SezMe
post-pre-born
To say nothing of 43's, 41's and Reagan's. Just to stick to recent history.I didn't even get to Obama's follies.
Vince Foster and Ron Brown conspiracies
- Thread starter Undesired Walrus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ron brown vince foster
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I find addressing points what CTers do best. What facts?
No. This is just an assertion.
I don't see any substantive difference and I doubt many if any skeptics or critical thinkers do.
Again, this is just rhetoric.
It's identical which is why you find yourself in CT land (forum).
Have fun.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I just noticed this.
I've been on the opposite side of Kevin on a number of occasions. I consider him a very formidable opponent and in fact it's not really fair labeling him an opponent as I am not his equal. However he has a great deal of patience with me and I've learned an awful lot debating with him.
It's nice to be on the same side from time to time.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Well maybe they are. There has been talk about Obama going after Bush for past crimes. You think he'd stop there? Afterall, there is obviously no love lost between Obama and the Clintons.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
You're free to compile your own list. But let's see if you can defend it. Let's see if it even comes close to the severity of the items in my Clinton's List.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
No, I actually proved that in the three threads I linked. But then you didn't actually read them, did you.
That's just an assertion.
And since you didn't actually read the three threads, I imagine that's why you see no "substantive" difference. No, it's fact, as anyone who actually does read the three threads will see.
No, I've pointed out the specific differences. And basically received silence as a response. That characterization adequately describes yours, too.
You use pure CT web junk sites to promote a LIE.Yeah, yeah, beachnut. We've all heard you claim the pilot was a friend and we've all heard you call me ignorant. We've all heard you call anyone who posts anything that doesn't agree with your version of what happened a liar. And we've all heard you claim you're an expert on crashes. Anyone who wants to see you do that need only go read the first two threads I linked earlier, especially the second where you regurgitate the official story without even telling folks your source (I had to do that). And if they read post #90 of that thread, they'll find my reasoned response to what you claimed ... which I still stand by.
One of my comments was that your source (Flight Safety Digest) was written long before it became known that pathologists at the examination of Brown's body voiced concerns about gunshot and called for an autopsy. It was written before the photo of the wound and the first set of x-rays (presuming there was indeed a second set as claimed by the government) were posted on the internet ... x-rays and photos that showed the pathologist who examined Brown's body, Gormley, lied when he said there was nothing unusual about the x-rays and there was only bone visible in the wound.
Like I asked in that thread, beachnut ... would you mind sharing with us whether when those aspects of the crash came to light, Flight Safety Digest (or whatever your source for what you posted was) told its readers anything about them? If not, why didn't they? It seems to me that allegations by military pathologists of a bullet in the head of a passenger of a military plane would be relevant to a discussion of "flight safety" on CT-43A.
And I'm curious, beachnut. Would you mind telling us why your source claimed that "they found all the passengers except one died of blunt force injuries. One died of thermal inhalation injuries. They found out the cause of death with an autopsy. Autopsy performed by the US Armed Forces Institute of Pathology." You see, that's false. There is one very important passenger whose cause of death was NOT determined by an autopsy ... it turns out on orders from the Whitehouse and JCS, according to the pathologist who did the external "examination" of Ron Brown. And if FSD didn't know that, it can only be because the report they based their article on forget to mention that or because it falsely claimed everyone was autopsied. So which was it, beachnut? How curious that the only person who by law on that flight had to have an autopsy is the one person who did not get one.
And why didn't your source mention that the SIB was skipped? That should have been known to them at the time the article was written. Skipped for the first time in Air Force history (except for a clear cut case where friendly fire was the cause). Why wouldn't they tell their readers that, beachnut? Now when I asked you this, you declared the SIB is the same stuff as the AIB. Then why did the Air Force even bother with SIBs, beachnut? In fact, if our readers go check out post #90 of the second link, they'll find you didn't even know that Part I of the SIB is releasable. Strange ... for someone claiming to be an expert in crash investigations.
