Brown murder conspiracy split from Bush v Clinton Impeachment

Darth Rotor · Aug 25, 2007

BeAChooser said:
No, the rest are points you must ignore because you have no logical or factual response to them. It's what 911 Twoofers do.

The complaints raised by pathologists do not determine the cause of the crash. The open question of the hole, not the resolved question of a bullet found, is still an open question, not proof of your charge of murder.

And why would the AIB in this case have forgotten to include the original x-rays in the report or mention the concerns expressed during the examination that Brown needed an autopsy?

Have you ever heard of error? You are copying 9-11 CT loonies again.

As to the rest, when you convene an Accident Investigation Board, the aim is to investigate the accident. If you convene a Murder Ivestigation Board, then you investigate a murder. Do you now understand why the AIB would have proceeded as it did?

Those tactics only show your desperation.

There is that word again. Lack of wit noted.

For the umpteenth time ... we know for a fact that the statement of Gormley in the AIB report that there was only bone visible in the hole and that there was nothing in the x-rays that was suspicious (he did put that in the report to explain why it was blunt force trauma, didn't he?) is a LIE.

Or an error. Or an oversight. Why do you presume lie?

I imagine hardly any of the officers who worked on that report knew the facts about the wound and x-rays, or the concerns that pathologists voiced at the examination of Brown's body.

That is likely near to the truth, as people investigating a plane crash in which all hands perished from injuries sustained in the kinetic event would hardly be cued to look for bullet wounds when they were not flying near a combat environment.

The person who doesn't care about *officers* is the one who is content to let Janoski and Cogswell's reputation and career be ruined just because they did what was right and blew the whistle.

Let's see. They are O-6's. They are big enough to handle themselves. Given that this is ten years ago, nothing I do can help them, and there are formal means of redress to unfair treatment. I imagine they have sought remedy through those rules. (As for official records, the BCNR has an analogue in the AF, can't recall the acronym.)

The person who doesn't care about the *officers* is the one who is content with letting the pilots of that plane take the blame even though they might not have been responsible at all.

You are again wilfully insulting me and playing stupid. The Air Force concluded (note again the relieved senior officers) that the procedures executed in that approach were inconsistent with rules, and that pilot error was the most significant contributory cause. Given the facts that 70-80% of all military aviation mishaps include pilot error, and that it was confirmed that in IMC conditions they were shooting an approach unapproved for their nav set up, and that the FAC cone and error cone intersected with the ground being above the MDA, the conclusion of pilot error is a rational conclusion. The conclusion of murder is not, unless you have further evidence that supports it. The pathologists raise an open question. That isn't the same thing as providing extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim.

The person who doesn't care about the military is the one willing to let it be corrupted and used by the Clinton administration ... as the Clinton administration did over and over.

Blatant falsehood. Given that I lived through the Clinton era reamjob in DoD, you are completely wrong. Your ad hom is contemptible.

In the words of the investigators ... it was a relatively low speed crash. The rear section of the plane was intact. The bodies weren't shredded ... they were intact and spread around the site. Wecht, a RENOWNED pathologist, said except for the hole in Brown's head, his injuries appeared survivable.

But he died. "Apeared survivable." The hole in his head of undetermined agency seems to have contributed mightily to his being dead, and as Gravy pointed out, when an aircraft crashes, all manner of hard objects become missiles. Metal objects. Becoming missiles. In a plane crash.

And people have survived much worse crashes than that one.

Irrelevant, since no survived this one.

A pilot should know this. What killed Kelly is the delay in getting to the site.

So you claim.

So why were the rest of them dead? Who killed them if not your superman shooter? Kinetic Energy. Once again, the trick with your car. Try it. "Relatively low speed" is HOW MANY KNOTS? Note the report that showed them about 80 KTS faster than they should have been on final. This suggests a number of factors, but one is that they may not have been in the landing configuration. This would make a crash more lethal, and the landing gear would not absorb energy at ground impact.

Ah ... so if it was selectable, could one of the selectable frequencies be that of the Dubrovnik airport?

I said that is how I would set it up. Once again, your evidence for the freq it was on? I am still waiting. Nice try turning the tables.

You might want to use it at Dubrovnik in which case it would make sense to use the same frequency.

See my point above about how pilots use NOTAMS. If it were selectable, then that could be so done. Do you have evidence of either? What was the freq it was on? Evidence. Show me. I am all ears.

Sure it is. No one survived who was on that plane. They didn't get to interview any of them. There were no reports from the plane of problems.

That's not uncommon in a CFIT accident, it is common for all to seem to be going swimmingly when WHAM you hit the ground.

