If we can't trust National Geographics And Discovery Channel ... what can we trust?

[BeAChooser]

I believe this is deserving of it's own thread. It's a good example of why I think we should be skeptical of anything seen on TV.

In 2007 National Geographics did a high profile documentary on TV about the crash where Ron Brown died. It showed a supposed re-creation of the event. Curiously, a VERY similar documentary was shown about the same time on the Discovery Channel (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0932026/ ). It had almost the same basic content as the other but used a different voice as the voiceover. Both contain a lot of imagery that are actors re-creating events ... not actual video from that day.

Here is the National Geographic special:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S227TXZsuis "Flight 21 is Missing Part 1"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1IltgCncvk&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 2"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StCQ2iWt6VU&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 3"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyg6zHEIJxs&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 4"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8wGpcrMOx8&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 5"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pn04ta9QGQ&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 6"

Here is what was shown on the Discovery Channel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKetUidt-kg "Mayday - Fog of War Part 1"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78k7jLnkBM0 "Mayday - Fog of War Part 2"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX5e88s1t9Y "Mayday - Fog of War Part 3"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO7Ef9wrN04 "Mayday - Fog of War Part 4"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5YPL-6wguM&feature=related "Mayday - Fog of War Part 5"

Watch both. You'll see the "official version" of what happened.

Now here's the problem and why I'm skeptical.

The National Geographics version mentions "bizarre rumors" that a decoy beacon could have been used to guide the plane into the mountain. The documentary makes the dismissive claim that a very large ground system on the mountain would have been needed to make that scenario possible. Such a "scheme" would be "nearly impossible to pull off" is their claim. It doesn't mention to the audience that a portable beacon went missing from the Dubrovnik airport and that the magazine Aviation Week concluded such a beacon could indeed have been used to spoof the plane into flying into the mountain. And there is no reference to the fact that the man who would have been responsible for that equipment at the airport just happened to commit suicide (or so it was reported in the mainstream media) just days after the crash and before investigators could interview him. One would think these are facts an honest documentary would report.

Even more damning is that is the only place in either "documentary" where you will see any specifics regarding evidence that pointed to foul play in the crash.

For example, neither documentary says one word about concerns that were voiced by military forensic pathologists and a military photographer at the examination of Ron Brown's body and afterwords. These experts said the hole in Brown's head and what's seen in the surviving x-ray images of his head suggest a possible bullet wound and that Brown should have been autopsied as a result. These were matters of public record at the time the documentaries were made. So why no mention, especially given the fact that these experts were never convinced otherwise.

There also isn't any mention of what happened to the military pathologists and photographer after they blew the whistle about what they saw and the opinions they voiced. About how they were punished and their careers ruined by a administration claiming it was seeking the truth. This too is a matter of public record. The documentaries go into great detail regarding the punishment various military officers received for their role in the crash. So why not mention the punishment handed out to these experts? Afterall, it's part of the overall story.

You won't see any mention in the documentaries of the photos of the head and x-rays that in the opinion of the military pathologists, as well as several experts in gunshot outside the Air Force, suggested a possible bullet wound. These photos are a matter of public record and cause for great controversy ... especially since all the originals managed to disappear from a locked safe at AFIP to which only a few had access.

And there are other obviously important omissions.

There is no mention that Ron Brown was under investigation by literally everyone at the end, including a special prosecutor. That there sworn testimony that just prior to the trade mission he'd gone to the Whitehouse and told President that he was going to turn states evidence in the Campaign Finance and Chinagate matters. Or that Bill Clinton cried crocodile tears at his funeral.

While the documentaries make a big deal about the size and completeness of the AIB final report , they don't mention that the Air Force skipped (for the first time in Air Force history except one clear case of friendly fire) the phase of the normal crash investigation where the cause of the crash is determined ... the SIB. Or that the AIB report failed to mention that military pathologists said the word "bullet" at the examination and even called for an autopsy. And I've never been able to confirm that the report even contained photos of the wound on Brown's head or of the x-rays of his head. That certainly would be a strange omission from a report that was over 7000 pages long and supposedly aimed at providing information to the public and the families of the victims (in case they want to sue for damages). Wouldn't you folks agree with me there?

The documentaries also ignore the fact that Ira Sockowitz (a Clinton administration official who was associated with John Huang and Chinagate) informed the Secretary of State from the crash site that TWO people survived the crash. The documentaries just talk about the one admitted survivor, Shelly Kelly, who (they say) happened to die on the way to the hospital. There is also no mention that Shelly Kelly's body was cremated soon after arriving at Dover, without the consent of her parents or family. That was a clear violation of regulations and there's no mention in the documentaries that anyone was ever punished for that violation.

Now in the documentaries, there is the claim that soon after rescuers arrived at the crash site, they discovered there were no flight data recorders on the plane and that this was standard for military aircraft. What they fail to mention is that the Croatian Ministry of Transportation announced shortly after the crash that the black boxes had been found. And that the US Air Force in Germany confirmed they were found. How could the Croatians have made such a mistake given the unique appearance of "black boxes"? How could the Air Force have "confirmed" that without actually confirming it? The documentaries don't address this.

They also don't mention that regulations at the time reportedly required that planes carrying cabinet level officials (like Brown) be equipped with black boxes. Or that this exact plane had carried the Secretary of Defense and the First Lady on previous occasions, and they too were subject to that regulation. And that no one was punished for violating it. Is failing to obey this regulation any less important than the failure to obey procedures that officers were punished for, according to the documentary?

The documentaries re-create the scene of Ambassador Galbraith waiting at the airport ... waiting for the plane to arrive in what appears to be awful weather. This terrible weather is alluded to numerous times throughout the videos. Clearly, the makers wished to leave the viewer with the feeling that weather played an important role in the crash. But the final AIB report ruled that weather played "no significant role" in the crash. Why don't the documentaries mention that? Could it be because the government shelled out millions and millions of dollars to the families of those on the aircraft while blaming weather as the cause? Did they not want to embarrass the government in this one instance?

And I noticed something else in these *documentaries*. The last communication they show between the plane and the airport is when the plane is still 12 kilometers from the airport ... almost 8 miles. That's consistent with what Christopher Ruddy reported in his series of newspaper articles on the crash. I ask you ... why did they lose communication well before the plane reached the airport? And Aviation Week stated they lost both radio and transponder contact at the same time. This loss of communication has never been explained by the Air Force. Ever. It's just been ignored. And you'll notice it's just ignored in these so-called documentaries, too. But don't you think a loss of communication would be a major factor in this crash? That it would be something that should be focused on in documentaries such as these?

And I could go on and on listing important facts they left out of these two documentaries. Isn't it amazing that the media can put this much effort into a re-creation (with actors, sets and all that) yet not even mention the facts I just noted? They can't be unaware of those facts ... yet they don't mention ANY of them.

One might conclude it is a willful coverup. But even if you disagree with that, you have to agree that the documentaries did a poor job of covering the story. So I close with the question I started with: Can we believe ANYTHING that we see on TV anymore? If we can't trust the veracity of National Geographics and Discovery Channel, what can we trust? :D

[BPSCG]

If we can't trust the veracity of National Geographics and Discovery Channel, what can we trust?Me.

