But they and so many other unanswered questions certainly cast a shadow on the cause claimed by the Air Force.
The Air Force went to the trouble of doing an investigation as to causes of the crash, and, note this, and, a group of pathologists to investigate details as a part of that. You hang your extraordinary claim on
1. An argument from ignorance (the crash)
2. An open question (whence the hole in Brown's head)
Why? What is your motivation? Sensationalism is all I can discern from your mountain of spam.
So the mere act of convening an AIB and skipping the SIB, pre-supposes an accident and not foul play. You are admitting that the Air Force ASSUMED an accident from the very beginning, before they knew any of the facts?
No, not a revealing statement, they followed SOP. Each military service does this. When there is an aircraft crash, a Pre Mishap Plan is implemented, and as quickly as can be done, people dispatched to the crash site. Where possible, law enforcement (local) is contacted to seek their help in cordoning off the scene in order to preserve as much evidence as possible. Doing so in foreign countries is tougher than in the states.
Again, I have done this, there is nothing suspiscious about the USAF following SOP. Your "Hmmmmmm" is pure CT nonsense.
You and I, with our untrained eyes, can look at the photos of the wound and x-ray and almost immediately see that the claim by Gormley, a trained and very experienced forensic pathologist, that there was no penetration (no brain matter visible in the hole, only bone) and nothing unusual about the x-rays is completely false. And he repeated this claim not only in the AIB report but years later on live TV and in multiple press releases by AFIB. I really fail to see how ANYONE, who was remotely rational or honest, could excuse that as an error or oversight.
What does him doing this on TV have to do with anything? I don't know what your fascination with this is. I don't disagree, and have not for any number of posts, that this concern is an open question. I offered to sign any petition you generate. Does Brown's family want an inquest? An exhumation? Another autopsy? If so, stop wasting time here and help them get one. The time you spend here does not further their cause, nor anyone's cause of getting that open question answered.
Yet, you claimed I was " You are now slandering each officer who worked on that report." Do you see the inconsistency in your two statements?
Yes, I see inconsistency, but with your statement. I have not slandered any pathologists, so you are again full of crap.
Well you can start by not using such dishonest tactics to dismiss the allegations made by the pathologists and photographer.
Wrong again. You claim I dismiss, I have stated, again, "it is an open question." What is your problem? Read much?
Sure there is. First, exhume and autopsy Brown's body. If a bullet wound if found, then the reputation of the photographer and pathologists will be restored. And so will the reputation of pilots. That in itself is important. On top of that, I imagine the families of the victims will have a legal basis for suing everyone involved in the coverup for damages. Plus, the photographer and pathologists may also benefit monetarily for the damage done to their careers.
And you can make money on a book covering the whole thing, which makes me ask: why are you wasting your time here?
You imagine wrong. They can't get any remedy if the authorities refuse to autopsy Brown's body. The hired lawyers because the military was trying to punish them.
And? It's been ten years, the outcome? Ever hear of Shane Sellars? He got a raw deal too.
And you have not done that to me during this debate?
Absolutely, as I do to all CT loonies. It's part of the package. CT forum looniness is a target of opportunity for insults. You all provide such easy targets.
They ASSUMED from the very beginning (that's your own admission above) that it was an accident.
Ignorance is bliss, I suppose. They followed SOP.
Since they found nothing mechanically wrong with the plane, that only leaves improper procedures and pilot error. Now the procedural findings might be true, but they don't know what actually happened on that flight.
Funny, you admit that pilot error and improper procedures are valid theories the board can use as a point of departure. You at last relenquish your presumption of perfection. How nice.
Beachnut has shown you the details that include the problem of supervisory error, which is what we in the Navy called "setting people up to fail." Pilot error as a causal factor, but since you are an idiot, you read that as "only the pilots' fault." We have been over this, time and again, about the pressure (anecdotal, so you ignore it) on USAFE regarding VIP flights, and the use of unapproved approaches. Pilot error as a causal factor is shown by the evidence of a crash, not "it is all the pilots' fault." Your CT looniness does not like to consider how the process actually works, you are bore sighted on Clinton (a different problem). Choosing to be willfully ignorant is your own problem.
