Pet Theories

[Alareth]

For the most part, most of the posters here are rational and understand the concept off supporting evidence.

Do any of you have any personal conspiracy theories that you simply keep quiet about because you cannot present sufficient evidence for them? An event where where things "Just don't seem right" but you've managed not to devolve into woo over it.

Mine involves the "suicide" of someone in the military, but because I don't have the resources to dig deeper into it, for me it will always be a case of suspiscion.

[BeAChooser]

Mine is the death of Ron Brown.

[Alt+F4]

Do any of you have any personal conspiracy theories that you simply keep quiet about because you cannot present sufficient evidence for them?

Yes I do! Well it's not so much a conspiracy theory but an alternate theory regarding AA77. The conventional wisdom is that AA77's target was always the Pentagon. I'm of the belief that AA77's target was either The White House or The Capital Building (UA193 would strike the other one) and not The Pentagon.

Reasons for my belief:
1. The White House and The Capital Building are greater symbols of American democracy than The Pentagon, which many Americans didn't like way before 9/11. Since one of the goals of terrorism is to demoralize the populous, the destruction of these buildings would have a very powerful effect.

2. Even though The Pentagon is the largest office building in the world, it's not that tall and would be a harder target to hit for an amature pilot to hit that The White House or Capital Building. Here's an experiment: go to Washington D.C. in Google Maps. See how long it takes you to find The White House and Capital Building versus The Pentagon.

Of course I have no evidence of this.....

[Dark Jaguar]

Regarding that, well who said these guys knew what building's destruction would affect us the most? They were clearly nuts.

I have no pet conspiracy theories myself.

[Rahne Everson]

Yes I do! Well it's not so much a conspiracy theory but an alternate theory regarding AA77. The conventional wisdom is that AA77's target was always the Pentagon. I'm of the belief that AA77's target was either The White House or The Capital Building (UA193 would strike the other one) and not The Pentagon.

Reasons for my belief:
1. The White House and The Capital Building are greater symbols of American democracy than The Pentagon, which many Americans didn't like way before 9/11. Since one of the goals of terrorism is to demoralize the populous, the destruction of these buildings would have a very powerful effect.

2. Even though The Pentagon is the largest office building in the world, it's not that tall and would be a harder target to hit for an amature pilot to hit that The White House or Capital Building. Here's an experiment: go to Washington D.C. in Google Maps. See how long it takes you to find The White House and Capital Building versus The Pentagon.

Of course I have no evidence of this.....

I'll agree with you though, especially considering that Flight 93's intended destination was either the Capitol or the White House. And while the Capitol rotunda is far either to spot from the air than the White House, it's hard not to see the giant pentagonal shape to the south before you spot anything else.

As for pet theories, I've got a couple, but they're not "conspircy theories" per se. I believe in aliens, due to the sheer amount of galaxies and stars that exist in the universe, but there's no evidence that anybody's come a-knocking during our time on this planet. And I believe that, if one tallied up every sighting of secret military tests of new planes, you'd account for every UFO sighting that wasn't explained by something else, like refracted starlight or commercial planes or weather balloons.

[uk_dave]

The French.

But I don't like to talk about it.

[JC Fla]

Kitties is smarter than Doggies...

Whoops, wrong pet theory...

nevermind...

[Alareth]

Kitties is smarter than Doggies...

Whoops, wrong pet theory...

nevermind...

That's not a theory. It's a fact.

Kitties is the bestest.

[Unfit4Command]

9/11 was an inside job, it's obvious, you just need to look at the evidence and open your eyes.

Also, kitties are the best, I will agree there.

[Alareth]

... Only kitties are perfect enough to have pulled off the Incredibly Vast Conspiracy

Why couldn't I see that before?

[Dan O.]

2. Even though The Pentagon is the largest office building in the world, it's not that tall and would be a harder target to hit for an amature pilot to hit that The White House or Capital Building. Here's an experiment: go to Washington D.C. in Google Maps. See how long it takes you to find The White House and Capital Building versus The Pentagon.

The terrorists weren't flying by the seat of there pants. They had months to prepare including the use of flight simulators. Follow their path, find what they were using for navigation points. Don't try to force the facts to fit your theory, use the facts to disprove the invalid theories.

[MaGZ]

Yes I do! Well it's not so much a conspiracy theory but an alternate theory regarding AA77. The conventional wisdom is that AA77's target was always the Pentagon. I'm of the belief that AA77's target was either The White House or The Capital Building (UA193 would strike the other one) and not The Pentagon.

Reasons for my belief:
1. The White House and The Capital Building are greater symbols of American democracy than The Pentagon, which many Americans didn't like way before 9/11. Since one of the goals of terrorism is to demoralize the populous, the destruction of these buildings would have a very powerful effect.

2. Even though The Pentagon is the largest office building in the world, it's not that tall and would be a harder target to hit for an amature pilot to hit that The White House or Capital Building. Here's an experiment: go to Washington D.C. in Google Maps. See how long it takes you to find The White House and Capital Building versus The Pentagon.

Of course I have no evidence of this.....

I think flight 77's target always was the Pentagon. I think the pilot of flight 77 looped around DC to see if the US Capital was hit. Flight 93–according to KSM–targeted the US Capital.

The White House was never a target on 9/11. Atta had set up the assassination of President Bush that morning in Florida.

[MaGZ]

The terrorists weren't flying by the seat of there pants. They had months to prepare including the use of flight simulators. Follow their path, find what they were using for navigation points. Don't try to force the facts to fit your theory, use the facts to disprove the invalid theories.

I’ll add a few more to the mix.

The hijackers had guns that were smuggled upon the planes by conspirators who worked at a support level at the airports.

Also, the four pilots navigated the planes with GPS systems they purchased earlier.

One more.
Other planes were intended to be hijacked, but were delayed and grounded early that morning on 9/11.

[JC Fla]

... Only kitties are perfect enough to have pulled off the Incredibly Vast Conspiracy

Why couldn't I see that before?


Of course! That would explain the strange looks my Siamese gives me when I get home from work..

That and those strange bookmarks on the computer

[Darth Rotor]

Pet Theories
I'll throw out the theory that Jason Bermas has sex with his pets. This has as much support, and evidence available to me, as the inside job Jason believes in.

DR

[beachnut]

Mine is the death of Ron Brown.
I already told you my friend was the pilot on that flight and it was an accident. I knew his family when he flew with me and I worked with him for years. I know why it happen and how it happen, and it was an accident. Drop your political bias and use your brain, you are right about 9/11, and I can tell you Rob Brown's flight had an accident.

With CT I have learned you can not let your biases or opinions override the facts.

[In My Spare Time]

... Only kitties are perfect enough to have pulled off the Incredibly Vast Conspiracy

Why couldn't I see that before?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1800646954001584a9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6971)

[Monza]

I did see a TV program a number of years ago that speculated the original taget was indeed the White House. With the extensive tree covering and the flight path heading east toward the rising sun, it was difficult to find. The large turn toward the Pentagon was the result of a contigency plan.

I dunno, it seems plausible.

[Alareth]

I did see a TV program a number of years ago that speculated the original taget was indeed the White House. With the extensive tree covering and the flight path heading east toward the rising sun, it was difficult to find. The large turn toward the Pentagon was the result of a contigency plan.

I dunno, it seems plausible.

People made that speculation the day of the attacks.

[uk_dave]

I thought they were just trying to find Lyte Trips house.

For a flyover.

Not that anyone would have noticed, of course.

[Comsat Angel]

Okayyyyy!
The Communication Satellite Corporation of America conspired to eavesdrop on the tour schedule of the Comsat Angels back in the early '80's, heard what the group were called and told Polydor to change the name or be sued into bankruptcy. Polydor caved in, and the Comsats had to tour under "CSA". Which, I understand, may be misunderstood in the USA.

[BeAChooser]

I already told you my friend was the pilot on that flight and it was an accident. I knew his family when he flew with me and I worked with him for years. I know why it happen and how it happen, and it was an accident. Drop your political bias and use your brain, you are right about 9/11, and I can tell you Rob Brown's flight had an accident.


Well good for you, but I'm not, and it has nothing to do with a political bias. At this point, I think Bush and company are just culpable if there was a mass murder as Clinton and company. And you'll not convince me it was an accident until you explain the following items (to list just a few of the questions I have):

1) Why have all the forensic pathologists, both military and civilian, (except for one ... that being the head of AFIP, and who it can be proven lied about both the facts in the case and the opinions of his staff) who have made public statements said the wound in his head looked like a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied? Note that some of these declarations were made DURING the examination of the body at Dover AFB. Pathologist Lt. Colonel Hause, who was considered to be one of the military's leading experts on gunshot wounds at the time, looked at the wound and remembers saying "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too." By law, if there is suspicion of foul play in the death of a Cabinet member , the FBI is to be called in and an autopsy done. Yet, that didn't happen. And we aren't talking about run of the mill forensic pathologists voicing their concern, but the ones the Air Force itself considered the best of the best, especially when it came to gunshot.

2) Why, for only the second time in Air Force history (the first being a clearcut case of a shootdown due to friendly fire), was the first stage of the normal Air Force post crash investigation ... the one where the cause is determined ... skipped? Why did they immediately move to the Accident Investigation phase? Why did top administration and military officers declare weather was the cause before the investigation had even begun? That is NOT normal procedure either. And ironically, the government paid out millions to the families of the victims (presumably preventing lawsuits in the matter) while declaring weather was the cause. Yet this report states that weather was NOT a significant factor in the crash.

3) Why did this accident report not contain an image of the hole in Brown's head or the xray of the head or mention the opinion of some of the staff, including a forensic pathologist who was present at the examination, that his body should be autopsied? Why doesn't the accident report mention that the AFIP pathologist (Colonel Cogswell) who was at the crash site and specifically charged with looking for something that might have caused such a wound said he found nothing that might cause it and that the description sounds like a bullet wound and that Brown should be autopsied?

4) Do you know that Colonel Cogswell gave talks at pathology conferences and training classes on "mistakes in forensic pathology" and told his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows, in the area behind the left eye socket, "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density", i.e., a "lead snowstorm" from a high-velocity gunshot wound. He also told them that brain matter is visible in the photos and the side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain ... both contrary to the official report claims? You think he could get away with that at a conference of professionals if he was wrong?

5) Why does a confidential (discovered by Judicial Watch) chronology of events that was in the possession of former Secretary of State Warren Christopher include the following item "Commerce Dept. has heard from Advance Ira Sokowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash" when the government has always claimed that only one person was found alive at the crash site? And why was the body of that person (Sergeant Kelly) ordered cremated at Dover before her family was even contacted? That's a violation of regulations, by the way. Was anyone ever punished?

6) Why did the Croatian Ministry Of Transportation announced shortly after reaching the crash that the black boxes had been found? The US Air Force in Germany confirmed this. Several foreign news stations reported it. The Department of Commerce log mentioned above even states, "Chief of protocol Misetic called...The flight data recorder has been recovered." Then, a week later, the Air Force claims the plane had no black boxes and that some boxes that looked exactly like the recorders had been found instead. Tell me sir, what boxes on this plane looked exactly like recorders? Another problem with the claim that there were no black boxes is that this exact plane, just a week earlier, carried the First Lady and Chelsea and, several weeks before that it carried the Secretary of Defense. Regulations required that the First Lady and Cabinet Members only fly on aircraft with black boxes. Was anyone ever punished for this "violation" of regulations?

7) Why did the pathologist (Colonel Gormley) who conducted the examination of Brown's body and who declared it a case of blunt force trauma in the accident report go on TV and lie about the facts in the case? This occurred during the time when a gag order was in place preventing any of officers who were raising concerns about what happened from speaking. But the black community was asking more and more pointed questions so Gormley was ordered to go on Black Entertainment Television and defuse those questions. Gormley immediately attacked the other pathologists (who were saying there should have been an autopsy). He stated that one could rule out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible in the wound and that the x-rays taken during the examination showed no trace of a bullet injury. He denied that two sets of x-rays existed. Then, he was confronted with a photograph taken during the examination (by Captain Janowski, who also said the wound looked like a bullet wound) that showed brain matter visible in the wound. He ended up admitting that brain matter was indeed visible, excusing his former statements as a memory lapse. He then admitted that the hole was a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry. Next he was confronted with a copy of Janowski's x-ray slides. He immediately changed his story and claimed that this first set of x-rays had been "lost" so that a second set was required. It was then pointed out that the Janowski x-rays slides show signs of a "lead snowstorm", which he didn't refute. Do you care to explain this behavior by Gormley? Note that a few years later, Judicial Watch stated in a document submitted to a court that Colonel Gormley now admits that 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, "at least an entrance gunshot wound". Furthermore, he confesses that no autopsy was requested based on "discussions" at the highest levels in Commerce, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Whitehouse. Care to explain what happened at those highest levels?

8) In January of 1998, the Washington Post reported that the AFIP had convened a review panel of all its pathologists. The article quoted AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, in saying that the panel came to the unanimous conclusion that Brown died of blunt-force trauma and not a gunshot. But Cogswell refused to attend, following the advice of his lawyer. He says that most of those participating were not board-certified in forensic pathology and of those who were, none had significant interest or experience in gunshot wounds. He says that all of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's forensic pathologists with any expertise in gunshot wounds (Cogswell, Hause and Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons) dissented from the "official" opinion. Even though Hause and Parsons corroborated Cogswell's version, AFIP spokesman Chris Kelly said AFIP "stands by" Dickerson's claim that the findings were unanimous ... a clear lie. Care to explain why AFIP lied about the opinions of its staff?

9) Erich Junger, AFIP's chief forensic scientist and who was also present at the examination, was quoted telling the press that a "very reasonable explanation" for the hole was found "when we looked around the aircraft area itself." However, Junger never visited the crash site and since then, in addition to Cogswell who carried out the search, Gormley has acknowledged that no piece of the aircraft was found to explain the hole. Why did Junger lie about this?

10) Now here's a good question. Where are the original photos and x-rays of Brown's head? Isn't it a fact that they disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP to which only a few top people had access? Hause, along with Dr. Jerry Spencer, confirmed this. Yet Gormley and the AFIP did not investigate or offer any explanation for how the X-rays or photos disappeared. Gormley simply referred calls to Chris Kelly, who simply said Gormley would not grant additional interviews. Aren't you at all interested why they showed so little interest in this?

11) Why did the AFIP report that extensive "forensic tests" disproved a bullet theory when Captain Janoski who was present for the entire examination did not see any forensic tests, such as those for gunpowder residue? Why did Janet Reno tell the nation that the Justice Department conducted a "thorough review" of the facts in the Ron Brown death investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of a crime. However, no one from the Justice Department or FBI interviewed the military pathologists. Isn't this a little strange?

12) Cogswell, Hause, Parsons and Janowski were all reassigned to other duties outside their areas of expertise and the Government tried to limit their contact with fellow pathologists by barring them from conferences. They had their homes searched without a warrant and were given negative job evaluations (for the first time in careers spanning over 10 years). For example, Cogswell's evaluation, which was six months late, states that he is "disruptive to the work environment with immature behavior." He has been "unresponsive to counseling," it continues, adding that he has used "inappropriate language" and worn "inappropriate dress." Cogswell was even criticized for his manner of driving in the AFIP facility's parking lot. The belated report bears three signatures, including those of Armed Forces Chief Medical Examiner Jerry Spencer and AFIP Director Col. Michael Dickerson, both proven liars. The signatures are not even dated. Do you think this is fair treatment of military officers one only raised what appear to be valid questions?

13) Acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters sent a letter to family members of the air crash victims attempting to debunk the bullet wound thesis. He wrote that "The reports resulted from the opinion of an Air Force medical examiner who did not personally examine any of the CT-43 casualties. They are his opinions only. 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." I wonder, have the families been told what Colonel Gormley now says about the matter? Does your friend's family know?

14) 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. He 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 clear lie. The military photographer who took the pictures says that could not be true given that only the one photo of Brown's heads shows the so-called "defect". Why is Peters lying?

15) Peters letter 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 lie given that calls for an autopsy were voiced at the examination and the reasons given by Gormley for not performing an autopsy have been shown to be bogus. Before ending with his "heartfelt apologies," the Peters statement revealed its real purpose: "We hope these actions will preclude credible media from pursuing this story." Any comment?

16) And finally, let me point out that military pathologists are not the only ones on record here. Christopher Ruddy showed copies of the x-rays and photos to Pittsburgh coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists. Wecht, a democrat, said "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied." Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments". He said "little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone." If the metal is from a bullet, he said the array of fragments would indicate a shot fired before the crash. Wecht said Brown's body was relatively intact. Lacerations were superficial, and other damage to his face and body appeared to be caused by chemical burns that probably would not have resulted in death. X-rays indicated Brown's bones were generally intact, with a breakage of the pelvic ring that Wecht said was survivable. Tell me, do you think Mr Wecht, a Democrat, is politically biased in this matter?

So, Beachnut, don't scold me about being biased unless you are prepared to answer these and other (yes, I have many other) questions about the matter. You see, unlike the *911Truthers*, I am more than prepared to discuss the FACTS in a case I consider a *real* conspiracy.

[JC Fla]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1800646954001584a9.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6971)

Now the truth is out..

Course you know, the Konspiracy Kitties will be after you...

[Horatius]

Now the truth is out..

Course you know, the Konspiracy Kitties will be after you...



Get him!


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/949045822893a4415.jpg

[AgeGap]

Evidence for WMD was fabricated by British Intelligence at the behest of the Americans who wanted an outside source for justification of war.

[procrastinate maybe]

Barney the White House dog swallows only written copy of Bush's Iraq Exit Strategy.

[AgeGap]

Lee Harvey Oswald was the shooter from the grassy knoll.

[JimBenArm]

Nah, everyone knows it was Elvis that was the shooter from the grassy knoll. That's why he's in hiding!

[uk_dave]

But didn't John Lennon shoot Elvis in Memphis?

[JimBenArm]

Yeah, but it was only a flesh wound. And since this was during the "Fat Elvis" phase, there was lots of flesh to wound!

[uk_dave]

So that explains 'The Monkeys' then.

Fair enough.

[ElMondoHummus]

The two main ones I keep quiet about are actually some rather big ones:

The JFK Assasination
Waco/Branch Davidians/Flir and illegal tactics conspiracy fantasies... But I keep quiet because I haven't devoted any time to learning much about those topics. Too many other things going on, much of it non-skeptic, non-debunking, living my life stuff.

Although if anyone does have any starting resources on Waco/Branch Davidians woo debunking, I'd appreciate it. It'd save me some time.

--------

Oh, I forgot one: 2003 & 2004 AFC East Playoffs (that's American Football, to those outside the US). I'm tellin' ya, Indy's receivers were mugged, Muuuuuugged in '03! And who put the confusion drug in Peyton Manning's Gatorade those years! I think Bob Kraft's got some illuminati lackeys hosin' my team!!! I mean, lookit the 2006/2007 AFC East playoffs: The Colts were at home and still got boggled in the first half!

Thank Gawd Indy's got it's own operatives... they were able to confuse that Caldwell guy to get back in and win it! ;)

Yeah, Kraft... I'm blamin' it on Kraft and that android he's got coaching the Pats...

(Yes, I'm joking! I have nothing but honest respect for New England's organization, play, coach, QB, and ability to just plain win. Well... there's a bit of frustration there, too, but every good team needs it's honorable opponent, and the Patriots is such a good team that just playing well with them means something.

Still, though, that Belichick's an android. You see his post-game interview in '07? :eek:) ;)

[Alareth]

Oh, I forgot one: 2003 & 2004 AFC East Playoffs (that's American Football, to those outside the US). I'm tellin' ya, Indy's receivers were mugged, Muuuuuugged in '03! And who put the confusion drug in Peyton Manning's Gatorade those years! I think Bob Kraft's got some illuminati lackeys hosin' my team!!! I mean, lookit the 2006/2007 AFC East playoffs: The Colts were at home and still got boggled in the first half!

Thank Gawd Indy's got it's own operatives... they were able to confuse that Caldwell guy to get back in and win it! ;)

Yeah, Kraft... I'm blamin' it on Kraft and that android he's got coaching the Pats...

(Yes, I'm joking! I have nothing but honest respect for New England's organization, play, coach, QB, and ability to just plain win. Well... there's a bit of frustration there, too, but every good team needs it's honorable opponent, and the Patriots is such a good team that just playing well with them means something.

Still, though, that Belichick's an android. You see his post-game interview in '07? :eek:) ;)

A casual glance shows that you were talking about football, but the was no mention of the Jets, therefore I have no reason to pay any closer attention.

[Apollo20]

The TITANIC wasn't really sunk in 1912... it was its sister ship the OLYMPIC

[Hokulele]

A casual glance shows that you were talking about football, but the was no mention of the Jets, therefore I have no reason to pay any closer attention.


Because there is no reason to mention the Jets.

[ElMondoHummus]

The TITANIC wasn't really sunk in 1912... it was its sister ship the OLYMPIC


Yes, but Violet Jessop was still on board. :D

Poor lass...

[ElMondoHummus]

A casual glance shows that you were talking about football, but the was no mention of the Jets, therefore I have no reason to pay any closer attention.


Aaaaargh! The Jets!! 2002 playoffs!!! Don't get me started!....

They're in cahoots, I'm tellin' ya...

[Darth Rotor]

Just asking question, huh?

1) Why have all the forensic pathologists, both military and civilian
So, Beachnut, don't scold me about being biased unless you are prepared to answer these and other (yes, I have many other) questions about the matter. You see, unlike the *911Truthers*, I am more than prepared to discuss the FACTS in a case I consider a *real* conspiracy.
Have you bothered to read this?

http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Dubrovnik/summary-T43.html

As I commented in the other thread, where you and I disagree on bombing Iran, beachnut will be as interested as I am about these questions:

Given that General Fogelman agreed with the investigators that it was an aircraft mishap, with pilot error as a contributory cause, that is not an assumption, it is a matter of fact. The term used is CFIT.

Before we go further, you need to tell me the following facts:

How many hours do you have of actual instrument time?

How many hours of actual instrument time as aircraft commander?

How many officers did you know on the 16th Air Force staff, in 1996?

How many non precision instrument approaches have you shot to minimums, in weather below VMC?

How many of those to a landing on an unfamiliar field?

Have you read the USAF AFI 51-503 report on the T-43 aircraft mishap?

How many Class A mishaps have you been in?

How many CLass A mishaps have you investigated?

How many Class B?

How many Class C?

How old were you in April in 1996?

Answer those and we will proceed. In fact, it will give us a basis from which to proceed.

If you don't, I know you are full of crap, and a liar to boot.

Your "just asking questions" ploy is transparent.

DR

[PhantomWolf]

Although if anyone does have any starting resources on Waco/Branch Davidians woo debunking, I'd appreciate it. It'd save me some time.

For Waco I'd start with the Interim Report To The Deputy Attorney General Concerning The 1993 Confrontation At The Mt. Carmel Complex Waco, Texas (http://www.courttv.com/national/davidians/Waco_Rpt.pdf). It debunks about 90% of the Waco woo.

For JFK, then I'd go to John Adams Kennedy Assasination Page (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm).

[jberryhill]

The TITANIC wasn't really sunk in 1912... it was its sister ship the OLYMPIC

No steel-hulled passenger steamship was ever sunk by an iceberg!

You are ready for the Titanic truth....

video. google.com /videoplay?docid=-6200565569456547648&hl=en

[Gravy]

Yes I do! Well it's not so much a conspiracy theory but an alternate theory regarding AA77. The conventional wisdom is that AA77's target was always the Pentagon. I'm of the belief that AA77's target was either The White House or The Capital Building (UA193 would strike the other one) and not The Pentagon.Interesting, but I think it's clear that the primary target was the north side of the Citgo.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Paris Hilton went to jail to protect Lindsay Lohan.

[Brainache]

Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes have conspired to conceal the real father of Suri.

[BeAChooser]

Have you bothered to read this?

http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Dubrovnik/summary-T43.html

As a matter of fact, I have. And I notice that it doesn't address the issues I raised and leaves out much regarding the crash.

Notice, for instance, that it says the plane disappeared from radar 5 minutes before expected landing. Now according to Aviation Week (April 8, 1996), an AWACS lost contact with the transponder on the plane at the same time. Also voice contact was lost at the same time. The plane was about 8 miles from the runway at this time (yet the crash sight was less than 2 miles away). Any idea why contact was lost when the plane clearly had not yet crashed? Your link gives no explanation. In fact, it doesn't even mention this curious fact.

I also find interesting the postscript about the investigation. It states "the AFI 51-503 investigation was the only one conducted in this case, with the assistance of experts from Boeing, the NTSB and the FAA. The public's right to know all of the information was considered of overriding importance, because of the death of the US Secretary of Commerce." Really ... what was so important, timewise, that they eliminate the Safety Investigation? First, the Safety Investigation normally starts a month or so before the Accident Investigation and they often run concurrently? Would keeping the public in the dark an extra month really be a concern when literally everyone under the sun in the administration was calling it an accident due to the worst weather in a century from the very first day ... and the public was buying it? I find this explanation unconvincing. There were no calls for an immediate answer to what happened.



Given that General Fogelman agreed with the investigators that it was an aircraft mishap, with pilot error as a contributory cause, that is not an assumption, it is a matter of fact.

