military (the coverup surrounding the apparent murder of Ron Brown ... who threatened to testify against the White House only days before he died. the Sudan "Wag The Dog" bombing of an aspirin factory while the head of the FBI and several members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were deliberately kept out the loop.), Murder (the circumstances surrounding Vince Fosters death are more than a little unusual ... what were those files that Secret Service agents saw being taken out of his office?) and, finally, the Breaking of Every Oath Possible (from Marriage to the Presidential Oath Of Office).

I didn't even get to Obama's follies. :D

Allen773

28th July 2008, 11:43 PM

Yes. You want to know what an informed Democrat is nowadays?

It's someone who stands for

Perjury (by nearly everyone defending Clinton!), Obstruction of Justice (so many instances that one can hardly list them all), Witness Tampering (Betty Currie, Sid Blumenthal, the Talking Points, etc), Intimidation of Witnesses (of Willey and Tripp, for starters), Bribery (Vernon Jordan's "Missions", Monica's Condo Offer, Betty Currie's Brand New House), Sexual Harassment (Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, etc.), Sexual Assault Of Women (nearly a dozen women that we know of), Rape (of Jane Doe #5 and possibly 3 other women), Fraudulent Campaign Funding Practices (including money laundering via Buddist monks, selling U.S. Trade Mission seats, the White House coffees, making illegal telephone calls, etc), Corruption Of The IRS (audits of anyone who challenges Clinton), Corruption of the Department Of Justice (Reno's refusal to appoint an IOC to investigate Campaign Finance and Filegate, as well as FBI complicity in Travelgate and the Vince Foster coverup), Drug Use In the White House (why was there cocaine on the dress? why won't Clinton release his medical records? Clinton's brother stated on videotape during a police drug sting that Bill was a cocaine user. What are all these rumors about Mena?), Blackmail (what do you think Filegate was all about), Mean-Spirited Smearing (Carville, Flynt, Blumenthal, Cliff, etc), Perjury DURING An Impeachment Trial (definitely Blumenthal and probably Jordan), TREASONOUS Selling Of Secrets And Restricted Technology To Countries That Threaten the United States (as detailed in the Cox Report and many other sources), Lax Security Practices (for example, Monica's Top Secret clearance with NO background check), Security Violations (Stuffing secret documents down pants and socks), A Non-Free Press (NBC and FOX News were THREATENED not to report rape by Clinton of Jane Doe #5), A Controlled Press (NBC doesn't report the rape), A Biased Press (CNN and others conduct fraudulent polls to support Clinton, the media misrepresents or doesn't report facts that harm Clinton ... such as the Blumenthal perjury and the Broaddrick story), Jury Nullification (that's what democratic senators did in the trial), Mob Rule (what's left if the rule of law means nothing), Trashing The Constitution (excessive use of executive privilege and executive orders in order to escape justice and bypass our government's critical system of checks and balances), Corruption Of The Military (the coverup surrounding the apparent murder of Ron Brown ... who threatened to testify against the White House only days before he died. the Sudan "Wag The Dog" bombing of an aspirin factory while the head of the FBI and several members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were deliberately kept out the loop.), Murder (the circumstances surrounding Vince Fosters death are more than a little unusual ... what were those files that Secret Service agents saw being taken out of his office?) and, finally, the Breaking of Every Oath Possible (from Marriage to the Presidential Oath Of Office).

I didn't even get to Obama's follies. :D
Uh huh. You can go back to Mr. Rove's office now and report on how successful you were at acting like a dumbass on the Internet.

gnome

29th July 2008, 12:08 AM

Perhaps being such a newcomer (and a Democrat at that), they never got a chance to look in his FBI file? And you and I both know the Clinton's lost the support of the media. But that happened only recently. :D

Oh really? Well, now that they're not under the all-powerful protection of the media, you'd think they'd be vulnerable. Surely some of those people who were held back by these ultimatums you suppose, are a little sore and would like revenge...

SezMe

29th July 2008, 12:30 AM

I didn't even get to Obama's follies. :D
To say nothing of 43's, 41's and Reagan's. Just to stick to recent history.

RandFan

29th July 2008, 12:33 AM

1) They ignore any fact that proves them wrong. But I've addressed every single point made by my opponents on this topic. It has been YOUR side that has had to ignore factual points over and over. I find addressing points what CTers do best. What facts?

