maxpower1227
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,998
You owe me a new irony meter.
Vince Foster and Ron Brown conspiracies
- Thread starter Undesired Walrus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ron brown vince foster
You owe me a new irony meter.
And didn"t snope.com debunk these claims about Vince Foster and Ron Brown? And if there was something in Ron Brown"s case people like Louis Farrakhan or any other black leader would not be silence until Bill Clinton is put in jail. There is no proof that Bill or Hillary Clinton had anything to do with the deaths of Vince Foster and Ron Brown. If you have any real evidence then please take them to the police and ask the police to arrest Bill and Hillary Clinton.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Everybody?
Just like they know weather was the reason Brown died?
Sure, let's look at your assertion regarding Foster. After all, as Ambrose Evans Prictchard noted:
Now on to the topic of depression:
1) Fiske (you know who that is, don't you, moon?) claimed that Foster's weight loss was "obvious to many". But Foster's medical records are consistent with Foster losing no weight, based on his weight just before starting his White House job and his weight when he died. They indicate he weighed 207 pounds in August of 1990. On December 31, 1992, at a physical the month before he went to Washington, he weighed 194 pounds, and according to his doctor's notes was on a diet and exercising. Foster's autopsy weight was 197 pounds. So in fact, the records show that foster gained about 3 pounds from the start of employment to his death. Fiske lied.
2) Fiske claimed the Foster family doctor prescribed an "anti-depressant" the day before the death. The doctor, however, told the FBI that he did not think Foster was significantly depressed and that the prescription was merely to help Foster sleep better. The amount of the drug he proscribed was about one-fifth the initial average daily dosage to treat depression which supports the doctor's explanation. Fiske lied.
3) The FBI and Foster claimed that Lisa Foster said her husband was "fighting depression." But the handwritten FBI interview notes from May 9, 1994 show that she told the investigators he was "fighting" a "prescription" for sleeping pills dispensed several months earlier for this same insomnia. According to Lisa, he was concerned the sleeping pills could be addictive. But the typed FD-302 report of the interview states in the equivalent location that Foster had been "fighting depression." In other words, the FBI altered the interview report to enhance Fiske's claim that Foster was depressed. Don't believe me? Look at this: http://www.swlink.net/~hoboh/foster...or_Depression/prescription_for_depression.htm
4) Fiske and the administration claimed that Foster's family and friends noted Foster's depression. Not true. During the first few days after his death, before the claims of depression were made by the government, when those people were interviewed, NONE of them mentioned any signs of depression, and they were all stunned by his suicide. The Park Police conducted a 70 minute interview of the family and friends who gathered at his house the night he was found dead. If Foster had been as severely depressed in the weeks before he died as the government claimed, those interviewed that night should have described symptoms of clinical depression. They did not. Here are some quotes from the Senate depositions and testimony about the interviews:
The Senate staff attorney asked the investigator this:
In short, Fiske again LIED.
5) Three secretaries in the White House Office of Legal Counsel told the Park Police two days after the death (according to Park Police notes). Here are the notes for the three secretaries: "There was nothing unusual about his emotional state. In fact, over the last several weeks she did not notice any changes, either physically or emotionally. She noticed no weight loss." "Mr. Foster's demeanor seemed normal to her." "She stated that she did not note any unusual behavior by Mr. Foster on [the day he died]". That last was Foster's personal secretary. This just doesn't match your theory, moon.
6) Lab work done as a part of the autopsy of Foster immediately after his death included specific tests for the presence of antidepressants. The tests all came up completely negative. Dr. Anh Hyunh, who did the blood toxicology, stated in the official report that no Trazodone (an antidepressant) or Valium-derivatives were found in Foster's blood. It was not until a re-test of the blood months later by the FBI Lab that the presence of both Trazodone and Valium was reported - just before Fiske issued his June 30, 1994 report claiming Foster was clinically depressed. Isn't it obvious they lied to help confirm Fiske's claim? And we now know, thanks to the testimony of Dr. Frederic Whitehurst who worked at FBI labs during this time, that the FBI Labs were routinely tampering with evidence. Whitehurst, who ended up suing the FBI as a whistleblower regarding tampering, received a substantial cash settlement from the FBI, suggesting his allegations had merit. Looks like Fiske and the FBI LIED.
7) The first known official claim that Foster had been taking anti-depressant medication, came from Lisa Foster nine days after the death. She told the Park Police that Foster had taken Trazodone [Desyrel] the night before he died. When asked how she knew this, the notes say "LF [Lisa Foster] told VF [Vince Foster] to take one and she also saw him take it." But the night of the death, when asked by the Park Police if her husband had been taking any medication, specifically any anti-depressant medication, she said NO. One wonders given the history of the Clinton administration at witness intimidation, what sort of *encouragement* Lisa was subjected to in order to get her to change her story? Maybe the experience of Patrick Knowlton is a clue? Or Juanita Broaddrick? Or Paula Jones?