[WildCat]

Conspiracy Theories is thataway ------------>

[Giraffe107]

You can't trust any one source implicitly. Even a TV channel with a good history of accurate, unbiased (as much as a documentary can be unbiased) documentaries can make rubbish every once in a while.

[Travis]

I see BAC felt he hadn't met this months quota of rambling Ron Brown threads. Funny how there seems to be a reverse correlation between how long they are and how much I care.

Personally I think the mistake was counting on popular media products for accurate information on such a complex issue.

[GreNME]

Both the NG and Discovery channels, as well as the History Channel, have progressively gotten more sensationalist and less diligent in the realm of using verifiable, reliable, and realistic information. This could be a product of the channels themselves or it can be that the production companies providing these channels with material have dropped to a lowest-common-denominator target audience, but it's an unfortunate reality with the channels.

So, much like other television, most websites, dictionaries and Wikipedia alike, if you're not getting your information in as verifiable and/or testable a form possible, be open to the possibility that your conclusions might need a little bit of re-working later. It's also a good idea to avoid dealing in absolutes whenever possible.

[steve s]

If we can't trust the veracity of National Geographics and Discovery Channel, what can we trust? :D

Is this the same Discovery Channel that's always showing programs that promote UFOs, ghosts, bigfoot, and Nessie?

Steve S.

[slingblade]

Is trust a necessary or even desirable trait for a skeptic?

I trust not.

:)

[Hokulele]

One might conclude it is a willful coverup. But even if you disagree with that, you have to agree that the documentaries did a poor job of covering the story. So I close with the question I started with: Can we believe ANYTHING that we see on TV anymore? If we can't trust the veracity of National Geographics and Discovery Channel, what can we trust? :D


Random people posting on the Internet. :rolleyes:

[Kevin_Lowe]

I believe this is deserving of it's own thread. It's a good example of why I think we shoulwhat can we trust? :D

We can trust BAC to post the same old conspiracy theory junk into a new thread on a regular basis, along with :D smileys, and then trust him to pretend that his nutbag theory hasn't already been thoroughly dismantled on these forums.

:D

[JoeEllison]

That's a pretty "stupid to the point of ridiculousness" conspiracy you've got there BAC. Deeply, profoundly stupid. You should really consider sitting down and taking stock of your life and mental health. Seriously, I'm not trying to screw with you here(much) because the idea that someone would go through all of this complicated and elaborate nonsense to crash a plane, but also shoot Brown? That's just insane. There's really got to be something wrong with anyone who believes that sort of thing.

It is really easy to kill people and make it look like an accident or a random shooting. No one would concoct a gigantic conspiracy to kill Brown by airplane crash AND bullet. Who would bother? And who would have thought that hatred of Bill Clinton would lead to such deep paranoid delusions?

[BPSCG]

It is really easy to kill people and make it look like an accident or a random shooting. :eek:

It is?

Could you please share with the rest of us?

'Cuz I know some people we just need to get rid of - cell-phone talker-drivers, people who leave their infants unattended in cars for four hours in the midday summer sun, people who call 911 to complain the guy didn't make their Subway sandwich right, $ylvia Browne, Ahmed Ahmedinejad, that annoying infomerical guy with the dollar signs all over his clothes, people who pee on public toilet seats, Vladimir Putin, people with degrees in stuff like "Women's Studies," Keith Olbermann, that lady at the checkout in front of me holding up the line looking for the fifteen cents off coupon who then discovers that it expired last month but wants the store manager to come over to see if he can accept it anyway, most Democrats...

I mean, do we really need these people? If we could just kill them and make it look like an accident, wouldn't the world be a better place?

[John Lennon]
Imagine all those people,
Vanished from the world, woo-hoo...
...It's easy if you try.
[/John Lennon]

Help us out here, Joe. It would be a public service.

[BeAChooser]

Conspiracy Theories is thataway ------------>

This isn't about a conspiracy theory. It's simply an observation that National Geographics and Discovery Channel left out very important facts from one of their documentaries. Why can't you just admit that?

[BeAChooser]

Personally I think the mistake was counting on popular media products for accurate information on such a complex issue.


Yet that's what most of you seem to do in the Ron Brown crash case.

[BeAChooser]

Is trust a necessary or even desirable trait for a skeptic?

Fair enough. But it sure seems that a lot of JREF members trust the mainstream media and "official" government reports when it comes to events like the Ron Brown crash. Wouldn't you agree?

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Fair enough. But it sure seems that a lot of JREF members trust the mainstream media and "official" government reports when it comes to events like the Ron Brown crash. Wouldn't you agree?

Maybe you should take a step back and consider if the word you should be using is "trust' or "agreement".

[BeAChooser]

We can trust BAC to post the same old conspiracy theory junk into a new thread on a regular basis, along with :D smileys, and then trust him to pretend that his nutbag theory hasn't already been thoroughly dismantled on these forums.

Sorry Kevin, but you and other *official story defenders* haven't dismantled anything. You've simply done what National Geographics and Discovery Channel did ... cite the official story and ignore the rest.

Besides, Kevin ... this thread isn't about a *conspiracy*. That's why I posted it here. I'm simply observing that NG and DC did a lousy job of reporting the facts in the Ron Brown case. Can't you at least bring yourself to admit that? And if not, why? :D

[BeAChooser]

That's a pretty "stupid to the point of ridiculousness" conspiracy you've got there BAC. Deeply, profoundly stupid.

I'm not postulating a conspiracy in this thread, Joe. I'm simply noting that NG and DC did a really bad job of covering all the facts in the Ron Brown crash case. Why can't you bring yourself to acknowledge that? What do you fear?

And Joe, if you really want to debunk the Ron Brown accusations then you need to go to the thread discussing it in the Conspiracy forum. Here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119618 . And then deal with the specific facts that NG and DC left out of their documentaries ... rather than ignore them like NG and DC did ... and all the rest of the naysayers did. But you're not going to attempt that, are you? ;)

[BeAChooser]

Maybe you should take a step back and consider if the word you should be using is "trust' or "agreement".

No, I think the right word is "trust". Most people watching the NG and DC *documentaries* will form an opinion about what happened in the Ron Brown crash based on a certain degree of trust in the source. Misplaced perhaps.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

No, I think the right word is "trust". Most people watching the NG and DC *documentaries* will form an opinion about what happened in the Ron Brown crash based on a certain degree of trust in the source. Misplaced perhaps.

Perhaps indeed but that's what happens with the general populace when they are confronted with the authority, deserved or otherwise, of a group/individual/other entity. Nothing really to do about that, except complain. However, we're not talking about the populace but rather the posters of the JREF Forums.

[JoeEllison]

I'm not postulating a conspiracy in this thread, Joe. I'm simply noting that NG and DC did a really bad job of covering all the facts in the Ron Brown crash case. Why can't you bring yourself to acknowledge that? What do you fear?

And Joe, if you really want to debunk the Ron Brown accusations then you need to go to the thread discussing it in the Conspiracy forum. Here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119618 . And then deal with the specific facts that NG and DC left out of their documentaries ... rather than ignore them like NG and DC did ... and all the rest of the naysayers did. But you're not going to attempt that, are you? ;)Why bother trying to break you of your paranoid delusions? The tale you tell in this thread is insane enough for me. I'm sure the more detail you add, the more loony it sounds.