2) They ignore or dismiss what real experts on the subject say. But I'm the one quoting the real experts in this case ... the pathologists. And they agree with me ... not you. It has been YOUR side that has been ignoring or dismissing out of hand what the real experts say. No. This is just an assertion.

3) They distort or lie about the facts and the statements of their opponents. But I've been very careful not to do that. It has been YOUR side (not necessarily you) in this debate that have employed those tactics. I don't see any substantive difference and I doubt many if any skeptics or critical thinkers do.

4) They throw out red herrings and employ countless strawmen. Again, that's not a tactic I've used. That's a tactic YOUR side in this debate has employed. Again, this is just rhetoric.

Sorry, the Ron Brown allegation is nothing like those other CTs. Which is why you don't find threads where it's successfully debunked. So instead, your side has to resort to the sort of tactics you and Kevin tried here.It's identical which is why you find yourself in CT land (forum).

Have fun.

RandFan

29th July 2008, 01:15 AM

So instead, your side has to resort to the sort of tactics you and Kevin tried here.I just noticed this.

I've been on the opposite side of Kevin on a number of occasions. I consider him a very formidable opponent and in fact it's not really fair labeling him an opponent as I am not his equal. However he has a great deal of patience with me and I've learned an awful lot debating with him.

It's nice to be on the same side from time to time. :)

BeAChooser

29th July 2008, 10:02 AM

You can go back to Mr. Rove's office now

Do you really think I work for Rove, Allen? Wow, what a CT you must be. :D

BeAChooser

29th July 2008, 10:07 AM

Well, now that they're not under the all-powerful protection of the media, you'd think they'd be vulnerable.

Well maybe they are. There has been talk about Obama going after Bush for past crimes. You think he'd stop there? Afterall, there is obviously no love lost between Obama and the Clintons. :D

BeAChooser

29th July 2008, 10:10 AM

To say nothing of 43's, 41's and Reagan's.

You're free to compile your own list. But let's see if you can defend it. Let's see if it even comes close to the severity of the items in my Clinton's List.

BeAChooser

29th July 2008, 10:16 AM

Quote:
2) They ignore or dismiss what real experts on the subject say. But I'm the one quoting the real experts in this case ... the pathologists. And they agree with me ... not you. It has been YOUR side that has been ignoring or dismissing out of hand what the real experts say.

No. This is just an assertion.

No, I actually proved that in the three threads I linked. But then you didn't actually read them, did you. :D

Quote:
3) They distort or lie about the facts and the statements of their opponents. But I've been very careful not to do that. It has been YOUR side (not necessarily you) in this debate that have employed those tactics.

I don't see any substantive difference and I doubt many if any skeptics or critical thinkers do.

That's just an assertion. ;) And since you didn't actually read the three threads, I imagine that's why you see no "substantive" difference. :D

Quote:
4) They throw out red herrings and employ countless strawmen. Again, that's not a tactic I've used. That's a tactic YOUR side in this debate has employed.

Again, this is just rhetoric.

No, it's fact, as anyone who actually does read the three threads will see.

Quote:
Sorry, the Ron Brown allegation is nothing like those other CTs. Which is why you don't find threads where it's successfully debunked. So instead, your side has to resort to the sort of tactics you and Kevin tried here.

It's identical which is why you find yourself in CT land (forum).

No, I've pointed out the specific differences. And basically received silence as a response. That characterization adequately describes yours, too. :D

beachnut

29th July 2008, 01:50 PM

Yeah, yeah, beachnut. We've all heard you claim the pilot was a friend and we've all heard you call me ignorant. We've all heard you call anyone who posts anything that doesn't agree with your version of what happened a liar. And we've all heard you claim you're an expert on crashes. Anyone who wants to see you do that need only go read the first two threads I linked earlier, especially the second where you regurgitate the official story without even telling folks your source (I had to do that). And if they read post #90 of that thread, they'll find my reasoned response to what you claimed ... which I still stand by.

One of my comments was that your source (Flight Safety Digest) was written long before it became known that pathologists at the examination of Brown's body voiced concerns about gunshot and called for an autopsy. It was written before the photo of the wound and the first set of x-rays (presuming there was indeed a second set as claimed by the government) were posted on the internet ... x-rays and photos that showed the pathologist who examined Brown's body, Gormley, lied when he said there was nothing unusual about the x-rays and there was only bone visible in the wound.

Like I asked in that thread, beachnut ... would you mind sharing with us whether when those aspects of the crash came to light, Flight Safety Digest (or whatever your source for what you posted was) told its readers anything about them? If not, why didn't they? It seems to me that allegations by military pathologists of a bullet in the head of a passenger of a military plane would be relevant to a discussion of "flight safety" on CT-43A.