My questions for you remains the same as before. If you REALLY were a friend of the pilot of that plane as you claim, one would think you wouldn't be content to let his name and reputation be smeared, when he might not have been responsible. You never did tell us what the family felt about being lied to in the AIB report and in the letter the acting Secretary of the Air Force sent them. Remember that letter and the lies it contained? If they knew there was a chance their loved one didn't make a mistake but was murdered, don't you think they'd like that question resolved ... even now? Isn't it curious that a document the Air Force gave the Brown family members (and your pilot's family, by the way) AND THEIR LAWYERS left out such crucial facts as the concerns of the pathologists that day about a possible bullet wound and the original x-rays of Brown's head? And if you really care about the military like you claim, why would you let the military pathologists and photographer in this case be punished ... just because they asked good questions?
So you go ahead and stick to the official story, beachnut. Keep repeating it all you want. Because each time it serves as a good example of how similar your side's response to this allegation is to that of 911 Twoofers. You obfuscate, distort, ignore, demean, lie and throw out adhominems attacking the intelligence of the other side. All while actually losing the debate. And by the way, I distinctly remember you claiming "I will not talk about Brown any more." Guess you couldn't help yourself.
You dishonor my friend, a fellow pilot by repeating the lies of others freely and without thought or reason.
I did my own investigation, it proves all your stuff is pure biased CRAP! Your only fault is you believe the scum junk ideas you dredged up from pure ignorant source so biased and flawed, you disgrace yourself with the lack of research you have done. I don't care if you pitch this junk forever, it makes your credibility and your biased viewpoints clearly seen, self critiquing. Ron Brown's death was an accident, one cause was the use of an unsafe, illegal approach plate approved by USAF staff who were fired.
Pilots must take the blame, we are trained in all the areas the accident was related to. With presentation of air force wings, comes great responsibility to do things right, alas, we are only human. My fellow pilot could have figured out the approach was unsafe, and pilots vary on how he choose to fly the approach, but in the end, the Aircraft Commander is responsible for the Flight! He takes blame in this case, it is standard for the things that happen, but there was a chain of events and people fired for letting the pilot down by use of an illegal approach plate.
Based on facts of this case I WIN, and I lose. My fellow pilot was good, but many of us along the years may of let him down! The approach plate he used was unsafe, why did we all fail to get him the knowledge along the years. Or did we, and he missed it? Like you missing the facts on Ron Brown's accident, they are there, you use hearsay rant from flawed sources, proven wrong! Why do you lack the knowledge to figure out Ron Brown as you cling to false information and spew it!
Just want to thank you for being so poor a researcher you keep bringing up and accident, solved. But with biased, flawed, and pure internet scum bag derived drivel, you keep calling it a CT to kill Ron Brown, with no real story to offer but lowlife web flawed false facts. Why do you lack the knowledge and let your biases ruin your logic and reason ?
Thanks again for reminding me I failed my friend. No thanks for the vile biased, lack of knowledge reasons you present.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2905050&postcount=72
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2905176&postcount=74
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2905236&postcount=75
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2905322&postcount=77
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2905422&postcount=78
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2905460&postcount=79
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2905463&postcount=80
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2905467&postcount=81
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2906501&postcount=82
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2906655&postcount=83
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2906727&postcount=85
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2906763&postcount=86
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2906873&postcount=87
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2907105&postcount=88
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2907309&postcount=89
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2909266&postcount=93
My personal investigation took place right after accident. Take your stuff to the police and go get your fantasy killers locked up. Hurry, you have wasted a LONG time! So pathetic, you have not gone to the police, how did you let this happen!
Please ignore me, I just post the cause of the accident so rational people can clearly see, you took the internet wasteland false information path to form your lie.
my friend died, why do you propagate lies? you do not know your are doing it? ignore me the links are for rational people, able to think for themselves, without bias or hate clouding their …
Last edited:
maxpower1227
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,998
On that note...
Again, let me remind you, that I am a conservative. I loathe the Clintons. Not that unhinged ultra-partisan loonies like you will believe that.