8) The change in Lisa's story occurred in a session with Park Police in her attorney's office, three days after the discovery of the torn note (which I've already shown is highly suspicious in and of itself) and two days after she and her attorney attended a meeting at the White House to discuss the then still-secret torn note. Also suspicious is what the deposition of the officer who conducted the *interview* reveals "You know, we didn't have to question her a whole lot." He says the widow gave more of a verbal statement than an interview. The officer thought "she had gone over it with her lawyer so many times she had it down pat. . . I don't think we ever asked her a direct question." And note that investigators did not interview any of Foster children because the attorney "would not make them accessible to us." Don't you agree that's a little suspicious, moon?
9) And what about this attorney of Lisa's ... James Hamilton? Do you know that he made a point, during the Lisa Foster's FBI interview, to remind everyone that photos of the suicide note were not to be allowed out, even in response to a Freedom of Information Act Request. Now how could he make such a demand? Where did his authority really come from? Well let me give you a clue. Hamilton was general counsel of the Clinton transition team and the author of a memo to Clinton counseling stonewalling in the Whitewater case. And Hamilton is the lawyer that helped keep the Foster photos under lock and key recently ... the photos that might tell us whether Foster was murdered.
10) Another example of a sudden change in witness testimony from "no depression" to "depression" came from Beryl Anthony, who was married to Foster's sister, Sheila, the Assistant Attorney General in Clinton Administration. Beryl was a former Democrat Congressman from (you guessed) Arkansas and a former President of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In an interview on July 22, when asked if Foster had been depressed during the two weeks prior to death, Beryl is quoted saying: "There is not a damn thing to it. That's a bunch of crap." But suddenly on July 27, the night the torn note was given to Park Police, his story changed. He told the Park Police (according to the interview report) "that he and his wife had noticed a gradual decline in Mr. Foster's general disposition to the point of depression." And he claimed that his wife had given Mr Foster a list of three counselors, psychiatrists or other doctors who do counseling. And guess who else was at that White House meeting to discuss the torn note that Lisa attended? Sheila Anthony. Are you getting the least bit suspicious yet, moon?
If not, there are plenty of reasons to be suspicious:
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/foster.html
But let's continue with your depression assertion:
11) Four days before Foster died, Sheila called a psychiatrist, who later told the FBI that she said Vince Foster was working on "Top Secret" issues at the White House and "that his depression was directly related to highly sensitive and confidential matters". Could this be evidence of premeditation, moon? I think so, because (as I showed) NOONE else at the time seems to have thought Foster depressed.
12) Christopher Ruddy (who I've shown was truthful in the Ron Brown case) wrote a book, The Strange Death of Vince Foster. In it he describes the frustrations of Starr’s lead investigator, Miquel Rodriguez. Before resigning (saying his obstruction was obstructed by the OIC itself), Ruddy says Rodriguez “entertained the possibility that the phone calls (to the psychiatrist) were made by someone other than Foster to create a record that would bolster a finding of suicide.” Writes Ruddy: “He and others in Starr’s office noted that the phone numbers jotted on the note (BAC - found in Foster's wallet at the scene of the crime) did not appear to match the way Foster wrote his numbers.” And note that Rodriquez says Mark Tuohey, head of the OIC in Washington, warned him he was not to challenge the findings of the Fiske Report. In other words, he was not to challenge the suicide verdict.
So you see, not "everybody" agrees with your depression theory nor does it fit the majority of the facts. But nice try.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Clinton did a lot of horrible things to his "friends", moon. And this is the same "plausibility" argument you folks made in the Brown case. The fact is that plenty of reasons have been offered as to why Vince Foster had to be killed. If you have to ask, you haven't been paying attention. But let's not get the cart before the horse.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
I don't feel like addressing whatever they said about Foster at this time. I'll let you offer up the details if you think it has any merit. But what I will do is show that snopes is completely wrong in what they say about the Ron Brown case.
Here's what snopes says:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp
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 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 medium the second survivor. They did mention that Sergeant Kelly had "survived" the crash and later died.
This is a complete and utter lie. Every single pathologist in the case and every single pathologist who has looked at the x-rays 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 to 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
That's just a red herring to avoid actually addressing the facts. If you aren't at JREF to search for truth by debating with facts, you're here for the wrong reasons and wasting everyone's time.
maxpower1227
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,998
BAC: You claim that you don't believe in the "Clinton Body Count". Why not?
Also, have you taken a look at the long, passionate, seemingly fact-based conspiracy theories regarding 9/11? Do you believe them? If not, why not?