For those who don't know, General Fogelman was the Air Force Chief Of Staff at the time. He reported directly to President Clinton. In an interview about the crash and investigation on June 7, 1996 (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/brown_crash_6-7.html), he called the investigation a "safety investigation". Now there are two phases in the normal Air Force crash investigation. The first phase is called the "Safety Investigation Board" (SIB). The second is called the "Accident Investigation Board" (AIB). And every Air Force crash investigation prior to the Ron Brown crash except one (a clear-cut case of friendly fire shoot down in Iraq) consisted of both phases.

But in this case, the order came down from the top (that would be General Fogelman) that the Safety Board be skipped. So investigators proceeded to the Accident Investigation phase and the folks who normally conduct a Safety Board were told to go home and unpack their bags. Was Fogelman unaware of this when he called it a "safety investigation"?

Now why do you suppose this is important? Well, the Safety Board is the phase of the normal investigation process which is explicitly charged with "finding the cause". Indeed, DoD Instruction 6055.7 states "The sole purpose of safety investigations is mishap prevention and [b]to determine the cause(s) of accidents." 6055.7 states "Accident investigations are separate from, and independent of, safety investigations. Accident investigations provide a publically releasable report of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident and include a statement of opinion as to why the accident happened." That statement of opinion, by the way, is supposed to be drawn from facts that come from the SIB. Further, "An Accident Investigation Board investigative team, using Air Force Instruction 51-503, gathers and preserves evidence that can be used to support claims, litigation, disciplinary and adverse administrative actions. AIB reports provide a personal brief to the families of anyone killed in the accident and to individuals seriously injured in the accident." And finally, "Safety investigations normally take precedence over accident investigations, although they may overlap in time. In the event of conflicts between the two investigations regarding access to the scene, acquiring and examining evidence, and interviewing witnesses, safety investigations have priority."

So it's curious that they skipped the SIB (the phase with priority and which is charged with determining the cause) and proceeded immediately to the AIB, when at the time they had absolutely no idea why the plane went down. Let me remind you, this was even a war zone. It could have been shot down. No, in this case, the top brass (that would be General Fogelman) ruled it an accident and directed his staff to proceed from that assumption.

Now consider the final report from the Accident Investigation Board. Isn't it a bit odd that it does not mention many facts that potential litigants and family members might want to know. After all, that is one of it's primary stated purposes ... to make such information available to them. Isn't it?

For example, it doesn't contain the statements of the military pathologists and photographer at AFIP during the examination of Brown's body who said the hole in Brown's head looked like a bullet wound and that he should be autopsied. Brown's family was completely unaware of the controversy surrounding the wound in Brown's head until some of the military officers from AFIP who were involved in the Brown crash investigation blew the whistle (more on that in a moment).

Why doesn't the accident report mention that Colonel Cogswell, the AFIP pathologist who was at the crash site and specifically charged with looking for something that might have caused the wound in Brown's head, reported back to AFIP that he found nothing that might cause it and that the description sounds like a bullet wound and that Brown should be autopsied?

The final report also does not explain the simultaneous the loss of transponder and radio contact when the plane was 8 miles from the crash site. Isn't this curious if the plane just happened to run into a mountain? Now something caused that. Why doesn't the report answer that question? Why didn't Fogelman mention that happening and explain why? These were two seperate systems and either something major in a mechanical way happened on that plane to shut them down or they were deliberately shut off. Yet Fogelman and his "investigators" ignored this?

Nor does the report mention the "suicide" of the maintenance chief who was in charge of a portable beacon at Dubrovnik that the Air Force has admitted disappeared before the crash. He reportedly killed himself (shotgun to the chest) a day or say after the crash over a failed love affair ... before investigators could interview him. The disappearance of that beacon could be significant. Afterall, none other than Aviation Week has indicated in one of their articles on the crash that the behavior of the plane on approach was consistent with being spoofed by such a beacon. Surely potential litigants would want to know those facts. Surely the Air Force would want to address Aviation Week's concern.

The report doesn't mention the fact that the Department of State was told there were two survivors ... not just the one that was reported (a survivor who, by the way, managed to die on the way to the hospital under a doctor's care after surviving for 10 hours at the crash site alone). No, this fact was uncovered by Judicial Watch when they found a confidential chronology of events in the possession of former Secretary of State Warren Christopher which include the following item "Commerce Dept. has heard from Advance Ira Sokowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash". I wonder who that other survivor was? I wonder which family didn't get told their loved one survived the crash and died later? Tell us, were General Fogelman and his "safety investigation" team trying to spare that family? If so, why didn't they spare the other one too?

Because of this "accident" report, the families (and lawyers) of the victims never looked any further. Instead the government paid out an average of about 14 million dollars per family. In exchange, they presumably agreed not to pursue further lawsuits (and thereby ask questions). And curiously, the payout agreement stated as the reason for the crash ... weather. Yet the AIB report (and General Fogelman) states that weather played no significant role in the crash.

Did General Fogelman mention any of these things in the interview I linked? No. Instead, he just told the public that it was pilot/crew error and an improperly designed approach procedure. Do you think he was perhaps unaware of these facts? I rather doubt it, if he's as competent as you claim. So what's going on here, DR?

Now remember the military photographer and pathologists I mentioned above? Let's reask some of the questions I posted earlier on this thread and see your response (if you have any). Or will you continue to just ignore them?

1) Why have all the forensic pathologists, both military and civilian, (except for one ... that being the head of AFIP, and who it can be proven lied about both the facts in the case and the opinions of his staff) who have made public statements said the wound in Brown's head looked like a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied? Note that some of these declarations were made DURING the examination of the body at Dover AFB. Pathologist Lt. Colonel Hause, who was considered to be one of the military's leading experts on gunshot wounds at the time, looked at the wound and remembers saying "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too." By law, if there is suspicion of foul play in the death of a Cabinet member , the FBI is to be called in and an autopsy done. Yet, that didn't happen. And we aren't talking about run of the mill forensic pathologists voicing their concern, but the ones the Air Force itself considered the best of the best, especially when it came to gunshot.

2) Do you know that Colonel Cogswell (mentioned earlier) gave talks at pathology conferences and training classes on "mistakes in forensic pathology" and told his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows, in the area behind the left eye socket, "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density", i.e., a "lead snowstorm" from a high-velocity gunshot wound. He also told them that brain matter is visible in the photos and the side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain ... both contrary to what the Accident report claims? You think he could get away with that at a conference of professionals if there was absolutely no basis for that statement?

3) Why was the body of Sergeant Kelly (the one survivor the government admitted) ordered cremated at Dover before her family was even contacted? That's a violation of regulations, by the way. Was anyone ever punished? General Fogelman didn't say.

4) Why did the Croatian Ministry Of Transportation announced shortly after reaching the crash that the black boxes had been found? The US Air Force in Germany confirmed this. The Department of Commerce log mentioned above even states, "Chief of protocol Misetic called...The flight data recorder has been recovered." Then, a week later, the Air Force claims the plane had no black boxes and that some boxes that looked exactly like the recorders had been found instead. Tell me, what boxes on this plane looked exactly like recorders? I'm just curious.

5) Another problem with the claim that there were no black boxes is that this exact plane, just a week earlier, carried the First Lady and Chelsea and, several weeks before that it carried the Secretary of Defense. Didn't regulations require that the First Lady and Cabinet Members only fly on aircraft with black boxes? Was anyone ever punished for this "violation" of regulations? Or did General Fogelman say to "skip that"?

6) Why did the pathologist (Colonel Gormley) who conducted the examination of Brown's body and who declared it a case of blunt force trauma in the accident report go on TV and lie about the facts in the case? This occurred during a time when a gag order was in place preventing any of the officers who were raising concerns about what happened from speaking. But the black community was asking more and more pointed questions so Gormley was presumably ordered to go on Black Entertainment Television and defuse those questions.

Gormley immediately attacked the pathologists who were saying there should have been an autopsy. He stated that one could rule out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible in the wound and that the x-rays taken during the examination showed no trace of a bullet injury. He also denied claims by the official military photographer, Captain Janowski, that two sets of x-rays existed.

Then, he was confronted with a photo taken during the examination by Captain Janowski ... a naval photographer, by the way, who is also on record saying the wound looked like a bullet wound. Colonel Gormley ended up admitting that brain matter was indeed visible in the photo, excusing his former statements as a memory lapse. He then admitted that the hole was a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry.

Next he was confronted with a copy of Janowski's photos from the first set of x-ray slides of Brown's head. He immediately changed his story and claimed that a first set of x-rays had been made but were "lost" so that a second set was required. Presumably, it was the second set whose images were put in the Accident Investigation report. It was then pointed out that the Janowski x-rays slides show signs of a "lead snowstorm" (a telltale sign of gunshot), which Gormley didn't refute.

Do you know that Captain Janowski made a sworn statement that Jeanmarie Sentell, a naval criminal investigator who was present at the examination of Brown, told her that x-rays and photographs were deliberately destroyed in the Brown case after a "lead snowstorm" was discovered in the x-rays? Janoski further testified that Sentell said that a second set of X-rays were made "less dense" to diminish or eradicate the "lead snowstorm" image, and that Colonel Gormley was involved in its creation. Interesting, huh?

Do you care to explain this behavior by Gormley? Note that a few years later, Judicial Watch stated in a document submitted to a court that Colonel Gormley now admits that 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, "at least an entrance gunshot wound". Furthermore, he confesses that no autopsy was requested based on "discussions" at the highest levels in the Department of Commerce (the folks hiding the fact that there was a second survivor and the department where numerous Chinagate violations under Brown's leadership were alleged), the Joint Chiefs of Staff (that would be General Fogelman) and the Whitehouse (i.e., President Clinton). Care to explain what happened at those highest levels, DR?

7) In January of 1998, the Washington Post reported that the AFIP, in response to the controvery, had convened a review panel of all its pathologists. The article quoted AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, in saying that the panel came to the unanimous conclusion that Brown died of blunt-force trauma and not a gunshot. But Cogswell refused to attend, following the advice of his lawyer. He says that most of those participating were not board-certified in forensic pathology and of those who were, none had significant interest or experience in gunshot wounds. He says that all of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's forensic pathologists with any expertise in gunshot wounds (Cogswell, Hause and Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons) dissented from the "official" opinion. Even though Hause and Parsons corroborated Cogswell's version, AFIP spokesman Chris Kelly said AFIP "stands by" Dickerson's claim that the findings were unanimous. Care to explain why the AFIP chief and public relation dweeb lied about the opinions of AFIP's staff?

8) Erich Junger, AFIP's chief forensic scientist and who was also present at the examination, was quoted telling the press that a "very reasonable explanation" for the hole was found "when we looked around the aircraft area itself." However, Junger never visited the crash site and since then, in addition to Cogswell who carried out the search, Gormley has acknowledged that no piece of the aircraft was found to explain the hole. Why did Junger lie about this?

9) Now here's a good question. Where are the original photos and x-rays of Brown's head? It is a fact that they disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP to which only a few top people had access. Hause, along with Dr. Jerry Spencer of AFIP, confirmed this. Yet Gormley and the AFIP heads did not investigate or offer any explanation for how the X-rays or photos disappeared. Gormley simply referred calls to Chris Kelly, who simply said Gormley would not grant additional interviews. Aren't you at all interested why they showed so little interest in this? Maybe General Fogelman can be enticed out of retirement to locate them?

10) Why did the AFIP report that extensive "forensic tests" disproved a bullet theory when Captain Janoski, who was present for the entire examination of Brown's body, did not see any forensic tests, such as those for gunpowder residue? Why did Janet Reno tell the nation that the Justice Department conducted a "thorough review" of the facts in the Ron Brown death investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of a crime when no one from the Justice Department or FBI interviewed the military pathologists or photographer who blew the whistle? Strange, yes?

11) Cogswell, Hause, Parsons and Janowski were all reassigned to other duties outside their areas of expertise and the government tried to limit their contact with fellow pathologists by barring them from conferences. They had their homes searched without a warrant and were given negative job evaluations for the first time in careers spanning over 10 years. For example, Cogswell's evaluation, which was six months late, states that he is "disruptive to the work environment with immature behavior." He has been "unresponsive to counseling," adding that he has used "inappropriate language" and worn "inappropriate dress." Cogswell was even criticized for his manner of driving in the AFIP facility's parking lot. The belated report bears three signatures, including those of Armed Forces Chief Medical Examiner Jerry Spencer and AFIP Director Col. Michael Dickerson, both proven liars. The signatures are not even dated. Do you think this is fair treatment of military officers who only raised what appear to be valid questions?

12) Acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters sent a letter to family members of the air crash victims in December 1997 attempting to debunk the bullet wound thesis. He wrote that "The reports resulted from the opinion of an Air Force medical examiner who did not personally examine any of the CT-43 casualties. They are his opinions only. 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." I wonder, have the families been told what Colonel Gormley now says about the matter?

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 I've already proven.

He 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 clear lie. The military photographer who took the pictures says that could not be true given that only one photo ... the one of Brown's head ... shows the so-called "defect". If it were a cassette problem, all of them would have had the defect. So why was Peters lying or who was lying to him?

Peters letter 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 lie given that calls for an autopsy were voiced at the examination and the reasons given by Gormley for not performing an autopsy have been shown to be bogus.

Before ending with his "heartfelt apologies," the Peters statement revealed its real purpose: "We hope these actions will preclude credible media from pursuing this story." Any comment? Or will we just hear crickets?

13) And finally, let me point out that military pathologists are not the only ones on record here. Christopher Ruddy showed copies of the x-rays and photos to Pittsburgh coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists. Wecht, a democrat, said "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied." Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments". He said "little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone." Wecht said Brown's body was relatively intact. Lacerations were superficial, and other damage to his face and body appeared to be caused by chemical burns that probably would not have resulted in death. X-rays indicated Brown's bones were generally intact, with a breakage of the pelvic ring that Wecht said was survivable. Tell me, do you think Mr Wecht, who was a democrat, was politically biased or a liar in this matter?

Answer those and we will proceed.

Red Herring. I don't answer personal questions because I claim no expertise on this or ANY subject. But I can smell smoke when there is fire. And I know how to locate facts and the opinions of people who are experts. Like those I listed above. And which so far you have complete ignored.

If you don't, I know you are full of crap, and a liar to boot.


Before you call me a liar, why don't you address the above questions about Brown's death? And when you get done (if you even make the attempt), you can be sure I have many others suspicious facts I haven't yet mentioned. Facts which point to motive and opportunity.

[BeAChooser]

This is my response to statements Darth Rotor made on another thread in response to my last post on this thread. I reposted that post on this thread after we agreed to move the discussion of Brown back to here.

Brown boarded the T-43 alive.

How do we actually know that Brown boarded the flight? I'm not saying he didn't (he clearly did), but do you know that the passenger manifest for the flight went missing? So we really don't know for sure who was on board that plane that day.

And guess what, Brown wasn't originally scheduled to be on that trade mission. At least that's according to sworn testimony by Nolanda Hill, a Brown confidante and business partner. She swore that he got ordered to join the trade mission after a meeting with Bill Clinton in which he told Clinton that he wouldn't go down alone in the matters where a special prosecutor was about to indict him. Chinagate and campaign finance violation related matters. Matters in which his son and wife had already been indicted. According to her testimony, he asked Clinton to shut down the prosecutor and Clinton said he couldn't. He then told Clinton he was prepared to turn state's evidence to save himself and his family. And after she testified to that effect, the Clinton's DOJ charged her with a tax evasion crime to shut her up. They never did present anything that actually challenged what she claimed about the Brown matter. Curious, huh?

And how about who was not on the flight? Remember Ira Sockowitz? He's the Commerce Department lead man who reported back to Christopher Warren that there were two survivors (rather than the one the government admitted). It turns out he was supposed to have been on the flight but "missed it" for some unspecified reason. Yet he got to the crash site fast enough to be the point man for Commerce. And, by the way, Ira Sockowitz was an associate of John Huang (a known spy and associate of Brown) and is himself implicated in illegally obtaining secret China related documents while at Commerce (another matter never pursued by the RENO DOJ). Brown was just surrounded with fine outstanding folks, wasn't he.

The T-43 flew to Dubrovik

About that destination. Brown left on the trip planning to meet Croatian president Franco Tudjman in Zagreb, but was then informed that the meeting site had been changed to Dubrovnik. Curiously, Tudjman never even bothered to go to Dubrovnik until after Brown's death when Tudjman posthumously honored Brown with a distinguished national award for his efforts to strengthen ties between Croatia and the United States. At least he didn't joke and laugh like Clinton did at Brown's funeral. Was Tudjman's cooperation in this matter rewarded? Perhaps. Three months later Clinton sent another "trade mission" to Croatia and it was judged to be "very" successful. About 7 months after Brown died and a week after Clinton's re-election, Tudjman traveled to Walter Reed Hospital in Washington for cancer treatments ... even though Tudjman had been afraid to travel due to war crimes allegation by the Hague. And by the way, it was his son, Miroslav, who worked in state security who investigated the death of the Dubrovnik maintenance chief in charge of the portable beacon and who ruled it a suicide.

Wheels within wheels.

What is the motive any shooter on board that plane had for comitting suicide.

Why do you assume a suicide?

Remember, we don't really know who was on the plane that day. Perhaps someone whose body wasn't found? Someone who might have disabled the aircraft's communication? That at least would explain losing contact when the plane was still 5 minutes from the mountain. Perhaps that person shot Brown and then left the plane? Or didn't shoot Brown but left the plane? You know that the rear door of the wreckage was found open. Couldn't someone parachute out an open door? Is it only coincidence that the search initially focused on the ocean (where wreckage was reportedly seen but nothing found)?

You have to admit that the delay to search the ocean would have helped a cleanup crew arrive on the scene ahead of rescuers to make sure Brown was dead. Afterall, they'd know where it was going to crash since it was they who would have spoofed the pilot into a mountain using the missing beacon. A NYTimes article (dated 6/7/96) stated "Mr. Perry [Secretary of Defense] said that the Air Force had determined that a radio beacon on the approach to Dubbrovnik airport may not have been working on April 3 ..." Could that failure have been planned to help the spoof work? Afterall, my understanding is that planes landed both before and after Brown's and no one indicated a problem with the beacon. The NYTimes also noted that all the navaids were checked out by an FAA aircraft a few days after the crash and found to have been working.

So maybe a small "cleanup crew" shot Brown after the crash? Remember, Dr Wecht, a noted pathologist, said that other than the head wound, his wounds looked survivable. They certainly would have wanted to make sure he was dead. Right? Is it only coincidence that the Associated Press reported that the first Croatian rescue party to reach the scene (and they were *officially* first to arrive) were met by 3 Americans?

Of course this is all speculation (unlike the hole in Brown's head and the pathologists statements, which I notice you pointedly ignoring), but it does make one wonder. And it does prove feasibility.

Note, other than the crew, these were businessmen sent to explore business development in Former Yugoslavia, and all of them were potential campaign contributors to the Dem party. They had to die in a crash, with the shooter, for What Motive?

Most of the others on the plane were just bit players. If Clinton was desperate enough to silence Brown, the Secretary of Commerce, do you honestly think he'd have cared one wit if a few others were killed in the process? Let's be clear. Ron Brown could bring Clinton and whole adminstration down. Ron Brown was at the focus of much of the campaign finance illegalities that occurred and the conduit for much of the technology passed to the Chinese. Is it only coincidence that Clinton personally changed long established rules so that the export of such technology could be approved by Ron Brown without any other oversight? The agencies who previously did that oversight were all on record as being against the exports that occurred. And in return for those experts and perhaps access to secrets, brown bags full of cash flowed into the Clinton and democRAT campaign coffers. That's a fact.

Brown worked closely with Huang (known Chinese agent), Riady (convicted of millions in illegal campaign contributions and with clear connections to Chinese Intelligence), Chung (also convicted of funneling money from Chinese military intelligence to Clinton's re-election campaign), Middleton (highest Clinton Administration official to plead the 5th in Chinagate), and dozens of other people connected with criminal activities by the Clinton's and DNC. Keep in mind that well over a hundred people took the 5th or fled the country in connection with the Chinagate and campaign finance scandals ... and that is with Reno and the Justice Department seemingly trying to coverup, rather than seriously investigate the matters. If Brown talked, he'd have caused a really serious problem for a lot of these people.

So IF this was a murder, then logically whoever ordered it (Bill Clinton?) needed it to look like an accident and be in a location where the FBI, American police or anyone else they couldn't control wouldn't be involved and where media access could be controlled. A crash in Croatia would fit the bill. Clinton controlled the military and was friendly with the local strongman. Military people generally do what they are told and don't ask questions. Military people who did ask questions can be punished without drawing the attention of an American media that was firmly in the democRATS pockets.

But in any case, you are getting the cart before the horse. Don't you think we should answer the question of whether there was a bullet in Brown's head before focusing on the how and why? It would be easy enough to do. Exhume the body and perform an autopsy. With modern forensic methods, I have no doubt that they'd find evidence of a bullet if that is what killed him. If not, then this whole matter could be laid to rest for good. So do you care to join me in calling for an exhumation and autopsy?

[Darth Rotor]

In response to your smoke screen of innuendo and some (understandable for a layman) ignorance.
Notice, for instance, that it says the plane disappeared from radar 5 minutes before expected landing.
Croatia is not La Guardia approach, where you are in a Class A airspace type TCA. Flying in the underdeveloped world is not like flying under the FAA's umbrella.

Whose radar? Which radar?

If you don't know, and if you don't specify, your comment is meaningless. Plus, if you get out an aeronautical chart, and you bother to look at the Dalmation coast, it is mountainous. Mountains interfere with radar coverage.
Now according to Aviation Week (April 8, 1996), an AWACS lost contact with the transponder on the plane at the same time.
How far from the plane, and the airport, was the AWACS? IIRC, the AWACS orbits supporting IFOR were in the Northern and North Central Adriatic.

Unless you clearly state the location of the AWACS in terms of distance from Dubrovnik, that piece of information is irrelevant, and useless for analysis.
Also voice contact was lost at the same time.
Voice contact with whom?

Specify.