Allen773
Graduate Poster
No, of course I don't think you work for Rove. Rove would never hire someone with such a lousy style of argumentDo you really think I work for Rove, Allen? Wow, what a CT you must be.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
No.
I've seen the evidence it breaks down fairly quickly. It's not taken seriously by serious and intellectually honest skeptics because the evidence is of such poor quality and of the CT variety.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
Oh, oh, oooh, I can answer this one!
Actually, before Obama can be nominated officially, he's going to be 86ed by black helicopters and Hillary will be forced (forced, I tell you!) to accept the nomination of the party.
Or there will be a mysterious "accident." Or a paper cut will get infected and go septic and before you know it, well...
Or...pick your conspiracy.
The pilot deserves better, he was a great person. The thread has some other points of view from other people. Decoding beachnut can be a chore.
Last edited:
maxpower1227
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,998
BAC should be thanking him, because if it ever COULD be proven that there was a murder and the cause was then investigated, then BAC would have to (to borrow his ridiculous and overused expression) put the cart... after the horse?.. . and finally come up with an even remotely plausible explanation for how the assassination could have taken place.
Oh, I forgot, he already addressed it. A rear hatch was found open, so some James Bond operative could have taken him out and bailed... and "they" knew where the plane would crash, so there could have also been people on the ground ready to finish the job with a .45, instead of, you know, a blunt object.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
It's you who dishonors your "friend". If you REALLY were a friend of the pilot of that plane, you wouldn't be content to let his name and reputation be smeared (as a bad pilot), when expert forensic pathologists indicate a passenger on that plane may have been killed with a bullet. You'd be DEMANDING an exhumation and autopsy. That's what a REAL "friend" would do.
Why is it that you won't tell us how the family of that pilot felt when they learned they were lied to by the AIB report? The AIB report (which according to Air Force documents is supposed to provide families and their lawyers with the facts) didn't even mention the voiced suspicions of the pathologists and photographer during the examination of the body about a bullet wound. It didn't mention their call for an autopsy? Now we can guess why the Clinton administration didn't include that information in the report. But why haven't you told the family this, beachnut? That's true, right? You've never mentioned one word of this to the family of your pilot "friend". Instead you've probably done everything you could to steer them away from such information. Right?
How did the family feel when they learned that the examining pathologist (Gormley) admitted the reasons he gave in that AIB report for calling Brown's death an accident by blunt force trauma are false? Or is the family still in the dark about that as well because you haven't told them? Odd thing for a "friend" to do.
And you didn't tell us how the family felt about being lied to by Mr. Peters, the acting Secretary of the Air Force, in the letter he sent them (and the other families of those who died on the plane). Remember that letter? Peters wrote that "The consensus of Col. (Dr.) William Gormley, who personally examined Secretary Brown, and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology forensic community is that Secretary Brown, like the others tragically killed in the plane crash of an Air Force CT-43 aircraft in Croatia on April 3, 1996, died of injuries sustained during the mishap." Has the pilot's family been told what Colonel Gormley now says about the matter, beachnut? Or are you keeping that to yourself?
Do they know that Gormley says the photo of the wound does indeed show brain matter, excusing his former statements to the contrary in the official report as a "memory lapse"? Remember, the lack of brain matter is the reason he gave for ruling it a death from blunt force trauma. Do they know he's admitted that the hole is a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry (i.e., an autopsy)? Do they know that he changed his story from there being no second set of x-rays to claiming that a first set was just "lost" so that he had to make a second set?
Do they know that he now admits he consulted with other high-ranking pathologists present during the external examination of Ron Brown's body and they agreed that the hole looked like a gunshot wound? So much for the claim of "consensus" at AFIP. Do they know that's an outright lie because ALL the pathologists who were there that day or with real expertise in bullet wounds at AFIP voiced their concern that Brown should have been autopsied because of the nature of the wound and what the x-ray showed? Do they know that Gormley says no autopsy was done because of "discussions" at the highest levels in Commerce, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Whitehouse?