Also, have you taken a look at the long, passionate, seemingly fact-based conspiracy theories regarding 9/11? Do you believe them? If not, why not?
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
IF we get around to doing the right thing ... that is, exhuming Brown's body for an independent autopsy and releasing the photos of Foster so we can see if the injuries match those claimed by the government ... and one or the other proves a murder ... then it might be a good idea to look a little farther afield. But for now, the Clinton Body Count is a distraction that people like you dishonestly use to try and keep the public from discovering the truth in the Ron Brown and Vince Foster deaths. And I've said that for a long, long time.
Why don't you go take a look? I posted a lot on that subject when I first joined JREF. It's all in the archives.
Guess which side I was on? The RATIONAL ONE. Just like now.
maxpower1227
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,998
So WHY do you not believe in those? What do you find lacking in the evidence? The Truthers present a LOT of what they consider solid evidence.
And why do you think the Clinton Body Count is a distraction? If they are truly bloodthirsty, cold-blooded murderers who will hatch elaborate schemes to off people close to them, why stop at Brown and Foster? Why are the other accusations suspect?
And why do you think the Clinton Body Count is a distraction? If they are truly bloodthirsty, cold-blooded murderers who will hatch elaborate schemes to off people close to them, why stop at Brown and Foster? Why are the other accusations suspect?
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
I told you. Do a search in the archive. You will find my posts and see what I believe and why. I'm not going into that here. It's off topic.
I think you answered your own question.
Why don't you instead comment on my observation about the content of the National Geographics and Discovery Channel documentaries on the Ron Brown crash.
yodaluver28
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2006
- Messages
- 569
What about the documentaries? National Geographic, Discovery, History Channel, etc. frequently produce programs that cover the same topics in very similar fashion, with almost all of those that are based on true events in which there was no live video coverage using dramatic recreations. One would have to be a complete fool to mistake these recreations as live video of the events in question. They are explicitly labeled as recreations and generally shot in a way far more similar to a fictional show than news video. This is not something suspicious that you'll only find in these two programs about this one subject.
Watch The History Channel's documentary on Jonestown and then NatGeo's and they're virtually identical except the narrator and actors in the recreations are different. Alot of the real survivors are the same ones telling the same story in the same way. The script and order in which the event is presented are strikingly similar. And, so what?
The fact that the two programs are so similar doesn't indicate a conspiracy, quite the opposite. The fact that two programs, produced by two separate groups/channels, tell such a similar story is because it's the story with the most evidence behind it, just like the Jonestown massacre. There are conspiracy theories about that too but none of them stand up to much scrutiny so they are rarely given much attention and rightly so.
Seriously, what's more likely:
1) That Bill Clinton, a man who couldn't get a blow job in his own office without getting busted, had people murdered in such ridiculously obvious ways and despite the fact that every journalist foams at the mouth at the very thought of being the guy who can take down a presidency, only a few notoriously biased people like Chris Ruddy actually figure it out?
or
2) That Chris Ruddy, Scaife, and all the other people who spent years and millions upon millions of dollars seeking the scandal that would bring down the Clinton White House and when they failed to find it, created their own bogus ones, are funding websites to continue perpetuating scandals against the man they despise in hopes of using those accusations for furthur political gain?
Arguments in favor of a murder/coverup in Brown's death sound strikingly similar to the arguments trotted out by the 9/11 CTs:
1) The belief that their experts are the only real experts and refuse to even listen to the evidence given by any others, even if those are far more qualified.
2) The heavy reliance on articles and blogs from sources that not legitimate news sources with strict editorial standards. Newsmax and Judicial Watch are both websites with strong political agendas that have both recently had to apoligize for serious factual errors in their reporting of several different stories. Both receive significant funding from people who paid for the creation and propogation of several bogus scandals involving the Clintons.
3) The belief that coincidences and your own personal assumptions/opinions about motive are actual evidence of anything. They are not. Someone asked what we thought about Bill Clinton's "crocodile tears" at Brown's funeral. I don't know whether Clinton faked some tears at Ron Brown's funeral or not and I don't really care either. If he did, it doesn't mean or prove anything. It could simply mean that a former employee died and with a great deal of media coverage, he felt it was appropriate to seem sadder than he truly was. That doesn't mean he had the man killed. That's assinine. Politics is a slimy business and appearances matter.
4) The belief that the Clintons are evil because you say so, therefore they're guilty of whatever you want them to be guilty of. This is no different than the truther who says "Bush is evil because I said so and that enough is proof that 9/11 was an inside job and everything else he ever did was evil too". I don't care what side of the political fence you're on, neither man is evil nor is everything either one of them ever done either evil or perfect. They are both deeply flawed men who've done some good and made some huge mistakes.