In the terminal phase of flight, you typically change freqs from approach or advisory to control, to terminal or tower control. It is not uncommon to have a slight delay, and, if there is an error on the approach plate or in the simple buttonology in the cockpit, it may take time to realize you are on the wrong freq.
The plane was about 8 miles from the runway at this time (yet the crash sight was less than 2 miles away).
Irrelevant pieces of data.
Any idea why contact was lost when the plane clearly had not yet crashed?
See above for a variety of reasons, among others. Croatian airspace was not under the kind of radar environment we enjoy in the US.
Your link gives no explanation. In fact, it doesn't even mention this curious fact.
It is irrelevant to the approach being flown, and the runway environment not gained, and either a MAP attempted or a circling maneuver attempted, at an unfamiliar field, that took the aircraft out of the cleared approach airspace and into the mountain for CFIT. CFIT is not in dispute, by anyone involved in the investigation.
I also find interesting the postscript about the investigation. It states "the AFI 51-503 investigation was the only one conducted in this case, with the assistance of experts from Boeing, the NTSB and the FAA. The public's right to know all of the information was considered of overriding importance, because of the death of the US Secretary of Commerce." Really ... what was so important, timewise, that they eliminate the Safety Investigation?
Based on the political climate at the time, and the logistic problem of beginning two separate investigation at once (in terms of logistics, personnel, and demands from Washington for an explanation, the military and the Clinton crowd were still not on gracious terms at this point in time) the decision to save manpower and complete a non-privileged investigation strikes me as a reasonable one. IIRC, (going on memory) that is what 16th AF recommended up the chain. It happened in their area of responsibility. It was a practical suggestion given the less than pristine conditions, and the less than pristine Status of Forces agreement with Croatia at the time.
First, the Safety Investigation normally starts a month or so before the Accident Investigation and they often run concurrently?
Nope. The run concurrently, and being at roughly the same time, and that is normally due to how perishable human testimony is. The privileged mishap investigation tends to lead the punitive investigation. (That was my experience in conducting mishap investigations.)
Would keeping the public in the dark an extra month really be a concern when literally everyone under the sun in the administration was calling it an accident due to the worst weather in a century from the very first day ... and the public was buying it?
Red herring and irrelevant, and based on your false premise.
I find this explanation unconvincing. There were no calls for an immediate answer to what happened.
That is in error. Investigators were on scene within days, (IIRC, it was less than 48 hours) in difficult terrain. I do not understand your assertion that there was a deliberate delay. Your argument from ignorance is noted.
For those who don't know, General Fogelman was the Air Force Chief Of Staff at the time. He reported directly to President Clinton.
Nope. That is not the chain of command. Want to try again, when you have your facts straight?
In an interview about the crash and investigation on June 7, 1996 (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/brown_crash_6-7.html), he called the investigation a "safety investigation". Now there are two phases in the normal Air Force crash investigation. The first phase is called the "Safety Investigation Board" (SIB). The second is called the "Accident Investigation Board" (AIB). And every Air Force crash investigation prior to the Ron Brown crash except one (a clear-cut case of friendly fire shoot down in Iraq) consisted of both phases.
I will let beachnut handle this, if he wishes. Distinction without a difference, and as noted above, one investigation was done.
But in this case, the order came down from the top (that would be General Fogelman) that the Safety Board be skipped. So investigators proceeded to the Accident Investigation phase and the folks who normally conduct a Safety Board were told to go home and unpack their bags. Was Fogelman unaware of this when he called it a "safety investigation"?
Facts not in evidence. A crash investigation team was on the ground within, IIRC, 48 hours.
Now why do you suppose this is important?
It isn't, but you are pretending it is.
Well, the Safety Board is the phase of the normal investigation process which is explicitly charged with "finding the cause". Indeed, DoD Instruction 6055.7 states "The sole purpose of safety investigations is mishap prevention and to determine the cause(s) of accidents." 6055.7 states "Accident investigations are separate from, and independent of, safety investigations. Accident investigations provide a publically releasable report of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident and include a statement of opinion as to why the accident happened."
Chaff. Continue. Both boards go into findings of fact, and offering of opinion, of the board, and analysis. The difference is that one can result in punative action, and one (the privileged investigation) cannot, for the purpose of safety critical information not being witheld for fear of being found at fault.
And finally, "Safety investigations normally take precedence over accident investigations, although they may overlap in time. In the event of conflicts between the two investigations regarding access to the scene, acquiring and examining evidence, and interviewing witnesses, safety investigations have priority."
That is true. You get the safety critical info, privileged, non attribution first, and the punative (possibly) investigation is then allowed to interview witnesses. Physical evidence is generally shared as efficiently as time allows.
So it's curious that they skipped the SIB (the phase with priority and which is charged with determining the cause) and proceeded immediately to the AIB, when at the time they had absolutely no idea why the plane went down. Let me remind you, this was even a war zone.
False. Croatia was not a war zone in 1996, Bosnia was. Look at a map. Please. Inform yourself. IFOR was in Bosnia, not Croatia.
It could have been shot down.
By Croatians? What for? They were making money, hard currency, like crazy hosting NATO and US assets in their ports and in Zagreb.
No, in this case, the top brass (that would be General Fogelman) ruled it an accident and directed his staff to proceed from that assumption.
Yes, since Croatia was not a war zone at the time, it was exactly correct to presume that a transport in a permissive environment on a pax mission into a civil airfield was a mishap.
Now consider the final report from the Accident Investigation Board. Isn't it a bit odd that it does not mention many facts that potential litigants and family members might want to know. After all, that is one of it's primary stated purposes ... to make such information available to them. Isn't it?
Argument by innuendo, irrelevant.
For example, it doesn't contain the statements of the military pathologists and photographer at AFIP during the examination of Brown's body who said the hole in Brown's head looked like a bullet wound and that he should be autopsied. Brown's family was completely unaware of the controversy surrounding the wound in Brown's head until some of the military officers from AFIP who were involved in the Brown crash investigation blew the whistle (more on that in a moment).
That does not change the fact that over two dozen people were in a wreck, CFIT, that killed them all on impact. So, your point is?
Why doesn't the accident report mention that Colonel Cogswell, the AFIP pathologist who was at the crash site and specifically charged with looking for something that might have caused the wound in Brown's head, reported back to AFIP that he found nothing that might cause it and that the description sounds like a bullet wound and that Brown should be autopsied?
Did you read the entire report yourself, or are you parroting someone else's argument from ignorance?
The final report also does not explain the simultaneous the loss of transponder and radio contact when the plane was 8 miles from the crash site. Isn't this curious if the plane just happened to run into a mountain?
No, see comments above on radar coverage, or its general lack, in that part of the ICAO airspace in and around the Adriatic.
Now something caused that. Why doesn't the report answer that question? Why didn't Fogelman mention that happening and explain why?
It is nunnecessary. See above.
These were two seperate systems and either something major in a mechanical way happened on that plane to shut them down or they were deliberately shut off. Yet Fogelman and his "investigators" ignored this?
Nope.
Nor does the report mention the "suicide" of the maintenance chief who was in charge of a portable beacon at Dubrovnik that the Air Force has admitted disappeared before the crash. He reportedly killed himself (shotgun to the chest) a day or say after the crash over a failed love affair ... before investigators could interview him. The disappearance of that beacon could be significant. Afterall, none other than Aviation Week has indicated in one of their articles on the crash that the behavior of the plane on approach was consistent with being spoofed by such a beacon. Surely potential litigants would want to know those facts. Surely the Air Force would want to address Aviation Week's concern.
Argument by rumor. I am sure you have a link to an article by a reputable source about the death of a maintenance chief responsible for a beacon? Would this be an American, or a Croat?
The report doesn't mention the fact that the Department of State was told there were two survivors ... not just the one that was reported (a survivor who, by the way, managed to die on the way to the hospital under a doctor's care after surviving for 10 hours at the crash site alone). No, this fact was uncovered by Judicial Watch when they found a confidential chronology of events in the possession of former Secretary of State Warren Christopher which include the following item "Commerce Dept. has heard from Advance Ira Sokowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash".
Yet the mishap report concluded all dead on impact.
I wonder who that other survivor was? I wonder which family didn't get told their loved one survived the crash and died later? Tell us, were General Fogelman and his "safety investigation" team trying to spare that family? If so, why didn't they spare the other one too?
Argument by innuendo. Argument from incredulity. Irrelevant.
Because of this "accident" report, the families (and lawyers) of the victims never looked any further. Instead the government paid out an average of about 14 million dollars per family. In exchange, they presumably agreed not to pursue further lawsuits (and thereby ask questions). And curiously, the payout agreement stated as the reason for the crash ... weather. Yet the AIB report (and General Fogelman) states that weather played no significant role in the crash.
That's a vague statement. Fogelman is a pilot. If an all weather aircraft is shooting an approach, and the weather reported is at, or above mins, then one can expect the crew and aircraft to successfully make the approach and land. The significant role, concluded by the board, was in crew error based on the ground track of the aircraft and CFIT, which among aviators, is a well known symptom of a breakdown in cockpit efficiency that leads to flying a plane where you do not intend to fly it.
All in all, we have another PAO talking point taken out of context. It is understandable that that confuses a layman. The weather in theater that day was rather nasty. I do not recall the mishap report stating the weather not a factor, and Fogelman did not say it was NOT a factor. The significant factor found was crew error, upon investigation.
Did General Fogelman mention any of these things in the interview I linked? No. Instead, he just told the public that it was pilot/crew error and an improperly designed approach procedure. Do you think he was perhaps unaware of these facts? I rather doubt it, if he's as competent as you claim. So what's going on here, DR?
You are a novice, and are arguing from ignorance and incredulity, that is what is going on here.
1) g "[B]sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too."
From a professional pathologists, did he state, "That was a gunshot wound!" ? No.
By law, if there is suspicion of foul play in the death of a Cabinet member , the FBI is to be called in and an autopsy done. Yet, that didn't happen.
So perhaps you are suspecting foul play, but most of the pathologists didn't, seeing as how the man died in a plane crash.
And we aren't talking about run of the mill forensic pathologists voicing their concern, but the ones the Air Force itself considered the best of the best, especially when it came to gunshot.
But did any of them state, as professional pathologists might be expected to,

"Died of a gunshot wound." ? Don't think so.
2) Do you know that Colonel Cogswell (mentioned earlier) gave talks at pathology conferences and training classes on "mistakes in forensic pathology" and told his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows, in the area behind the left eye socket, "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density", i.e., a "lead snowstorm" from a high-velocity gunshot wound. He also told them that brain matter is visible in the photos and the side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain ... both contrary to what the Accident report claims? You think he could get away with that at a conference of professionals if there was absolutely no basis for that statement?
And, having said that, did he actually say "this was death by gunshot wound" as a clinical diagnosis? The reason I ask is that had he so diagnosed, he'd have had to formally (and being a Col he could) demanded a reopening of the investigation.
3) Why was the body of Sergeant Kelly (the one survivor the government admitted) ordered cremated at Dover before her family was even contacted? That's a violation of regulations, by the way. Was anyone ever punished? General Fogelman didn't say.
Why do you cremate a survivor?
4) Why did the Croatian Ministry Of Transportation announced shortly after reaching the crash that the black boxes had been found? The US Air Force in Germany confirmed this. The Department of Commerce log mentioned above even states, "Chief of protocol Misetic called...The flight data recorder has been recovered." Then, a week later, the Air Force claims the plane had no black boxes and that some boxes that looked exactly like the recorders had been found instead. Tell me, what boxes on this plane looked exactly like recorders? I'm just curious.
Most aircraft have lots of black boxes. Most avionics boxes are black. I do not know the source of the error in whoever reported an FDR being found at that wreck. IRRC, from my contacts at 16th AF, T-43's at the time did not have FDR's in them, nor did or do most military aircraft. I had heard that this is changing in the AF, not sure how widespread or how fast this change will takek place via logistics channels. I will ask around, this has piqued my curiosity.
5) Another problem with the claim that there were no black boxes is that this exact plane, just a week earlier, carried the First Lady and Chelsea and, several weeks before that it carried the Secretary of Defense. Didn't regulations require that the First Lady and Cabinet Members only fly on aircraft with black boxes? Was anyone ever punished for this "violation" of regulations? Or did General Fogelman say to "skip that"?
Argument from incredulity. Can you cite the reg you are referring to? If so, good. FDR's don't impact safety of flight, they are only useful after a crash, or a safety incident.
6) Why did the pathologist (Colonel Gormley) who conducted the examination of Brown's body and who declared it a case of blunt force trauma in the accident report go on TV and lie about the facts in the case?
Why do you think he is lying?
This occurred during a time when a gag order was in place preventing any of the officers who were raising concerns about what happened from speaking. But the black community was asking more and more pointed questions so Gormley was presumably ordered to go on Black Entertainment Television and defuse those questions.
Politics, or a mishap investigation, what are we talking about here?
Gormley immediately attacked the pathologists who were saying there should have been an autopsy. He stated that one could rule out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible in the wound and that the x-rays taken during the examination showed no trace of a bullet injury. He also denied claims by the official military photographer, Captain Janowski, that two sets of x-rays existed.
Interesting.
Then, he was confronted with a photo taken during the examination by Captain Janowski ... a naval photographer, by the way, who is also on record saying the wound looked like a bullet wound.
Captain Janowski is a Naval Photographer? Huh? Navy Captain? (O-6) Are you aware that the Navy assigns petty officers as Photographers, under the rating Photographer's Mate? (Or did then. The navy may have merged that rating with JO, journalist. I need to check.) There is something here that does not fit, BAC, and I wonder at what your source thinks it, or he, is saying.
Colonel Gormley ended up admitting that brain matter was indeed visible in the photo, excusing his former statements as a memory lapse. He then admitted that the hole was a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry.
Yes, perhaps, and this is very interesting. It is possible also that 'blunt trauma" was also accompanied by a head hitting a relatively "sharp" object that penatrated the skull, but I AM GUESSING, so this is an intriguing question.
Next he was confronted with a copy of Janowski's photos from the first set of x-ray slides of Brown's head. He immediately changed his story and claimed that a first set of x-rays had been made but were "lost" so that a second set was required. Presumably, it was the second set whose images were put in the Accident Investigation report. It was then pointed out that the Janowski x-rays slides show signs of a "lead snowstorm" (a telltale sign of gunshot), which Gormley didn't refute.
But he did not diagnose a gunshot, did he? What else leaves a telltale? Are you a pathologist? That would be interesting to find out. Are there other materials that leave telltales? Intriguing question. I don't have an answer.
Do you know that Captain Janowski made a sworn statement that Jeanmarie Sentell, a naval criminal investigator who was present at the examination of Brown, told her that x-rays and photographs were deliberately destroyed in the Brown case after a "lead snowstorm" was discovered in the x-rays? Janoski further testified that Sentell said that a second set of X-rays were made "less dense" to diminish or eradicate the "lead snowstorm" image, and that Colonel Gormley was involved in its creation. Interesting, huh?
Indeed. With corroborating evidence, it might lead to something. Was the body exhumed?
Do you care to explain this behavior by Gormley?
No, he didn't work for me. I'd have been very interested to see him, on the basis of only an X Ray, change an analysis of a body without matching all of the other evidence, the way pathologists do, but the confusion about "xrays" is certainly intriguing.
Note that a few years later, Judicial Watch stated in a document submitted to a court that Colonel Gormley now admits that 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, "at least an entrance gunshot wound".
Good. "Looked like." None of them, apparently, declared "this is a gunshot wound" which I would think an expert pathologist would be confident to state, and competent to state, if he felt it were a gunshot wound. What these comments do point to is an uncertainty to exactly what that hole was.
Furthermore, he confesses that no autopsy was requested based on "discussions" at the highest levels in the Department of Commerce (the folks hiding the fact that there was a second survivor and the department where numerous Chinagate violations under Brown's leadership were alleged), the Joint Chiefs of Staff (that would be General Fogelman) and the Whitehouse (i.e., President Clinton). Care to explain what happened at those highest levels, DR?
Second Survivor? Source, before I comment on that. IIRC, they all died in the crash.
7) In January of 1998, the Washington Post reported that the AFIP, in response to the controvery, had convened a review panel of all its pathologists. The article quoted AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, in saying that the panel came to the unanimous conclusion that Brown died of blunt-force trauma and not a gunshot.

But Cogswell refused to attend, following the advice of his lawyer. He says that most of those participating were not board-certified in forensic pathology and of those who were, none had significant interest or experience in gunshot wounds.

He says that all of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's forensic pathologists with any expertise in gunshot wounds (Cogswell, Hause and Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons) dissented from the "official" opinion.

Even though Hause and Parsons corroborated Cogswell's version, AFIP spokesman Chris Kelly said AFIP "stands by" Dickerson's claim that the findings were unanimous. Care to explain why the AFIP chief and public relation dweeb lied about the opinions of AFIP's staff?
Interesting. You have a disagreement among professionals, and you assume one party lied because they don't fit your preferred interpretation. I don't know what to make of it, and who is right, or wrong, but I do note that these members of AFIP disagree.
8) Erich Junger, AFIP's chief forensic scientist and who was also present at the examination, was quoted telling the press that a "very reasonable explanation" for the hole was found "when we looked around the aircraft area itself." However, Junger never visited the crash site and since then, in addition to Cogswell who carried out the search, Gormley has acknowledged that no piece of the aircraft was found to explain the hole. Why did Junger lie about this?
I have no idea, and I am not sure if this was a lie, or an error, neither, or perhaps both. That question does not prove Brown was shot. It does make one wonder at why Junger made seemingly contradictory statements.
9) Now here's a good question. Where are the original photos and x-rays of Brown's head? It is a fact that they disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP to which only a few top people had access. Hause, along with Dr. Jerry Spencer of AFIP, confirmed this. Yet Gormley and the AFIP heads did not investigate or offer any explanation for how the X-rays or photos disappeared. Gormley simply referred calls to Chris Kelly, who simply said Gormley would not grant additional interviews.
Interestig question. Have you submitted a FOIA request for this information?
Aren't you at all interested why they showed so little interest in this? Maybe General Fogelman can be enticed out of retirement to locate them?
Why would he care? A plane crashed with all hands perishing, and the Air Force looked stupid for getting Ron Brown and 20+ other Clinton friends, business leaders, killed in a pilot error crash. I am trying to understand why he would want to pick at that painful scab.
10) Why did the AFIP report that extensive "forensic tests" disproved a bullet theory when Captain Janoski, who was present for the entire examination of Brown's body, did not see any forensic tests, such as those for gunpowder residue?
I am a bit unclear. A Navy Photographer was present for an entire investigation by pathologists, and is a Navy Captain? Again, I need some better info here, this does not fit. Are you sure Jankowski was not a doctor? A radiologist? This is confusing information.
Why did Janet Reno tell the nation that the Justice Department conducted a "thorough review" of the facts in the Ron Brown death investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of a crime when no one from the Justice Department or FBI interviewed the military pathologists or photographer who blew the whistle?
I am going to guess that she said that when her staff briefed her on the investigation, and she was satisfied that they had been thorough, I doubt she dogged their footsteps through every step of their investigation and staff effort. Of course, I think Janet Reno broke the law in Waco, so I don't care too much for her, but I don't see this as significant.
Strange, yes?
It is? How? The AG has her staffers go look into something, they brief her, she asks questions, and when all is said and done, she is confident they did their jobs. Not strange at all, though also not surprising that her staff might have been sloppier that they ought to have been. It happens.
11) Cogswell, Hause, Parsons and Janowski were all reassigned to other duties outside their areas of expertise and the government tried to limit their contact with fellow pathologists by barring them from conferences.
Proof of that assertion?
They had their homes searched without a warrant and were given negative job evaluations for the first time in careers spanning over 10 years. For example, Cogswell's evaluation, which was six months late, states that he is "disruptive to the work environment with immature behavior." He has been "unresponsive to counseling," adding that he has used "inappropriate language" and worn "inappropriate dress." Cogswell was even criticized for his manner of driving in the AFIP facility's parking lot. The belated report bears three signatures, including those of Armed Forces Chief Medical Examiner Jerry Spencer and AFIP Director Col. Michael Dickerson, both proven liars.
This is a jumble of data points that are not all related. I think I missed how Spencer and Dickerson are proven liars. Cite, to clear that up?
The signatures are not even dated. Do you think this is fair treatment of military officers who only raised what appear to be valid questions?
It does not appear they were punished for raising questions, from the previous passage. A bit of a mish mash, so some clarity would be appreciated.
12) Acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters sent a letter to family members of the air crash victims in December 1997 attempting to debunk the bullet wound thesis. He wrote that "The reports resulted from the opinion of an Air Force medical examiner who did not personally examine any of the CT-43 casualties. They are his opinions only. 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." I wonder, have the families been told what Colonel Gormley now says about the matter?
I don't know. Have you asked them?
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 I've already proven.
No, you have not proven that, but there is obvious disagreement by pathologists about the wound, which leaves it an open question, it seems.
He 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."
OK, that is interesting.
This is also a clear lie. The military photographer who took the pictures says that could not be true given that only one photo ... the one of Brown's head ... shows the so-called "defect". If it were a cassette problem, all of them would have had the defect. So why was Peters lying or who was lying to him?
It is uncertain,and a good question. But back to this Navy Photographer: do you mean the Captain?
Peters letter 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 lie given that calls for an autopsy were voiced at the examination and the reasons given by Gormley for not performing an autopsy have been shown to be bogus.
Since they all died in a plane crash, that actually makes sense. Random's post points out the three scenarios, in the other thread, that had to be true for an assassin to be on the plane. Each is equally absurd, unless you subscribe to a suicide assassin who kills brown, and then himself via plane crash to make sure his mission is never discovered. Gun found on site? In the wreckage? More questions, eh?
Before ending with his "heartfelt apologies," the Peters statement revealed its real purpose: "We hope these actions will preclude credible media from pursuing this story." Any comment? Or will we just hear crickets?
An odd turn of phrase, indeed.
13) And finally, let me point out that military pathologists are not the only ones on record here. Christopher Ruddy showed copies of the x-rays and photos to Pittsburgh coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists. Wecht, a democrat, said "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied."
Opinion, and a doctor.
Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments".
He said "little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone."
But did he conclude, from that evidence, that this was a bullet wound, or that it might be?
Wecht said Brown's body was relatively intact. Lacerations were superficial, and other damage to his face and body appeared to be caused by chemical burns that probably would not have resulted in death. X-rays indicated Brown's bones were generally intact, with a breakage of the pelvic ring that Wecht said was survivable.
I see. Everyone else in the plane dies on impact, but Brown is superman, and he'd have survived, except for being shot by an already dead assassin? I think I missed the punch line.
Tell me, do you think Mr Wecht, who was a democrat, was politically biased or a liar in this matter?
No, do you? Was he informed of the speed of the aircraft at the time of impact? T-43's don't have airbags, BAC.
Red Herring. I don't answer personal questions because I claim no expertise on this or ANY subject.
I noticed that.
Before you call me a liar, why don't you address the above questions about Brown's death? And when you get done (if you even make the attempt), you can be sure I have many others suspicious facts I haven't yet mentioned. Facts which point to motive and opportunity.
I have addressed it. YOu are either an expert at self delusion, or a fan of propagating a lie. But I agree with you that the disagreement among pathologists is very interesting, and I don't think any of them were wrong to suggest an autopsy. Makes sense to me, except for one small fact.

It isn't too hard to figure out how someone died if they are in a plane crash, and between 130 and 150 knots, perhaps higher if downwind in ground speed, when the plane hits the ground WHAM all of a sudden like that.

Here is an idea.

Get into your car.

Get it going to about 130 knots. (About 145 miles per hour)

Drive into the side of a mountain. (Airbags disabled.)

Tell me how you feel when you get out of the car.

(Kidding, please don't actually do that. It would kill you.)

DR
Cheers.

[BeAChooser]

In response to your smoke screen of innuendo and some (understandable for a layman) ignorance.

Well this should be fun. I always like when my opponent starts out claiming to be knowledgeable about this subject and then demonstrates he's the one who is basking in ignorance. :D

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Notice, for instance, that it says the plane disappeared from radar 5 minutes before expected landing.

Whose radar? Which radar?

You mean you don't know? According to the Aviation Week article I cited earlier (see http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/BROWN/h1.gif), the radar at Zagreb is one of two that lost contact. And according to the article, the aircraft at the time contact was lost was at 2400 ft (it crashed on a 2,300 ft high mountain) and was "7-8 mi. from the runway threshold, according to Radic".

Quote:
Now according to Aviation Week (April 8, 1996), an AWACS lost contact with the transponder on the plane at the same time.

How far from the plane, and the airport, was the AWACS?

The Aviation Week article states "Tower controllers cleared the jet to land just before losing radio contact at the same time Zagreb Air Traffic Control and a USAF AWACS aircraft lost sight of the 737 on radar". Tell us, are you suggesting the AWACS was flying below the height of the mountains in the area and just happened to be positioned so it lost the signal at the same time as Zagreb? Isn't it far more likely that the AWACS was at high altitude and would have had line of sight to the plane regardless of the couple thousand foot high mountains in the area?

Unless you clearly state the location of the AWACS in terms of distance from Dubrovnik, that piece of information is irrelevant, and useless for analysis.

I think the following should be of interest:

*********

From http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/BROWN/brown.html

"According to Aviation Week & Space Technology, April 8, 1996, the Dubrovnik tower lost voice radio contact with the aircraft at the same time the aircraft vanished from the screens of the approach radar at Split and an AWACS.

Let's look at the Split radar first. The Split radar watches the approach to Dubrovnik airport, which is where the Ron Brown aircraft was when it dropped off of the radar screen. Contrary to some silly claims made in this newsgroup before, the plane was NOT flying in the mountains. It was out over the water, with open space all around. The radar at Split routinely tracks aircraft through that airspace without problem. If it were normal for the Split radar to lose traffic at that point on the approach path, nobody would have mentioned it because it would be normal and expected behavior. There would be nothing unusual about it. That a comment was made about the target dropping off of the Split radar establishes that it was an unusual event.

The Split radar, like all ATC radar, tracks primarily by aircraft transponder. So, when the Split radar lost track of the Ron Brown aircraft, what was actually lost was the transponder return, as the aircraft was still there, on the approach path, although just starting to veer slightly left.

Now let's look at the AWACS.

The AWACS system is designed to track NON-transpondered targets. Radar "hits" are placed in a computer system that keeps a list and tries to match the returns from the present radar sweep to the returns from the previous sweeps in order to generate meaningful target tracking data for the operators and weapons management systems. Part of that process involves target to target comparisons to make certain that what the computer thinks is target XYZ this sweep is the same target it thought was XYZ last sweep. The total workload on the computer is a power function of the total number of non-transpondered targets being carried in the target list.

If a target has a transponder, the AWACS will track the target using the transponder return, because not only is less computer power needed for a transpondered target, but the workload for non-transpondered targets is reduced.

How do we know that the AWACS was tracking the Ron Brown plane via transponder? Because the AWACS lost it's track at the same time that the Split radar lost it's transponder return. Had the AWACS been tracking the Ron Brown plane via skin-paint, there is no reason for it to lose track of the aircraft at the same time that Split did, while the aircraft was still 7 miles from the crash site.

Had the AWACS not reported losing contact, we could surmise that either the AWACS was tracking on skin paint or the Split radar suffered a momentary failure, but this was not the case.

It is also true that the AWACS could have immediately reacquired the Ron Brown aircraft on skin paint (and it's not known for a fact that the computers did not add it as a non-transpondered target), but the AWACS was there to watch Bosnia, not the Dubrovnik airport.

The two radar tracks, propagating along two different paths, come together at only one common point where a single failure could make the aircraft vanish from both Split and the AWACS, and that is the radar transponder in the Ron Brown aircraft. A failure of the transponder is the only explanation for the Ron Brown plane vanishing from two different radar screens at the same time, while still 7 miles from the crash site and 1/2 mile above the Adriatic sea.

At the same time that the aircraft vanished from the radars at Split and the AWACS, the Dubrovnik tower reported it lost voice radio contact with the aircraft.

This is a third distinct propagation path from the AWACS and Split. In fact, it's direct line of sight from the Dubrovnik airport to the location on the approach path where radio contact was lost. There are no intervening geological features to block the radio signal. The Dubrovnik tower continued to communicate with other aircraft in the area, so the radios in the tower were not at fault.