Or are you keeping all these facts secret from the family, too?
Wow! What a "friend" to that pilot you are, beachnut. (sarcasm)
Peters' letter said "Due to the initial appearance of Secretary Brown’s injuries, the medical examiners carefully considered the possibility of a gunshot wound. However, their examinations combined with X-rays ruled out that possibility." Both statements are demonstrable lies ... as you well know. I proved they were in the three threads I linked and I shall repeat some of that evidence in a moment for anyone just tuning into this debate. Peters wrote "The alleged 'bullet fragments' mentioned in the reports were actually caused by a defect in the reusable X-ray film cassettes. Medical examiners took multiple X-rays using multiple cassettes and confirmed this finding." This is also a lie. The military photographer who took the pictures, CPO Janoski, says that could not be true given that only the one photo from that day should the so-called "defect". There are no other photos showing a defect. No specific medical examiners stepped forward to say they did what Peters claimed they did. Peters lied, beachnut. Why did he lie, beachnut? And have you been a good "friend" and informed his family of this lie?
Peters letter also said "the medical examiner determined there was no gunshot wound, and therefore concluded there was no need for further examination. Had there been suspicion regarding the nature of Mr. Brown’s death — or the death of any other person on the aircraft — medical examiners would have pursued permission to perform a full internal examination." This too is a clear lie given that calls for an autopsy were voiced repeatedly during the examination and the reasons given by Gormley for not performing an autopsy have been shown to be totally bogus. Have you informed the pilot's family of these facts, beachnut, or are you still being a good "friend" and helping to keep them from hearing them? Do they know that there was a federal law requiring an autopsy in the death of a Cabinet member where there is suspicion of foul play? Don't you think expert pathologists stating the man needs an autopsy is evidence of such suspicion?
Before ending with his "heartfelt apologies," Peters revealed the true purpose of his letter: "We hope these actions will preclude credible media from pursuing this story." Any comment, beachnut ,or are you going to go on ignoring this in the interests of *protecting* the family of your "friend"? Frankly, I don't think ignoring this is what a REAL "friend" of that pilot and his family would do. It is what a friend of Clinton might do, however. Is that really who your "friend" is, beachnut? Be honest ... for once.
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
As someone who most people here would classify as a conservative on many issues, you are an embarassment, guy.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
In response, I offer readers some of the same material presented to beachnut in the previous threads: various interviews with the pathologists and photographer ... the REAL experts in this case. Let me warn you that occasionally the newsmax site or archive goes down so I've provided cached links where possible as well.
"Experts Differ on Ron Brown's Head Wound" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 3, 1997 http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/03/35938 (or see http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...+Brown's+Head+Wound"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us ).
"Second Expert: Brown's Wound Appeared to be From Gunshot" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 9, 1997 http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/09/34206 (or see http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...d+to+be+From+Gunshot&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us )
"Wecht: Autopsy Needed in Brown Case" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 17, 1997 http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/17/32921 (or see http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...eeded+in+Brown+Case"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us )
"Pathologists Dispute Claims in Brown Probe" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGE TRIBUNE-REVIEW, January 11, 1998 http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/1/11/32000 (or see http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...aims+in+Brown+Probe"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us )
"Fourth Expert Claims Probe of Brown's Death Botched" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, January 13, 1998 http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/1/13/173306 (or see http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...own's+Death+Botched"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us )
"Kathleen Janoski Describes Cover-Up in Ron Brown Investigation" By Carl of Oyster Bay, FOR THE WASHINGTON WEEKLY, April 26, 1998 http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/4/26/01704 (or see http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...+Brown+Investigation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us )
So the question is whether those quotes and facts listed in the above articles by Ruddy and others are factual. Should Ruddy get a Pulitizer prize or scorn?
Well first of all, there were others who interviewed these people. Wesley Phelan interviewed Janoski in an article titled "The Botched Ron Brown Investigation: An Interview with AFIP Forensic Photographer Kathleen Janoski". And nothing in that interview contradicted what Ruddy or Newsmax reported in their articles.