Again, who would create an elaborate plane crash conspiracy, but also shoot the intended victim? That's stupid, and you embrace that sort of stupidity. Is it just insane hatred towards Bill Clinton, or a more generalized paranoia?

[slingblade]

No, I think the right word is "trust". Most people watching the NG and DC *documentaries* will form an opinion about what happened in the Ron Brown crash based on a certain degree of trust in the source. Misplaced perhaps.

You mean as you just did with those "most people?" Because I don't see any cites or surveys, facts or evidence...just your opinion based on small sample and limited observation with a bit of various biases thrown in.

Among the errors: you seem to have assumed a certain percentage of posters at this forum have the same depth of interest as you in certain matters.

It might interest you to know that I have given the whole Ron Brown matter so much thought that I had to go look it up. The name Ron Brown rang absolutely no bells for me. Knowing Wiki isn't the world's most reliable source, I still went there and skimmed the article about him. Oh, yeah, I vaguely remember that, now.

And I don't care.

You see, I commit the opposing error: I believe or assume my government would just as soon lie to me as tell me the truth. I don't trust the barstids any farther than I can throw them. That's because, in general, I have observed that it takes a certain type to even want to be in politics, and I am not of that type. I am often honest to the point of my own detriment. I see politicians in general as folks who don't mind playing a bit fast and loose with the truth, if it serves their ends. I don't, after painful personal experience, tend to trust that sort of person, until and unless I'm given adequate reason to do so.

But key to the Ron Brown issue, and others of its ilk: I simply do not know, and probably cannot know, what happened. I am an outsider and will remain one. I must form an opinion, or not, based solely on whatever information is shared, and I know I don't have it all. What responsible opinion can I then form? This one:

I don't know what happened, but knowing human nature, I will say I think anything is possible, though not necessarily probable. I think the more probable explanation is the simplest one: the plane crashed due to pilot error. The conspiracy one is highly complicated and involves a lot of people by necessity. It's possible, but it's not probable.

Do you see, though, that I have at least allowed for that possibility? Since I cannot know, however, and likely will never know, what good is the opinion? Not much, really, and after this post, I will likely forget all about Ron Brown again.

As to the point of the OP: I spent many years believing everything I read and everything I saw on TV that was presented as non-fiction. I've grown up a bit, and now realize I must take all of it with a healthy grain of salt. TV is not there to inform. TV is there to sell things. And today, I have a very modern reference system very near my TV...a lot closer than my local library.

So, the Discovery Channel is on in the next room. Let's say this morning they had a show about Bigfoot. I don't pay much attention. I've already looked into that, have debunked it, and while it may irritate me they seem to be presenting it as fact, they aren't suckering me.

The next show is about Columbus. I don't know a whole lot about him, and maybe the show tells me a factlet I'd never heard. But look, I'm sitting in front of my computer! Ok, plug the terms into Google. Three universities all have essays on the very subject. And the essays have sources. I follow them. After about an hour of searching, I conclude that the factlet I heard on the Columbus program appears to have a great deal of substance to it, from a variety of sources. I can accept it, provisionally.

Now, Fergle forfend I'd ever try to deliberately make a "True Skeptic" argument. But I think, in my opinion, that this provisional acceptance is part, perhaps a key part, of the practice of skepticism. We can't know everything. Frankly, we can't know very much. But we do form opinions based on our limited knowledge. I feel that a skeptical thinker is one who doesn't then close the door and nail it shut. He or she leaves it open a crack, just in case a stray factoid wanders past. He or she is at least willing to consider new and/or opposing information if and when it comes along.

Trust is not really an important factor. The three universities I mentioned...how do I know they're telling the truth? I don't. That's why I follow the sources from the essays. How do I know the sources are telling the truth? I don't. That's why I continue to search. And even still, I may be following a twisted path of lies and half-truths. But all I can do is use my judgment, my past experience, and my intellect to form a provisional opinion, which I am willing to change, if need be.

To me, that's skepticism. Trust need not apply.

[BeAChooser]

The tale you tell in this thread is insane enough for me.

What tale? All I've done here is note some facts that weren't included in the NG and DC documentaries. Facts that I think should have been included. Such as the fact that they lost communication with the plane when it was still 7-8 miles out from the airport. That's you can't even acknowledge THAT tells us *something* about you, Joe. :D

[BeAChooser]

I don't see any cites or surveys, facts or evidence...just your opinion based on small sample and limited observation with a bit of various biases thrown in.

I think you have to agree that since the mainstream media completely ignored the facts I mentioned (for example, they never told the public there was a military photographer and military pathologists who were voicing concern about the nature of the wound in Brown's head and calling for an autopsy), most of the public is probably still totally unaware of those facts. They formed their opinion about the Brown crash based on what they read and saw in the mainstream media. That would include what they saw on NG and DC. I don't see the need to cite surveys to prove this. This is obvious to any remotely rational person.

Among the errors: you seem to have assumed a certain percentage of posters at this forum have the same depth of interest as you in certain matters.

Hey ... I didn't force you to come to this thread and post. :D

And I don't care.

You don't care that a Secretary of Commerce and at least 33 others may have been murdered in order to cover up treasonous activities by the Clinton administration? What do you *care* about? :rolleyes:

But key to the Ron Brown issue, and others of its ilk: I simply do not know, and probably cannot know, what happened.

But you can know what the photographer and pathologists said. And what Nolanda Hill said. And all the other facts that I listed above that the NG and DC *documentaries* ignored. That in the very least is useful information when forming opinions about other government and politician actions.

I think the more probable explanation is the simplest one: the plane crashed due to pilot error.

Well don't you think that simple explanation should be able to explain why the airport lost communication with the plane when it was still 7 to 8 miles out?

The conspiracy one is highly complicated and involves a lot of people by necessity.

This isn't complicated. All they would have had to do was cut communication with the plane and spoof the pilot into flying into a mountain in bad weather. And then make sure Brown was dead by having someone get there first. And then keep investigators from discovering the truth by ordering that they skip the SIB and there be no autopsy. Doesn't take more than a handful of people in the right positions.


Do you see, though, that I have at least allowed for that possibility? Since I cannot know, however, and likely will never know, what good is the opinion?

Actually you can know. All that needs to happen is that they exhume Brown's body and perform an autopsy with pathologists we can trust. If it turns up nothing, then we can all sleep peacefully. If it turns up a bullet wound ...


As to the point of the OP: I spent many years believing everything I read and everything I saw on TV that was presented as non-fiction. I've grown up a bit, and now realize I must take all of it with a healthy grain of salt. TV is not there to inform. TV is there to sell things. And today, I have a very modern reference system very near my TV...a lot closer than my local library.


But you are the exception to the rule. Which doesn't bode well for a free society, I fear.

To me, that's skepticism. Trust need not apply.

I agree. But most people aren't skeptics. Which again doesn't bode well for a free society. :D

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I saw a "documentary" on the Discovery Channel that argued how Sirhan Sirhan couldn't possibly have killed Robert Kennedy, but at the same time claimed that he did kill him, but only because the CIA hypnotised him. I saw another fine program that claimed that the US military somehow made a ship invisible during World War II, but when it reappeared, the sailors were somehow melded into the structure of the boat. I could go on about the inane drivel these channels often put forth as "factual" (the Roswell mystery-mongering nonsense,anyone?), but the point is not to take any of it too seriously. I swear, the conspiracy crackpots they feature on those programs would argue that sunrise is an illusion foisted on the public by a shadow government to manipulate profit margins for the power companies.