1. Absence of evidence/evidence of absence. For example, once a plane has crashed, evidence of a malfunction of an AC bus may or may not be preserved. Crashes, particularly lethal crashes, typically leave less than 100% of a plane intact, which leaves a lot of questions to be answered by collateral evidence. My friend Paul Miller, who I mentioned above, died in a crash where a contributing cause was an engine failure. The plane went down in the ocean. Other evidence, to include the camera on the back of the ship, was used to try and gather circumstantial evidence where the physical evidence was rather tougher to get to.
It's ALL supposition based on an apriori assumption of guilt.
Not guilt, causal factor. Read that word again. It is a term of art in mishap investigations. Causal factor.
So they very well could be falsely accusing the pilots of error if there was a bullet wound in Brown's head.
No, Brown being shot does not explain how they flew the plane into the mountain. If Brown's head has a bullet in it, or he was shot, it changes the "why" of his death from "impact and flying debris in the aircraft cabin" to "bullet in the head." It does not answer to question of
Why no bullets in the pilot's heads? (who was flying, again)
Why no bullets in any other crewman's head?
Since your theory consistently ignores this, your ability as investigator stinks to high heaven.
So should we misuse statistics as you are in all cases where guilt and innocence are to be decided? Or do the pilots of that plane DESERVE better?
Appeal to emotion based in personal ignorance noted. What I said before stands.
But what if a portable beacon was spoofing them?
What if? It is an interesting speculation.
First, you have to show it was on that freq, it was tuned to that freq, and was positioned where it could overpower and MIJI the airport beacon. Note: portables I am familiar with tend to have lower power output than hard infrastructure.
You then need to go back to your theory: if the idea is to MIJI them into a mountain side (a tactic somewhat similar to MIJI into Soviet airspace/spoofing that was well documented in the Cold War) why do you have a gunner on the plane who you are going to kill in the crash?
Again, how amazing that DR finds nothing extraordinary about the fact that half a dozen top pathologists say the wound looked like a bullet wound and Ron Brown most definitely should have been autopsied on that basis.
You are once again in the falsehood game. You attribute to me "how I find nothing extraordinary" as though that is a standard response to this. My expertise is on the airplane crash side of this, and I once again remind you that I have stated "this is an open question." You attribute false emotions to others, and it is pathetic.
How amazing that that DR finds nothing extraordinary about the fact that the only named pathologist still claiming it was blunt force trauma can be proven to have lied about the facts in the case and the opinions of his staff.
But did he lie about the trauma? Your litigous pathologist seems to have believability problems.
How amazing that DR finds nothing extraordinary about the Air Force skipping the first phase of the normal crash investigation (the phase where they look for cause and for foul play) and then publish a report that doesn't even mention the concerns of the pathologists about a bullet wound or include the original x-rays of Brown's head that suggest a bullet wound. What's extraordinary is that DR finds nothing extraordinary in all of that.
Wrong again.
You rely on emotion and sensationalism, I rely on experience in mishap investigation, military regulations, and having dealt with flag officers.
Fist off, you are into falsehood again. I stated that it is unusual, and then I offered a rational reasoning behind why General Fogleman might do so, given the political climate between the military and the administration, and the fact that the USAF had a crash with Sec Commerce on board to deal with. Having an investigation in which some evidence could not be released due to privilege, SIB, presented two risks:
1. This case due to its volatile nature gets used as the thin end of the wedge to overturn decades of precedent wherein Safety info stays privileged. That could destroy this program for all services.
2. An investigation wherein all evidence is publically releaseable precludes any charge of a cover up in a volatile political environment (the mistrust between Clinton and the military in those days was still strong)
You laugh at that, because you, as usual, argue from ignorance. Not a good position to be in.
Is it an ad hominim? I seem to be the only one who wants to set the record straight and (if there was a bullet) clean the riffraff out of the military that were responsible for the coverup.
Let's see. It is 2007. This happened in 1996. Most of the folks who might have been in any sort of cover up (high ranking) have long since retired. They are no longer in the Air Force, so your "cleaning" is an empty sentiment. Your presumption that General Fogleman would follow an illegal order seems to lack evidence. You presume he would, but again, your argument is from ignorance seasoned with sensationalism. Pathetic.