And Judicial Watch interviewed these people. In fact, they legally represented CPO Janoski and Colonel Cogswell in court. The following excerpt is from a document submitted by JW to a court in their lawsuit. This document refers to various "exhibits", including SWORN testimony by the photographer, as well as a TV interview of Colonel Gormley where he was reported in various sources to have changed his story. Unfortunately, as time goes by it gets harder and harder to link to originals of Klayman documents. You all know how that works. The contents of this one, however, can still be seen here: http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/ois/cases/other/ronbrown/rbrown.htm .
Do you really believe those aren't direct quotes from real people? Do you think they are just made up lies? Are you that big a CT? Perhaps you need to listen to audio and video tapes of some of these pathologists and the photographer to convince yourself they are real. Unfortunately, the passage of time has made it increasingly difficult to find such material on the internet. But not all of it is gone.
Here, you can still watch and hear CPO Janoski and Lt. Colonel Cogswell speak on camera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1bpzsxk0Vw . And what they say does not differ in any way from what Ruddy claimed they said. It is you who is lying, beachnut. You who is not credible.
Here, you can watch Christopher Ruddy and Klaymen being interviewed by George Putnam ... just to prove I didn't make up their articles or any of the facts I've presented either: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Etk3Db2FGbU&NR=1 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuceJwHMx2g&feature=related .
You might still be able to order a 60 minute video from Newsmax titled "The Death of Ron Brown" that contained Ruddy's interview with Lt. Colonel Cogswell. Another video they had, titled "Navy Chief Speaks Out" had CPO Janoski talking about the case. Or contact Larry Elder. He interview several of the parties in this, including Dr Cyril Wecht, who he interviewed on TV on December 31, 1997 when he was the guest host of CNBC's Rivera Live!
Who really is the "vile" one here, beachnut? The "friend" who is content with letting the pilot be the fall guy. The "friend" who is still keeping the family of that pilot from learning all the facts.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Shame on you, beachnut. You AGAIN forget to mention that your regurgitation came from www.flightsafety.org/fsd/fsd_jul-aug96.pdf, "July-August 1996, Flight Safety Digest". At least you didn't correct me when I pointed that out in post #90 (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2908967&postcount=90 ) of that thread you've linked. And in post #90, as I noted earlier in this thread, I pointed out that your source article was written BEFORE it became public knowledge that forensic pathologists and an experienced photographer at the examination of Brown's body had voiced concerns about the gunshot like nature of the wound and had called for an autopsy. I've asked you several times now ... did Flight Safety Digest (or whatever your source actually was for what you posted) ever tell its readers anything about that new information? If not, why didn't they? Were they trying to protect the pilot's family too? And his reputation? rolleyes:
Which may be part of your problem? Because then you could not have known about the views of the pathologists and photographer who were at the examination, or what the photo and x-ray of Brown's head show, or what Brown told Clinton shortly before the ill fated trade mission, or a number of other rather important facts that were left out of the official report. (Unless of course you already knew them because you were on the inside of the investigation. An interesting possibility ... )
Me, ignore you? Could you have forgotten already that you're the one who decided to join this thread and post me?
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
But maybe I'm being too rough on beachnut. Can I really blame him for ignorance of the facts when the media promotes misinformation and lies? 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 one 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.
To demonstrate how complete this coverup has been, in 2007 National Geographics did a high profile documentary on TV about the Ron Brown crash. It showed a re-creation of the event. And curiously, a VERY similar documentary was shown about the same time on the Discovery Channel (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0932026/ ). It has almost the same basic content (layout, images and text) as the other but uses a different voice as the voiceover. Both contain a lot of imagery that are actors recreating events ... not actual video from that day. Don't be fooled in to thinking otherwise just because it looks so real.