[Corsair 115]

Both the NG and Discovery channels, as well as the History Channel, have progressively gotten more sensationalist and less diligent in the realm of using verifiable, reliable, and realistic information. This could be a product of the channels themselves or it can be that the production companies providing these channels with material have dropped to a lowest-common-denominator target audience, but it's an unfortunate reality with the channels.I feel compelled to point out that Mayday is a Discovery Channel Canada production. Though they share the same branding, the Discovery Channel as it exists in Canada is not a direct clone of its American counterpart. While there are plenty of programs which are imported from Discovery Channel in the U.S,, Discovery Channel Canada also has its own original show creations.

The same is true for our version of The History Channel, which is called History Television. Though in this case it has no connection to the American channel and is an entirely separate entity.

[slingblade]

I think you have to agree

I need to stop you right here. I don't, in fact, have to agree with any of it, since I have not seen the shows in question, and likely won't. I don't watch a lot of TV, really. So, not having seen them, I can't agree with any of what follows, out of ignorance. Sorry.

Hey ... I didn't force you to come to this thread and post. :D

No, the title piqued my interest. Who said I was forced, and who said I would know this is a "Ron Brown was murdered" thread by the title?

You misdirected, you see, both in the title and in your opening and closing statements, the latter of which I quote:

So I close with the question I started with: Can we believe ANYTHING that we see on TV anymore? If we can't trust the veracity of National Geographics and Discovery Channel, what can we trust?

My answer goes hand-in-hand with your next question:

You don't care that a Secretary of Commerce and at least 33 others may have been murdered in order to cover up treasonous activities by the Clinton administration? What do you *care* about? :rolleyes:

I thought we were talking somewhat more about trusting sources than we were about Ron Brown. Pardon me for not paying closer attention.

I don't care about Ron Brown in the sense that it doesn't directly and immediately impact me in the same way my current personal problems are directly and immediately impacting me. I do care that a lot of people died. If they died by malfeasance, I'd think it good if the perpetrators were caught and dealth with. And if it happened, I think it's a horrible thing, the perps horrible people, and damn, what a cruel old world it continues to prove to be.

What else do you want from me?

I've got to figure how to keep this roof over my head, gas in the truck, food on the table. I'm not doing at all well at this, and it has me pretty concerned, along with several other things. I simply don't have the luxury (and yeah, I do consider it a luxury) to worry about what the higher-ups have been doing to people. I'll think about protesting and demanding when my worries become manageable again. Sorry.

But you can know what the photographer and pathologists said. And what Nolanda Hill said. And all the other facts that I listed above that the NG and DC *documentaries* ignored. That in the very least is useful information when forming opinions about other government and politician actions.

Except, I don't really form more than casual opinions about governments and politicians. Life's made me apathetic. The bad guys win more often than I'd like. C'est la vie.

And anyway, you just repeated what I've already said. I can only know what other people, people not me, are saying. But people can say anything! Evidence can be lost, twisted, pulled out of its context...I wasn't there. I don't know. I'm not directly connnected to the event, and if its ripples have reached out to touch me personally in some way, they're undetectable to me. I'm not in the mood to start expending a lot of energy researching this possible conspiracy and cover-up. I've got other things to do, and honestly, I should be doing them, rather than posting all this. :)

Well don't you think that simple explanation should be able to explain why the airport lost communication with the plane when it was still 7 to 8 miles out?

Beats me. I've little knowledge about such things.

This isn't complicated. All they would have had to do was cut communication with the plane and spoof the pilot into flying into a mountain in bad weather. And then make sure Brown was dead by having someone get there first. And then keep investigators from discovering the truth by ordering that they skip the SIB and there be no autopsy. Doesn't take more than a handful of people in the right positions.

Actually you can know. All that needs to happen is that they exhume Brown's body and perform an autopsy with pathologists we can trust. If it turns up nothing, then we can all sleep peacefully. If it turns up a bullet wound ...

Then I'll be properly scandalized, angry, and sad for a few minutes, and go back to stringing my beads and trying to put food on the table somehow.

But you are the exception to the rule. Which doesn't bode well for a free society, I fear.

Oh, well. With any luck, this "free" society will find a way to employ me, as soon as I find a way to walk out my door without shaking and throwing up. :)


I agree. But most people aren't skeptics. Which again doesn't bode well for a free society. :D

Not sure why that deserves a smile, but from me, it's getting a shrug.

Okay, okay, back to making beadwork. Sheesh, tyrants.
:p

[BeAChooser]

... I have not seen the shows in question, and likely won't. I don't watch a lot of TV, really. So, not having seen them, I can't agree with any of what follows, out of ignorance. Sorry.

Ok. Why bother to even take part in this thread?

No, the title piqued my interest. Who said I was forced, and who said I would know this is a "Ron Brown was murdered" thread by the title?

But still, you weren't forced to post. Once you found it was a Ron Brown thread you could have just gone on about your merry way.

You misdirected, you see, both in the title and in your opening and closing statements

No, I didn't. I didn't make this thread about the Ron Brown conspiracy ... those who joined in the discussion did. I merely wished to point out that NG and DC did not cover the entire story in their *documentary*. And perhaps discuss the implications of that.

Quote:
I thought we were talking somewhat more about trusting sources than we were about Ron Brown. Pardon me for not paying closer attention.

We are. That's why I asked what do you care about. :D

What else do you want from me?

I think I'm satisfied with your answers. You best get back to bead stringing. :)

[slingblade]

Ok. Why bother to even take part in this thread?

I wanted to. It gets lonely and mind-stifling, sitting in this chair day after day after day, seeing no one, going nowhere. Like I said, the title piqued my interest.

But still, you weren't forced to post. Once you found it was a Ron Brown thread you could have just gone on about your merry way.

So you aren't really interested in sources, and whether you can or should trust them? Why did you frame your argument that way?


No, I didn't. I didn't make this thread about the Ron Brown conspiracy ... those who joined in the discussion did. I merely wished to point out that NG and DC did not cover the entire story in their *documentary*. And perhaps discuss the implications of that.

A hair disingenuous, don't you think? I say that, because my initial response about sources and whether you can trust them rather got tossed out the window once you realized I don't give a fat rat's behind about the story itself. I mean, you pretty much had a "ZOMG, I've just seen granny with her knickers down!" reaction when I said I don't care about Ron Brown. So come on, quit waffling. Is your question about trusting TV shows, or is it about the evil meanies who may have killed some people?

Yes, it can be about both, but you seem to be waffling harder than IHoP.



We are. That's why I asked what do you care about. :D

Ah, ok. Here's my answer then: "I don't care about the same things you do, but they still let me stay on the planet, can you imagine???"



I think I'm satisfied with your answers. You best get back to bead stringing. :)

Frankly, I've seen better "snide" by caterpillars. You need practice, mate. :D

[BeAChooser]

So you aren't really interested in sources, and whether you can or should trust them?

I don't how you came to that conclusion.

I say that, because my initial response about sources and whether you can trust them rather got tossed out the window once you realized I don't give a fat rat's behind about the story itself.