And I'm curious, beachnut. Would you mind telling us why your source claimed that "they found all the passengers except one died of blunt force injuries. One died of thermal inhalation injuries. They found out the cause of death with an autopsy. Autopsy performed by the US Armed Forces Institute of Pathology." You see, that's false. There is one very important passenger whose cause of death was NOT determined by an autopsy ... it turns out on orders from the Whitehouse and JCS, according to the pathologist who did the external "examination" of Ron Brown. And if FSD didn't know that, it can only be because the report they based their article on forget to mention that or because it falsely claimed everyone was autopsied. So which was it, beachnut? How curious that the only person who by law on that flight had to have an autopsy is the one person who did not get one. :D

And why didn't your source mention that the SIB was skipped? That should have been known to them at the time the article was written. Skipped for the first time in Air Force history (except for a clear cut case where friendly fire was the cause). Why wouldn't they tell their readers that, beachnut? Now when I asked you this, you declared the SIB is the same stuff as the AIB. Then why did the Air Force even bother with SIBs, beachnut? In fact, if our readers go check out post #90 of the second link, they'll find you didn't even know that Part I of the SIB is releasable. Strange ... for someone claiming to be an expert in crash investigations. :D

My questions for you remains the same as before. If you REALLY were a friend of the pilot of that plane as you claim, one would think you wouldn't be content to let his name and reputation be smeared, when he might not have been responsible. You never did tell us what the family felt about being lied to in the AIB report and in the letter the acting Secretary of the Air Force sent them. Remember that letter and the lies it contained? If they knew there was a chance their loved one didn't make a mistake but was murdered, don't you think they'd like that question resolved ... even now? Isn't it curious that a document the Air Force gave the Brown family members (and your pilot's family, by the way) AND THEIR LAWYERS left out such crucial facts as the concerns of the pathologists that day about a possible bullet wound and the original x-rays of Brown's head? And if you really care about the military like you claim, why would you let the military pathologists and photographer in this case be punished ... just because they asked good questions?

So you go ahead and stick to the official story, beachnut. Keep repeating it all you want. Because each time it serves as a good example of how similar your side's response to this allegation is to that of 911 Twoofers. You obfuscate, distort, ignore, demean, lie and throw out adhominems attacking the intelligence of the other side. All while actually losing the debate. And by the way, I distinctly remember you claiming "I will not talk about Brown any more." Guess you couldn't help yourself. :rolleyes:
You use pure CT web junk sites to promote a LIE.

You dishonor my friend, a fellow pilot by repeating the lies of others freely and without thought or reason.

I did my own investigation, it proves all your stuff is pure biased CRAP! Your only fault is you believe the scum junk ideas you dredged up from pure ignorant source so biased and flawed, you disgrace yourself with the lack of research you have done. I don't care if you pitch this junk forever, it makes your credibility and your biased viewpoints clearly seen, self critiquing. Ron Brown's death was an accident, one cause was the use of an unsafe, illegal approach plate approved by USAF staff who were fired.

Pilots must take the blame, we are trained in all the areas the accident was related to. With presentation of air force wings, comes great responsibility to do things right, alas, we are only human. My fellow pilot could have figured out the approach was unsafe, and pilots vary on how he choose to fly the approach, but in the end, the Aircraft Commander is responsible for the Flight! He takes blame in this case, it is standard for the things that happen, but there was a chain of events and people fired for letting the pilot down by use of an illegal approach plate.

Based on facts of this case I WIN, and I lose. My fellow pilot was good, but many of us along the years may of let him down! The approach plate he used was unsafe, why did we all fail to get him the knowledge along the years. Or did we, and he missed it? Like you missing the facts on Ron Brown's accident, they are there, you use hearsay rant from flawed sources, proven wrong! Why do you lack the knowledge to figure out Ron Brown as you cling to false information and spew it!

Just want to thank you for being so poor a researcher you keep bringing up and accident, solved. But with biased, flawed, and pure internet scum bag derived drivel, you keep calling it a CT to kill Ron Brown, with no real story to offer but lowlife web flawed false facts. Why do you lack the knowledge and let your biases ruin your logic and reason ?