The data reported in the Aviation Week & Space Technology article shows evidence that TWO SEPARATE SYSTEMS on board the Ron Brown aircraft failed at the same time. The cockpit radios, and the radar transponder.

The radios and radar transponders come together at only one common point where a single failure could make the aircraft vanish from both Split and the AWACS and also lose voice radio contact with the Dubrovnik tower, and that is if the electrical system failed in mid air, while still 7 miles from the crash site and 1/2 mile above the Adriatic sea, on the approach path.

No other explanation fits the facts reported in Aviation Week & Space Technology."

************************

I'm curious, DR. Does the Accident Investigation report mention the AWACS and it's loss of contact? Since you claim to know so much I expect you should be able to tell us this. I know that in the public statement given by Fogelman and Coolidge in June when the Accident report was released, they didn't mention the AWACS. Don't you find that a bit odd if one actually was tracking Brown's plane about the time it went down?

Quote:
The plane was about 8 miles from the runway at this time (yet the crash sight was less than 2 miles away).

Irrelevant pieces of data.

How can it be irrelevant that a plane simultaneously loses voice and transponder contact with traffic controllers and 2 separate tracking systems while still 7-8 miles from a runway if the plane was supposed to have just *accidently* run into a mountain only 2 miles from the runway? Please tell everyone what happened to cause that loss of contact while the plane clearly had not yet reached the mountain is supposedly *accidently* hit. Because the source you supplied did not say. And apparently, neither does the Accident Investigation report. Nor has any spokesperson for the Air Force explained this as far as I know. But since you are a self-proclaimed *expert*, I'm sure you can tell us what happened.

It is irrelevant to the approach being flown, and the runway environment not gained, and either a MAP attempted or a circling maneuver attempted, at an unfamiliar field, that took the aircraft out of the cleared approach airspace and into the mountain for CFIT.

You can stick your head in the ground (or water) for everyone to see or you can try to answer the question I just asked. By the way, there is absolutely NO evidence that a "circling maneuver" was attempted. Not a single witness says they saw or heard a plane pass over or near the airport at the time in question. Is that how you are going to approach this issue? Just make things up out of thin air? Maybe you can make up an explanation for what the pathologists said and what the x-rays showed, too.


Quote:
I also find interesting the postscript about the investigation. It states "the AFI 51-503 investigation was the only one conducted in this case, with the assistance of experts from Boeing, the NTSB and the FAA. The public's right to know all of the information was considered of overriding importance, because of the death of the US Secretary of Commerce." Really ... what was so important, timewise, that they eliminate the Safety Investigation?

Based on the political climate at the time, and the logistic problem of beginning two separate investigation at once (in terms of logistics, personnel, and demands from Washington for an explanation, the military and the Clinton crowd were still not on gracious terms at this point in time) the decision to save manpower and complete a non-privileged investigation strikes me as a reasonable one.


See all the hand waving going on, folks?

He claims we were in the midst of a political crisis that would prevent the normal Air Force investigation? What political crisis, DR? Please be specific. Don't just wave your hands.

He claims the Air Force didn't have the manpower and resources to complete two separate investigations. Isn't it odd that we'd always had the resources and manpower prior to this crash ... even when no one nearly as important as the folks on this plane were killed? Why was Clinton and the Air Force pinching pennies on just this one and not the others?

He claims its because Clinton and the Military weren't on good terms. So how does skipping the phase of the normal investigation that's supposed to determine the cause make that relationship any better? Or are you saying the military skipped it just to spite Clinton? Please elaborate. I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm asking questions to clarify what you mean.

(going on memory) that is what 16th AF recommended up the chain.

I'm not willing to accept your "memory" on this subject. If you have a source to prove the suggestion to skip the Safety Board came from someone other than the top brass or the Whitehouse, post it. Don't try to point the blame elsewhere unless you can prove it. Because if you can't, one might just think you are just making up more excuses and doing more hand waving.

Quote:
First, the Safety Investigation normally starts a month or so before the Accident Investigation and they often run concurrently?

Nope. The run concurrently, and being at roughly the same time, and that is normally due to how perishable human testimony is.


Really? Well that's not what this Air Force document states.

http://www.acc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2356 "AIR FORCE SAFETY AND ACCIDENT BOARD INVESTIGATIONS ... snip ... The SIB is convened within days of the mishap and is given approximately thirty days to return its assessment. The SIB will normally spend the first week to ten days gathering factual data at the crash site and taking testimony from witnesses. The next two weeks are used to develop and refine the SIB's findings and recommendations. Finally, the SIB prepares and presents their completed report to the convening authority. The SIB Report is prepared in two parts. The first is purely factual, and the second is privileged, meaning it is to be used solely for mishap prevention and is restricted from release outside the Air Force. ... snip ... The AIB will begin their investigation by reviewing the factual information from Part I of the SIB Report and building upon it to determine the cause of the accident. The accident investigation team is also appointed immediately and will begin their investigation as soon as they can do so without interfering with the safety team. The Board President is a senior pilot (usually a colonel) and the other team members are a maintenance expert, flight surgeon, judge advocate and any other needed specialists. ... snip ... Current as of April 1998"

As stated in the above Air Force document, while the AIB team may be appointed at the same time, they begin their work by reviewing the factual information from Part I of the SIB Report. This implies that report is completed first. So if it takes the SIB 30 days to complete the report (as indicated above), the situation is exactly as I described.

And notice, if you were right that the two efforts are done totally concurrent, then the argument made by the brass that they skipped the SIB to save time would goes out the window. And did it save time? The above Air Combat Command link states: "AIB Reports are completed and released in approximately 60-90 days. This figure includes time after the reports are written for completion of technical review and coordination, then approval by the convening authority (the Major Command Commander), and a briefing to family members (if applicable)." Now consider how long it took the Accident Investigation Report in the Ron Brown Crash to be released? The crash was on April 3, 1996. The AIB report was released on June 7, 1996. So it took over 60 days. Just like it would have anyway.

Quote:
I find this explanation unconvincing. There were no calls for an immediate answer to what happened.

That is in error. Investigators were on scene within days, (IIRC, it was less than 48 hours) in difficult terrain.

Go back and reread the context. I didn't mean investigators didn't arrive quickly at the crash site. I meant there were no outside calls (by families of the victims, political figures, or anyone else) demanding that the investigation be rushed ... that we needed a report more quickly than the usual 60 to 90 days. Like I said, I don't find your explanation convincing.

Your argument from ignorance is noted.

The only ignorance being demonstrated here is by the person who was apparently unaware that the AIB effort normally starts by reading the output of the SIB.

Quote:
For those who don't know, General Fogelman was the Air Force Chief Of Staff at the time. He reported directly to President Clinton.

Nope. That is not the chain of command.

Tell you what. Why don't you tell us how many bodies are between the President and someone in General Fogelman's position in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Maybe this will help: http://www.jcs.mil/about_cjs.html. It indicates ONE. The Chairman. And after reading that, I hope you won't try to claim the President had no direct contact with Fogelman. That would be strange considering his advisory capacity. That would be strange considering that Fogelman was appointed to the position by Clinton himself. I hope you don't want us to believe that all contact by Fogelman was only done through the Chairman or Secretary of the Air Force or Secretary of Defense? But in any case, your criticism is irrelevant. The point is that Fogelman should certainly have been in the loop when it came to the Ron Brown incident ... in deciding not to conduct an SIB, when punishing the pathologists and photographer at Dover, etc. Don't you think?

Quote:
In an interview about the crash and investigation on June 7, 1996 (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/milit...rash_6-7.html), he called the investigation a "safety investigation". Now there are two phases in the normal Air Force crash investigation. The first phase is called the "Safety Investigation Board" (SIB). The second is called the "Accident Investigation Board" (AIB). And every Air Force crash investigation prior to the Ron Brown crash except one (a clear-cut case of friendly fire shoot down in Iraq) consisted of both phases.

I will let beachnut handle this, if he wishes. Distinction without a difference

I really doubt beachnut's going to, since he ran from this thread days ago after my first fact-filled post. No, I think you are on your own, DR. And what it looks like to me is that you are sticking your head in the ground (or water as the case may be). If it's a "distinction without difference", why did they even bother to have an SIB in the normal Air Force procedure? Hmmmmmm?

Quote:
But in this case, the order came down from the top (that would be General Fogelman) that the Safety Board be skipped. So investigators proceeded to the Accident Investigation phase and the folks who normally conduct a Safety Board were told to go home and unpack their bags. Was Fogelman unaware of this when he called it a "safety investigation"?

Facts not in evidence. A crash investigation team was on the ground within, IIRC, 48 hours.

So what are you claiming, DR? That someone other than the top brass decided to skip the SIB? That the folks who do the SIB and AIB are one in the same? What exactly are you claiming as to how the decision to skip the SIB was made and who conducted the AIB? Why don't YOU put some facts into evidence?


Chaff. Continue. Both boards go into findings of fact, and offering of opinion, of the board, and analysis.


If it's just "chaff", then why does the Air Force regulation covering the investigation process bother to specifically state that one of the two purposes of the SIB is "to determine the cause(s)" of the accident? If the AIB were the one that was supposed to do this, wouldn't it say that instead? All it says is that the AIB is supposed to "state an opinion" about the cause AND Air Force documents also state the AIB members are supposed to take the SIB's work into consideration when doing that.

You can spin till you are blue in the face, but you can't change the fact that in the normal crash investigation, it is the SIB that determines the cause and the SIB is composed of different people and different types of people than the AIB.

Croatia was not a war zone in 1996, Bosnia was. Look at a map.

Actually, Bosnia wasn't at war in 1996 since the peace agreement ending that war was signed December 14, 1995. Even so, things were still very tense in Bosnia. Why don't you look at a map and tell us how far Croatia is from Bosnia. And try to convince us that some of the same ethnic hatreds that drove the conflict in Bosnia weren't present in Croatia. In fact, really make us laugh. Try to tell us Croatia wasn't involved in the war in Bosnia. Because it was. Heavily.

That AWACS was there for a reason. And there were still American troops in Bosnia at the time Brown's plane went down. So maybe someone out there wasn't all that happy with our involvement. The fact is, the government had no reason to rule out an unfriendly act when the plane crashed ... especially since *something* happened to the voice and transponder systems when the plane was still a long way from hitting the mountain.


since Croatia was not a war zone at the time, it was exactly correct to presume that a transport in a permissive environment on a pax mission into a civil airfield was a mishap.

Why doesn't that same logic hold in dozens of other crashes which weren't in war zones but where they still conducted an SIB? Remarkable, isn't it, that the only other case prior to the Brown crash were the SIB was skipped actually was in a war zone.

Quote:
Now consider the final report from the Accident Investigation Board. Isn't it a bit odd that it does not mention many facts that potential litigants and family members might want to know. After all, that is one of it's primary stated purposes ... to make such information available to them. Isn't it?

Argument by innuendo, irrelevant.

This is not innuendo. It is a fact that the purpose of the AIB report is to provide potential litigants with the facts of the case. It is a fact the AIB report in this case didn't do that if it didn't even mention the first set of x-rays that showed a lead snowstorm or the opinion of pathologists at the examination that Ron Brown needed an autopsy because he had a hole in his head with the appearance of a bullet wound. Clearly, potential litigants would want to know such information.

Quote:
For example, it doesn't contain the statements of the military pathologists and photographer at AFIP during the examination of Brown's body who said the hole in Brown's head looked like a bullet wound and that he should be autopsied. Brown's family was completely unaware of the controversy surrounding the wound in Brown's head until some of the military officers from AFIP who were involved in the Brown crash investigation blew the whistle (more on that in a moment).

That does not change the fact that over two dozen people were in a wreck, CFIT, that killed them all on impact. So, your point is?

Are you really this obtuse? If there is a bullet wound in Brown's head, don't you think the Brown family might want to know?

Indeed, when the daughter of Brown learned that military forensic pathologists were suggesting there might be a bullet wound, she wanted answers. To bad she and her family based their decision not to pursue that on a report from an unnamed pathologist that they hired ... a pathologist who seems to have been more than a little "misinformed". Tracy said he told them they found no exit wound which is why she stopped calling for an autopsy. Problem is, the pathologist who examined Brown's body at Dover NEVER looked for an exit wound. So one wonders who recommended Tracy's pathologist.


Quote:
Why doesn't the accident report mention that Colonel Cogswell, the AFIP pathologist who was at the crash site and specifically charged with looking for something that might have caused the wound in Brown's head, reported back to AFIP that he found nothing that might cause it and that the description sounds like a bullet wound and that Brown should be autopsied?

Did you read the entire report yourself

ROTFLOL! Have you? So you wish to claim the report notes what Cogswell says he told AFIP ... that he found nothing to cause the wound, that the wound description sounds like a bullet wound, and that an autopsy should be done? You honestly think that if the report had noted that, the press wouldn't have picked up on it? The press looks for sensationalism and that certainly would be. Yet not one press account anywhere mentions Cogswells statement or Hause's for that matter, as being in the report. So would you like to bet your continued presence on the JREF forum that it does?

You could contract Jack Cashill, author of the book "Ron Brown's Body", and ask him. No need, however, since he says he has read the report in it's entirety and the report doesn't mention the statements of the AFIP pathologists regarding a possible bullet wound and the need for an autopsy. Here:

****************

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38962

"So I wrote to the U.S. Air Force in Ramstein, Germany, after its personnel volunteered to waive the four-figure fee for the printing and shipping of the 22-volume, 8,000-page report on the crash of Ron Brown's plane [USAF CT-43A, Boeing 737-200, Tail No. 31149]. Just a week later, a couple of hefty UPS guys came carrying the report up the steps to my office. ... snip ... When the Air Force report arrived at my office, I called in my primary aviation consultant, retired TWA Capt. Raymond Gentile, and gave him the voluminous technical data to review. He, in turn, enlisted another airline pilot to double-check his own analysis. Gentile has prepared a 7,000-word "Technical Report" on the likely cause of the crash that he would like to share with any Air Force personnel or aviation professionals who are interested in exploring the crash and refining his analysis. (Please e-mail me at jcashill@worldnetdaily.com, and I will send it along). Meanwhile, I plowed through the 148 interviews and began integrating Gentile's analysis into the text of "Ron Brown's Body." At the end of the day, the Air Force report proves revealing more for what it omits than what it includes. ... snip ... The most conspicuous evidence of that presumed job is the "apparent bullet hole" found in Ron Brown's head by the military pathologists at Dover. And this brings us to those even more revealing lines of inquiry, the ones conspicuously not pursued in the Air Force report:

• The Air Force was aware of the head wound. Indeed, of the 33 death certificates filed with the report, only Brown's lists a head wound as cause of death, a fact that the military pathologists on site had to share. Still, no questions were raised about the head wound in the report.

• No questions were raised about the life or death of Niko Jerkuic, the Croatian responsible for the navigation systems that were likely sabotaged. Jerkuic showed up with a bullet hole to the chest three days after the crash, only days before the Air Force could interrogate him."

*************

Quote:
Nor does the report mention the "suicide" of the maintenance chief who was in charge of a portable beacon at Dubrovnik that the Air Force has admitted disappeared before the crash. He reportedly killed himself (shotgun to the chest) a day or say after the crash over a failed love affair ... before investigators could interview him. The disappearance of that beacon could be significant. Afterall, none other than Aviation Week has indicated in one of their articles on the crash that the behavior of the plane on approach was consistent with being spoofed by such a beacon. Surely potential litigants would want to know those facts. Surely the Air Force would want to address Aviation Week's concern.

Argument by rumor. I am sure you have a link to an article by a reputable source about the death of a maintenance chief responsible for a beacon? Would this be an American, or a Croat?

You can ask Mr Cashill about it when you contact him regarding the AIB report content:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38421 "The man responsible for the Cilipi Airport's navigation system, maintenance chief Niko Jerkuic, had been found with a bullet hole in the chest two days before the Air Force was to question him. The New York Times would report that a "failed romance" had left the 46-year-old bachelor despondent."


Quote:
The report doesn't mention the fact that the Department of State was told there were two survivors ... not just the one that was reported (a survivor who, by the way, managed to die on the way to the hospital under a doctor's care after surviving for 10 hours at the crash site alone). No, this fact was uncovered by Judicial Watch when they found a confidential chronology of events in the possession of former Secretary of State Warren Christopher which include the following item "Commerce Dept. has heard from Advance Ira Sockowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash".

Yet the mishap report concluded all dead on impact.

EXACTLY, which is odd. Why did they leave out what Ira told the Secretary of State? Indeed, if "all" died on impact as you claim, why did the government publically report that one person survived? They even named the person. How could the AIB report have gotten this so wrong? How could Sockowitz have gotten this so wrong? Well perhaps he didn't. And he'd likely be one of those on the inside of any plot. He "misses" the plane. He still gets to the crash site in time to be the point man. And he just happens to be linked to Chinagate in a big way ... i.e., one of those who would have gone down if Ron Brown turned state's evidence.

That's a vague statement.

There was nothing vague about the payout agreement. It stated the reason for the crash was weather. Odd, when the AIB report and Fogelman said weather played an insignificant role.

I do not recall the mishap report stating the weather not a factor.

It didn't. Nor did Fogelman. Both stated weather was not a significant factor. Which makes it unusual that the government would pay out an average of 14 million a person to people with the explanation that weather was the cause. And if you asked the average person on the street the cause of Ron Brown's death, they'd likely tell you that he died in a plane crash due to foul weather (if they knew anything at all). Hardly any would be aware of what the pathologists and x-rays suggested.

Quote:
1) g "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too."

From a professional pathologists, did he state, "That was a gunshot wound!" ? No.

Your desperation is showing. A expert in gunshot says "it looks like a gunshot wound" and says an autopsy should be done, and you conclude that because he didn't say it "was" a gunshot wound, it wasn't. That sort of illogic deserves a laugh. ROTFLOL!

So perhaps you are suspecting foul play, but most of the pathologists didn't

You are wrong. Even the pathologist who did the examination is now on record saying he made a mistake ... that what the photo and x-ray show are red flags and that Brown should have been autopsied. In fact, while I can name about half a dozen top pathologists who state that Brown should have been autopsied because the wound looked like a bullet wound, you can't name any that don't ... except perhaps the head of AFIP, Mr Dickerson, who I can prove has LIED about the evidence and the opinions of the pathologists who worked under him.


Quote:
And we aren't talking about run of the mill forensic pathologists voicing their concern, but the ones the Air Force itself considered the best of the best, especially when it came to gunshot.

But did any of them state, as professional pathologists might be expected to, "Died of a gunshot wound." ? Don't think so.

Are "professionals" supposed to declare it a gunshot wound without an autopsy to be sure? Don't think so. Your desperation is showing, DR, and frankly I'm beginning to doubt whether you indeed voted for Bush in 96. You say you did but ...

BAC -"2) Do you know that Colonel Cogswell (mentioned earlier) gave talks at pathology conferences and training classes on "mistakes in forensic pathology" and told his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows, in the area behind the left eye socket, "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density", i.e., a "lead snowstorm" from a high-velocity gunshot wound. He also told them that brain matter is visible in the photos and the side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain ... both contrary to what the Accident report claims? You think he could get away with that at a conference of professionals if there was absolutely no basis for that statement?"

And, having said that, did he actually say "this was death by gunshot wound" as a clinical diagnosis? The reason I ask is that had he so diagnosed, he'd have had to formally (and being a Col he could) demanded a reopening of the investigation.

ROTFLOL! As a professional, surely you know that he could not state that as a fact without first performing an autopsy. If you wish to claim that the statements I quoted above by Cogswell suggest he didn't believe there was a strong possibility of foul play, go right ahead. You will only look foolish. You will sink your credibility. That's why I view this topic as a litmus test.

Quote:
3) Why was the body of Sergeant Kelly (the one survivor the government admitted) ordered cremated at Dover before her family was even contacted? That's a violation of regulations, by the way. Was anyone ever punished? General Fogelman didn't say.

Why do you cremate a survivor?

You are making yourself look foolish. I only said the government claimed Kelly survived the crash ... that she was still alive when the first Croatians arrived at the crash site. Not that she didn't die later from injuries. Now go back and address what I noted. Why was her body cremated without consulting her family? I understand that's a violation of regulations. Anyone punished?

Most aircraft have lots of black boxes. Most avionics boxes are black.

My, you are such an *expert*. ROTFLOL! But surely you know that while most of the avionics in an aircraft are in black boxes, the flight and voice data recorders are not. They are usually red, orange or yellow, or at the very minimum have bright colored markings on them, so they look quite unique and can be easily seen. So why don't you tell us what other boxes in that aircraft were that color or had similar markings? Go ahead, since you have so many "contacts" at the 16th AF.

Can you cite the reg you are referring to?

Not off hand. But this was reported as being a regulation.


Quote:
6) Why did the pathologist (Colonel Gormley) who conducted the examination of Brown's body and who declared it a case of blunt force trauma in the accident report go on TV and lie about the facts in the case?

Why do you think he is lying?

I clearly indicated why. Do you have problems reading? Or is this just more of that obtuse behavior tactic I've noticed?


Quote:
Then, he was confronted with a photo taken during the examination by Captain Janowski ... a naval photographer, by the way, who is also on record saying the wound looked like a bullet wound.

Captain Janowski is a Naval Photographer? Huh? Navy Captain? (O-6) Are you aware that the Navy assigns petty officers as Photographers, under the rating Photographer's Mate?

My mistake. You are correct. Her rank was Chief Petty Officer according to my various sources. I misremembered what the sources said. And lest you claim I misremembered other details, here are some of those sources. What Janoski has to say is so "interesting" that perhaps you should read a few of them.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16578 " Navy Chief Petty Officer Kathleen Janoski, head of AFIP's forensic photography unit, was present when Gormley examined Brown's body. She recently told WorldNetDaily that she did not believe a thorough examination took place."

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/11/14/83510 "As Chief Petty Officer Kathleen Janoski, then a photographer for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and a member of the United States Navy for twenty-two years, tells it she looked at Ron Brown's skull and exclaimed "Look at the hole in Ron Brown's head. It looks like a gunshot wound." Janoski's off-hand assertion caused all heads to turn to Brown's body."

http://www.aim.org/aim_report/A3612_0_4_0_C/ "Kathleen Janoski, the Navy chief petty officer who photographed Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown's body at Dover Air Force Base after he died in a mysterious plane crash in Croatia in April, 1996, told the AIM conference the shocking story of how she was relieved of her duties because photographs she had taken had revealed evidence that Brown may have been shot. Kathleen Janoski said she hadn't come to any conclusions about whether Brown was murdered or not, but she was certain that senior officers at the base didn't want the questions answered." (also http://www.aim.org/aim_report/A3624_0_4_0_C/)

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/4/26/01704 "KATHLEEN JANOSKI DESCRIBES COVER-UP IN RON BROWN INVESTIGATION, by Carl Limbacher, Washington Post, April 26, 1998. ... snip ... Chief Petty Officer Janoski, you may recall, came forward to The Pittsburgh Tribune Review's Christopher Ruddy last January, joining three other senior officers with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology who report a series of disturbing developments in the case of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown's death."

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a2b498c045c.htm "The Botched Ron Brown Investigation, An Interview with AFIP Forensic Photographer Kathleen Janoski, The Laissez Faire City Times,
By Wesley Phelan ... snip ... A commotion erupted when Chief Petty Officer Kathleen Janoski said "Wow, look at the hole in Ron Brown's head.""

But he did not diagnose a gunshot, did he? What else leaves a telltale? Are you a pathologist? That would be interesting to find out. Are there other materials that leave telltales? Intriguing question. I don't have an answer.

So given all the pathologists saying it at least looked like a bullet wound, what's the harm in an exhumation and autopsy to be sure it isn't?


Quote:
Do you know that Captain Janowski made a sworn statement that Jeanmarie Sentell, a naval criminal investigator who was present at the examination of Brown, told her that x-rays and photographs were deliberately destroyed in the Brown case after a "lead snowstorm" was discovered in the x-rays? Janoski further testified that Sentell said that a second set of X-rays were made "less dense" to diminish or eradicate the "lead snowstorm" image, and that Colonel Gormley was involved in its creation. Interesting, huh?

Indeed. With corroborating evidence, it might lead to something. Was the body exhumed?

The x-rays, photos and statements of half a dozen forensic pathologists are corroborating evidence. And it hasn't led to anything because Clinton controlled the military and Bush doesn't want to stir the pot (for whatever reason). No, his body has not been exhumed. What would be the harm in doing it?


Quote:
Do you care to explain this behavior by Gormley?

No, he didn't work for me. I'd have been very interested to see him, on the basis of only an X Ray, change an analysis of a body without matching all of the other evidence, the way pathologists do, but the confusion about "xrays" is certainly intriguing.

Yeah ... "intriguing".

None of them, apparently, declared "this is a gunshot wound" which I would think an expert pathologist would be confident to state, and competent to state, if he felt it were a gunshot wound.

No competent pathologist would make that declaration without an autopsy. Agree?

What these comments do point to is an uncertainty to exactly what that hole was.

Yes. And what do you do when you are uncertain? AUTOPSY.

Second Survivor? Source, before I comment on that.