Your initial response was to claim trust isn't necessary in a source? I pointed out that most people believe a source because they view it as trustworthy and, therefore, trust is important. You said trust isn't desirable in a skeptic. I pointed out that most people are not skeptics so again whether we can trust a source is important. The fact that you don't trust and you don't care is rather immaterial in the scope of things.

I mean, you pretty much had a "ZOMG, I've just seen granny with her knickers down!" reaction when I said I don't care about Ron Brown.

I didn't ask whether anyone cared about Ron Brown. I asked about whether we can trust a source that leaves so much out of a story. I think when you declared out of the blue that you didn't care about the Ron Brown or the circumstances of his death, you were just asking to get questioned about that. And now you object because you got what you apparently wanted? :rolleyes:

[JoeEllison]

I didn't ask whether anyone cared about Ron Brown. I asked about whether we can trust a source that leaves so much out of a story.

What is "left out" is the conspiracy theory stuff... seems to me like they probably included just the facts, and left out the idiocy. I could be wrong, but based on simple common sense I'm probably closer to correct than you are.

[BeAChooser]

What is "left out" is the conspiracy theory stuff... seems to me like they probably included just the facts, and left out the idiocy. I could be wrong, but based on simple common sense I'm probably closer to correct than you are.

You are and anyone with the least bit of common sense can prove you are simply by looking into the lists of facts I noted that they left out. They will find that indeed a military photographer and military pathologists did raise concerns about the nature of the wound and call for an autopsy. They will find that indeed the Air Force did skip the SIB portion of the normal crash investigation for the first time in its history (other than one clear cut instance of friendly fire downing a plane). They will find that indeed Ron Brown was in serious legal trouble at the time of his death and that Nolanda Hill did testify under oath that he told Clinton he was going to turn states evidence and wasn't scheduled to be on that plane until after he did that. Anyone with the least bit of common sense will look beyond the end of their nose rather than imitate you. And then they will ask, why didn't NG and DC (as well as the rest of the mainstream media) report any of that? :D

[JoeEllison]

You are and anyone with the least bit of common sense can prove you are simply by looking into the lists of facts I noted that they left out.
You call them facts. Reasonable people who get to make TV shows don't call them facts. I'll go with them over your obviously idiotic view on the issue.

[BeAChooser]

You call them facts. Reasonable people who get to make TV shows don't call them facts. I'll go with them over your obviously idiotic view on the issue.

I call them facts because one can easily verify them on the internet. You do know how to use your browser, don't you, Joe? For example, if you want proof that a military photographer and a military pathologist voiced concern about the nature of the wound, used the word "bullet", and called for an autopsy, you can find dozens of credible sources include video/audio statements by them stating those concerns. What is "idiotic" is sticking your head in the ground and refusing to do that. But I thank you for demonstrating the problem with sources like NG and DC misrepresenting the facts. It allows folks like you to obstruct the search for truth and yet appear to be reasonable. A dangerous threat to a free society. :D

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

It seems to me that an autopsy would settle nothing for a conspiracy buff. After all, according to them, everyone and everything, whether it favours their opinion or contradicts it, is proof of a conspiracy. If a hundred, or a thousand forensic investigators examine the corpse and state that it is not a bullet wound, well, they've been threatened, or bribed. If these people keep the Kennedy myths alive (murders witnessed by hundreds and thousands of people as they happened, with one killer caught in the act), they won't let any of their crackpot notions go.


Conspiracy theorists need better hobbies.

[GreNME]

I feel compelled to point out that Mayday is a Discovery Channel Canada production. Though they share the same branding, the Discovery Channel as it exists in Canada is not a direct clone of its American counterpart. While there are plenty of programs which are imported from Discovery Channel in the U.S,, Discovery Channel Canada also has its own original show creations.

The same is true for our version of The History Channel, which is called History Television. Though in this case it has no connection to the American channel and is an entirely separate entity.

Still, this trend in the US programming has been consistent and ongoing for at least the last 5-10 years. Pay stations (cable, satellite, etc.) have managed to garner much higher ratings as a result, I wager. It's all about the lowest common denominator, similar to the internet in general but slightly less frenetic.

[slingblade]

I don't how you came to that conclusion.

You've got two issues in your thread: Can you trust the accuracy of information sources, and did two particular sources leave out information from a specific topic--information you feel exists and should have been presented? These can, and probably should, be discreet inquiries. Meaning, they probably shouldn't be conflated, mixed together, taken as one issue.

I came to my conclusion at the moment I saw your reaction to my not being particularly concerned with who or what killed Ron Brown and several other strangers. You were somewhat vehement in response, so I concluded that the Brown issue was at least as important to you as trusting a couple of TV channels.

I then decided the question of trust was merely a frame for discussing Brown, the actual topic. That's how.

Your initial response was to claim trust isn't necessary in a source?

Not exactly. My claim is that trust may be neither necessary to, or desirable in, the practice of skepticism.

I've heard a lot of things on the news that made me immediately turn on a browser and start looking for verification, and yet I consider my news source to be reasonably reliable. But, not faithfully so. In fact, my chief news source has actually been caught making up "facts" out of whole cloth. I'd be a fool to "trust" them, in that light, now wouldn't I? They're a source for information, but they certainly aren't deserving of blind faith.

Well, well. Look at the words we're suddenly using: trust, faith....rather sounds like the absence of critical thought, somehow.

I pointed out that most people believe a source because they view it as trustworthy and, therefore, trust is important.

Yes, you did, and that's true. And it's...bad. Trust ought not be important, not in the way I think you mean, but I cover that in more detail a couple of paragraphs down.

You said trust isn't desirable in a skeptic.

Actually, I asked if it were desirable to the practice of skepticism. I asked carefully and deliberately. There's no such thing as a True Skeptic. There are only the diverse people who practice skepticism in their own ways.
Yet, consider: if to trust is not to question, then trust seems antithetical to a practice of skepticism, yes?

I pointed out that most people are not skeptics so again whether we can trust a source is important.

No, wait. This really doesn't follow, I'm sorry.

You are absolutely right. Most people aren't skeptics, and some even consider the term "skeptical" to be somehow derisive. Say it with a sneer. Poor, disbelieving bastard. He's got no faith in anything, no trust. What a miserable life. Isn't that right?

So, given that people value trust so highly, what you seem to be saying you'd like to see is certain information sources held to a rigorous standard of presenting the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts, so help us, Nielson, amen. You want to know that when you turn on the Discovery Channel, the show you are about to see will tell you everything there is to know, so long as it's true. You want to be able to trust them, without having to check for yourself.

You want to be lazy.

You want truth spoon-fed to you, with no effort on your part.

If you prefer to be led, trust is indeed important as you state. I don't prefer to be led, if I can help it.

The fact that you don't trust and you don't care is rather immaterial in the scope of things.

In the scope of what things? Doesn't your thread title ask: "what can we trust?" My answer is: not much. Did you not want an answer to your own question? Then how is this answer to it "rather immaterial?"

I didn't ask whether anyone cared about Ron Brown.

You most certainly asked me. Shall I refer you?

I asked about whether we can trust a source that leaves so much out of a story.

I'm sorry, do you need others to tell you that a lie by omission is a lie?