Watch The History Channel's documentary on Jonestown and then NatGeo's and they're virtually identical except the narrator and actors in the recreations are different. Alot of the real survivors are the same ones telling the same story in the same way. The script and order in which the event is presented are strikingly similar. And, so what?
The fact that the two programs are so similar doesn't indicate a conspiracy, quite the opposite. The fact that two programs, produced by two separate groups/channels, tell such a similar story is because it's the story with the most evidence behind it, just like the Jonestown massacre. There are conspiracy theories about that too but none of them stand up to much scrutiny so they are rarely given much attention and rightly so.
Seriously, what's more likely:
1) That Bill Clinton, a man who couldn't get a blow job in his own office without getting busted, had people murdered in such ridiculously obvious ways and despite the fact that every journalist foams at the mouth at the very thought of being the guy who can take down a presidency, only a few notoriously biased people like Chris Ruddy actually figure it out?
or
2) That Chris Ruddy, Scaife, and all the other people who spent years and millions upon millions of dollars seeking the scandal that would bring down the Clinton White House and when they failed to find it, created their own bogus ones, are funding websites to continue perpetuating scandals against the man they despise in hopes of using those accusations for furthur political gain?
Arguments in favor of a murder/coverup in Brown's death sound strikingly similar to the arguments trotted out by the 9/11 CTs:
1) The belief that their experts are the only real experts and refuse to even listen to the evidence given by any others, even if those are far more qualified.
2) The heavy reliance on articles and blogs from sources that not legitimate news sources with strict editorial standards. Newsmax and Judicial Watch are both websites with strong political agendas that have both recently had to apoligize for serious factual errors in their reporting of several different stories. Both receive significant funding from people who paid for the creation and propogation of several bogus scandals involving the Clintons.
3) The belief that coincidences and your own personal assumptions/opinions about motive are actual evidence of anything. They are not. Someone asked what we thought about Bill Clinton's "crocodile tears" at Brown's funeral. I don't know whether Clinton faked some tears at Ron Brown's funeral or not and I don't really care either. If he did, it doesn't mean or prove anything. It could simply mean that a former employee died and with a great deal of media coverage, he felt it was appropriate to seem sadder than he truly was. That doesn't mean he had the man killed. That's assinine. Politics is a slimy business and appearances matter.
4) The belief that the Clintons are evil because you say so, therefore they're guilty of whatever you want them to be guilty of. This is no different than the truther who says "Bush is evil because I said so and that enough is proof that 9/11 was an inside job and everything else he ever did was evil too". I don't care what side of the political fence you're on, neither man is evil nor is everything either one of them ever done either evil or perfect. They are both deeply flawed men who've done some good and made some huge mistakes.
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
Exactly. Done here, I'm off to spank it to a picture of Chelsea.
Really?
Well, to each his own.
Don’t think you are going to make any headway with BaC. I’ve read some of his stuff, responded slightly, saw much better takedowns from other posters, saw BaC not change course in the slightest.
On the Foster and Brown things, his mind is hopelessly caught in confirmation bias. He decided at some point that that the “official stories” were wrong, and nothing anyone can say to him will change his mind.
It’s the same trap that all conspiracy theorists fall into. Take an event, look at it through ever more detailed levels of complexity, and when you see or hear something that doesn’t make sense, decide there is a conspiracy.
It’s a nasty logic trap to fall into since any evidence that shows the “official story” is true can be dismissed as being parts of the conspiracy. Anything that can’t be readily explained becomes evidence of the conspiracy, even if there are explanations.
If you take any incident at all and look hard enough, you can find “evidence” of a conspiracy. Talk to a hundred people about anything two or three times each, compare their answers, and you will find any number of contradictions and false statements. Add in people misinterpreting information and repeating it over and over again and any major event can be made to look like a conspiracy. You just need to follow some simple rules.
Rule One- Any piece of data that is not readily explainable is evidence of a conspiracy. A shoe is missing? Conspiracy. A door is open? Conspiracy. No one remembers seeing blood on OJs hands on the flight? Conspiracy. How do any of these things tie in to the conspiracy theory? It doesn’t matter, just that they are “unexplained”.
Rule Two- Data that supports the existence of a conspiracy is always reliable regardless of source. Third hand repetition of an out of context quote? Dentist talking about blood-spatter analysis? Blog comment from someone named govhaxxor76? Solid gold.
Rule Three- Never question your own data. If you start finding explanations for things, you will reduce the amount of evidence of conspiracy.
Rule Four- Use Rules One through Three to create as many individual bits of data as possible. Quality is not important, and it doesn’t matter if they conflict, you are looking for sheer quantity. You want to have as many bits of data as possible at your fingertips when you go forward onto forums and stuff. When one of your bits of data is explained, you want to be able to hit back with two more. When those two are explained hit them with three more. As they start trying to explain the first of those three, hit them with another two. Your eventual goal (whether you know it or not) is to fill the rhetorical space with an avalanche of data, effectively denying your opponent a chance to respond to them all. Then you can declare your questions are “unanswered”.