Here is the National Geographic special:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S227TXZsuis "Flight 21 is Missing Part 1"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1IltgCncvk&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 2"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StCQ2iWt6VU&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 3"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyg6zHEIJxs&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 4"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8wGpcrMOx8&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 5"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pn04ta9QGQ&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 6"
Watch it. You'll see the "official version" that beachnut promotes.
Here are the Discovery Channel video clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKetUidt-kg "Mayday - Fog of War Part 1"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78k7jLnkBM0 "Mayday - Fog of War Part 2"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX5e88s1t9Y "Mayday - Fog of War Part 3"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO7Ef9wrN04 "Mayday - Fog of War Part 4"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5YPL-6wguM&feature=related "Mayday - Fog of War Part 5"
In both cases, you won't see one word about concerns voiced by the military pathologists and photographer at the examination of Brown or since then that the hole in Brown's head and the x-ray image of his head suggested a possible bullet wound and that Brown should have been autopsied. NOT ONE WORD.
You won't seen any mention of what happened to those pathologists and photographer for blowing the whistle about what they saw. About how they were punished and their careers ruined. NOT ONE WORD.
You won't see any mention of the photos of the head and x-ray which do appear to suggest a bullet injury (in the opinion of those expert pathologists). NOT ONE WORD.
You will find the National Geographics version mentions "bizarre rumors" that a decoy beacon could have been used to guide the plane into the mountain. In fact, that will be the only place in either "documentary" where you will see ANY mention of the allegations that there was foul play. And while they mention the notion of a beacon spoofing the plane into the mountain, they don't tell the viewer that a portable beacon went missing from the Dubrovnik airport (a fact that was acknowledged by the military).
Instead, these documentaries make the dismissive claim that a a very large ground system on the mountain would have been needed to make that scenario possible. Such a "scheme" would be "nearly impossible to pull off" is their claim. But they don't mention that the magazine Aviation Week concluded that a portable beacon, like the one that went missing, could indeed have been used to spoof the plane into flying into the mountain. NOT ONE WORD. And you also won't find any reference to the fact that the man responsible for that beacon at the airport just happened to commit suicide (or so the NY Times reported) just days after the crash and before investigators could interview him. NOT ONE WORD.
You'll also notice there is no mention that Ron Brown was under investigation by literally everyone at the end, including a special prosecutor. Or that Bill Clinton cried crocodile tears at his funeral.
While the videos make a big deal about the size and completeness of the AIB final report (a massive volume with over 7000 pages), you won't find any mention that the Air Force skipped (for the first time in Air Force history except one clear case of friendly fire) the phase of the normal crash investigation where the cause of the crash is determined ... the SIB. NOT ONE WORD. Or that the report failed to mention that pathologists said the word "bullet" at the examination and even called for an autopsy because of what they found. NOT ONE WORD. And I've never been able to confirm that the report even contained photos of the wound on Brown's head or of the x-ray of his head. These photos: http://archive.newsmax.com/images/ronbrown/Photo_2.jpg and http://archive.newsmax.com/images/ronbrown/Photo_1.jpg . And they don't mention that the originals of these photos have mysteriously disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP to which only a few top people had access.
You won't find any mention that Ira Sockowitz informed the Secretary of State from the crash scene that TWO people survived the crash. NOT ONE WORD. They just talk about the one admitted survivor, Shelly Kelly, who happened to die on the way to the hospital. You also won't find any mention that Shelly Kelly's body was cremated very quickly at Dover, without the consent of her parents (a clear violation of regulations). NOT ONE WORD.
You will find them claiming that right away they discovered there were no flight data recorders on the plane and they tell the viewer that was standard for military aircraft. What they don't mention is that the Croatian Ministry of Transportation announced shortly after the crash that the black boxes had been found. And that the US Air Force in Germany confirmed that. NOT ONE WORD.
They also don't mention in the documentaries that regulations at the time reportedly required that planes carrying cabinet level officials (like Brown) be equipped with flight data recorders. Or that this exact plane had carried the Secretary of Defense and the First Lady, Hillary, on previous occasions and they too would presumably have been subject to that regulation. Nor does the video mention anyone being punished for violating it.