Sure.

http://www.newsmax.com/brown_docs/ "The confidential Ron Brown crash file was relased two weeks ago exclusively to NewsMax.com by Judicial Watch, the only legal entity still investigating Brown's role in the Clinton administration's fundraising scandal. Since our initial reports, no other media outlet has dared pursue this story. ... snip ... A Commerce Department official reports from Sarajevo that "two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash" -- page 6."

http://www.newsmax.com/brown_docs/page6.shtml "2058 Commerce Dept. has heard from advance Ira Sokowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash. No confirmation at this time."

IIRC, they all died in the crash.

On impact, as you previously claimed? How can that be when the military was telling the press someone survived the impact but fortunately there was a Croatian doctor at the crash site? Here is a portion of the DoD News Briefing on June 7, 1996 at 12:30 pm when the AIB report was released (http://cryptome.org/ct43-060796.htm). The following is a direct quote from the portion of the briefing given by General Coolidge: "At around 10:30 p.m., Croatian police informed rescuers they had found a survivor with serious injury. Because the Croatians feared causing additional injury they requested NATO helicopter support to evacuate the Air Force crew member from the mountain." And you say they all died on impact?

You have a disagreement among professionals, and you assume one party lied because they don't fit your preferred interpretation.

I say Dickerson lied because ALL the pathologists (except Dickerson) whose names we know (go ahead, name someone else ... I bet you can't) say the wound looked like a bullet wound and that Brown should have been autopsied. Dickerson clearly lied about the evidence in the case and the opinions of his staff. It is simply untrue that the findings of AFIP's staff was unanimous when Cogswell, Hause and Parsons (arguably the three most qualified when it came to bullet wounds) disagreed with the official view. And they've done it in writing, in multiple venues and even under oath. Has Dickerson ever been under oath? No.

Here's another article proving that AFIP's management was attempting damage control with the bogus meeting reported by the Washington Post and lying to do it:

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/1/11/32000 " On Friday, Washington Post reporter Michael Fletcher wrote that Cogswell's claims had prompted AFIP to convene an internal panel of its pathologists to review the Brown matter. Fletcher reported that the panel "unanimously backed" the findings of Col. William Gormley, the Air Force pathologist who examined Brown's body and concluded that he died of blunt force injuries during the plane crash. Gormley also ruled that the circular wound was not caused by a gunshot. The Post article quoted Gormley as stating that "there is no doubt in anybody's mind" that Brown died of blunt force injuries and that he had not been shot. Citing AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, Fletcher reported that "the group (of pathologists) issued a report reaffirming the initial Air Force conclusion that Brown's death was accidental ..." Fletcher's report also indicated that Hause had changed his mind and was now affirming Gormley's findings. Contradicting these claims are Hause and Parsons, both of whom participated in AFIP's internal review. Both officers concluded that Gormley's findings simply could not be substantiated, that the possibility of a gunshot could not be ruled out, and that an autopsy should have been conducted. None was. "Fletcher's article in the Washington Post, in which Colonel Dickerson said I concurred in this `unanimous' finding, contains a lie," Hause told the Tribune-Review. The Post report Friday morning left him "fuming," Hause said, and that evening he prepared a point-by-point statement countering AFIP's claims. Hause said he was never informed a report was to be issued on the Brown case, nor did he ever see the report that AFIP claims he signed off on. On Friday he asked the Armed Forces Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Jerry Spencer, for a copy of the report. Spencer said he would not release it, and the decision on whether to release it rested with Dickerson. Neither Spencer nor Dickerson could be reached for comment Saturday." ... snip ... Hause also says he advised Spencer that Gormley should have conducted an autopsy, and that "Secretary Brown's body should be exhumed and an autopsy performed by pathologists not associated with AFIP." ... snip ... Parsons, another participant in the internal review, told the Tribune-Review that he, too, could not back Gormley's findings. Reached at his home Saturday, the Air Force major also said he had never reviewed nor signed off on any such report, and had no idea what the report contained. Parsons said the statement in Friday's Post that all panelists had agreed with Gormley's findings "was not true."

THAT is why I call Dickerson and AFIP's managment liars.

I have no idea, and I am not sure if this was a lie, or an error, neither, or perhaps both. That question does not prove Brown was shot. It does make one wonder at why Junger made seemingly contradictory statements.

Here's more from Junger:

" The hole "got our attention at first," Junger told the Tribune-Review.
The now-retired chief forensic scientist said concern about the wound quickly dissipated because "we figured out what it was. Again, it was nothing earth-shattering." Junger said that a "very reasonable explanation" for the hole was found "when we looked around the aircraft area itself," indicating that some piece of the aircraft or its contents had hit Brown's head and created the wound."

Yet the pathologist who "looked around the aircraft" said he did not find an explanation for the hole. And a hole that has the best experts on gunshot at AFIP calling for an autopsy is "nothing earth-shattering"? (/sarcasm)


Quote:
9) Now here's a good question. Where are the original photos and x-rays of Brown's head? ... snip ...

Interestig question. Have you submitted a FOIA request for this information?

Asking for what? A copy of material that they admit is gone? A response telling me they didn't look for the reason the material disappeared? Seems to me that your response is just a tactic to deflect the discussion and not express any concern since clearly reporters (who are better situated than little ol' me) did attempt to get this question addressed and failed due to the stonewall AFIP erected.


Quote:
Aren't you at all interested why they showed so little interest in this? Maybe General Fogelman can be enticed out of retirement to locate them?

Why would he care? A plane crashed with all hands perishing, and the Air Force looked stupid for getting Ron Brown and 20+ other Clinton friends, business leaders, killed in a pilot error crash. I am trying to understand why he would want to pick at that painful scab.

Because maybe it would prove the crash wasn't the Air Force's fault at all? Although involvement in the coverup afterwords would be a problem ... but then you've been telling us that Fogelman is such a outstanding, trustworthy person that I'm sure that wouldn't sway him. He'd want to know the truth. Right?


Quote:
BAC - "10) Why did the AFIP report that extensive "forensic tests" disproved a bullet theory when Captain Janoski, who was present for the entire examination of Brown's body, did not see any forensic tests, such as those for gunpowder residue?"

I am a bit unclear. A Navy Photographer was present for an entire investigation by pathologists, and is a Navy Captain? Again, I need some better info here, this does not fit. Are you sure Jankowski was not a doctor? A radiologist? This is confusing information.

CPO (satisfied?) Janoski was the senior AFIP photographer. She had served as chief of forensic photography for 2 1/2 years, and had, by her account, handled numerous cases involving either gunshots or plane crashes. She received training at the FBI Academy and elsewhere in observing, identifying and photographing gunshot and other wounds. I think it is safe to say she was familiar with the type of forensic tests in question.

"The AFIP keeps saying that extensive forensic tests were conducted," says Janoski. "Well, I'm here to tell you that there were no forensic tests done at all. I was there from start to finish of the external examination. Dr. Gormley did not thoroughly look for an exit wound, nor did he have me photograph either the presence or the absence of an exit wound."

Now, of course, if you want to quote the portion of the Accident Investigation report that describes the forensic tests that were done, go ahead. That might convince me she was lying. But I bet you can't and don't.

http://www.aim.org/aim_report/A3612_0_4_0_C/ "CBN's Dale Hurd asked, "Is Cogswell's and Janoski's punishment by the AFIP simply because they shined the light on shoddy work and embarrassed the Pentagon? Or is there something more?" Hurd found that the AFIP was continuing to lie. In a statement, it claimed that extensive forensic tests were conducted on the body. Janoski said that was completely false. She said her faith in the Navy was badly shaken, not only by her treatment, but by the refusal to do an autopsy and lying about it, and by the destruction of the head x-ray."

Quote:
Why did Janet Reno tell the nation that the Justice Department conducted a "thorough review" of the facts in the Ron Brown death investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of a crime when no one from the Justice Department or FBI interviewed the military pathologists or photographer who blew the whistle?

I am going to guess that she said that when her staff briefed her on the investigation, and she was satisfied that they had been thorough, I doubt she dogged their footsteps through every step of their investigation and staff effort.

You seem desperate to avoid the issue. If the head of the DOJ states that they conducted a "thorough review" yet no one from the DOJ even bothered to contact the whistleblowers making the allegations, have they conducted a thorough review? Isn't that statement then just a lie to keep folks from asking further questions? What else are we to make of it? Perhaps Reno should be put under oath and asked to provide specific details.


Quote:
Strange, yes?

It is? How? The AG has her staffers go look into something, they brief her, she asks questions, and when all is said and done, she is confident they did their jobs. Not strange at all,

Are you really this naive? Or is it something else?

11) Cogswell, Hause, Parsons and Janowski were all reassigned to other duties outside their areas of expertise and the government tried to limit their contact with fellow pathologists by barring them from conferences.

Proof of that assertion?

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/4/26/01704 "GRANT: Now initially you had declined to be interviewed but you changed your mind shortly before a gag order was issued and you came forward, you said, because the AFIP had failed to properly investigate possible wrongdoing by it's own officials in the Brown case. And because of the way the military treated two AFIP pathologists. We have talked to Lt. Col Steve Cogswell and Lt. Col. David Hause. Now, I understand that after they both went public, bad things happened to them. JANOSKI: Yes, yes. We were all supposed to go to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting in February. We had our tickets, we had our reservations, we'd paid our registration fees. And right before we were supposed to leave, the director of AFIP canceled our orders immediately. Also, Dr. Cogswell was forbidden to lecture, forbidden to go on trips. Cogswell, Hause and Parsons were no longer permitted to do any autopsies. And also Dr. Cogswell was kicked out of his office at the same time I was. And he's been re-assigned, they re-assigned him to oral pathology. So they have a medical examiner working with a bunch of dentists right now. He's very ill-equipped to work in that area. So essentially what they're doing is something that's typical in punishing a whistleblower. They're setting him up for failure."

http://www.louisianaweekly.com/weekly/news/articlegate.pl?20070409n "In my book, "No I Won't Shut up," I tell of a conversation I had with one of those experts, Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell, shortly before he was officially muzzled. Dr. Cogswell was the AFIP deputy medical examiner who asked his supervisors to perform the autopsy. "This whole think stinks," he told them. Shortly after his forthrightness, Cogswell told me, "I have been re-assigned. I have been demoted because of my reporting on Brown. Sometimes I feel my life is endangered, but people only get 'disappeared' if they are going to tell something, I have already talked and I have no new revelations, so the cat is already out of the bag. Without an autopsy it is just as irresponsible to say the wound was caused by a bullet as to say it was not."

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16578 "Ron Brown whistleblowers pay price, Careers jeopardized with transfers, bad reviews ... snip ... For Janoski and the three pathologists, life in the military has changed greatly since they went public. Cogswell, for the first time in his 10-year career in the Air Force, has been given a negative performance evaluation. Cogswell received his annual rating late last month -- more than six months late. The evaluation states that Cogswell is "disruptive to the work environment with immature behavior." He has been "unresponsive to counseling," it continues, adding that he has used "inappropriate language" and worn "inappropriate dress." Cogswell is even criticized for his manner of driving in the AFIP facility's parking lot. The belated report bears three signatures, including those of Armed Forces Chief Medical Examiner Jerry Spencer and AFIP Director Col. Michael Dickerson. The signatures are not dated. Cogswell told WorldNetDaily the negative evaluation has ended the possibility of future promotion. In previous annual performance reviews Cogswell shared with WorldNetDaily, he received nothing but sterling evaluations -- including reviews signed by Dickerson and Gormley. Just a year earlier, Dickerson and Gormley noted in an evaluation that Cogswell had been cited as "the number one forensic pathology consultant in the Department of Defense." The report also stated that Cogswell was "an extremely capable officer" who was given "the toughest assignments." "His professional acumen is incomparable," the report continued, adding that Cogswell was "an exemplary officer and outstanding physician." In an evaluation in 1995 signed by Gormley and Dickerson, Cogswell was called AFIP's "expert on gunshot wounds." Dickerson recently ordered Cogswell, Hause, Parsons and Janoski to cancel their planned attendance at the American Academy of Forensic Sciences conference earlier this month in San Francisco. The annual meeting is the most important of seminars attended by AFIP staff for professional development. All other AFIP staff were permitted to attend. Just weeks after Janoski went public about the Brown case, she and her staff of three photographers were told to vacate their offices in the AFIP medical examiner's facility in Rockville, Md. The photography unit was relocated to another AFIP office in Washington, D.C. Chris Kelly, spokesman for AFIP, denied that any form of retribution has taken place. He said Cogswell's negative evaluation was "not a retaliation" since it covered a period before Cogswell made his comments on Brown. Kelly confirmed that trips were canceled to the American Academy conference, but said the reason was "an internal matter for the institute." He said Janoski's unit was transferred because "they have a lot of skills they need to keep up with," and added that the unit would continue doing photography work for AFIP. Cogswell told WorldNetDaily he is "absolutely certain" AFIP actions were caused by his comments on the Brown case. Janoski said those actions indicate the military is fearful about the controversy. Hause previously described the situation at AFIP as a "Salem atmosphere" referring to the witchcraft trials that took place in Salem, Mass."

This is a jumble of data points that are not all related. I think I missed how Spencer and Dickerson are proven liars. Cite, to clear that up? ... snip ... It does not appear they were punished for raising questions, from the previous passage. A bit of a mish mash, so some clarity would be appreciated.

Why don't you read a few of the above linked articles. They should clear up your confusion.



Quote:
12) Acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters sent a letter to family members of the air crash victims in December 1997 attempting to debunk the bullet wound thesis. He wrote that "The reports resulted from the opinion of an Air Force medical examiner who did not personally examine any of the CT-43 casualties. They are his opinions only. 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." I wonder, have the families been told what Colonel Gormley now says about the matter?

I don't know. Have you asked them?

Nice deflection to avoid addressing the issue. You know darn well that the government never bothered to tell the families what Gormley said later on ... that Brown's wound was a red flag and he should have been autopsied.


Quote:
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 I've already proven.

No, you have not proven that, but there is obvious disagreement by pathologists about the wound, which leaves it an open question, it seems.

I disagree. I think I have proven the two statements are outright lies. The question is now whether you will acknowledge there's a serious problem here or whether you'll go on repeating the nonsense that since none of the pathologists said with 100% certainty "that's a bullet wound" we can ignore their statements.


Quote:
He 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."

OK, that is interesting.

And an obvious lie.


Quote:
This is also a clear lie. The military photographer who took the pictures says that could not be true given that only one photo ... the one of Brown's head ... shows the so-called "defect". If it were a cassette problem, all of them would have had the defect. So why was Peters lying or who was lying to him?

It is uncertain,and a good question. But back to this Navy Photographer: do you mean the Captain?

Yes, anything to avoid actually dealing with whether to believe the chief photographer at AFIP at the time on this matter or some unnamed "examiners" that Peters, already a proven liar, mentions. You know, you could have easily put the name Janoski into your browser and found that she wasn't a Captain. But then you'd have nothing to keep using as a distraction.


Quote:
Peters letter 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 lie given that calls for an autopsy were voiced at the examination and the reasons given by Gormley for not performing an autopsy have been shown to be bogus.

Since they all died in a plane crash, that actually makes sense.

First of all, you said they all died "on impact". That's a falsehood and if you repeat it in the next post, I'll call you a liar.

Second, Peters says "had there been suspicion". Well if pathologists at Dover and at the crash site are both saying something looks/sounds like a bullet wound and that an autopsy should be done, don't you think that suggests "suspicion"? And we have Gormley on record admitting that the reasons he gave for ruling it blunt force trauma are false. You think he didn't see the first xray showing the bone plug driven into the brain and displaced to the side? You really think he didn't see the brain matter in the hole during the examination? Are you that naive? Or is it something other than being naive?


Random's post points out the three scenarios, in the other thread, that had to be true for an assassin to be on the plane. Each is equally absurd

If you want to discuss Random's argument, repost it here and I will be happy to do so. Apparently, he didn't have enough confidence in being able to defend it to do so. I'll start by listing a plausible scenario or two that he forgot to list. Frankly, I find your wanting to speculate about scenarios instead of seriously considering what the pathologists and x-ray indicate a case of putting the cart before the horse in a lame attempt to dismiss the allegation.

Gun found on site? In the wreckage? More questions, eh?

Apparently you aren't even aware that the gun of Brown's bodyguard was never found. And why would an assassin who shoots Brown leave a gun in the first place?


Quote:
Before ending with his "heartfelt apologies," the Peters statement revealed its real purpose: "We hope these actions will preclude credible media from pursuing this story." Any comment? Or will we just hear crickets?

An odd turn of phrase, indeed.

It's more than odd. It's indicative of what's going on here.


Quote:
13) And finally, let me point out that military pathologists are not the only ones on record here. Christopher Ruddy showed copies of the x-rays and photos to Pittsburgh coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists. Wecht, a democrat, said "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied."

Opinion, and a doctor.

No, as a matter of fact, it is the EXPERT opinion of one of America's most renowned forensic pathologists ... one who has conducted over 14,000 autopsies ... many involving bullet wounds.


Quote:
Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments".
Quote:
He said "little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone."

But did he conclude, from that evidence, that this was a bullet wound, or that it might be?

Of course not. He's a professional and would insist on an autopsy before making such a statement. Your argument is a strawman.


Quote:
Wecht said Brown's body was relatively intact. Lacerations were superficial, and other damage to his face and body appeared to be caused by chemical burns that probably would not have resulted in death. X-rays indicated Brown's bones were generally intact, with a breakage of the pelvic ring that Wecht said was survivable.

I see. Everyone else in the plane dies on impact, but Brown is superman, and he'd have survived, except for being shot by an already dead assassin? I think I missed the punch line.

There you go again, saying they all died "on impact" when even the general in charge of the AIB told the public that a survivor was discovered when the Croatians reached the crash site. I guess you know so little about this incident you didn't even know that?

You perform to expectations. Brown was definitely injured but one of the top forensic pathologists in the US looks at the examination report and photos of his injuries and concludes that except for the wound in the head, the injuries were survivable ... and you just ignore it. I see. Is that because you think you are the expert in this subject too? I guess that's the punch line to your comment. You think you know more about forensic pathology than Cyril Wecht. ROTFLOL!

Was he informed of the speed of the aircraft at the time of impact? T-43's don't have airbags, BAC.

They have seat belts. And are you claiming that noone has ever survived an impact at 140 knots? You realize, don't you that the rear portion of the aircraft was basically intact and the plane didn't do a Flight 93 but hit the mountain slope at a shallow angle. Perhaps Brown was seated in that back section, chatting with Sergeant Kelly? Or his seat was ejected during the crash and the seat protected him from immediate death?

Quote:
Red Herring. I don't answer personal questions because I claim no expertise on this or ANY subject.

I noticed that.

Unlike you, I don't have to claim expertise when I can rely on the stated opinions of verifiable experts like Cyril Wecht and all the other forensic pathologists who came forward. I don't have to claim expertise when I can rely on government documents that state what should have been done in the investigation. Besides, how do we really know you are who you claim to be anyway? People can claim anything on the internet. And often get away with identity deception. In a debate, I'd rather rely on sourced material we can both get access to and third party expertise.

But I agree with you that the disagreement among pathologists is very interesting, and I don't think any of them were wrong to suggest an autopsy. Makes sense to me, except for one small fact. It isn't too hard to figure out how someone died if they are in a plane crash, and between 130 and 150 knots

Still having trouble dealing with what the pathologists and photos/x-ray show? Huh? ROTFLOL!

Get it going to about 130 knots. (About 145 miles per hour)

Drive into the side of a mountain. (Airbags disabled.)

Tell me how you feel when you get out of the car.

Your scenario uses strawman logic. First, the plane hit a mountain sloping away from its flight path. It didn't plow into the mountain and come to a rest in 5 feet. The glancing impact allowed it to gradually decelerate and indeed the rear of the plane was intact. Second, the passengers were probably wearing seatbelts at the time since they thought they were landing. Seat belts have been known to prevent injuries in high speed impacts. And third, no one claimed that Brown was uninjured and walked away. So your "except for one thing" is nothing but a strawman.

And your credibility is looking might thin.

[deep]

Mine is the death of Ron Brown.


This has already been debunked -- the Justice Department conducted a thorough review of the facts, and determined that no crime was committed.

Regarding the lack of autopsy, it was already obvious what the cause of death was (plane crash), so why waste everybody's time by doing a meaningless autopsy? Remember, this was investigated by hardworking people, like you and I, so if there was any wrongdoing whatsoever, the investigators would have come forward with that information and included it in the official report.

If there really was evidence of a bullet wound, why wouldn't this story be on the front page of every newspaper in the country? This sort of thing would be major news.. so why hasn't it been picked up by any major media outlet?

<cartman voice>Deee-bunked.</cartman voice>

If you didn't already guess, I don't actually know anything about this man's death; however, now you know how silly these arguments sound from the other side.

[RedIbis]

Although I've been labeled a "twoofer" here, which I fully expected, since I have some questions and have noticed contradictions in official explanations, ironically; I don't have any pet "conspiracy theories."

I'm not in a position to comment about the moon landing, jfk, aliens, or any other common conspiracy theories.

The one conspiracy theory I do advance without any evidence is Curt Shilling's bloody sock.

I believe that was some of Manny's red toenail polish.

[BeAChooser]

BAC - "Mine is the death of Ron Brown."

This has already been debunked -- the Justice Department conducted a thorough review of the facts, and determined that no crime was committed.

ROTFLOL! Guess you didn't bother to read the rest of the thread.

How could the DOJ have conducted a thorough review if they didn't even interview the pathologists who blew the whistle and say the wound in Brown's head looked like a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied?

How could they have conducted a thorough review if they didn't even interview the photographer who took the x-rays and photos that prove Colonel Gormley's reasons for saying the wound was due to blunt force trauma are false and who said, in a sworn deposition, that she was told by Jeanmarie Sentelle at AFIP that Gormley made a second set of x-rays because the first showed a lead snowstorm? She said Sentelle told her that Gormley tampered with the 2nd set of x-rays to eliminate the snowstorm.

Surely you see the problem here or would you prefer to walk around clueless?

Regarding the lack of autopsy, it was already obvious what the cause of death was (plane crash), so why waste everybody's time by doing a meaningless autopsy?

Perhaps because it wasn't obvious to the experts whose job it is to determine if there is foul play in a death? Two top military forensic pathologists went on record during the examination of Brown's body saying it looked like a bullet wound and that Brown should be autopsied. Several more went on record later saying the same thing. Several more civilian pathologists have said the same thing upon looking at the x-rays and photos. On the other hand, the ONLY named pathologist still on record saying it was blunt force trauma is the head of AFIP, Mr Dickerson, who lied to the public about the views of his staff on this matter. Even the examining pathologist, Gormley, now says there was a "red flag" and that Brown should have been autopsied. So would it be so "meaningless"? Or are you democRAT trying to spin this away?

If there really was evidence of a bullet wound, why wouldn't this story be on the front page of every newspaper in the country?

Well let's see. Could it be because the media is very friendly with democRATS and the Clintons, and had a habit of not reporting or downplaying anything detrimental to that them or their administration? I challenge you to find an article in the mainstream media (ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, LATimes, NYTimes, Washington Post, etc) which discussed the allegations of the pathologists and photographer. The only time I know of where the mainstream networks mentioned the Brown allegation was in a TV report on UFO conspiracists. They used the wackiness of those people to discredit the Brown allegation without ever telling the audience a single thing about that allegation.

Would you like another example of this bias? The mainstream media hardly mentioned the rape allegation against Bill Clinton by Broaddrick ... a rape allegation that FBI agents who investigated the matter said were quite credible. The Los Angeles Times, to take one example, didn't say one word about Broaddrick's allegation until years after Clinton was out of office and then, only because they had to apologize to George Will for cutting out a reference to the allegation in one of his columns and publishing that column without ever consulting George Will. THAT is how bad the bias in the media is when it comes to protecting the Clintons.

[BeAChooser]

This has already been debunked

By the way, if you think it's been debunked, point me to a thread here at JREF that did that. There is one, right? Right?

[BeAChooser]

<crickets>;)

[Rika]

Silence is not evidence that people can't answer your questions. Silence is evidence people do not wnat to, for whatever reason.

[BeAChooser]

Silence is not evidence that people can't answer your questions. Silence is evidence people do not wnat to, for whatever reason.

Well enlighten me. What are the reasons in this case?

Should I assume you don't agree with me?

If so, tell me your reasons.

[Redtail]

Not sure if it counts as a CT but for quite a while now I've believed that Jack the Ripper was a woman.

[Dr Harry Rein]

My theory is that Dylan Avery is actually the master planner behind 9/11. After all, using twoofer logic, anybody that has something to gain must have done it. And can Dylan prove that he didn't do it?

[simakperrce]

Americans in fact landed on the moon.

[AgeGap]

Americans did NOT land on the moon. FACT.

The Moon Landing Truth (http://xkcd.com/202/)

Above site does vave swearing.

[RedIbis]

Pat Tillman murdered for his political views might have some legs as a "conspiracy theory."

[leftysergeant]

It has been sop long that I have forgotten where I saw it, but someone saw fit to put a picture of Brown's post-mortem head x-rays in a magazine article about the conspiracy. Sure did look like a bullet wound except for one thing.

No bullet. No bullet fragments. No anomolies in any bone structure away from the entry wound. And the hole looked larger to me than a .45 wound.

There are a lot of metal tubes in an aircraft.