Thanks again for reminding me I failed my friend. No thanks for the vile biased, lack of knowledge reasons you present.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2905050&postcount=72
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2905176&postcount=74
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2905236&postcount=75
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2905322&postcount=77
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2905422&postcount=78
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2905460&postcount=79
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2905463&postcount=80
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2905467&postcount=81
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2906501&postcount=82
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2906655&postcount=83
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2906727&postcount=85
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2906763&postcount=86
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2906873&postcount=87
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2907105&postcount=88
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2907309&postcount=89
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2909266&postcount=93

My personal investigation took place right after accident. Take your stuff to the police and go get your fantasy killers locked up. Hurry, you have wasted a LONG time! So pathetic, you have not gone to the police, how did you let this happen!

Please ignore me, I just post the cause of the accident so rational people can clearly see, you took the internet wasteland false information path to form your lie.

my friend died, why do you propagate lies? you do not know your are doing it? ignore me the links are for rational people, able to think for themselves, without bias or hate clouding their …

maxpower1227

29th July 2008, 03:14 PM

You're free to compile your own list. But let's see if you can defend it. Let's see if it even comes close to the severity of the items in my Clinton's List.

On that note... (http://www.idiotwars.com/)

The total casualty count connected with corruption and scandals in the Reagan administration has been placed as high as 225 people who were either forced to resign, indicted or convicted of crimes associated with their employment by the administration and that doesn’t include hundreds of more who were indicted outside the administration for bribing officials, receiving illegal government payments or various crimes associated with the S&L scandal.

Again, let me remind you, that I am a conservative. I loathe the Clintons. Not that unhinged ultra-partisan loonies like you will believe that.

Allen773

29th July 2008, 04:25 PM

Do you really think I work for Rove, Allen? Wow, what a CT you must be. :D
No, of course I don't think you work for Rove. Rove would never hire someone with such a lousy style of argument :D

RandFan

29th July 2008, 08:30 PM

No, I've pointed out the specific differences. No.

I've seen the evidence it breaks down fairly quickly. It's not taken seriously by serious and intellectually honest skeptics because the evidence is of such poor quality and of the CT variety.

RandFan

29th July 2008, 08:33 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2905050&postcount=72
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2905176&postcount=74
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2905236&postcount=75
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2905322&postcount=77
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2905422&postcount=78
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2905460&postcount=79
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2905463&postcount=80
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2905467&postcount=81
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2906501&postcount=82
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2906655&postcount=83
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2906727&postcount=85
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2906763&postcount=86
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2906873&postcount=87
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2907105&postcount=88
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2907309&postcount=89
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2909266&postcount=93

My personal investigation took place right after accident. Take your stuff to the police and go get your fantasy killers locked up. Hurry, you have wasted a LONG time! So pathetic, you have not gone to the police, how did you let this happen!

Please ignore me, I just post the cause of the accident so rational people can clearly see, you took the internet wasteland false information path to form your lie.

my friend died, why do you propagate lies? you do not know your are doing it? ignore me the links are for rational people, able to think for themselves, without bias or hate clouding their … Wow, just wow.

Thank you.

Elizabeth I

29th July 2008, 08:44 PM

If you believe the Clintons had so much power that even the most powerful Republicans were afraid to drop an anvil on them, how in the world did Hillary lose the nomination to a junior senator?

Oh, oh, oooh, I can answer this one!

Actually, before Obama can be nominated officially, he's going to be 86ed by black helicopters and Hillary will be forced (forced, I tell you!) to accept the nomination of the party.

Or there will be a mysterious "accident." Or a paper cut will get infected and go septic and before you know it, well...

Or...pick your conspiracy.

beachnut

29th July 2008, 08:53 PM

Wow, just wow.

Thank you.
The pilot deserves better, he was a great person. The thread has some other points of view from other people. Decoding beachnut can be a chore.

maxpower1227

29th July 2008, 09:21 PM

Wow, just wow.

Thank you.

BAC should be thanking him, because if it ever COULD be proven that there was a murder and the cause was then investigated, then BAC would have to (to borrow his ridiculous and overused expression) put the cart... after the horse?.. . and finally come up with an even remotely plausible explanation for how the assassination could have taken place.

Oh, I forgot, he already addressed it. A rear hatch was found open, so some James Bond operative could have taken him out and bailed... and "they" knew where the plane would crash, so there could have also been people on the ground ready to finish the job with a .45, instead of, you know, a blunt object. :boggled:

BeAChooser

30th July 2008, 02:27 PM

You dishonor my friend

It's you who dishonors your "friend". If you REALLY were a friend of the pilot of that plane, you wouldn't be content to let his name and reputation be smeared (as a bad pilot), when expert forensic pathologists indicate a passenger on that plane may have been killed with a bullet. You'd be DEMANDING an exhumation and autopsy. That's what a REAL "friend" would do.