They "re-create" Ambassador Galbraith waiting at the airport ... waiting for the plane to arrive in what appears to be awful weather. But they don't tell the audience that the final report ruled that weather played no significant role in the crash.
And I noticed something else in these *documentaries*. The last communication they show between the plane and the airport is when the plane is still 12 kilometers from the airport ... almost 8 miles ... just like Ruddy reported and I noted in my posts. So again, I ask the question ... why did they lose communication well before the plane reached the airport? Aviation Week (April 8, 1996 - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/BROWN/h1.gif ) stated they lost both radio and transponder contact at the same time. If that's true then now we must ask what caused a simultaneous loss of 2 communication systems. This issue has never been explained by the Air Force. Ever. It's just been ignored. And you'll notice it's just ignored in these so-called documentaries, too.
And I could go on and on listing incriminating facts they left out. Isn't it amazing that the media can put this much effort into a re-creation (with actors and all that) yet not even mention the facts I just noted? They can't be unaware of those facts ... yet they don't mention ANY of them. It has to be a willful coverup. Especially when they do devote some small portion of the show to dismissing unspecified "rumors". And while they don't mention any of those facts I noted, you will find them blaming beachnut's pilot "friend", bad weather (remember folks, the Air Force report concluded that weather played no significant role in the crash), landing charts and procedures. So really, folks, can we blame beachnut for believing what he believes? After all, the media is keeping people in the dark.
But wait. beachnut should no longer be in the dark. He's been shown repeatedly that the official story has significant holes and omission ... even lies ... in it. He really has no excuse other than his own obstinance. Or willful ignorance. Or his own agenda.
To demonstrate how complete this coverup has been, in 2007 National Geographics did a high profile documentary on TV about the Ron Brown crash. It showed a re-creation of the event. And curiously, a VERY similar documentary was shown about the same time on the Discovery Channel (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0932026/ ). It has almost the same basic content (layout, images and text) as the other but uses a different voice as the voiceover. Both contain a lot of imagery that are actors recreating events ... not actual video from that day. Don't be fooled in to thinking otherwise just because it looks so real.
Here is the National Geographic special:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S227TXZsuis "Flight 21 is Missing Part 1"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1IltgCncvk&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 2"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StCQ2iWt6VU&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 3"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyg6zHEIJxs&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 4"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8wGpcrMOx8&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 5"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pn04ta9QGQ&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 6"
Watch it. You'll see the "official version" that beachnut promotes.
Here are the Discovery Channel video clips:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKetUidt-kg "Mayday - Fog of War Part 1"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78k7jLnkBM0 "Mayday - Fog of War Part 2"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX5e88s1t9Y "Mayday - Fog of War Part 3"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO7Ef9wrN04 "Mayday - Fog of War Part 4"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5YPL-6wguM&feature=related "Mayday - Fog of War Part 5"
In both cases, you won't see one word about concerns voiced by the military pathologists and photographer at the examination of Brown or since then that the hole in Brown's head and the x-ray image of his head suggested a possible bullet wound and that Brown should have been autopsied. NOT ONE WORD.
You won't seen any mention of what happened to those pathologists and photographer for blowing the whistle about what they saw. About how they were punished and their careers ruined. NOT ONE WORD.
You won't see any mention of the photos of the head and x-ray which do appear to suggest a bullet injury (in the opinion of those expert pathologists). NOT ONE WORD.
You will find the National Geographics version mentions "bizarre rumors" that a decoy beacon could have been used to guide the plane into the mountain. In fact, that will be the only place in either "documentary" where you will see ANY mention of the allegations that there was foul play. And while they mention the notion of a beacon spoofing the plane into the mountain, they don't tell the viewer that a portable beacon went missing from the Dubrovnik airport (a fact that was acknowledged by the military).