I seriously doubt that there was a suicidal assasin on board, and I would surely not like trying to parachute out of an aircraft low over mountains.

[BeAChooser]

It has been sop long that I have forgotten where I saw it, but someone saw fit to put a picture of Brown's post-mortem head x-rays in a magazine article about the conspiracy.

Here are photos of the wound:

http://www.newsmax.com/rbrown/photo5.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/rbrown/photo6.shtml

Isn't it odd, looking at those photos, that the pathologist who examined the body (Colonel Gormley) would say he saw bone in the hole, not brain matter, and list that as a reason why he concluded Brown died from blunt force trauma ? Because even I, a lowly, non-expert, lay person, can see brain in that hole.

Here are photos of the x-rays:

http://www.newsmax.com/rbrown/photo7.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/rbrown/photo8.shtml

Notice the bone plug INSIDE the brain?

Notice the white specks that Colonel Cogswell and Cyril Wecht say are a "lead snowstorm", a clear indication of a bullet wound?

Sure did look like a bullet wound except for one thing. No bullet. No bullet fragments. No anomolies in any bone structure away from the entry wound. And the hole looked larger to me than a .45 wound.

Are you a forensic pathologist? An expert in bullet wounds?

Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory, said "It's round as hell. ... That's unusual except for a gunshot wound." He also said brain matter was visible. "They didn't do an autopsy. My God." he said. He was surprised that the hole was described on Gormley's report as "approximately .5 inches." Using calibrated instruments, he noted it was somewhat smaller than .5 inches, "and a little bit small for a .45-caliber bullet hole." Fackler explained that the skull can be slightly "elastic" and bullet holes can be slightly larger or smaller than the actual bullet caliber. He said the hole was more consistent with a .40-caliber or 10 mm bullet, like those widely used by law enforcement agencies.

Why would you expect to see the bullet in the x-ray? You realize they did not look for an exit wound. As to bullet fragments, what are the white specks? Colonel Cogswell, considered at the time to be the best pathologist in the Air Force where gunshot was concerned, says those are metallic fragments (a lead snowstorm) from a bullet. Cyril Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments".

There are a lot of metal tubes in an aircraft.

Then isn't it odd that Colonel Cogswell whose job it was to find the item that caused the wound didn't find it. He found nothing to explain it. And Gormley acknowledged that no piece of the aircraft was found to explain the hole. Furthermore, neither Cogswell, who was involved in more than 100 plane crash investigations, nor Hause (who was present at the examination and said it looked like a bullet wound and who had been at AFIP for 5 years), remember finding a similar wound in a plane crash victim's head. Both said that while parts of the plane could certainly pierce the skull during a crash, the resulting hole probably would be left jagged or irregular after the object entered and exited the skull. That hole is certainly not jagged or irregular.

I seriously doubt that there was a suicidal assasin on board, and I would surely not like trying to parachute out of an aircraft low over mountains.

You are getting the cart before the horse. Usually investigators determine if there was indeed a murder before figuring out the how and why. In this cause, that would require an autopsy which, curiously enough, the White House, JCS and Commerce Department forbade.

And there is no requirement that whoever shot Brown (if that's a bullet wound) have been on board the plane. If the plotters spoofed the pilot into flying into a mountain, then they knew roughly where it would come down. They'd could easily have had someone reach the crash site before rescuers arrived and *make sure* Brown was dead. What a coincidence that there was an Associated Press report that three Americans were already there when the first officially acknowledged rescuers reached the site. Hmmmm?

And if the assassin was on the plane (the rear door of the plane was found open at the crash site, by the way), why would it be necessary for him to parachute low over the mountains? First of all, until the plane reached the mountain it hit, it was not flying over mountains. Second, it's altitude was not low until towards the very end of the flight. Third, you can bail out of a plane that's a couple thousand feet up with no problem. Fourth, can you tell us what caused the two airports and an AWACS to lose voice and transponder contact with the plane when it was still 7-8 miles from the crash site? Now try to make your scenario consistent with just "accidentally" hitting the mountain.

One more thing. Does your screenname ... leftysergeant indicate your handedness or your political leanings? Just curious ...

[AgeGap]

I can prove that every car manufacturer in the world and is conspiring to drive (no pun intended) the price of automoblles up as they are all basically one company. A vast monopoly. I do not know what they are doing with the profits but I suspect they are using them to fund the NWO. Due to the fact I have not finished with a smiley I must be making a serious point.

[leftysergeant]

I'm still trying to figure out what sort of bullet disintegrates into such small irregular pieces. Doesn't look like there is even enough of it based on 40mm rounds that I have seen shot through ballistic gelatine and bone. To produce that many fragments and still exit, the bullet would have produced a very large, unavoidable exit wound.

[Taffer]

<crickets>;)

Gotta love arguments from silence...

[BeAChooser]

I'm still trying to figure out what sort of bullet disintegrates into such small irregular pieces. Doesn't look like there is even enough of it based on 40mm rounds that I have seen shot through ballistic gelatine and bone.

Are you referring to what they termed the "lead snowstorm"? Well those don't represent a "disintegration" of the bullet. :p

To produce that many fragments and still exit, the bullet would have produced a very large, unavoidable exit wound.

I asked you whether you are a forensic pathologist familiar with gunshot wounds? Unless you are, I think you are talking way outside your field of expertise, whatever that might be. You see, every single forensic pathologist in the nation who has made a public statement about the case and evidence, except one (Dickerson, head of AFIP ... and I can prove that individual is a liar), is on record saying it "looked" like a bullet wound and Brown should have been autopsied. I challenge you to post the name of a single pathologist anywhere in the nation (except Dickerson) who has said anything else. Indeed, Colonel Cogswell gave talks on mistakes in pathology at conferences and one of the cases he presented was this. I doubt he got away with that if he didn't know what he was talking about.

Now why is it "lefty's" fear a Brown exhumation and autopsy so much? Any clues? :D

[Rika]

Ngh. I hate to break it to you, but a bullet entering the brain would exit out again. See: JFK.

Secondly, you just ad hom'd, as you are saying that he fears an exhumation from his handle - it may be he simply doesn't think it's needed.

[BeAChooser]

I hate to break it to you, but a bullet entering the brain would exit out again.

ROTFLOL! What made you think I thought the bullet should remain in the brain? The fact that I said they didn't find an exit wound? I hate to break it to you, but they even didn't look for an exit wound.

Secondly, you just ad hom'd, as you are saying that he fears an exhumation from his handle - it may be he simply doesn't think it's needed.

I hate to break it to you, I was sort of joking with his handle. I asked him what it means and he didn't say so I just observed that there's a tendency for "lefty's" to not want the Ron Brown case investigated. By the way, he's not qualified (unless he claims to be a forensic pathologist and I rather doubt he is going to do that) to *think* an autopsy was/is not needed. The real experts when it comes to such things ... forensic pathologists with experience in gunshot ... seem to think it is needed. A whole bunch of really fine ones have said so. You, of course, are welcome to accept my challenge and name a pathologist anywhere in the world who disagrees with that assessment although don't bother quoting Dickerson because I'll prove he's a liar.

[Gravy]

Notice the bone plug INSIDE the brain?I am shocked! Ron Brown sustained a head wound when his plane hit a mountain? The odds against that happening are astronomically high. Or astrologically high, I forget which.

Notice the white specks that Colonel Cogswell and Cyril Wecht say are a "lead snowstorm", a clear indication of a bullet wound?Feel free to point out any other x-ray that shows such damage from a bullet, with no other fragments and no exit wound.

You realize they did not look for an exit wound. Um, feel free to point out the exit wound on the x-rays.

Cyril Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments".Where could those have come from? Everyone knows that airplanes would never get off the ground if there was metal in them. Why else would airports use metal detectors?

[leftysergeant]

Interesting that the metal flecks arounf the entry wound are dull grey, rather than bronze. Based on this, the bullet would have been lead, probably a semi-wadcutter.

Every semi-wadcutter or lead round-nosed bullet that I have seen fired into ballistic gelatine either mushrooms or passes through with little deformation.

Thus, I would expect to see in the x-rays either a spent bullet, grossly flattened, or an enormous exit wound, perhaps noticeable splitting of the skull around suture lines, obvious fractures of bones to the front of the head.

I can't make any of these out in the x-ray.

Oh, in spite of my being a little left of John Edwards, I do own and regularly fire more firearms of different calibers than most people have ever fired. I go through about 2-3 thousand rounds of various types of ammunition in a year in my own weapons and a few hundred more from weapons that others bring to the range where I shoot on Ft Lewis. It's a regular museum, and we like to compare notes a lot. Several of my friends who are into hand-loading their own special-purpose cartridges actually go to the trouble of testing them in ballistic gelatin. So I am speaking here from personal experience.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Notice the bone plug INSIDE the brain?

I am shocked! Ron Brown sustained a head wound when his plane hit a mountain? The odds against that happening are astronomically high. Or astrologically high, I forget which.

Astronomically high? Well apparently not ... at least to sustain an injury that looked to half a dozen top-notch pathologists like a perfectly round bullet wound. Remember, Colonel Cogswell and Lt. Colonel Hause said they'd never seen anything like it, and they had lots of experience with plane crashes.

What are the odds that every single pathologist (except one ... who I can prove lied about the facts to the public) who has looked at the case and made a statement would say it looked like a bullet wound and that Brown should have been autopsied ... but that he wasn't? Probably close to zero.

What are the odds that the examining pathologist, Colonel Gormley, would officially conclude that Brown died of blunt force trauma because no brain matter was visible in the wound and that the x-rays taken during the examination showed no trace of a bullet injury, when even a layperson, like myself, can clearly see brain matter in the hole and the indications that the other pathologists in the case say is a "lead snowstorm"? Zero?

Note that when confronted with the photo of the wound on live TV, Gormley indicated he was mistaken. Mistaken? Lt Colonel Hause, another pathologist who was there that day and viewed the wound, said "what was immediately below the surface of the hole was just brain." How could Gormley have been soooooo wrong? What are the odds, Gravy?

What are the odds that the original photos and x-rays of Brown's head AND the second set of x-rays (the ones that sworn testimony says Gormley tampered with to eliminate the lead snowstorm) would disappear from a locked safe at AFIP that only a few people had access to ... and that the government wouldn't even raise an eyebrow or investigate?

What were the odds that the first phase of the normal Air Force post crash investigation ... the phase specifically charged with finding the cause ... would be skipped? They must be close to zero since in every crash before that ... except one, and that was a clear cut case of friendly fire in Iraq where the cause was obvious ... they didn't skip the first phase.

What are the odds that the maintenance chief who was in charge of the beacons at the airport (remember, a portable one went missing before the crash) would commit suicide (by shooting himself in the chest with a shotgun, no less) over a failed love affair just 2 days after the crash and before he could be interviewed? How many times has that sort of thing happened ... where there hasn't been foul play?

What are the odds that Aviation Week Magazine would observe that a beacon of the sort that just happened to go missing could be used to spoof a plane into flying exactly the sort of approach that Brown's plane flew?

What are the odds that two airports and an AWACS would simultaneously lose voice and transponder contact with the plane when it was still 7-8 miles from the crash site ... especially if the plane just "accidently" ran into the mountain?

What are the odds that Reno's DOJ would conduct a "thorough" investigation and not interview even ONE of the whistleblowers in this case?

What are the odds that the VIP on this plane would be a central figure in Chinagate and the campaign finance scandal who was days away from being indicted for a laundry list of very serious crimes ... and that sworn testimony would indicate he'd recently informed the President that he was going to turn state's evidence to save himself, as well as his wife and son who had already been indicted on similar charges?

So don't try to lecture me about probability and likelihood.

Quote:
Notice the white specks that Colonel Cogswell and Cyril Wecht say are a "lead snowstorm", a clear indication of a bullet wound?

Feel free to point out any other x-ray that shows such damage from a bullet, with no other fragments and no exit wound.

Unfortunately, Brown's x-rays have disappeared from a locked safe. Isn't that fascinating? And you aren't listening. They did not even look for an exit wound. Even Gormley has now admitted this.

Quote:
You realize they did not look for an exit wound.

Um, feel free to point out the exit wound on the x-rays.

Which x-rays? The ones that are now missing? Besides, if you look at the position of the wound in relation to Brown's neck (the hole is on the top of Brown's head), one might suspect there wouldn't be an exit wound ... that the bullet is still lodged somewhere in Brown's abdomen.

If you insist on debating this, Gravy, at least get your facts right so you don't look like a 9/11 *truther*.

Quote:
Cyril Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments".

Where could those have come from? Everyone knows that airplanes would never get off the ground if there was metal in them. Why else would airports use metal detectors?

Have you switched to just trying to be funny? Or are you so desperate to spin this that you'll use any sort of silly logic since obviously the facts aren't going to do you any good? :D

[BeAChooser]

Thus, I would expect to see in the x-rays either a spent bullet, grossly flattened, or an enormous exit wound, perhaps noticeable splitting of the skull around suture lines, obvious fractures of bones to the front of the head. I can't make any of these out in the x-ray.

If you want to pretend like you're Mr. CSI, go ahead. I'll laugh. :D

I think I'll rely on the folks that actually have degrees in forensic pathology and years of experience with bullet wounds and plane crashes. And ALL OF THEM, except the head of AFIP who I can prove lied about the facts in the case and the views of his subordinates, say it looked like a bullet wound and Brown should have been autopsied. So would you object to an exhumation of Brown's body and an autopsy by folks unconnected to the government with the whistleblowing pathologists in attendance?

Oh, in spite of my being a little left of John Edwards

I suspected as much. Did you vote for Clinton in 96? ;)

[JimBenArm]

I'm curious, BeAChooser. What does Mr. Brown's family have to say about this? Are they screaming for an investigation, or is it just some holdover anti-Clinton nutjobs who display all the characteristics of 9/11 deniers?

Just askin'.

[Hokulele]

Is it just me, or does the argument:

Looks like a bullet wound = Bullet wound

remind anyone of:

Sounds like an explosion = Explosion?

[T.A.M.]

Just found this video, posted at dabble.com, by Chris Bornag, who must be MagZ...take a look.

http://dabble.com/node/16986750

TAM:)

[BeAChooser]

What does Mr. Brown's family have to say about this?

Well first of all, the Brown family didn't know about any of this until the military pathologists and photographer blew the whistle about a year later. Until then, all they had to go on was a report from the government that left out almost all the facts I've noted. A report that contained the conclusion that Colonel Gormley admitted on live TV was "mistaken".

After they learned about it, there were apparently two camps.

One was the wife and son (Michael), who had already been indicted for some of the same crimes that Ron Brown was about to be indicted. Naturally, they walked a tight rope. If they made a big stink, the Clinton administration was liable to retaliate and see them prosecuted to the full extent ... which might mean prison. So I suspect they made a deal. They kept quiet and said nothing, and in return the charges were dropped against the wife, and Michael was given a plea bargain that amounted to a slap on the wrist. (Speaking of which, do you know the DNC hired Michael shortly afterwards and he's been working for them ever since?) :D

The other camp was represented by Brown's daughter, Tracy Brown. See http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/4/13/02523. Now she claimed that after she and her family learned of the allegations (on the internet), she and her family met with an independent forensic pathologist (note, this person remains unnamed to this day). She says they looked at the x-rays and photographs and that this unnamed pathologist told them, in her words, that the wound "is not a bullet wound. It's short, it doesn't go anywhere, there's no exit wound, there's no bullet in his body, there are no metal fragments. So in my opinion, it's not a bullet wound."

You see the problem? That description doesn't fit the facts. No one looked for an exit wound and they didn't do an autopsy so how could they know there was no bullet in the body? You say the x-rays would show that? Which ones? The first set (what was on the internet) or the second (which presumably went in the official report and which sworn testimony says were manipulated)? The ones they'd find on the internet only showed the head. So did they get access to the originals that AFIP seized from Cogswell and Janoski? Frankly, I don't think Tracy got to look at the official x-rays (either the first or second set) because they went missing from a locked safe at AFIP soon after words.

Personally, I'd like to know the name of this pathologist that is such an expert that he's qualified to contradict two of the top pathologists in the country when it comes to gunshot (Cogswell and Wecht). They say the x-ray on the internet from the first set (which was saved only because it was in the hands of the public before the controversy broke) does indeed show metal fragments ... which even you and I can easily see is true. And note that those fragments are well inside the skull of Tracy's dad ... around the region of the eye socket, again contrary to the claim the wound goes nowhere.

Notice that Tracy doesn't even have the story about how those photographs got put on the internet correct. She says "So without getting into who stole the photographs in the first place and distributed them". Sorry, but no one stole these photos of Brown's head. Who gave her that idea? She might be smarter to ask how the originals of the photos and x-rays disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP and why no one seems to care.

And by the way. Do you know what Ron Brown's family got as compensation for his death? Well the records show that the families of the victims received as much as 14 million dollars each. A few million might buy a lot of silence, especially if you knew the murderers were still out there and willing to go to any lengths (the dad's case serves as an example) to keep the truth from coming out about certain things. ;)

Are they screaming for an investigation, or is it just some holdover anti-Clinton nutjobs who display all the characteristics of 9/11 deniers?

:) Actually, the only ones displaying the characteristics of 9/11 deniers here are the ones who clearly don't know the facts in the case and who refuse to honestly debate the facts when they are presented to them. Instead, they seek to hide behind woo and ignore what the experts in the matter actually said. :D

[BeAChooser]

Looks like a bullet wound = Bullet wound

remind anyone of:

Sounds like an explosion = Explosion?

What you are pushing is a strawman. I and the pathologists I quote are not saying it definitely was a bullet wound. What was said is that it looked enough like a bullet wound to warrant an autopsy. What was said is that there are enough other unexplained and suspicious facts in the case to suggest it might have been an assassination.

The two cases are also not similar for another reason.

In the Brown case, REAL experts in the subject (ALL of them, in fact, who have made statements about the case, except one ... and I can show he lied about the facts and the opinions of the other pathologists) say the wound looked enough like a bullet wound that Ron Brown should have been autopsied. And you'd be a fool to simply dismiss the consensus of real experts on a given subject where they clearly are experts.

In the second case, the folks saying it sounds like an explosion and therefore it is an explosion are indeed saying that. And NONE of them is an expert on the subject or quoting experts on the subject.

Now would you like to try a more honest and rational argument?

[Hokulele]

What you are pushing is a strawman. I and the pathologists I quote are not saying it definitely was a bullet wound. What was said is that it looked enough like a bullet wound to warrant an autopsy. What was said is that there are enough other unexplained and suspicious facts in the case to suggest it might have been an assassination.

The two cases are also not similar for another reason.

In the Brown case, REAL experts in the subject (ALL of them, in fact, who have made statements about the case, except one ... and I can show he lied about the facts and the opinions of the other pathologists) say the wound looked enough like a bullet wound that Ron Brown should have been autopsied. And you'd be a fool to simply dismiss the consensus of real experts on a given subject where they clearly are experts.

In the second case, the folks saying it sounds like an explosion and therefore it is an explosion are indeed saying that. And NONE of them is an expert on the subject or quoting experts on the subject.

Now would you like to try a more honest and rational argument?


Fine.

Is it just me, or does the statement:

Looks like a bullet wound = Must be proven it isn't a bullet wound, and I will assume it could be one, as it supports my pet thoery.

remind anyone of:

Sounds like an explosion = Must be proven it isn't an explosion, and I will assume it could be one, as it supports my pet theory.

or:

Looks like a controlled demolition = Must be proven it isn't a CD, and I will assume it could be one, as it supports my pet theory.

Any way, this seems to be a bit of a mountain/molehill situation, as I am sure that even if an autopsy were ordered, and it was found to be blunt force trauma, people with an agenda would still find other aspects of the investigation to be suspicious. And yes, I did read your exchange with DR, and find his explanations much more plausible.

[cyborg]

I don't believe in conspiracies - I believe in spontaneous absurdities.

[BeAChooser]

Any way, this seems to be a bit of a mountain/molehill situation, as I am sure that even if an autopsy were ordered, and it was found to be blunt force trauma, people with an agenda would still find other aspects of the investigation to be suspicious.

Perhaps, but not me. I'd be more than willing to accept their verdict as long as the autopsy wasn't done by the AFIP and as long as the pathologists who blew the whistle (Cogswell, Hause, Parsons, Wecht) were allowed to observe the autopsy to ensure it was honest. Everything else I've mentioned is admitedly circumstantial ... but competent forensic pathologists using state of the art techniques should have no trouble telling whether the hole in Brown's head was caused by a bullet or not ... even 15 years later. And that's not circumstantial. That's direct evidence of a crime or no crime. If they say it wasn't caused by a bullet, that resolves the question as far as I'm concerned. But until they do, no amount of illogical spin on your part will convince me there isn't one. Now I wonder if YOU would be willing to accept the results of an autopsy if it showed there was a bullet wound and bring everyone involved to justice. Would you then be willing to put folks like Clinton under oath in the matter?

And yes, I did read your exchange with DR, and find his explanations much more plausible.

I sort of figured you would. Bet you voted for Clinton, too. ROTFLOL!

[BeAChooser]

I'll be gone for a few days. So take the time to come up with some good arguments against the Ron Brown allegations while I'm gone. Dig deep. I promise to respond to each and every one when I return ... with facts, sound logic and derision (if it's deserved :)).

[Brainache]

I'll be gone for a few days. So take the time to come up with some good arguments against the Ron Brown allegations while I'm gone. Dig deep. I promise to respond to each and every one when I return ... with facts, sound logic and derision (if it's deserved :)).

Who was Ron Brown and why did the evil Clintons want him dead?

[GT/CS]

This one is minor by most CT standards but still bugs me

Cast of characters
Dixie Chicks - Country music group
Natalie Maines - DC Lead Singer
Bush-Rove-Cheney (All the same person) - Leader of the the U.S.
Michael Powell - FCC Chairman (Son of Colin Powell and a former lobbyist for the broadcast industry)
Clear Channel - Corporation that owns radio stations

Facts
At a concert Natalie Mains says that she is ashamed that Bush-Rove-Cheney is from Texas

At the same time Clear Channel was in the midst of trying to get a decades-old FCC rule changed that limits the number of radio stations a person or corporation may own in any given market.

The Dixie Chicks music was pulled from all 1200+ Clear Channel stations

The rules were changed to the benefit Clear Channel

[leftysergeant]

Of course PNAC tried to destroy the Chix. Artists expressing ideas? What do these people think they are? Intellectuals? Are they supposed to entertain you or make you think? Th noiv o dat bimbo!

[PhantomWolf]

You know, I don't know the facts around the Brown case and so I haven't bothered wading in, but reading through this thread I am a little startled. BeAChooser has certainly listed a lot of evidence, and so far not one person has actually done more than wave their hands in response. I expected better from this group. Merely claiming that BeAChooser is wrong, without actually supporting the reasons that his claims are wrong doesn't get us anywhere.

So far as far as I can see the following things have not been answered and should be:

- Two apparently well experienced Pathologists stated that there should have been an autopsy to determine if the wound was a gunshot. It didn't happen.

- The lead Pathologist has been caught lying about the case.

- The evidence two prove the case one way of another has vanished.

- The contact with the plane was before it was supposed to have crashed

- The crash investigation didn't include parts that it should have.

Once those things have been cleared up, much of the rest would fall to the wayside as irrelevant, but until then, these points really do need be cleared up with more than a "But the offical line says" or "gee you sound like a 9/11 denier."

Note here I'm not claiming that there is a conspriacy here, nor that Bill had Brown wacked to avoid a sticky problem, in fact I have always considered Bill a great President, and would like to see Hills win in 2008, but there do seem to be very valid questions that are just being waved away without satisfactory answers.

[BeAChooser]

Who was Ron Brown and why did the evil Clintons want him dead?

Really? You really don't know who Ron Brown was?

Well let me help you. Ron Brown was Secretary of Commerce under Clinton and a much beloved icon of the democRAT party. He got a hero's funeral.

But behind the scenes, here is what was happening. At his death, Ron Brown was under investigation by the FDIC, the Congressional Reform and Oversight Committee, the FBI, the Energy Department, the Senate Judiciary Committee and even his own Commerce Department Inspector General. He was scheduled to be deposed by Judicial Watch regarding the illegal sale of trade mission seats for campaign contributions. The Justice Department asked that the deposition be postponed until he returned from the ill-fated trade mission.

He was also about to be indicted by an independent council named Daniel Pearson. Brown's wife and son had already been indicted on related charges. Pearson had plenty of documentary evidence and testimony on over a dozen serious crimes (like ending the trade embargo against North Vietnam for $700,000 dollars in bribes). The situation was so serious that Brown had retained a $750 an hour attorney. He spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal and matters only got worse. Only days before Brown's death, another 20 witnesses were subpoenaed focusing on Brown's dealings. It seems that an Oklahoma gas company called Dynamic Energy Resources gave Brown's son Michael $500,000 in stock, a $160,000 cash payment, and exclusive country club memberships. Former Dynamic president Stewart Price told a Tulsa grand jury that the money was to be routed to Ron Brown, who was expected to "fix" a big lawsuit for Dynamic.