Rule Five- Any data that supports the “official story” can be ignored. There is a conspiracy don’t ya know?
Rule Six- Always ask questions, never give answers. You want to put the burden of explanation on the other person as much as possible. Plus, putting out your theory as to what actually happened puts it at risk of being shot down. Asking “Why wasn’t there an autopsy?” is much better than trying to answer the question, “Was Ron Brown shot before, during, or after the flight?”.
As far as BaC goes, he’s stuck. Maybe something will come along to knock him out of the rut he finds himself in, but I doubt it. He will continue to peer at his reflection in the mirror in the mistaken belief that if he looks hard enough, he can see past the wall on the other side.
On the Foster and Brown things, his mind is hopelessly caught in confirmation bias. He decided at some point that that the “official stories” were wrong, and nothing anyone can say to him will change his mind.
It’s the same trap that all conspiracy theorists fall into. Take an event, look at it through ever more detailed levels of complexity, and when you see or hear something that doesn’t make sense, decide there is a conspiracy.
It’s a nasty logic trap to fall into since any evidence that shows the “official story” is true can be dismissed as being parts of the conspiracy. Anything that can’t be readily explained becomes evidence of the conspiracy, even if there are explanations.
If you take any incident at all and look hard enough, you can find “evidence” of a conspiracy. Talk to a hundred people about anything two or three times each, compare their answers, and you will find any number of contradictions and false statements. Add in people misinterpreting information and repeating it over and over again and any major event can be made to look like a conspiracy. You just need to follow some simple rules.
Rule One- Any piece of data that is not readily explainable is evidence of a conspiracy. A shoe is missing? Conspiracy. A door is open? Conspiracy. No one remembers seeing blood on OJs hands on the flight? Conspiracy. How do any of these things tie in to the conspiracy theory? It doesn’t matter, just that they are “unexplained”.
Rule Two- Data that supports the existence of a conspiracy is always reliable regardless of source. Third hand repetition of an out of context quote? Dentist talking about blood-spatter analysis? Blog comment from someone named govhaxxor76? Solid gold.
Rule Three- Never question your own data. If you start finding explanations for things, you will reduce the amount of evidence of conspiracy.
Rule Four- Use Rules One through Three to create as many individual bits of data as possible. Quality is not important, and it doesn’t matter if they conflict, you are looking for sheer quantity. You want to have as many bits of data as possible at your fingertips when you go forward onto forums and stuff. When one of your bits of data is explained, you want to be able to hit back with two more. When those two are explained hit them with three more. As they start trying to explain the first of those three, hit them with another two. Your eventual goal (whether you know it or not) is to fill the rhetorical space with an avalanche of data, effectively denying your opponent a chance to respond to them all. Then you can declare your questions are “unanswered”.
Rule Five- Any data that supports the “official story” can be ignored. There is a conspiracy don’t ya know?
Rule Six- Always ask questions, never give answers. You want to put the burden of explanation on the other person as much as possible. Plus, putting out your theory as to what actually happened puts it at risk of being shot down. Asking “Why wasn’t there an autopsy?” is much better than trying to answer the question, “Was Ron Brown shot before, during, or after the flight?”.
As far as BaC goes, he’s stuck. Maybe something will come along to knock him out of the rut he finds himself in, but I doubt it. He will continue to peer at his reflection in the mirror in the mistaken belief that if he looks hard enough, he can see past the wall on the other side.
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2006
- Messages
- 10,017
Do you honestly think the authorities don't know all the facts I've noted? That should give you some cause for concern. But maybe your party affiliation is getting in the way.
So what you're saying is, that in the case of Ron Brown, not one single prosecutor in the United States over the past 12 years has been willing to prosecute this case. Why?
There are tens of thousands of public prosecutors in the U.S., democrats, republicans, independents, libertarians, why won't anyone take this on if the evidence is as clear as you say?
What about the victim's families?
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
The fact the NG and DC *documentaries* are almost identical (except for the names of the actors) or that they did re-creations was the least of my concerns. So why do you focus on that instead of addressing the facts they left out of the documentaries? Did you actually look at the video clips I offered from both videos before commenting? Yes or no?
I see you, like the rest, don't actually want to deal with the facts. Like, for instance, why would neither documentary mention the accusations of the pathologists and photographer and what the photos of the x-rays show? Care to answer that question instead of ignoring it?