But not missiles that make perfectly round holes in heads with those dimensions.
How do you come up with certainty on that unfounded claim? You can't.
The pathologists, who had extensive experience in plane crashes, all said that such a wound is highly unusual. In fact, they said they'd never seen one like it.
So, it is an open question. Do you ever read what I actually post?
And one pathologist scoured the crash site trying to find anything that would fit the hole, and came up empty.
And in a plane crash, 100% of all material is preserved. Wait a minute, no it is not.
Now the question is why you'd sacrifice your credibility on this forum in this manner?
Since I am not so doing, the answer is as before: I am a surly old sonofabitch, and I am in the war against stupid. As such, I get nasty with CT fools. It's part of my charm.
Not irrelevant to someone plotting to kill Brown in this manner. They'd have to take into account the possibility of survivors because they wouldn't know apriori all would die. And by the way, they might not know that rescuers would be delayed more than 4 hours. We know Kelly survived for a time. Maybe she could have told them what really happened.
Indeed, like what really happened on 9-11. You sound like a CT more, with each post. Why would that be? If Brown was killed by your kamikaze shooter, why didn't he also shoot Kelly before he waltzed away in his superman suit? Your theory still stinks.
Should we believe the report when the report also contained lies regarding the cause of Ron Brown's death?
I see. More fallacy. "One problem makes all other details false." Sorry, your logic broke, yet again.
If this was a coverup (and a bullet found in Brown's head during an autopsy would surely prove that), perhaps other things in the report are not accurate.
No. Different people did different parts of the report. You put the metallurgy guys on structures, and pathologists, it seems, on bodies. You put pilots on procedures, ATC guys on ATC stuff, etc. The senior member has to collate it all and make sense of it. See, I've done this stuff, you haven't.
You argue from ignorance. But what is funny is, given the lack of living crewmembers, some of the estimations of precisely why people did things may be slightly off. Trouble is, that doesn't answer the rather simple problem of CFIT in IMC.
Somewhere else or were having trouble because something had happened on the plane? In any event, none of this changes the opinion of the only real experts in this case ... the pathologists.
This case has experts in a lot of stuff, as above. You are the fool hanging it all on pathology. That's a core weakness in your approach.
Sure it is. Usually they at least have communication with the aircraft and the pilots have told them the problem, especially during a landing. And they also usually have flight and voice data recorders.
Again, ignorance. Radio comms is not continuous. It is discrete. Transmit. Receive. A lot of dead time. Professional radio comms are terse, short, sweet and to the point. It's a pilot thing.
But curiously, despite regulations that VIP like Brown were only supposed to fly on planes equipped with them, this one didn't.
I see, the Air Force is supposed to refuse a transport mission because there is no FDR on a T-43? Come on, get a grip.
Despite the fact that it had also carried Hillary and the Secretary of Defense. Despite the fact that the Croatian government and Air Force initially claimed to have found the recorders.
And initial reports are often wrong, or in error. Did the Croatian's produce the FDR's? We have been through this before. The amount of ignorance among the general public about "black boxes" is astounding. Check out the CT discussion on flight 77 and flight 93 in the 9-11 threads. Oh, wait, you demonstrate it again.
Why don't you post the official explanation, instead. Or didn't they offer one?
Because I am not making an extraordinary claim.
Care to post a map of the site and prove the plane was over mountains when they lost contact with it?
You have yet to post a chart, you have made a claim, you are the author of this entire extraordinary claim about a conspiracy, but you want evidence?
No, it doesn't work that way. Do you have a copy of the approach plate? If you don't, why do you make these claims? Beachnut provides one, and you still rave one. Sad.
You are not very well informed, DR. Starr did investigate Filegate. Problem is, it was a really lousy investigation. Becaue it was a coverup. Like Reno, he basically ignored the whistleblowers. Like Reno, he didn't put any of those who might have committed the crimes under a really hot light. Like Reno he failed to find the real truth of the matter.