Almost immediately after Brown's death, the Pearson probe was shut down. However, Judicial Watch continued its efforts questioning Nolanda Hill, a democrat fund raiser and one of Brown's key business partners, in court under oath. Nolanda Hill testified that she paid Brown $500,000 for his interest in First International, Inc., a company that never made any profits. First Int'l, which owned Corridor Broadcasting, defaulted on government loans totalling $40 million. The loans were passed to the FDIC, which was unsuccessful in collecting anything from Hill, even though at that time the firm was making large contributions to the Democratic Party and paying hundreds of thousands to Brown through shell corporations. These payments to Brown (three checks for $45,000 each) were the core of evidence gathered by Rep. Clinger that forced Reno to hire Daniel Pearson in the first place. They were cashier checks, all cut on the same day in 1993 with sequential numbers even though the money supposedly came from three contributors acting independently. Brown never disclosed or paid any taxes on these amounts.

Just one week before Nolanda's testimony, the Whitehouse had her charged with a crime. Judge Lamberth revealed that Hill testified that Brown told her he was ordered by Leon Panetta and John Podesta, two of Clinton's Whitehouse Chiefs Of Staff, to "slow down" the effort to comply with Judicial Watch's request (subpoena) for documents. Lamberth said there is ample evidence that department officials did so.

Nolanda Hill also testified that shortly before the crash Brown met with Panetta and turned over a stack of documents that would have proven he sold seats on trade missions for very large, illegal, contributions to the DNC. These documents were withheld in violation of the Judicial Watch subpoena. Nolanda swore under oath that Brown told Panetta "if I go down, so will everyone else".

Nolanda Hill also testified that shortly before he died, Brown went to see Clinton and told him that he intended to enter a plea agreement and testify against the Administration. She then testified that prior to making this threat, Brown wasn't scheduled to be on the trade mission flight that crashed. She says at the last minute the White House told Brown to go.

It is worth noting that much of Hill's testimony has been proven true or cooberated by other witnesses. There was nothing ever presented by the Clinton Whitehouse to suggest she was making up the allegations. They tried to smear her but they never proved that what she claimed was untrue ... for example by proving that Brown had no meeting with Clinton shortly before the flight.

Now consider this ... Ron Brown was at the focus of much of the campaign finance illegalities that occurred during Clinton's tenure and was the conduit for much of the technology passed to the Chinese during the early Clinton years. Is it only coincidence that Clinton personally changed long established rules so that the export of such technology could be approved by Ron Brown without oversight ... with just his signature? The agencies who previously did that oversight were all on record as being against the exports that occurred.

According to sworn testimony from Nolanda Hill, many millions of dollars in illegal DNC and Clinton campaign contributions were received through the sale of trade mission seats and in exchange for authorization by Ron Brown's Commerce Department to sell what in previous administrations was considered highly restricted missile, computer, radar, satellite, manufacturing and encryption technology. Others have testified to brown bags full of illegal campaign cash coming from the Chinese. Riady, who gave millions is thought to have been a conduit for other Chinese contributions (by the way, Riady said, under a plea agreement that he would lose if he lied, that his illegal contributions were never returned even though the DNC and Clinton claimed they were).

Brown worked closely with Huang, Riady, Chung, Middleton (the highest Clinton Administration official to plead the 5th in Chinagate), and dozens of other people connected with criminal activities by the Clinton's and DNC. Keep in mind that well over a hundred people took the 5th or fled the country in connection with the Chinagate and campaign finance scandals ... and that is with Reno and the Justice Department seemingly trying to coverup, rather than seriously investigate the matters. If Brown talked (and sworn testimony says he was threatening to talk), he'd have caused a really serious problem for a lot of these people. For instance ...

John Huang, who by all accounts was one of Clinton's close friends, worked side by side with Ron Brown after working in the Whitehouse. He was an employee of Riady at one time. After leaving Commerce, Huang went to work for the DNC. His involvement in campaign finance violations was uncovered by Judicial Watch. He falsely represented under oath that he was "a budget clerk," "participated in no fundraising," and "kept no records at the Commerce Department." He invoked the 5th Amendment over 2000 times in many depositions. He is labeled a "Chinese agent" by people in the CIA, FBI and Congress. Yet, he was given a Top Secret clearance by the Whitehouse without a background check and attended over 100 Top Secret briefings. The Clinton Justice Department failed to pursue the allegations of spying and never even deposed him. He received only a "wrist slap" for admitted campaign finance violations. He was given a grant of immunity in the Judicial Watch case to force him to testify ... yet he was still invoking the 5th!

Johnny Chung, who participated in trade missions to China in 1994, is one of the few to actually turn state's evidence (after Waxman, the top Democrat on the Committee before which he testified, blatantly tried to get him to plead the 5th). Among other things, Chung testified that the head of China's military intelligence, General Gee Shengdi, gave him $300,000 for the president's campaign. He says he was told by the General that other people were also receiving money "to do good things for China". The FBI assigned dozens of agents to protect him (in fact, they arrested an armed man who tried to kill Chung at his office). Investigators say that many aspects of his testimony check out. Chung participated in a FBI wiretape that clearly suggests there was an agreement between Clinton and the Premier of China on how to coverup Chinagate.

Mark Middleton, a former high- level White House aide, was, according to Chung, one of those identified by General Gee Shengdi as receiving money ... $500,000 dollars. Mr. Middleton took the 5th when questioned about this and the Reno DOJ let him skate.

Charlie Trie participated in trade missions to China and admitted to illegally funneling foreign money to the Democrats. Charlie appears to have lots of "friends". One of them, Wang Jun, met with Brown shortly after attending a "coffee" with Clinton. The same day, Clinton signed a waiver allowing Loral to transfer formerly restricted information to the Chinese. Note that Loral's CEO, Bernard Schwartz, was the single largest contributor to the DNC (over half a million dollars!).

James and Mochtar Riady, ex-employers of John Huang, were longtime friends and financial supporters of Clinton. Authorities said they had a long relationship with Chinese intelligence. Clinton, while out of the country, met privately with them ... at a time when they were avoiding US authorities that sought to question them. Clinton tried to arrange a "Justice" Department deal for Riady to protect him from prosecution but it didn't go through before Bush took over. Nevertheless, Riady still got a "deal" from Bush (wink wink).

Ira Sockowitz (remember ... he's the one who reported to the White House that two people survived the Brown crash) not only worked for Commerce but knew John Huang. In May 1996, he and his boss moved to the Small Business Administration (SBA). Three days later, Commerce approved a SCI clearance (above Top Secret) for him. Sockowitz visited Commerce and removed 136 secret files (many of them dealing with China) from his old safe. He told his old secretary that he was gathering personal items. Commerce said he violated his clearance by not returning the files. He claims he needed them for his SBA job but the SBA disputed that. Sockowitz left the SBA in Nov 96 and the Justice Department stopped investigating in Dec 96 ... without ever interviewing Sockowitz, his boss or his replacement.

The bottom line is this. Clinton and the democrats stole 2 presidential elections using tens of millions of dollars in money obtained illegally from the military in Communist China, a country whose defense minister once said he sees war with the United States as inevitable. Chinese spies were given continued access to classified nuclear, radar and submarine secrets. There is sworn testimony by individuals in our counter intelligence community that they were ordered by their superiors during the Clinton years not to pursue these espionage cases. The connection with Ron Brown is that the technology Brown approved (for example, 10 billion dollars worth of super computers), during a time when the Administration knew of the spying, made it possible for the Chinese to use the secrets they stole. Surely this is a treason worth killing someone in order to keep it from coming out in court. Don't you agree? Or will you continue to play dumb?

[RedIbis]

You know, I don't know the facts around the Brown case and so I haven't bothered wading in, but reading through this thread I am a little startled. BeAChooser has certainly listed a lot of evidence, and so far not one person has actually done more than wave their hands in response. I expected better from this group. Merely claiming that BeAChooser is wrong, without actually supporting the reasons that his claims are wrong doesn't get us anywhere.

So far as far as I can see the following things have not been answered and should be:

- Two apparently well experienced Pathologists stated that there should have been an autopsy to determine if the wound was a gunshot. It didn't happen.

- The lead Pathologist has been caught lying about the case.

- The evidence two prove the case one way of another has vanished.

- The contact with the plane was before it was supposed to have crashed

- The crash investigation didn't include parts that it should have.

Once those things have been cleared up, much of the rest would fall to the wayside as irrelevant, but until then, these points really do need be cleared up with more than a "But the offical line says" or "gee you sound like a 9/11 denier."

Note here I'm not claiming that there is a conspriacy here, nor that Bill had Brown wacked to avoid a sticky problem, in fact I have always considered Bill a great President, and would like to see Hills win in 2008, but there do seem to be very valid questions that are just being waved away without satisfactory answers.


Your critical thinking skills have kicked in because the Ron Brown story is not nearly as emotionally charged as 9/11. We should try to treat all theories with an objective focus, regardless of what the geopolitical implications might be.

[BeAChooser]

- Two apparently well experienced Pathologists stated that there should have been an autopsy to determine if the wound was a gunshot.

Actually, the number is 5!

Cogswell.

Hause.

Parsons.

Gormley.

Wecht.

And other than Dickerson, who it can be proven lied about the facts in the case and the opinions of the above pathologists, not one named pathologist in the US or elsewhere has come forward to state the photo of the wound and x-rays of the head show Brown died by blunt force trauma.

- The evidence two prove the case one way of another has vanished.

But fortunately, photos of the wound and the first set of x-rays that were taken by the official AFIP photographer, and which the government admitted were authentic, entered the public domain before the originals were destroyed. Also, the real evidence to prove the case one way or the other is Brown's body ... which was buried, not cremated. It's still there to be exhumed and autopsied, and I sincerely doubt modern forensic methods would have difficulty determining the wound to be due to a bullet if indeed it was, even 15 years later.

[PhantomWolf]

Your critical thinking skills have kicked in because the Ron Brown story is not nearly as emotionally charged as 9/11. We should try to treat all theories with an objective focus, regardless of what the geopolitical implications might be.

No, I have spend the last 5 years looking at 9/11 and for me there is no emotion. It wasn't my country attacked, I didn't know any of the people that died, and only one NZ'er, who was a ex-pat living and working in the States was killed. While for many here 9/11 is an emotional or a political topic, for me it isn't. I dislike Bush and his foreign policies mostly because it causes groups like AQ to start seing ALL western countries in the same way they view the US, but it doesn't worry me what he does internally in the US. He could establish FEMA death camps or legalise MJ, either way no skin off my nose, I'm half a planet away. The reason I have questions to do with this case is because I am unfamiliar with it and so am looking at bothsides of the story to see where the evidence falls, just as I did with 9/11 when the first theories came out, just as I did in 2001 when I first heard the claims of Apollo being Hoaxed, just as I did when I learned about the JFK claims. Emotion has nothing to do with it. If I get emotionally, it's only because I have said something to someone 5 times and they have blatently ignored it and carrying on claiming the same thing they started out saying even after being shown why they are wrong, not because I have any emotional attachment to a position. That's the main advantage of not being American.

[beachnut]

Your critical thinking skills have kicked in because the Ron Brown story is not nearly as emotionally charged as 9/11. We should try to treat all theories with an objective focus, regardless of what the geopolitical implications might be.
But when will your skills kick in?

[Brainache]

Really? You really don't know who Ron Brown was?

Well he was never real big news here in Australia.


...
The bottom line is this. Clinton and the democrats stole 2 presidential elections using tens of millions of dollars in money obtained illegally from the military in Communist China, a country whose defense minister once said he sees war with the United States as inevitable. Chinese spies were given continued access to classified nuclear, radar and submarine secrets. There is sworn testimony by individuals in our counter intelligence community that they were ordered by their superiors during the Clinton years not to pursue these espionage cases. The connection with Ron Brown is that the technology Brown approved (for example, 10 billion dollars worth of super computers), during a time when the Administration knew of the spying, made it possible for the Chinese to use the secrets they stole. Surely this is a treason worth killing someone in order to keep it from coming out in court. Don't you agree? Or will you continue to play dumb?

I'm not playing dumb. I'm just not a big student of US politics. I have enough problems following the local politics. I could say something about Nick Greiner or Jeff Kennet, but somehow I suspect you may not know who they are.

Thanks for all the details. If what you say is true, it seems there is a Pulitzer waiting for some keen young Journo. I look forward to reading about it in the middle of one of the Newspapers one day.

[BeAChooser]

Well he was never real big news here in Australia. I'm not playing dumb.

Sorry. Guess it was just something about the way you referred to the "evil Clintons" that made me think you were a skeptic or defender of them. And you are right ... I wouldn't know who Nick Greiner or Jeff Kennet are but a quick internet search tells me one "was the parliamentary leader of the Liberal Party in New South Wales, Australia and also Premier from 1988 to 1992 and the other "was the 43rd Premier of Victoria (6th October, 1992 to 20th October, 1999)."

If what you say is true,

Why would you think it's not true when I've provided linked sources for many of the claims and not a single person so far has posted a single source disputing the facts that suggest foul play may have been involved?

it seems there is a Pulitzer waiting for some keen young Journo. I look forward to reading about it in the middle of one of the Newspapers one day.

There already is a book out on the subject

http://www.cashill.com/ronbrown/index.htm

but don't expect the author to get a Pulitzer when the prize is administered by Columbia University, one of the most liberal in the US. To liberals, Bill Clinton could do no wrong.

[BeAChooser]

This is a post on the Ron Brown topic I made to gnome on http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2870362#post2870362
where he discussed a willingness to take the discussion here. So let's see if he or any of the others show up ...

**************

More like unimpressed by their reliability.

Go ahead, tell us SPECIFICALLY which facts I've stated are unreliable? So far the detractors on this forum (nor anywhere else) have done that. They've just regurgitated what a demonstrably flawed and incomplete government report says or dismissed the allegation out of hand and then RUN.

Certainly my claims about what the pathologists and photographer said are reliable. Multiple sources reported their statements and if you hunt around, you can even hear interviews with whistleblowers like Janoski saying exactly what I noted. And as far as I know, every other claim I made is reliable ... i.e., credibly sourced. So you go ahead and tell us specifically which claims you challenge.

Why don't we take this up in the CT topic just to keep from derailing this one.

I'm not trying to derail this one. I'm answering the question that was asked by the author of this thread by telling you specifically why IMO Clinton and Bush both committed impeachable offenses. You and Skeptigirl just don't like the answer, because in your mind this was supposed to have been a fun Bash-Bush-Only thread.

However, if you and anyone else on this thread who has a dismissive comment about the allegation will indeed show up on this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87011

to actually discuss the issue with me (not just dismiss it out of hand), I'll be happy to stop discussion of it here and let you have your *fun*. You game? :D

BTW, I recommend you read that thread first before making your first post.

***************

[BeAChooser]

For the record, here is gnome's first response on the other thread concerning the Brown allegation and my reply to him. I decided to repost it here, since he's probably not the only one to have bought what Snopes says about the Ron Brown matter.

**************

I see the topic of Clinton murders has come up. I should bring out this as I always do...

Nearly everyone who brings this up has done so because they encountered the article that led Snopes to delve into the matter:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp

I have found it helpful in discussing the matter.

Snopes sometimes gets things right and sometimes it gets things wrong. First of all, let's be clear that I'm not a proponent of this bodycount nonsense. I do think there was something nefarious about the deaths of Ron Brown (and perhaps Vince Foster).

Let's look at specifically what Snopes says in critique of the Brown allegation:


What "new evidence"? Ron Brown and 34 others were killed in a plane crash in Croatia on 3 April 1996. The plane slammed into a mountain while on landing approach. There were no survivors.


No new evidence? How can snopes be unaware that for over a year no one other than a select few knew what the x-rays and photos showed, or what the pathologists and photographer had noted at the examination of Brown's body? Snopes just repeats the government story as if it is fact. But that's not convincing. Especially when they get things such as "there were no survivors" wrong. A Commerce Department document was uncovered by Judicial Watch. The document, a chronology of events in the matter, was prepared for Secretary of State Warren Christopher. The log includes the following item 40 minutes after the wreckage was discovered: "Commerce Dept. has heard from Advance Ira Sokowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash." The government never mentioned in ANY forum the second survivor. They did mention that Sergeant Kelly had survived the crash.


A lot has been made of an x-ray of Brown's skull in which what looks like a round entry wound appears. Closer examination of Brown's skull by military officials revealed no bullet, no bone fragments, no metal fragments and, even more telling, no exit wound.


This is a complete and utter lie. Every single pathologist in the case and every single pathologist who has looked at the x-ray and photo of Brown's head and made a public statement (except the head of AFIP, Dickerson, who can be shown to have lied about the nature of the wound and the opinions of his staff) has stated Brown should have been autopsied based on the suspicious nature of the wound.

Pathologist Lt. Colonel Hause, who was considered to be one of the military's leading experts on gunshot wounds, remembers looking at the wound and saying "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too." He said the wound "looked like a punched-out .45-caliber entrance hole". Chief Petty Officer Janoski, the official photographer, says the wound, which is documented in the pictures she took, was "perfectly circular" and "inwardly beveling", which she says led her to the conclusion that it appeared t be a bullet wound. Lt. Colonel Cogswell, another top pathologist at Dover, said that the wound when described to him over the phone by Gormley sounded like a gunshot wound and that Brown needed an autopsy.

Janoski, the photographer, signed a sworn statement six months after Brown's death that she was told by Jeanmarie Sentell, a naval criminal investigator who was at the examination, that x-rays and photographs were deliberately destroyed in the Brown case after a "lead snowstorm" (indicative of gunshot) was discovered in the x-rays. Janoski further testified that Sentell said that a second set of X-rays were made "less dense" to diminish or eradicate the "lead snowstorm" image, and that Colonel Gormley was involved in its creation. Sentell declined comment.

After talking to Sentell, Janoski says she realized that she had taken slides photos of the first set of x-rays while they were displayed on a light table in the examination room. She located the slides and showed them to Cogswell. After looking at the pictures and x-rays slides, Cogswell decided that an autopsy should have been performed and began to say so publicly. He even included this case in a talk he gave on "mistakes in forensic pathology" at professional conferences and training courses. He reportedly told his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows, in the area behind the left eye socket, "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density", i.e., a "lead snowstorm" from a high-velocity gunshot wound. He also told them that brain matter is visible in the photos and the side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain ... both are contrary to what Gormley was then claiming and what Snopes claims.

On December 5, 1997, AFIP imposed a gag order on Cogswell, forcing him to refer all press inquiries on the Brown case to AFIP's public affairs office. Cogswell was told he could leave his office only with the permission of Dr. Jerry Spencer, Armed Forces Medical Examiner. He was escorted to his house by military police, who, without a warrant, seized all of his case materials on the Brown crash.

Lt. Col. David Hause decided to come forward and publically agreed with Cogswell that an autopsy should have been performed. Hause's eyewitness examination also contradicts Gormley. "What was immediately below the surface of the hole was just brain. I didn't remember seeing skull" in the hole, he said. Hause has stated that "by any professional standard" Brown should have received an autopsy and that the AFIP's actions against Cogswell are a classic case of "shooting the messenger." After he talked to the press, the gag order was extended to include ALL AFIP personnel. They were ordered to turn in "all slides, photos, x-rays and other materials" related to the Brown case. All personnel at the AFIP were prohibited from talking to the press and had to stay at their work stations for the duration of their working day. All personnel, including ranking officers, had to obtain permission to leave for lunch! But by then, the photos and the x-ray slides were already in the public domain. And in case you are wondering, Alan Keyes, a spokesman for the AFIP, has acknowledged that the internet photos are legitimate.

On December 11, 1997, despite the gag order, Gormley was allowed to give a live interview on Black Entertainment Television. Members of the black community, who had heard rumors about the possibility of a gun shot wound in Brown's head, had begun to ask for an investigation. This appears to be a clear attempt at "damage control". Gormley immediately attacked the other pathologists. He stated that one could rule out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible in the wound. He also stated that the x-rays taken during the examination showed no trace of a bullet injury. He denied that two sets of x-rays existed. Then, on live TV, he was confronted with a photograph taken during the examination (by Janoski) that showed brain matter visible in the wound. He ended up admitting that brain matter was indeed visible, excusing his former statements as a memory lapse. He then admitted that the hole was a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry. Next he was confronted with a copy of Janowski's x-ray slides. He immediately changed his story and claimed that this first set of x-rays had been "lost" so that a second set was required. It was then pointed out that the Janoski x-rays slides show signs of a "lead snowstorm", which he didn't refute.

Colonel Gormley has since admitted that 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, "at least an entrance gunshot wound". Furthermore, he confessed that no autopsy was requested based on "discussions" at the highest levels in Commerce, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the White House! Cabinet members such as Ron Brown are covered by federal laws that deal with assassinations of federal officials and certain acts of terrorism. As such, the matter should have been referred to the FBI as soon as an apparent gunshot wound was discovered. Why wasn't it?

On January 9, 1998, the Washington Post reported that the AFIP had convened a review panel of ALL its pathologists, including Cogswell and Hause. The article quoted AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, in saying that the panel came to the UNANIMOUS conclusion that Brown died of blunt-force trauma and not a gunshot. According to Cogswell, however, he refused, following the advice of his lawyer, to participate in the review because he thought it would be unfair and biased. He says that most of those participating were not board-certified in forensic pathology and of those who were, none had significant interest or experience in gunshot wounds. He says that ALL of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's forensic pathologists with any expertise in gunshot wounds (Cogswell, Hause and a new name ... Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons) dissented from the "official" opinion. Even though Hause and Parsons have cooberated Cogswell's version, AFIP spokesman Chris Kelly says AFIP "stands by" Dickerson's claim that the findings were unanimous ... a clear lie.

In a press statement, the AFIP reportedly said that extensive "forensic tests" disproved a bullet theory. Janoski said she was present for the entire examination and did not observe ANY forensic tests, such as those for gunpowder residue.

Janet Reno told the nation that the Justice Department conducted a "thorough review" of the facts in the Ron Brown death investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of a crime. However, no one from the Justice Department or FBI interviewed the military pathologists. The review was conducted by the same AFIP personnel responsible for the decision not to autopsy.

Sorry, but Snopes is simply WRONG as to what the eyewitnesses found and what the photos and x-rays showed. And as to the lack of an "exit wound", none was ever looked for. Janoski has testified that Brown's body was never examined or photographed for an exit wound and Gormley admits he didn't look for one. The assertion is a red herring on the part of Snopes.

And by the way, Christopher Ruddy showed copies of the x-ray slide and wound photos to Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory. Fackler said "It's round as hell. ... That's unusual except for a gunshot wound." He also said brain matter was visible. "They didn't do an autopsy. My God." he said. Ruddy also showed the x-ray and photos to Pittsburgh coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists. Wecht, a democrat, said "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied." Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments". He said "little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone." If the metal is from a bullet, he said the array of fragments would indicate a shot fired BEFORE the crash. Wecht said Brown's body was relatively intact. Lacerations were superficial, and other damage to his face and body appeared to be caused by chemical burns that probably would not have resulted in death. X-rays indicated Brown's bones were generally intact, with a breakage of the pelvic ring that Wecht said was survivable.


Simply imagining a scenario under which Ron Brown could have been shot takes one into the realm of the absurd. Was he shot in the head during the flight, in full view of thirty-four other witnesses?

Shouldn't we find out whether there was a crime before dismissing it as impossible? Isn't that the way criminal investigations usually work? How absurd is it that both voice and transponder communication would cease when the plane was still 8 miles from the mountain it supposedly just hit by accident? But that's the case. How absurd is it that the chief maintenance officer at the airport who was in charge of the airport beacons and the backup portable one would commit suicide over a girlfriend just a day after the crash and before investigators could interview him? How absurd is it that Aviation Week would conclude that the flight trajectory of the plane prior to the crash was consistent with being spoofed by a portable beacon? How absurd is it that the Clintons and government spokespersons would claim it was the worst weather in a century yet the Air Force report would say weather played no significant role in the crash and planes landed without incident both before and after the crash occurred? How absurd is it that the Clinton administration would want to silence someone who was threatening to take their whole criminal affair down with him by turning states evidence in Chinagate? How absurd is it that Clinton defenders would now refuse to discuss the above facts but instead simply regurgitate a government report that has already been proven flawed and incomplete?


(If so, how did they get off the plane?)


The rear door of the aircraft was found open when rescuers arrived. The Associated Press reported that the first Croatians to arrive at the crash site (officially to be the first people to arrive at the crash site) were met by several Americans. Is it absurd to think that if someone was going to spoof a plane into hitting a mountain they would have someone standing by to make sure the target actually was killed? Who knows, perhaps Brown wasn't shot on the plane but at the crash site by this *clean up* crew. What Snopes doesn't even try to explain is why two separate airports and an AWACS all lost contact with the plane at the same time when it was still 7 to 8 miles from the crash site.


Did the killers shoot him before the flight, then bundle his body into a seat (just like "Weekend at Bernie's") and hope nobody noticed the gaping hole in his head?


Why would they have to hope when they controlled the investigation and had their man examine the body. If Janoski hadn't been standing nearby and taken photos of the first set of x-rays, noone would ever have known the hole in Brown's head looked like a bullet wound or that there was a first set of x-rays. Gormley, the proven liar, would have made sure of that.


See what the Air Force had to say about this crash.


Funny that Snopes would reference a report that never even mentioned the statements of the pathologists about bullets and autopsies, and that completely skipped the section that usually determines the cause of the crash.

Snopes? You going to have to do better than that if you want to put this to rest, gnome.