Since you raise the subject, let's talk about that. Do you know that prior to the photographer and pathologists going public with their concerns in the Brown case, Starr had stated he was close to shutting down his investigation? It was only after the Brown matter started getting some attention in the media and, more important, the black community (with calls from black leaders like Jessie Jackson for an investigation) that Monica and her dress surfaced. The minute she did, with her lurid tails of sex in the oval office, the Brown allegations where shoved to the back page or forgotten entirely. Sex beats murder any day in the public eye. How do you know that Starr didn't deliberately *discover* Monica and her dress? That he wasn't himself corrupt?
A case can be made that Starr was dirty ... that he was actually working for the Clintons all along. Do you know that he was the number 2 person on the list of candidates offered by the Clintons as independent counsels? Fiske was #1 and we know how corrupt his investigation was in the Foster matter. When Starr took over the Foster case, he too demonstrated who he was really working for ... the Clintons. Because he rubber stamped Fiske's obviously bogus conclusions without any real investigation (and I can list dozens of facts to support that assertion). Even Miquel Rodriguez, Starr's lead investigator in the Foster matter, resigned in disgust saying that Starr's investigation was a utter sham. In the Filegate matter, Starr told the public that the illegally obtained FBI files had all been returned to the FBI. But years later when Ray took over from Starr, Ray told an interviewer on TV that the FBI files were still in the Whitehouse. In other words, Starr clearly lied to us. And he flubbed everything he touched ... even the Monica matter. So how do you know we didn't learn about Monica because Clinton wanted us to ... because sex trumps murder and the Clintons knew it? By the way, Starr ignored the Ron Brown accusations completely. Any surprise there?
You haven't proven that the scenario I've offered is ridiculous or obvious. To do that you actually have to deal with the offered facts and clearly are afraid to do that.
My challenge stands. Prove that ANYTHING in the articles that Ruddy wrote on this matter are false. Attack the message, not the messenger ... if you think you can.
By the way, your claim that Ruddy was "notoriously biased" rings a little hollow when I can demonstrate that even NG and DC covered up highly incriminating facts. When I can show in a dozen other scandals involving the Clintons (from Brown and Vince Foster to Chinagate, Rapegate and Filegate) that the mainstream media (ABC, CBS, PBS, NBC, the NY Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, etc) did NOT report even a fraction of facts, bias is the last argument you want to be making.
You haven't proven that ANY of the fact I've listed in the Ron Brown and Foster cases are false. Not a one. Why is that?
What you really are saying is that CPO Janoski, Lt. Colonel Cosgwell, Lt. Colonel Hause , Major Parsons, Cyril Wecht, and Dr. Martin Fackler are liars or unqualified to make the assertions they have made. Care to prove it? Or are you going to go on hiding?
Here's a challenge. Name ONE forensic pathologist or just someone with expertise in gunshot who says what the experts I listed above say is wrong. Be forewarned. If you name Dickerson, head of AFIP at the time, I will prove that he lied about the facts in the case and the views of his staff (as I've done in previous threads). If you name Gormley, I will prove that he admits he was wrong about the reasons for concluding it was a death by blunt force trauma and that he now agrees with the experts I named above. Outside of those two, I don't think you can even come up with one other name. I dare you. You see, the truth is that only I have any real experts in this instance. You have NOTHING.
I've already demonstrated above that what those articles by Ruddy and a few others say about the views and statements of the pathologists and the physical evidence such as the photos and x-rays is backed up by every available source. You have offered NOTHING to contradict those facts. NOT A SINGLE THING. I even provided a link to a video clip of Cogswell and Janoski making their accusations and pointed you to more complete audio and video of interviews they made. Are you just lazy? Stuck on stupid? Or are you a toe-tag Clintonista?
Again, I challenge you to show that ANYTHING in the articles on Brown or in the court document submitted by Judicial Watch that I linked above is false. You can't do it, can you?
You'd have to be literally blind (but then many Democrats are) not to see that Clinton faked tears in this video where he instantly goes from smiling and laughing to tears ... just after he sees the camera:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnQ0g4BhHss
That's the real truth. You don't care. You don't care if Clinton is a murderer, a rapist, a blackmailer, a traitor, a liar, a perjurer. You don't care. And our readers should ask themselves why that is before deciding if anything you have to say here has any merit.
True. But I didn't make that claim, did I. Nice strawman.
What I want you (and the others) to do is argue the evidence I did offer:
- the statements of forensic pathologists and a photographer who were all experts in gunshot wounds and airplane crashes.
- the photos of the wound and the x-rays of the head.
- the lies that the head of AFIP and the examining pathologist made ... and the change in story of the examining pathologist when confronted with the photos of the wound and x-rays.
- the fact that Reno claimed the DOJ investigated the allegations of the pathologists when they didn't even interview them.
- the harassment, threats and punishment given the photographer and some of the pathologists, instead of actually investigating the matter.