Wonderful. Thanks for making my day. Not.
So I'm not slandering anyone. Just stating facts. I can prove Gormley and Dickerson lied.
So, do you have any idea how many people are involved in giving evidence in a typical mishap investigation? Dozens to hundreds, depends on the crash.
But you insist the pathologists are wrong.
You are lying again. I have stated "open question." So, I cannot be stating that the pathologists are wrong about his head.
But you can't prove that Cogswell, Hause, Parsons or Janoski are wrong.
I don't have to. The open question they raise does not answer the regime of flight, and CFIT in IMC. It raises matters of dead bodies.
You can't prove that the pilots actually committed pilot error. So I'm afraid you are slanderer, DR.
Liar. I don't have to prove error, the facts surrounding the mishap speak for themselves. I suggest you get out of the habit of lying, and of lying again. The people who investigated the mishap, unlike you, were not a passle of politically motivated idiots. They were professionals: the pathologists, the structures guys, the pilots, the gound ops people. You accept the pathologist's comments, but because it is beyond your comprehension, you dismiss conveniently what the experienced pilots who reviewed this case arrived at based on the piles of evidence they considered. They arrived at that reasonable conclusion by taking rational investigative methods, right out of the regs (by the way, there are far more regs than the two AFI's you cited, Mister Ignorant) and collected the evidence of events surrounding the mishap.
Given the weather, IMC, the approach attempted, and the fact that it was an unapproved approach into an unfamiliar field, their conclusions are reasonable. Given that in the past decades, since the safety centers have been keeping stats, roughly four out of five mishaps, to include CFIT mishaps, have happened due (at least in part) to pilot error, their conclusion based on incomplete evidence (no survivors is a critical problem, as aircrew evidence is like gold: what did you do, why did you do it? Clears up a lot.) are reasonable. There is no slander in using the inherent perils of aviation to arrive at that conclusion unless there is evidence, sound evidence, that a physical causal factor is what caused the CFIT. With a lot more time on their hands, and more people, than you or Aviation week, they do not seemed to have arrived at the conclusion of a portable beacon being the causal factor (and they get all of the evidence). I find it hard to fathom why you insist on harping on that.
But you are saying they are wrong. You are impuning their professional expertise without facts to prove it.
No impugning here, pal, they signed for the aircraft and it crashed. No material failure found. Ya know what that points to? Pilot error as a factor. Funny, beachnut knew one of those guys. He's a surly old cuss. Why is it, BAC, that he's not sticking his foot as far up my arse as it will go if I am talking trash about his friend? Do you see the problem here? You are quite simply wrong.
He, unlike you, knows the business. You are ignorant, and choose willfully to remain so. CT you be, boy.
Your *friend* Kevin is even calling them right wing shills and politically motivated liars and you compliment him in your post.
Are you confusing me with another poster here? I don't recall complimenting Kevin. Are you confusing me with another poster?
Yes, you do indeed slander the pilots because you ASSUME, as the Air Force investigators did, that they made a mistake
Now we get to amazing. Really amazing. The missed approach into a mountain in the clouds is spelled out for you, in detail, by beachnut's post of pictures, and you still hang onto this nonsense?
When if there is a bullet in Brown head as the REAL experts in this case feared based on hard evidence, the pilots made no mistake.
Yeah. If I was 6' 9" tall, I might have gotten a basketball scholarship. I am not, I didn't.
Those pilots deserve an exhumation and autopsy of Brown's body to clear this matter up once and for all. If they don't get one, then in *my* opinion, that's *disgusting*.
Well, your opinion is sadly out to lunch. On the other hand, if an exhumation was done and a good look at Brown's head would be of benefit to his family, it would also kill of yet another pile of idiocy, namely, this CT. Most likely.
Then again, it might not. See 9-11. The stupid rages on. You are in good company.
No, it's a fact you'd be aware of if you knew half as much about this case as you seem to think you do. And the rest of what you regurgiated in your latest post is only worthy of being ignored.
Sure. After you spam this board with your rubbish, you say someone ought to be ignored?
That's rich.
Welcome to the Land of the Deluded, population you.
DR