The simple answer, topic aside, is no. No, you cannot trust any source that deliberately leaves out vital information when examining any topic. Come on, you never started a thread just to ask this primary-school question, did you? Really?

I think when you declared out of the blue that you didn't care about the Ron Brown or the circumstances of his death, you were just asking to get questioned about that.

It wasn't out of the blue. And, truthfully, I don't really think that way. All I was trying to do was answer your question about trusting sources. The topic isn't important when answering that question, do you see? This one simply doesn't concern me, and I don't see why, apart from my empathy for a horrible tragedy, I should be concerned. Can you enlighten me?

Look, suppose I were to do some research, and came to the conclusion, based on strong evidence, that Ron Brown et al were indeed murdered.

Now what?

And now you object because you got what you apparently wanted? :rolleyes:

This just baffles me. What, exactly, am I objecting to again?

[BeAChooser]

It seems to me that an autopsy would settle nothing for a conspiracy buff. After all, according to them, everyone and everything, whether it favours their opinion or contradicts it, is proof of a conspiracy.

Nice strawman. It would settle it for me, as I've already stated on numerous occasions. The only requirement I'd have is that the pathologists be selected from people outside the government and that some of the whistleblowers, like Janoski and Cogswell, be in attendance at the autopsy and have access to all data. If Cogswell, etc were satisfied with the result, I'd be satisfied. That's not an unreasonable position.

Conspiracy theorists need better hobbies.

Those defending the Clinton administration need to deal with the actual facts.

[Darth Rotor]

That's a pretty "stupid to the point of ridiculousness" conspiracy you've got there BAC. Deeply, profoundly stupid. You should really consider sitting down and taking stock of your life and mental health. Seriously, I'm not trying to screw with you here(much) because the idea that someone would go through all of this complicated and elaborate nonsense to crash a plane, but also shoot Brown? That's just insane. There's really got to be something wrong with anyone who believes that sort of thing.

It is really easy to kill people and make it look like an accident or a random shooting. No one would concoct a gigantic conspiracy to kill Brown by airplane crash AND bullet. Who would bother? And who would have thought that hatred of Bill Clinton would lead to such deep paranoid delusions?

Joe: beachnut already kicked BAC's arse on this over at CT a while back. I stopped responding to him on that, after a conversation a few weeks into that topic with an Air Force major, now retired, who was on the mishap board and at the site. It was weird. I'd been banging my head against the wall with BAC on this, and had lunch with G, and mentioned the topic. After about fifteen minutes, I decided BAC's game wasn't worth playing.

It's an exercise in JAQing off to talk Ron Browne with BAC.

DR

[BeAChooser]

I came to my conclusion at the moment I saw your reaction to my not being particularly concerned with who or what killed Ron Brown and several other strangers.

Then I think you just jumped to an unjustified conclusion. :)

You were somewhat vehement in response, so I concluded that the Brown issue was at least as important to you as trusting a couple of TV channels. I then decided the question of trust was merely a frame for discussing Brown, the actual topic. That's how.


Of course the Brown issue is important to me. But I didn't raise the conspiracy issue in this thread. In fact, I specifically pointed out in the OP that what I was noting about the NG and DC documentaries was independent of any conspiracy theories. I can't help it if those joining the thread instead of focusing on what the OP actually said decided to make the issue the conspiracy theories. They are the ones who framed it that way. And surely you can see that. :D


Quote:
Your initial response was to claim trust isn't necessary in a source?

Not exactly. My claim is that trust may be neither necessary to, or desirable in, the practice of skepticism.

You didn't say "may". You said "Is trust a necessary or even desirable trait for a skeptic? I trust not." That's rather definitive.

I've heard a lot of things on the news that made me immediately turn on a browser and start looking for verification

But you are the exception. The average person in the real as opposed to virtual world doesn't look for verification. They just accept what they read as true because they trust the source.

Quote:
I pointed out that most people believe a source because they view it as trustworthy and, therefore, trust is important.

Yes, you did, and that's true. And it's...bad.

I agree. It is bad but you aren't going to make the average person a skeptic like us. Certainly our education system isn't trying to do that. So like it or not, most people are going to form opinions that affect this country's and the world's future based on whatever they read without verifying the veracity. So again, I conclude that our ability to trust those sources is important. For all our sakes. If the sources can't be trusted, perhaps we should do something about that.

Quote:
You said trust isn't desirable in a skeptic.

Actually, I asked if it were desirable to the practice of skepticism

And answered your own question by saying "I trust not."


So, given that people value trust so highly, what you seem to be saying you'd like to see is certain information sources held to a rigorous standard of presenting the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts, so help us, Nielson, amen.

Yes. Sort of like the Fair Witnesses in Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land".

You want to know that when you turn on the Discovery Channel, the show you are about to see will tell you everything there is to know, so long as it's true. You want to be able to trust them, without having to check for yourself. You want to be lazy.

No, I'll always check. Because I'm a skeptic. ;)

I want the source to be trustworthy because public opinion, which affects decisions, comes from mostly non-skeptics, who are too lazy to check. So they need trustworthy sources ... for MY own good. See? :D

You want truth spoon-fed to you, with no effort on your part.

No, if I felt that way, I'd be of the opinion that Brown died in an accidental plane crash. :D

I don't prefer to be led, if I can help it.

No, you don't care one way or the other. Remember? :)


Quote:
The fact that you don't trust and you don't care is rather immaterial in the scope of things.

In the scope of what things?

Public policy. The sanctity of our election system. The sanctity of our legal system. :D

Quote:
I didn't ask whether anyone cared about Ron Brown.

You most certainly asked me. Shall I refer you?

Only after you seemed to make Ron Brown an issue in this thread. Shall I refer you? :D

Quote:
I asked about whether we can trust a source that leaves so much out of a story.

I'm sorry, do you need others to tell you that a lie by omission is a lie?

Are you trying to be obtuse and miss the point of this thread?

The simple answer, topic aside, is no. No, you cannot trust any source that deliberately leaves out vital information when examining any topic.

Well I'm glad you agree. Now if only the other so-called *skeptics* around here actually felt that way. :D

The topic isn't important when answering that question, do you see?

I agree. Which makes it curious that so many other so-called *skeptics* around here focused on that topic instead.

This one simply doesn't concern me, and I don't see why, apart from my empathy for a horrible tragedy, I should be concerned. Can you enlighten me?

Well if you can't trust the President, Air Force, Department of Justice, and FBI to properly investigate a potential crime ...

Look, suppose I were to do some research, and came to the conclusion, based on strong evidence, that Ron Brown et al were indeed murdered. Now what?

Motivate public opinion so that the body is exhumed and autopsied.

[BeAChooser]

Joe: beachnut already kicked BAC's arse on this over at CT a while back.

You are delusional, DR. I took beachnut apart on earlier threads ... so badly that here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119618 , he's now stammering. Just repeating the same plagerized message over and over, and claiming to be a "friend" of the pilot.

All beachnut (and YOU) ever did was regurgitate the "official story" ... which I showed in this thread is incomplete AT BEST. An official story that leaves out a host of very important and quite incriminating facts. Lies by omission, if nothing else.

I stopped responding to him on that, after a conversation a few weeks into that topic with an Air Force major, now retired, who was on the mishap board and at the site. It was weird.