- the fact that this was the first instance in US Air Force history (outside one clearcut case of friendly fire) where the phase of the normal crash investigation where the cause is determined was skipped.
- the fact that the government hasn't explained what happened on that plane when it was still 7-8 miles from the crash site to cause it to lose communication with the AWACS and airports in the area.
- the fact that Aviation week contradicted National Geographics by stating that a portable beacon that went missing could have been used to spoof the plane into the mountain.
- the fact that the Croatian responsible for the beacons at the Dubrovnik airport, Niko Junic, died just a couple days after the crash before he could be interviewed ... in what would have been a very curious suicide (shotgun to the chest).
- the fact that the suggestion the Air Force search the Adriatic first came from people tied to Clinton in Croatia who also were the ones who happened to discover the body of the Croatian responsible for the beacons.
- the fact that the families of the victims were lied to by the government (and "friends") on multiple occasions.
- the fact that Brown was under investigation for literally dozens of very serious crimes and his troubles were only increasing.
- the fact that there is sworn testimony that Brown was told to be on the plane after a meeting where he reportedly told Clinton he was going to turn state's evidence in Chinagate and the Campaign Finance illegalities.
- the fact that the mainstream media didn't report any of the above.
Have any linked sources that actually contradict those facts? Hmmmmm?
False. I've never said or implied they are evil because *I* say so. I've offered fact after fact in scandal after scandal to prove beyond a shadow of doubt to any reasonably unbiased person that the Clintons were involved in a wide variety of criminal activities. That's all. The result is always the same. Your side doesn't offer ANYTHING that actually contradicts the facts I've provided. Instead, your side consistently just throws out strawmen and red herrings, or attacks the messengers, obfuscates, distorts, ignores, and on some occasions even lies in order to defend the Clintons and their associates. And this thread is just another example of that behavior. Thanks for participating.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Random, the reason I haven't changed course is that your side hasn't successfully disputed a single fact or the logic I've offered in either the Brown or Foster cases. Just like on this thread. In fact, over time my argument has only gotten stronger and yours has gotten weaker. Do you realize how badly you embarrass yourself in threads like this. You lose considerable credibility.
Facts could change my mind. But you haven't offered any, Random. You and your friends haven't even attempted to explain the list of items I just gave yodaluver28. Or any of the other facts I've detailed in this and the other threads. You've ignored them because that's all you can do. So instead you insist I tell you exactly how the murder was committed. Or why Clinton would kill his good friend. And we had another "friend" on this thread. So wonderful a "friend" that he is willing to let his "friend", the pilot, take the rap for the death of 30+ people. So good a "friend" that he clearly hasn't told the family they were lied to in the Peters letter or about what the pathologists in the case STILL say.
No, random, the real trap is not dealing with the facts ... like you.
Go ahead, Random. Name ONE forensic pathologist who has come forward to dispute what the half dozen or so I named say. The ball is in your court.
Obfuscation by you to avoid actually discussing the facts I listed. Pick an item, Random. Just try to debate it. Don't be chicken.
Go ahead, Random. Try and argue that the pathologists and photographer didn't say what I've reported or that they aren't experts. Don't be chicken.
To question my own data, I need a reason to question it, Random. Go ahead. Pick out some data and try to argue it's wrong. Don't be chicken.
Go ahead, Random. Show us where the various facts I've noted conflict. Show us that the information isn't reliable. But be specific. Don't wave hands. Pick an item I've asserted and argue the SPECIFICS. Provide some links to sources that support your side. Like was done when moon1969 offered up Snopes.com. Of course that didn't turn out like he'd hoped, did it.
I don't have to prove that elements of the "official story", like the claims made in NG and DC documentaries about the pilot, maps and equipment are false to show the "official story" is lacking and a lie. And if the government lied about those items, how do you know the rest of what they claim is true? What YOU need to do is logically explain to us why the government scenario doesn't even address the list of items I provided yodaluver28. In this case, the government has concocted an "explanation" for what happened and dug up someone to mouth the words. You have NO MEANS of verifying they are true. The only way you have to verify their story is to see if it fits ALL the facts. If it doesn't, then you might wonder if they are being honest about what they are telling you.
They hold all the cards because they control all the evidence. They even seized the material that the pathologists had on the Brown case. Gone from public access. They also have the ability to put great pressure on anyone who challenges their story. The case of the pathologists and photographer are examples ... they lost their jobs and careers. The government has even coincidentally lost certain items ... like the originals of the x-rays from a locked safe at AFIP. Items that someone might have obtained through the FOIA. But they don't have to worry about that now.
This is utterly false. I've addressed every single question that's been asked. In this thread and in each of the other threads where the Brown case has been discussed. Likewise in the threads where Foster, Filegate, Chinagate, Campaign Finance and Rapegate have been discussed. Anyone can verify that. It is YOUR side that hasn't answered questions.