Why is it that you won't tell us how the family of that pilot felt when they learned they were lied to by the AIB report? The AIB report (which according to Air Force documents is supposed to provide families and their lawyers with the facts) didn't even mention the voiced suspicions of the pathologists and photographer during the examination of the body about a bullet wound. It didn't mention their call for an autopsy? Now we can guess why the Clinton administration didn't include that information in the report. But why haven't you told the family this, beachnut? That's true, right? You've never mentioned one word of this to the family of your pilot "friend". Instead you've probably done everything you could to steer them away from such information. Right?

How did the family feel when they learned that the examining pathologist (Gormley) admitted the reasons he gave in that AIB report for calling Brown's death an accident by blunt force trauma are false? Or is the family still in the dark about that as well because you haven't told them? Odd thing for a "friend" to do.

And you didn't tell us how the family felt about being lied to by Mr. Peters, the acting Secretary of the Air Force, in the letter he sent them (and the other families of those who died on the plane). Remember that letter? Peters wrote that "The consensus of Col. (Dr.) William Gormley, who personally examined Secretary Brown, and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology forensic community is that Secretary Brown, like the others tragically killed in the plane crash of an Air Force CT-43 aircraft in Croatia on April 3, 1996, died of injuries sustained during the mishap." Has the pilot's family been told what Colonel Gormley now says about the matter, beachnut? Or are you keeping that to yourself?

Do they know that Gormley says the photo of the wound does indeed show brain matter, excusing his former statements to the contrary in the official report as a "memory lapse"? Remember, the lack of brain matter is the reason he gave for ruling it a death from blunt force trauma. Do they know he's admitted that the hole is a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry (i.e., an autopsy)? Do they know that he changed his story from there being no second set of x-rays to claiming that a first set was just "lost" so that he had to make a second set?

Do they know that he now admits he consulted with other high-ranking pathologists present during the external examination of Ron Brown's body and they agreed that the hole looked like a gunshot wound? So much for the claim of "consensus" at AFIP. Do they know that's an outright lie because ALL the pathologists who were there that day or with real expertise in bullet wounds at AFIP voiced their concern that Brown should have been autopsied because of the nature of the wound and what the x-ray showed? Do they know that Gormley says no autopsy was done because of "discussions" at the highest levels in Commerce, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Whitehouse?

Or are you keeping all these facts secret from the family, too?

Wow! What a "friend" to that pilot you are, beachnut. (sarcasm)

Peters' letter said "Due to the initial appearance of Secretary Brown’s injuries, the medical examiners carefully considered the possibility of a gunshot wound. However, their examinations combined with X-rays ruled out that possibility." Both statements are demonstrable lies ... as you well know. I proved they were in the three threads I linked and I shall repeat some of that evidence in a moment for anyone just tuning into this debate. Peters wrote "The alleged 'bullet fragments' mentioned in the reports were actually caused by a defect in the reusable X-ray film cassettes. Medical examiners took multiple X-rays using multiple cassettes and confirmed this finding." This is also a lie. The military photographer who took the pictures, CPO Janoski, says that could not be true given that only the one photo from that day should the so-called "defect". There are no other photos showing a defect. No specific medical examiners stepped forward to say they did what Peters claimed they did. Peters lied, beachnut. Why did he lie, beachnut? And have you been a good "friend" and informed his family of this lie?

Peters letter also said "the medical examiner determined there was no gunshot wound, and therefore concluded there was no need for further examination. Had there been suspicion regarding the nature of Mr. Brown’s death — or the death of any other person on the aircraft — medical examiners would have pursued permission to perform a full internal examination." This too is a clear lie given that calls for an autopsy were voiced repeatedly during the examination and the reasons given by Gormley for not performing an autopsy have been shown to be totally bogus. Have you informed the pilot's family of these facts, beachnut, or are you still being a good "friend" and helping to keep them from hearing them? Do they know that there was a federal law requiring an autopsy in the death of a Cabinet member where there is suspicion of foul play? Don't you think expert pathologists stating the man needs an autopsy is evidence of such suspicion?