No, DR, you stopped responding when you found you couldn't debate the facts any better than beachnut. And then you, like him, started claiming inside knowledge and sources ... none of which you can prove. And yes that is weird.

I'd been banging my head against the wall with BAC on this, and had lunch with G, and mentioned the topic. After about fifteen minutes, I decided BAC's game wasn't worth playing.

Why don't you tell us what he told you, DR? I bet I can point out a number of omissions that would qualify as lies, if not outright lies. Go ahead ... wow us with "G"'s knowledge and impartiality. :D

It's an exercise in JAQing off to talk Ron Browne with BAC.

It's not "Browne", DR. Surely "G" told you that. :D

[JoeEllison]

Joe: beachnut already kicked BAC's arse on this over at CT a while back. I stopped responding to him on that, after a conversation a few weeks into that topic with an Air Force major, now retired, who was on the mishap board and at the site. It was weird. I'd been banging my head against the wall with BAC on this, and had lunch with G, and mentioned the topic. After about fifteen minutes, I decided BAC's game wasn't worth playing.

It's an exercise in JAQing off to talk Ron Browne with BAC.

DR

Seems about right. It isn't even based on facts: it is based on an insane(in the literal sense) hatred of Bill Clinton. The "reasoning" apparently rests on the belief that Bill Clinton is one step below Satan, so any negative claim about Clinton must be true no matter how illogical or unlikely. By the same token, the massive amount of evidence that vindicates Clinton and shows conclusively that most of the attacks on him were completely unfounded serves only as massive amounts of "evidence" that there is a gigantic conspiracy to protect Clinton. There is no evidence that will ever satisfy BAC or any other conspiracy nut, because all evidence is distorted by the filter of their underlying delusional worldview. Without that worldview, the whole conspiracy falls apart as obviously nonsensical.

[Gurdur]

Foster / Brown Fever Index (FBFI): count the number of :D's in a post mentioning how the punk group Obama & The democRATS * murdered Foster / Brown, and did in JFK too, as well as killing off the crew of the Marie Celeste just for fun; if >2, the poster is in a febrile state, in danger of total meltdown and requiring urgent professional assistance; if =2, keep under observation.

____________

* Don't blame me for that one, blame him.

[slingblade]

No, you don't care one way or the other. Remember?

I don't care about Ron Brown. That doesn't mean you can apply that to every topic known to man.

Public policy. The sanctity of our election system. The sanctity of our legal system.

Don't believe in those last two. They aren't holy; they're riddled with corruption and greed. They don't care about me, and never will.

Well if you can't trust the President, Air Force, Department of Justice, and FBI to properly investigate a potential crime ...

I don't trust them. I've no reason to. What good would trusting them do me, anyway?

Motivate public opinion so that the body is exhumed and autopsied.

Will this improve my life in an immediate, personal, and observable way?

[Dancing David]

Those defending the Clinton administration need to deal with the actual facts.

Unlike those who defend the GWB administration who need to deal with breaking the law, willfull deception and outright lying.

keep spinning Karl JR.

[Dancing David]

" ... which I showed in this thread is incomplete AT BEST.

Incomplete at best?

Sounds like most of your Plasma Cosmology malarkey.

Still playing god of the gaps are you.

GWB willfully broke the law, I am sure you have seen all the post dated pardons while you are hiding in Cheney's safe.

[Don At Work]

Nice strawman. It would settle it for me, as I've already stated on numerous occasions. The only requirement I'd have is that the pathologists be selected from people outside the government and that some of the whistleblowers, like Janoski and Cogswell, be in attendance at the autopsy and have access to all data. If Cogswell, etc were satisfied with the result, I'd be satisfied. That's not an unreasonable position.


Bolding mine.

I disagree. It is unreasonable that YOUR fellow CTs get to be the final arbiters of the validity of the autopsy. If the coroner is a disinterested 3rd party, neither a CT nor an "Insider" need be consulted. You can take the coroner's word for it. Heck, get 2 or 3 that have no vested interest and see what they come up with. You simply don't NEED your insiders there, nor does the other side.


What tale? All I've done here is note some facts that weren't included in the NG and DC documentaries. Facts that I think should have been included. Such as the fact that they lost communication with the plane when it was still 7-8 miles out from the airport.


Bolding mine.

What "facts"? If they are facts, then you need to CITE your source. Telling someone to "look it up" is not how you present your case. If I can't find it, then it must not exist, right? No, not true. However, it is true until you SHOW ME. Here is a nice fact. Ron Brown was in on a HUGE conspiracy to overthrow the government. That is why he was killed. ITS A FACT. Look it up.

See how that works?

Show us some of your "facts", with CITES. Yea, your cites will probably be torn to shreds for being from conspiracy sites that have no validity, but it's a start.

[BeAChooser]

Unlike those who defend the GWB administration who need to deal with breaking the law, willfull deception and outright lying.

There's a important difference here, David.

I have argued against the specifics presented to claim GWB has committed those actions, where I've thought he hasn't. I've done that by presenting specific facts (with links to sources) to challenge those claims. I've done that on numerous threads and occasions. And you know this is true.

In the Brown (and Foster) case, the other side will NOT argue the specific facts presented to indicate foul play. They just ignore them.

See the difference? :D

[BeAChooser]

GWB willfully broke the law, I am sure you have seen all the post dated pardons while you are hiding in Cheney's safe.

I see you are having trouble debating the facts in the Brown case, too. :D

[BeAChooser]

It is unreasonable that YOUR fellow CTs get to be the final arbiters of the validity of the autopsy.

You call individuals who were highly regarded military officers at the time of the event and who were considered some of the best forensic pathologists in the country "CTs"? :rolleyes:

If the coroner is a disinterested 3rd party, neither a CT nor an "Insider" need be consulted.

And how are you going to pick this disinterested party at this point in time? Tell us your procedure. And name some names so you can prove to me that they truly are disinterested and would not be affected by government pressure. Given the government tampering that is evident in the Brown and Foster cases, pardon me for being a little suspicious. That's why I want the original whistleblowers (who appear to have been completely honest and were never proven wrong in anything they claimed as fact) at the autopsy. That's why I want them to have access to any x-rays or data that is taken. If for no other reason than to confirm that there is no tampering with the evidence. If they can confirm that, with assurances that the 3rd parties indeed have no vested interest and are willing to rock the boat if that's what the evidence shows, then let's go for it. I have no objections.

What "facts"? If they are facts, then you need to CITE your source. Telling someone to "look it up" is not how you present your case.

Don, you are stepping into the middle of a long conversation that has spanned numerous threads. Being so new to the forum, you might be advised to look at some previous threads on this subject before putting your foot into it. ;)

If you would even visit the thread I linked earlier (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119618 ), you would find plenty of specific, credible sources to back up what I'm saying. I'm not going to spoon feed you here, since this thread isn't even about the Ron Brown conspiracy but just the fact that the NG and DC documentaries have clearly omitted important details.

If I can't find it, then it must not exist, right? No, not true. However, it is true until you SHOW ME. Here is a nice fact. Ron Brown was in on a HUGE conspiracy to overthrow the government. That is why he was killed. ITS A FACT. Look it up.

Again, if you won't even read a thread where all those sources you demand have already been posted (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119618 ), I'm wasting my time with you. Am I?