We know the reason there wasn't an autopsy. Colonel Gormley is on record saying than an autopsy was not done because of orders from the Whitehouse, JCS and Commerce officials. Your other question is not only unanswerable without an investigation but immaterial until an investigation is actually started. Exhume Brown's body and have an independent autopsy. If that showed indications of a bullet, THEN it would make sense to ask the other question. Until then, your question is a distraction that is ONLY meant to keep an autopsy from taking place.
No Random, you are. Because you know you can't actually debate the facts in this case. So you spin convoluted and phony logic instead. Our readers might ask why you are so concerned about this? My motivations are obvious. What are yours? What's the harm in an exhumation and autopsy of Brown's body ... or the release of the photos of Vince Foster's head? Do you have something to lose if they do it? Hmmmmmm?
I will do you one better. I will accept, as fact, everything you have brought to the table in the Ron Brown case.
The pathologists are right and an autopsy should have been done. Ron Brown had lots of info the Clintons would want kept quiet. Ruined careers, interference in the investigation, etc. You are right on all of it. Good for you.
Could you please tell us what you think happened that day. Just tell us, in your own words, some kind of plausible scenario that covers:
-Was Ron Brown shot before, during or after the flight?
-What brought down the flight?
-What was the minimum number of people involved?
-Were there any conspirators on the flight, and if so, what were they doing?
-Were there any other survivors of the crash and if so, what happened to them?
Take your time, no rush…
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Well most have no absolutely no jurisdiction in the matter, as you well know. And you're very naive if you think that prosecutors are free to do anything they want. For one, they are members of political parties. And also subject to the whims of supervisors who are too. Also, they would be very dependent on the government supplying them the evidence. And it's very clear at this point that the government would not do that.
Prosecutors in general aren't stupid. They are not going to risk their careers (like the military pathologists and photographer did) in what they must view as a lost cause ... not because the facts don't suggest foul play but because there are too many hurdles to jump and too much risk of endangering their careers (and even lives) if they fail.
And you are avoiding the facts I've laid out. Why is that? What terrifies you about the statements of the pathologists and photographer in this case ... the ONLY real experts where the injuries of Brown are concerned?
The victims' families were kept completely in the dark about the statements of the pathologists and photographer. The AIB report, which is supplied to the families, makes no mention of their concerns or calls during the examination of Brown for an autopsy because of a wound that looked to them like a bullet wound. The families were keep in the dark about what the x-rays of Brown's head showed. Kept in the dark while they signed agreements with the government to drop all legal actions in exchange for millions of dollars in compensation ... apiece. Some families (certainly Brown's) received as much as 14 million dollars! Even the families of the military members who died were eventually given special compensation out of fairness concerns. And curiously enough, in that agreement the government faulted the weather, even though their AIB report stated weather played "no significant role" in the crash.
And after the allegations surfaced, the government still worked to keep the families in the dark. As I showed earlier in this thread, the Acting Secretary of the Air Force, Peters, sent out a lie filled letter to keep the families from investigating further. And the mainstream media never reported what the pathologists said or what the x-rays showed either. They just reported the official story given by the government. Many of the families may still be in the dark when they have "friends" like beachnut who may step in to assure them that these allegations are nothing for lies.
What happened in the Brown family is interesting too. Brown's daughter, Tracey, said that the family hired their own forensic pathologist after the bullet wound controversy surfaced and that one of the key reasons they were satisfied that Brown was not shot is that the pathologist told them there was no exit wound. Janoski has testified, however, that Brown's body was never examined or photographed for an exit wound and Gormley admits he didn't look for one. In short, whoever that pathologist was, if there indeed was one, either accepted the government's original claim there was no exit wound, or investigated and then lied to the Brown family. And note there may be other reasons the Brown family remained silent. One is that both the wife and son (Michael) were already indicted in the Pearson probe. When Brown died, they got special treatment in that the charges against the wife were dropped and Michael got a slap on the wrist. He also continued to work for the Democrat party, even appearing on the O'Reilly show on several occasions in later years in that capacity. Michael recently ran for Mayor of Washington, DC. They might have good financial and legal reasons for not rocking the boat then and now.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Excellent. And are you calling for an exhumation and independent autopsy of Brown's body to see if he was shot or not?
In point of fact, I've already addressed these questions you list on multiple occasions. If you'd bothered to even read this thread, you'd have seen some of them answered. That you won't do that makes me doubt your sincerity in your above acceptance. That you want to focus on them is nothing but a distraction. Your time would be better spent taking your new found acceptance of the possibility that Brown was murdered and joining me in convincing the others on this thread.
But take your time, no rush ...