Before ending with his "heartfelt apologies," Peters revealed the true purpose of his letter: "We hope these actions will preclude credible media from pursuing this story." Any comment, beachnut ,or are you going to go on ignoring this in the interests of *protecting* the family of your "friend"? Frankly, I don't think ignoring this is what a REAL "friend" of that pilot and his family would do. It is what a friend of Clinton might do, however. Is that really who your "friend" is, beachnut? Be honest ... for once.

dudalb

30th July 2008, 02:36 PM

As someone who most people here would classify as a conservative on many issues, you are an embarassment, guy.

BeAChooser

30th July 2008, 02:39 PM

I did my own investigation, it proves all your stuff is pure biased CRAP! Your only fault is you believe the scum junk ideas you dredged up from pure ignorant source so biased and flawed, you disgrace yourself with the lack of research you have done. I don't care if you pitch this junk forever, it makes your credibility and your biased viewpoints clearly seen, self critiquing.

In response, I offer readers some of the same material presented to beachnut in the previous threads: various interviews with the pathologists and photographer ... the REAL experts in this case. Let me warn you that occasionally the newsmax site or archive goes down so I've provided cached links where possible as well.

"Experts Differ on Ron Brown's Head Wound" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 3, 1997 http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/03/35938 (or see http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:1u8Lr0wB1PwJ:archive.newsmax.com/articles/%3Fa%3D1997/12/03/35938+%22Experts+Differ+on+Ron+Brown%27s+Head+Woun d%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us ).

"Even if you safely assumed accidental plane crash, when you got something that appears to be a homicide, that should bring everything to a screeching halt," Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell, a doctor and deputy medical examiner with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, told the Tribune-Review.

In several interviews, Cogswell repeatedly referred to the wound as "an apparent gunshot wound." However, he also said, "Whether it's a bullet or something else, we don't know."

... snip ...

"Essentially ... Brown had a .45-inch inwardly beveling circular hole in the top of his head, which is essentially the description of a .45-caliber gunshot wound," Cogswell added.

... snip ...

"I talked to Col. Gormley and he told me there is a .45(-inch) inwardly beveling, perfectly circular hole in the top of (Brown's) head," Cogswell said.

... snip ...

"Open him up. This man needs an autopsy," Cogswell said he told Gormley. "This whole thing stinks."

... snip ...

Cogswell also felt it would be very difficult for any rod or similar item to pierce the skull then exit, leaving a perfect hole as it did. His suspicions grew upon his return to the United States when he spoke to AFIP colleagues who had stayed at Dover. He also reviewed the photographic and X-ray evidence. "I talked to a few people who were there from our office and asked them ... if they thought this wound looked like a gunshot wound, or, `What do you think the hole looked like?' And the uniform response was, `Yeah, it looked like a gunshot wound.'" he said.

... snip ...

Her photos would later become part of Cogswell's slide program. He tells his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows the defect at the top of the head, and something perhaps more sinister. Inside the left side of Brown's head, in the area behind his eye socket, "there are multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density on X-ray. That's what we might describe as a `lead snowstorm' from a high-velocity gunshot wound."

... snip ...

The Tribune-Review obtained copies of those images as well as detailed photos of Brown's body and the circular wound. All were shown to Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory in San Francisco.

While acknowledging he is not a pathologist, Fackler said he thought it "very difficult to see" how something like a rivet could have produced the head wound. He also said brain matter was visible. "It's round as hell. That is extremely round," Fackler said with a chuckle. "I'm impressed by how very, very round that hole is. That's unusual except for a gunshot wound. It's unusual for anything else."

Fackler said he could not rule it a gunshot without a full autopsy and better X-rays. He said the supposed metal fragments on the first X-ray were not conclusive because they were very small, an autopsy had not been conducted to locate them, and a side X-ray was overexposed, giving little detail of the head. "They didn't do an autopsy. My God. It's astounding," he said.

"Second Expert: Brown's Wound Appeared to be From Gunshot" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 9, 1997 http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/09/34206 (or see http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:tGXyzERnc4UJ:archive.newsmax.com/articles/%3Fa%3D1997/12/09/174438+Second+Expert:+Brown%27s+Wound+Appeared+to+ be+From+Gunshot&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us )

A second Armed Forces medical examiner has stepped forward to publicly confirm key statements made by a colleague about the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. U.S. Army Lt. Col. David Hause (pronounced "hoss"), a deputy armed forces medical examiner, told the Tribune-Review he personally examined a suspicious head wound on Brown's corpse while it was being examined at Dover Air Force Base, Del. He said several allegations made by Air F