[dudalb]

The bottom line is this. Clinton and the democrats stole 2 presidential elections using tens of millions of dollars in money obtained illegally from the military in Communist China, a country whose defense minister once said he sees war with the United States as inevitable. Chinese spies were given continued access to classified nuclear, radar and submarine secrets. There is sworn testimony by individuals in our counter intelligence community that they were ordered by their superiors during the Clinton years not to pursue these espionage cases. The connection with Ron Brown is that the technology Brown approved (for example, 10 billion dollars worth of super computers), during a time when the Administration knew of the spying, made it possible for the Chinese to use the secrets they stole. Surely this is a treason worth killing someone in order to keep it from coming out in court. Don't you agree? Or will you continue to play dumb?

Thanks for the memory down Memory Lane when you could not go on the Net without being hit by a dozen "Bill Clinton is a murderer" wack theories.
You are probably warming up in case the Dems take over in 2008.
And I have no doubt a lot of the older Twoofers bought into the Clinton Conspiracy crap as well. I really think the hardcore CT's change their politics to fit the latest "big" Conspiracy theory,rather then have any consistent political point of view.
Yeah,you have a certain number of Anti Bush people who are buying into the 9/11 crap becasue it fills their need to demonize the idiot rather then just admit he is simply not too bright, but a lot of the Twoofers will jump onto the first big Conspiracy Theory that comes along when the Dems are in power and find a way to work it in to fit with the 9/11 crap.

[BeAChooser]

Thanks for the memory down Memory Lane when you could not go on the Net without being hit by a dozen "Bill Clinton is a murderer" wack theories.

Except I think the Clinton Death List folks are KOOKS. I'm not a KOOK. I'm talking about ONE case here ... the death of Ron Brown and if the best you can do to challenge the facts I've noted is try to link my concerns to wack theories, you are doing the same thing that the mainstream media (it was either ABC or NBC) did when they tried to link the Ron Brown allegation to UFOs. This says more about you than anything else.

And I have no doubt a lot of the older Twoofers bought into the Clinton Conspiracy crap as well.

And by the way, I'm not a Twoofer either. That's just another red herring on your part to avoid actually talking about the facts in the death of Ron Brown ... or Filegate ... or Chinagate ... or the Riady Non-Refund ... or the rape of Juanita Broaddrick. But nice try ...

[beachnut]

Well he was never real big news here in Australia.

I'm not playing dumb. I'm just not a big student of US politics. I have enough problems following the local politics. I could say something about Nick Greiner or Jeff Kennet, but somehow I suspect you may not know who they are.

Thanks for all the details. If what you say is true, it seems there is a Pulitzer waiting for some keen young Journo. I look forward to reading about it in the middle of one of the Newspapers one day.
CT on 9/11 and Ron Brown run the same on some members of these idiot groups and sometime lone bozos. Some times it is too obvious when the CTer on record spills the bean and says, Oh, you voted for Bush, OR, you voted for Clinton. Then you see their hatred for a person over powers their rational mind; if they had one.

It is very easy to spot this hypocrisy as the CTer on one subject asks about how you feel about the Bush/Clinton

Ron Brown died in an Aircraft Accident. The rest is BS from idiot CT groups, some who hate Clinton. Just like the some of the idiots in 9/11 truth who hate Bush. Some people suspend RATIONAL thought when their hate towards a group comes out. No story is too far out to blame Clinton or Bush for some event. These are the politically motivated idiots. Idiots who make up lies about the people they hate, like Hitler with the Jewish people, so easy to spot after just a little exposure. It is a disappointment when you run up to people who flip flop on rational thought based on biases.

[BeAChooser]

Ron Brown died in an Aircraft Accident. The rest is BS from idiot CT groups, some who hate Clinton.

Folks, isn't it revealing that NONE of those dismissing the Ron Brown allegation on this thread have challenged the specifics of the allegation?

If they debunked the Twoofer theories about 9/11 the same way, the 911 Twoofers would surely control this site. :D

[gnome]

I know my arrival is late... as far as a factual rebuttal I hardly do better than what Darth Rotor has already provided.

But I do have questions...

If I was going to off someone... I certainly wouldn't involve a fake plane crash, followed up by a shooting on the ground. Such a hyper-complicated plan would be too risky, what with how many people get involved investigating.

Aren't there much, much simpler ways for a President to off someone if he's unscrupulous?

[BeAChooser]

Aren't there much, much simpler ways for a President to off someone if he's unscrupulous?

Well list some. And while you are at it, tell us why we should ignore the only real experts in this case, the forensic pathologists and the photographer.

[Alt+F4]

Well list some. And while you are at it, tell us why we should ignore the only real experts in this case, the forensic pathologists and the photographer.

The forensic pathologists and the photographer have zero evidence linking any of this to Bill Clinton. For all you know, some local got to the crash first, shot Ron Brown in the head and took his gold watch.

[BeAChooser]

The forensic pathologists and the photographer have zero evidence linking any of this to Bill Clinton. For all you know, some local got to the crash first, shot Ron Brown in the head and took his gold watch.

So is that the best excuse you can come up with for ignoring them ... for not properly investigating a possible mass murder? Because the pathologists presented no evidence directly linking their suspicions of foul play to Bill Clinton? Should we therefore cancel all autopsies in the US unless the pathologists can directly link what they fear might be foul play to Bill Clinton? That seems to be your theory here. And I trust you see how ridiculous that theory sounds. :D

[Alt+F4]

So is that the best excuse you can come up with for ignoring them ... for not properly investigating a possible mass murder? Because the pathologists presented no evidence directly linking their suspicions of foul play to Bill Clinton? Should we therefore cancel all autopsies in the US unless the pathologists can directly link what they fear might be foul play to Bill Clinton? That seems to be your theory here. And I trust you see how ridiculous that theory sounds. :D

You're the one linking all this to Bill Clinton, not the pathologists. The doctor said Ron Brown was shot in the head, fine. With all his legal problems I wouldn't be suprised if he shot himself.

What of the other passengers on that flight? If this was murder then how do you know that one of them wasn't the intended victim?

As someone mentioned in another post, the only way to settle the question of whether he was shot is to exhume the poor man's body. I would think that those truly concerned with seeking justice for all those who died that day would be doing everything in their power to seek such a court order, even over the objections of the family.

[gnome]

I also think there's plenty of people who don't like Bill Clinton at all with enough power to arrange that, but somehow they don't seem terribly interested.

[BeAChooser]

You're the one linking all this to Bill Clinton, not the pathologists.

You are correct in saying the pathologists have not tried to make that link. All they've wanted is an autopsy to find out if there's a bullet in Brown's head. It was Clinton administration officials who prevented that. There you go ... a link. :D

The doctor said Ron Brown was shot in the head, fine. With all his legal problems I wouldn't be suprised if he shot himself.

There is desperate and then there is really desperate. :)

What of the other passengers on that flight? If this was murder then how do you know that one of them wasn't the intended victim?

If that's the case, why didn't the pathologists find what looked like a bullet hole in another person's body? Brown's was the only one they noted as having a head wound. And as far as I know, Brown was the only one who told Clinton he was going to turn state's evidence. But in any case, what's that got to do with not autopsying Brown?

As someone mentioned in another post, the only way to settle the question of whether he was shot is to exhume the poor man's body.

Actually, I was the one who said that. And it's true. This is an example where we can use the Empirical Method. One can falsify the whole conspiracy theory merely by exhuming and autopsying the body of Ron Brown and finding nothing unusual. I have no doubt that modern forensic methods would allow them to determine if Brown was shot even at this late date if he was. One would only insist that the autopsy be done by pathologists outside the government with the whistle blowing pathologists in attendence as witnesses to the whole process.

I would think that those truly concerned with seeking justice for all those who died that day would be doing everything in their power to seek such a court order, even over the objections of the family.

It's more difficult to do than you think when the whole establishment is against doing it. The last thing the Bush administration wanted was to stir this pot. Perhaps because Bush has some skeletons too that democRATS know about. Filegate might have been helpful in that. And, of course, the democRATS have no interest in pursuing this. Pursuing this has been like beating one's head against a brick wall. Ask Larry Elder. :D

[Alt+F4]

One can falsify the whole conspiracy theory merely by exhuming and autopsying the body of Ron Brown and finding nothing unusual. I have no doubt that modern forensic methods would allow them to determine if Brown was shot even at this late date if he was. One would only insist that the autopsy be done by pathologists outside the government with the whistle blowing pathologists in attendence as witnesses to the whole process.

Thousands of persons have served in the United States Congress over the past eleven years and has any of them used their power to investigate this matter? Why not?

[BeAChooser]

Thousands of persons have served in the United States Congress over the past eleven years and has any of them used their power to investigate this matter?

You are still trying to avoid the heart of this issue ... what the pathologists and photographer said and what the photos of the x-ray show.

It doesn't matter what congressmen did or didn't do because NONE of them is a trained pathologist nor have any of them named a credible pathologist who advised them the evidence shows Brown died by blunt force trauma and didn't need an autopsy.

Congressmen ignore lots of things for lots of reasons. I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to guess the motivations of congressmen in this case. All I really need address in this case is what the REAL experts in this case had to say ... almost unanimously say, I should add.

By the way, here is what Congress had to say about Ron Brown at his death:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_n25_v89/ai_18260213

Notice there is not one word about the fact that he was under investigation by literally everybody at the time of his death. There is not one word about the fact that his wife and son had already been indicted. There is not word about the Special Prosecutor who was investigating him or the fact that he was about to be indicted for a long list of crimes which was only growing longer as time passed. So I wouldn't put much weight in whether congressmen did anything or didn't. Congressmen on the whole are basically interested in one thing. Remaining congressmen. In this case, clearly no one wanted to rock the boat. Some might even have had good reasons not to rock the boat. Perhaps skeletons in their own closet. Because one thing is for sure ... if this were pursued things would get very messy very fast. With a charge this serious, George Stephanopoulos' warning about Clinton employing a strategy of mutual assured destruction would have become fact. This could have brought the whole government down. And that's really why I don't think anyone wanted to go near it.

Now if you want the real story of Ron Brown's activities before his death, I suggest you read Cashill's book. You will be shocked at the corruption he was involved in up to his neck. But then most congressmen are corrupt in one way or another. ;)

[BeAChooser]

And by the way, this STILL could bring the whole government down since it would be hard for Bush's administration to claim they were unaware of these allegations or what the pathologists and photographer said. Nor does the media really have an interest in pursuing this as it would only expose their failure to report the facts at the time making them look like they were part of the coverup. So it's like banging one's head against a brick wall.

[Brainache]

And by the way, this STILL could bring the whole government down since it would be hard for Bush's administration to claim they were unaware of these allegations or what the pathologists and photographer said. Nor does the media really have an interest in pursuing this as it would only expose their failure to report the facts at the time making them look like they were part of the coverup. So it's like banging one's head against a brick wall.

You do know that "The Media" is not some monolithic entity don't you? There are lots of damn good freelance investigative reporters out there who don't belong to anyone but themselves and who would be on this story like stink on a monkey if there was anything to it.

I have never met a journo who would run away from the chance of the kind of fame and prestige that breaking a story like this would bring.

Maybe you want to argue that every Journalist in the world is in Clinton's pocket, but you wouldn't be that silly would you?

Maybe they just don't want to rock the boat? Yeah, Journalists hate doing that.:rolleyes:

I can see that you take this issue seriously and that you seem to have a way with words, why don't you write up all of your evidence and submit it to one of the big News organisations? Rupert Murdoch might be interested or possibly someone at Hearst?

[BeAChooser]

You do know that "The Media" is not some monolithic entity don't you?

Believe it or not, I do. That non-monolithic character is why the allegations concerning Ron Brown (and all the other allegations of crimes during the Clinton era) made it to daylight at all. But don't think the media outside the mainstream have (and certainly had back in the mid 90's) much of an audience. Mainstream media is called mainstream for a reason. And it was even more "mainstream" at the time the Brown allegations were *news* because entities like Fox News didn't yet exist.

The simple truth is that most people are STILL unaware of the facts in this case because ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NYTimes, LATimes, WashPost and the rest of the mainstream media didn't and haven't said one word about the allegations of the pathologists and photographer. The closest I ever heard any of them come is when ABC or NBC (I forget which) did a story laughing at the silliness of UFOologists and mentioned in passing that there were also allegations of foul play in the death of Ron Brown circulating the internet. You see what they were trying to do, don't you?

There are lots of damn good freelance investigative reporters out there who don't belong to anyone but themselves and who would be on this story like stink on a monkey if there was anything to it.

Actually a whole bunch of freelance journalists reported on the Brown case back in the mid 90's. But their articles weren't carried by any of the mainstream media sources. They were ignored. No way to make a living when that's the situation.

Journalists have even published books on this. Here's a challenge for you ... do a search in the mainstream media where they review or list new books. You come back to me if you find ANY OF THEM reviewing Jack Cashill's book "Ron Brown's Body". Or even just mentioning the book. I bet you will strike out. You see, if they won't mention the book it will never be widely read. No way to make a living doing that which is why so few journalists are going to pursue this topic. Especially when not even the Republican leadership wants this story known.

I have never met a journo who would run away from the chance of the kind of fame and prestige that breaking a story like this would bring.

But you'll never get that fame and prestige if the mainstream media simply ignores you. That's a fact. So what you are offering as a way of dismissing the allegations, instead of actually addressing the facts that have been laid out in this thread, is a red herring. Nice try.

[Brainache]

Well frankly I'm not all that interested in the details of this particular case. It really has no effect on me one way or another. It does surprise me however that if it is such an important case, that even Fox would pass up the chance to stick the boot into those evil Clintons.

BTW I believe the MSM is so-called because it has the largest audience. If you can find a way to make this story as sexy as Paris or Lindsay, then the masses might take an interest.

I'm not saying that you are right or wrong, just that I'd be very surprised if it really is as open and shut as you assert.

[leftysergeant]

This doesn't make a bit of sense. Brown was shot, according to the conspiracy theory, but when?

The Weekend at Bernie's scenario is just to bizarre. Someone would have noticed a corpse strapped into a seat pre-flight and would have refused to go on with it.

Was Brown alive after the crash and was shot by operatives who knew where to find him? And no one else survived the crash? Most peculiar. Did anyone do an autopsy on the other victims?

And I must say, it seems odd that any kind of pistol round other than a Glaser or similar round would so utterly fragment inside brain tissue.

A friend of mine was shot in the head with a .357 and the doctors removed the bullet from inside his skull in one huge piece and a few small ones. It just kind of made half a circuit of the interior of his skull, luckily through relatively little brain tiussue. That stuff inside brown's skull in the x-rays should not really be so shredded and irregular, if it is any loading that I know of. Glass or sand, maybe? I have not seen pictures or descriptions of what his face looked like.

[Digest]

And I must say, it seems odd that any kind of pistol round other than a Glaser or similar round would so utterly fragment inside brain tissue.

NWO Ice bullet (tm) Melts away - come on sarge it was in the movies you know its possible!

[DavidJames]

I'm sorry as I may have missed it, why again aren't Hillary's political opponents pursing this crime against her Husband? Certainly living in White House during the time the president was having people killed could be used to their political advantage.

[CJOKUSAP]

Regarding that, well who said these guys knew what building's destruction would affect us the most? They were clearly nuts.
But smart enough to outwit your entire defence system? Now come on , you can't have it both ways!;)

I have no pet conspiracy theories myself.

Neither have I!

[BeAChooser]

It really has no effect on me one way or another.

Actually, I suspect corruption of this magnitude in the US government (if it's true) will eventually affect everyone on earth.

It does surprise me however that if it is such an important case, that even Fox would pass up the chance to stick the boot into those evil Clintons.

First, Fox News wasn't around when Brown died and was barely started when the allegations first surfaced. Even so, you are wrong. The Hannity & Colmes program had Christopher Ruddy on to state his findings regarding the death of Ron Brown. And one can't claim bias in their allowing Ruddy on since they allowed a number of opposing voices including Ellen Ratner to challenge him. Hannity defended him, by the way. The problem is that at the time Fox was still minor league so they had no affect on public opinion nor were they able to help force other networks to report the story as they have forced the other networks to report stories since. And the problem now is that sticking it to the Clintons would also stick it to Bush and host of Republicans because they clearly ignored the allegations. That's probably why they've now dropped it. There, their conservative leanings do show.

BTW I believe the MSM is so-called because it has the largest audience.

That's exactly right.

I'm not saying that you are right or wrong, just that I'd be very surprised if it really is as open and shut as you assert.

I'm not claiming Brown was definitely shot. Only that there is good reason to be suspicious in this case and that the only way to resolve the questions is to exhume and autopsy Brown's body.

[BeAChooser]

This doesn't make a bit of sense. Brown was shot, according to the conspiracy theory, but when?

Why do you insist on getting the cart before the horse? Isn't it enough that highly skilled pathologists say he might have been shot? Usually, when pathologists suspect that, an autopsy is performed to find out if that suspicion is true. If the autopsy shows it is true, THEN law enforcement investigates and find out the when, how and why. I think, therefore, that what you are pushing is just a distraction that you hope will stop an exhumation and autopsy.

Did anyone do an autopsy on the other victims?

Its reported that Shelly Kelly was autopsied. Cheryl Turnage, the other stewardess, was also reportedly autopsied.

And I must say, it seems odd that any kind of pistol round other than a Glaser or similar round would so utterly fragment inside brain tissue.

The pathologists who I've quoted don't seem to think the metal density flakes are an utterly fragmented bullet. So why claim that? Another red herring?

[Brainache]

Actually, I suspect corruption of this magnitude in the US government (if it's true) will eventually affect everyone on earth.

If the USG is as corrupt already as you say it is, then I would suggest getting the hell out of there. Maybe Kevin Lowe can point you to some nice real estate in Tasmania...


First, Fox News wasn't around when Brown died and was barely started when the allegations first surfaced. Even so, you are wrong. The Hannity & Colmes program had Christopher Ruddy on to state his findings regarding the death of Ron Brown. And one can't claim bias in their allowing Ruddy on since they allowed a number of opposing voices including Ellen Ratner to challenge him. Hannity defended him, by the way. The problem is that at the time Fox was still minor league so they had no affect on public opinion nor were they able to help force other networks to report the story as they have forced the other networks to report stories since. And the problem now is that sticking it to the Clintons would also stick it to Bush and host of Republicans because they clearly ignored the allegations. That's probably why they've now dropped it. There, their conservative leanings do show.

But surely Fox could spin this away from the Reps. Bring it up at least in time to scuttle Hilary's Presidential dreams. It wouldn't be too hard to implicate the Clintons while excusing Bush because he didn't have all the facts. The fact that they haven't done this speaks volumes.



...
I'm not claiming Brown was definitely shot. Only that there is good reason to be suspicious in this case and that the only way to resolve the questions is to exhume and autopsy Brown's body.

How effective would that be ten years on? I suspect that even if they did as you suggest, there will always be some ambiguity for people who want to assume a conspiracy to latch onto.

I have to say, after seeing what Beachnut posted in the other Ron Brown thread, that the evidence points to a tragic accident rather than an evil plot.

[BeAChooser]

I'm sorry as I may have missed it, why again aren't Hillary's political opponents pursing this crime against her Husband? Certainly living in White House during the time the president was having people killed could be used to their political advantage.

As I've pointed out previously, there are any number of logical reasons this wasn't pursued.

I think first and foremost is that most of the people in the political process at the national level don't get to where they are without making compromises and having skeletons of their own. Filegate was an effort by the Clintons to gather such dirt on all their political opponents. And they got away with it, in part because Kenneth Starr was likely controlled. The proof of that is he told the public that the FBI files had been returned when near end of Clinton's administration it was revealed by his replacement, Ray, that the files were still in White House hands. The proof of that is it was left up to Judicial Watch with their meager civil suit powers to find the true scope of Filegate and reveal Hillary's connections to it. Starr didn't even try. The proof of that is Starr's handling of the Vince Foster matter. As I pointed out earlier, George Stephanopoulos', an insider in the Clinton camp, warned about Clinton employing a strategy of mutual assured destruction. Can you imagine the dirt that might have been thrown had they pushed allegations of this sort. Not to mention that the media at that time was decidely in the Clinton camp and was already covering up rape allegations and the full scope of Chinagate, etc.

But regardless, that's immaterial to whether the allegations have merit. It is a FACT that the pathologists in the case, ALL OF THEM (except one who can be proven to have lied about the facts and the opinions of the other pathologists), were concerned about the fact that the wound suggested gunshot and said an autopsy should be performed. It is a FACT that the government hid this from the public and the families. It is a FACT that when this was exposed, the government didn't properly investigate the matter but instead punished the pathologists and photographer. It is a FACT that the government even then lied about the nature of the evidence.

And it is a FACT that there are many other suspicious facts in this case that so far most everyone here seems to want to sweep under the rug. :)

[BeAChooser]

But surely Fox could spin this away from the Reps.

How? How in the world can Fox News spin the fact that the Bush administration had to know about the allegations and did NOTHING? People like me were writing the Bush administration with concerns like this. Judicial Watch was trying to get the Bush administration to follow up on ANY of the crimes committed during the Clinton administration. With no luck. How in the world can Fox News spin the fact that James Riady stood up in a California court and under a plea agreement that the Bush's Administration brokered told the judge that Clinton and the DNC had not returned the millions in illegal campaign contributions that he gave them despite their having publically claimed they had ... and then the Bush administration did NOTHING?

It wouldn't be too hard to implicate the Clintons while excusing Bush because he didn't have all the facts.

I don't think anyone would believe that at this point. Hence my voting that BOTH Clinton and Bush committed impeachable offenses in this matter.

How effective would that be ten years on?

Given modern forensic methods? I don't think there is any doubt that they could find evidence of a bullet in the body if one had in fact killed Brown. Their methods and tools are so good that they are now using them to tell us that people hundreds and even thousands of years ago were murdered based on an exhumation and autopsy.

I have to say, after seeing what Beachnut posted in the other Ron Brown thread, that the evidence points to a tragic accident rather than an evil plot.

And I have to say that the Brown case is an excellent litmus test. :D

[DavidJames]

I think first and foremost is that most of the people in the political process at the national level don't get to where they are without making compromises and having skeletons of their own. Filegate was an effort by the Clintons to gather such dirt on all their political opponents. And they got away with it, in part because Kenneth Starr was likely controlled. The proof of that is he told the public that the FBI files had been returned when near end of Clinton's administration it was revealed by his replacement, Ray, that the files were still in White House hands. The proof of that is it was left up to Judicial Watch with their meager civil suit powers to find the true scope of Filegate and reveal Hillary's connections to it. Starr didn't even try. The proof of that is Starr's handling of the Vince Foster matter. As I pointed out earlier, George Stephanopoulos', an insider in the Clinton camp, warned about Clinton employing a strategy of mutual assured destruction. Can you imagine the dirt that might have been thrown had they pushed allegations of this sort. Not to mention that the media at that time was decidely in the Clinton camp and was already covering up rape allegations and the full scope of Chinagate, etc.

But regardless, that's immaterial to whether the allegations have merit. It is a FACT that the pathologists in the case, ALL OF THEM (except one who can be proven to have lied about the facts and the opinions of the other pathologists), were concerned about the fact that the wound suggested gunshot and said an autopsy should be performed. It is a FACT that the government hid this from the public and the families. It is a FACT that when this was exposed, the government didn't properly investigate the matter but instead punished the pathologists and photographer. It is a FACT that the government even then lied about the nature of the evidence.

And it is a FACT that there are many other suspicious facts in this case that so far most everyone here seems to want to sweep under the rug. :)It is a FACT that your logic is in lock step with most every CTist that visits this forum.

Cherry Picking quotes, evidence - Check
No reliable sources - Check
Media in on it - Check
Govt in on it - Check
Shady behind the scene deals by powerful NWO like characters - Check
Occam's razor thrown out the window - Check
CTist displays politically based rage against target - Check

[BeAChooser]

It is a FACT that your logic is in lock step with most every CTist that visits this forum.

Actually, your response is quite similar to that used by 911 Twoofers when facts are presented to them. They run from real experts. They distort the facts. They ignore any facts they can't counter. They spit out adhominems. They misrepresent the statements of the other side. Anything to avoid addressing the facts. :D

[GT/CS]

Here is the #1 conspiracy theory of all time.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/7207/bloom1.htm

[Oliver]

*snip*

The White House was never a target on 9/11. Atta had set up the assassination of President Bush that morning in Florida.


Is this a theory or is there evidence for the claim that
President Bush was meant to die that day?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Paris Hilton went to jail to protect Lindsay Lohan.

Lindsay Lohan snorted coke, wrecked her car and went about banging every strung out loser in her rehab clinic to divert attention from Britney Spears.

[leftysergeant]

When Elvis died, his estate was worried that his fame might not long outlast his presence. So they concocted the "Elvis sightings" to create a myth that he was still alive, thus making him more interesting.

There were plenty of Elvis impersonators around to help them do this, but they had to be sure that there was one who escaped detection and was able to pull it off well. So he had to be a good one.

Of course, that would require that all trace of the impersonator's real life be eliminated, perhaps by faking his death.

The long and short of it, Elvis actually IS dead, but Andy Kaufman is having us on.

[Damien Evans]

snip

Longest. Post. Ever.