Instead, these documentaries make the dismissive claim that a a very large ground system on the mountain would have been needed to make that scenario possible. Such a "scheme" would be "nearly impossible to pull off" is their claim. But they don't mention that the magazine Aviation Week concluded that a portable beacon, like the one that went missing, could indeed have been used to spoof the plane into flying into the mountain. NOT ONE WORD. And you also won't find any reference to the fact that the man responsible for that beacon at the airport just happened to commit suicide (or so the NY Times reported) just days after the crash and before investigators could interview him. NOT ONE WORD.
You'll also notice there is no mention that Ron Brown was under investigation by literally everyone at the end, including a special prosecutor. Or that Bill Clinton cried crocodile tears at his funeral.
While the videos make a big deal about the size and completeness of the AIB final report (a massive volume with over 7000 pages), you won't find any mention that the Air Force skipped (for the first time in Air Force history except one clear case of friendly fire) the phase of the normal crash investigation where the cause of the crash is determined ... the SIB. NOT ONE WORD. Or that the report failed to mention that pathologists said the word "bullet" at the examination and even called for an autopsy because of what they found. NOT ONE WORD. And I've never been able to confirm that the report even contained photos of the wound on Brown's head or of the x-ray of his head. These photos: http://archive.newsmax.com/images/ronbrown/Photo_2.jpg and http://archive.newsmax.com/images/ronbrown/Photo_1.jpg . And they don't mention that the originals of these photos have mysteriously disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP to which only a few top people had access.
You won't find any mention that Ira Sockowitz informed the Secretary of State from the crash scene that TWO people survived the crash. NOT ONE WORD. They just talk about the one admitted survivor, Shelly Kelly, who happened to die on the way to the hospital. You also won't find any mention that Shelly Kelly's body was cremated very quickly at Dover, without the consent of her parents (a clear violation of regulations). NOT ONE WORD.
You will find them claiming that right away they discovered there were no flight data recorders on the plane and they tell the viewer that was standard for military aircraft. What they don't mention is that the Croatian Ministry of Transportation announced shortly after the crash that the black boxes had been found. And that the US Air Force in Germany confirmed that. NOT ONE WORD.
They also don't mention in the documentaries that regulations at the time reportedly required that planes carrying cabinet level officials (like Brown) be equipped with flight data recorders. Or that this exact plane had carried the Secretary of Defense and the First Lady, Hillary, on previous occasions and they too would presumably have been subject to that regulation. Nor does the video mention anyone being punished for violating it.
They "re-create" Ambassador Galbraith waiting at the airport ... waiting for the plane to arrive in what appears to be awful weather. But they don't tell the audience that the final report ruled that weather played no significant role in the crash.
And I noticed something else in these *documentaries*. The last communication they show between the plane and the airport is when the plane is still 12 kilometers from the airport ... almost 8 miles ... just like Ruddy reported and I noted in my posts. So again, I ask the question ... why did they lose communication well before the plane reached the airport? Aviation Week (April 8, 1996 - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/BROWN/h1.gif ) stated they lost both radio and transponder contact at the same time. If that's true then now we must ask what caused a simultaneous loss of 2 communication systems. This issue has never been explained by the Air Force. Ever. It's just been ignored. And you'll notice it's just ignored in these so-called documentaries, too.
And I could go on and on listing incriminating facts they left out. Isn't it amazing that the media can put this much effort into a re-creation (with actors and all that) yet not even mention the facts I just noted? They can't be unaware of those facts ... yet they don't mention ANY of them. It has to be a willful coverup. Especially when they do devote some small portion of the show to dismissing unspecified "rumors". And while they don't mention any of those facts I noted, you will find them blaming beachnut's pilot "friend", bad weather (remember folks, the Air Force report concluded that weather played no significant role in the crash), landing charts and procedures. So really, folks, can we blame beachnut for believing what he believes? After all, the media is keeping people in the dark.
But wait. beachnut should no longer be in the dark. He's been shown repeatedly that the official story has significant holes and omission ... even lies ... in it. He really has no excuse other than his own obstinance. Or willful ignorance. Or his own agenda.