Since you obviously didn't bother to even read THIS thread and find the link to where the Ron Brown matter has been discussed previously, I'll spoon feed you this one last time. Here's the thread you should visit:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119618

If you have comments or complaints about the contents or validity of the sources I offer there and on the threads that preceded it (which are linked on that thread), make them there. You can be sure I will respond. :D

Yea, your cites will probably be torn to shreds for being from conspiracy sites that have no validity, but it's a start.

Well, I've linked the thread with the cites. Try your best. :D

[JoeEllison]

Incomplete at best?

Sounds like most of your Plasma Cosmology malarkey.

Still playing god of the gaps are you.

GWB willfully broke the law, I am sure you have seen all the post dated pardons while you are hiding in Cheney's safe.
"Plasma Cosmology"?!?! BAC doesn't even live in the same dimension as the rest of us, does he? :rolleyes:

[Don At Work]

If for no other reason than to confirm that there is no tampering with the evidence. If they can confirm that, with assurances that the 3rd parties indeed have no vested interest and are willing to rock the boat if that's what the evidence shows, then let's go for it. I have no objections.

Good, neither do I.


Don, you are stepping into the middle of a long conversation that has spanned numerous threads. Being so new to the forum, you might be advised to look at some previous threads on this subject before putting your foot into it. ;)


I actually did read through all of the other threads a while ago, but went back and looked again.(not a busy day at work.)

You give yourself WAY too much credit. I may "new to the forum" in your eyes, since I registered as of late, but I have read these forums for a few years now. This would be another example of how you "state fact". I thought that you were taken apart on the other threads. You obviously think different.



If you would even visit the thread I linked earlier (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119618 ), you would find plenty of specific, credible sources to back up what I'm saying. I'm not going to spoon feed you here, since this thread isn't even about the Ron Brown conspiracy but just the fact that the NG and DC documentaries have clearly omitted important details.


Spoon feed me? Try and be condescending some more, its cute. You are dishonest at best, and a deluded egomaniac at worst. Kevin_Lowe has already put your "argument" to rest.

Important details to you. Facts to you. I am quite sure that NG and DC have good lawyers, and "omitt important details" that could get them sued.



Again, if you won't even read a thread where all those sources you demand have already been posted (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119618 ), I'm wasting my time with you. Am I?

Since you obviously didn't bother to even read THIS thread and find the link to where the Ron Brown matter has been discussed previously, I'll spoon feed you this one last time. Here's the thread you should visit:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=119618

If you have comments or complaints about the contents or validity of the sources I offer there and on the threads that preceded it (which are linked on that thread), make them there. You can be sure I will respond. :D



Again, you assume too much. I read them all. You made just about as much sense on those threads. And again, your tone makes you seem to be full of yourself. Perhaps you should apply for the MDC since you know that I have not read the other threads, nor this one. (here is a nice smiley for you) :book:


Well, I've linked the thread with the cites. Try your best. :D


I don't have to try anything. You were soundly refuted on the other threads. Here is a suggestion. How about you try YOUR best? (did I get the condescending tone right?)

[Dancing David]

There's a important difference here, David.

I have argued against the specifics presented to claim GWB has committed those actions, where I've thought he hasn't. I've done that by presenting specific facts (with links to sources) to challenge those claims. I've done that on numerous threads and occasions. And you know this is true.

In the Brown (and Foster) case, the other side will NOT argue the specific facts presented to indicate foul play. They just ignore them.

See the difference? :D


I doubt it!

:D

Your facts are made in a factory.

[Dancing David]

If you have comments or complaints about the contents or validity of the sources I offer there and on the threads that preceded it (which are linked on that thread), make them there. You can be sure I will respond. :D



Well, I've linked the thread with the cites. Try your best. :D


Yeah right BAC, you are such a tease, there are still pages of stuff you have never responded to, much less the outright contradictions and messes you made.

"The momentum of galaxies is imparted at thier formation thus explaining the flat rotation curves".

:p

[Dancing David]

"Plasma Cosmology"?!?! BAC doesn't even live in the same dimension as the rest of us, does he? :rolleyes:


he lives in D. Cheney's man sized safe.

[JoeEllison]

he lives in D. Cheney's man sized safe.

In an undisclosed location, near where Jimmy Hoffa is buried, and guarded by the second gunman from the grassy knoll?

[Dancing David]

And the anthrax spore from the glassy beaker.

[PaKu]

Is this the same Discovery Channel that's always showing programs that promote UFOs, ghosts, bigfoot, and Nessie?

Steve S.
it's rather irritating that you can't refer to a good documentary, e.g. crop circles, as one of the arguments in a discussion without being shot down by that comment which is, unfortunatly, true..

[BeAChooser]

I actually did read through all of the other threads a while ago

Then why did you claim I had not provided sources?

I may "new to the forum" in your eyes, since I registered as of late, but I have read these forums for a few years now.

Then you should have known I provided sources for everything I claimed. And why did you act like you hadn't read anything else?

You are dishonest at best, and a deluded egomaniac at worst. Kevin_Lowe has already put your "argument" to rest.

Oh he did, did he? Exactly how did he do that, Don? What argument of his convinced you? Or do you need to remain vague ... LIKE HE DID? Because all he did is point vaguely to others and claim *they* dismantled my arguments. :D

Here's the post in that thread I pointed you to where I responded to Kevin's *vague* claim in that thread:


Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe
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.

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.

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.

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?


Let's look closer at that thread where Kevin actually did try to debate me directly: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90750 . Maybe that's where you think Kevin put my arguments to rest. Here (post #13) was his major theme:


The least implausible version of BAC's implicit TC that I can tease out is that Evil Conspirators (1) sabotaged the plane's communications gear, (2) lured it into crashing with a false beacon, and then (3) ran up to Brown as he staggered out of the wreckage and killed him with an exotic weapon they had brought along that made suspicious-looking wounds.

The first two steps are far-fetched but not impossible, but what's with the third? Why is our hypothetical assassin rushing to the crash site to polish off survivors armed with a wacky weapon that is tailor-made to arouse suspicion?


Instead of addressing the facts (such as the statements of the whisteblowers and what the x-ray shows), he insisted I must supply a scenario of how it happened. The fallacy of doing that aside, my response was #26 where I think I adequately addressed his concerns and provided a plausible scenario. Would you like to point out what portion of my response you don't agree with, Don? You can do it on that thread if you like. Or are you going to run?

By the way, Don, in that thread Kevin foolishly continued beyond post #26 and in doing so ended up badly embarrassing himself. His adhominems were not a substitute for actually dealing with the facts. Nor were his obfuscations. Nor were his misrepresentations of the facts. Nor were his misrepresentations of my statements. And since he covered so much ground, I'm going to ask you to point out specifically which of his points carried the day for you? Or are you going to run?

And by the way, are you Australian too? :D

[Dancing David]

By the way, BAC, in that thread you foolishly continued beyond posting and in doing so ended up badly embarrassing yourself. Your adhominems were not a substitute for actually dealing with the facts. Nor were your obfuscations. Nor were your misrepresentations of the facts. Nor were your misrepresentations of other's statements. And since you covered so much ground, I'm going to ask you to point out specifically which of his points you ever really substantiated? Or are you going to run?

that is what you usually do!

:D