The Air Force was so uncertain that they had to attribute the cause to three different things.

Yep. When everyone is dead, you are left with examining the physical evidence and trying to reconstruct what happened. It is hard to do.

And even then, they just dismissed oddities such as that sudden change in flight path I mentioned and the loss of contact with the plane.

Just dismissed? Prove that claim. It is funny, really, that someone who has never done an aircraft mishap investigation has the gall to tell me how such deliberations go, and how things are "just dismissed." That is your characterization, and your assumption, not an accurate reflection of how the process works. Incredibly wrong.

Amazing. You have put together one of the world's finest arguments from ignorance.

True but any reasonable person would be suspicious when these highly qualified and well regarded (before they blew the whistle) military officers made these allegations and instead of the matter being properly investigated, the response of the government was to threaten and punish the officers, and lie to the public.

They may have gotten a raw deal. That doesn't change how planes crash, nor does it create a bullet.

Is pilot error usually the cause when the best pilots (such as these were) are flying?

Yes, if by usually one is to take in the statistics collected by the Navy Safety Center, the Army Safety Center, and the USAF. (And for that matter, the FAA.) The Navy Safety Center briefing showed that second tour, mid time in model. (1000-1500) pilots are as at risk for a mishap as a first tour, low time in model (0-500). Time in an aircraft is not prevention of making a mistake. You claim these are "the best pilots" which, given your ignorance of aviation, is an interesting claim to make. The average Air Force pilot is a pretty darned good pilot as a base line. The task itself, flying an instrument approach, is generic.

The plane wasn't over mountains over much of the flight.

The terminal area is the part that counts, BAC, and funnily enough, that is where the mountians are: on take off and landing. On departure and approach. That is where mishaps tend to take place. Mid airs are relatively rare. Were the flight in VMC, you get no mishap, as these pilots would see and avoid the terrain. It really is that simple in a CFIT mishap like this.

Not all conspiracy theories, as this one proves.

No, this conspiracy theory, and you its passionate yet deluded proponent, is just like the rest: a lot of chaffe.

Would you like to discuss Filegate.

No, your Time Bandit act is getting stale. I found myself rather pissed that this well publicized breach of rule was not pursued by Mr Starr, or another Justice Dept appointee, but he instead focused on some sexually based cases. Perhaps it was beyond the charter of his SP remit, but that set of issues seemed to me more like the kind of crap that needed detailed investigation. This was the analogue to Nixon breaking the law during Watergate, yet it was not pursued with much vigor.

You are the one slandering the US military here, DR.

No. I have been explaining to you how things work within the military. You have chosen to claim that the mishap investigators lied, and in particular, you claim they lied about the crash. You are accusing them of deliberately falsifying their report, and you above accuse them of "just dismissing" causal factors. You are the slanderer here.

You slander the pathologists and photographer.

Lie. I have taken the position that their complaints are interesting, but do not show cause for a plane crash, nor have you shown any evidence that they concluded that a bullet made the wound. Kevin pointed this out, Gravy pointed this out, and you still don't get it. I have made no accusation against the pathologists of deliberate malice. If you can find where I have done so, then I will retract it.

Now you accuse me of slandering officers because I disagree with your unfounded assumptions masquerading as evidence?

Disgusting.

You slander the pilots.

Nope. Every pilot knows that even small errors can get you killed. We all know that. You, on the other hand, without evidence, claim that being an evaluator precludes making simple errors. Sorry, neither the Naval Safety Center, nor the Army Safety Center, nor the Air Force will agree with you. Neither will the FAA or any flight examiner.

You slander any military officer who would like no doubt that Brown didn't have a bullet in his body when he was examined.

I have slandered no one, though I have insulted you. Again, I noted, from the outset, that the pathologists have raised an open question, one that some of them are not happy with the answer to, or the lack of a better answer to, and you attempt to twist that into "slander." You need to learn the meaning of words you use.

Their complaints do not proove your case. Their complaints do not materially change the reason planes crash. Your arguments from ignorance are a lot of smoke, wind, and noise.

They just do what you did and believe an AIB report that contains demonstrable LIES.

I again ask how you determine a lie from an error from an oversight. Are you a mind reader?

You appear to be claiming that Cogswell, Janoski, Hause, Parsons were not honest, decent, people in uniform.

No, YOU JUST DID, I never have. Again with your dishonesty, and your attempts to put words into someone else's mouth. at this point, you are in the Tu quoque mode, since you seem to have run out of evidence.

Get a job as a speech pathologist, it's where you need to put that talent to use.

Is that why you are content that they were threatened and punished?

I have never said I was content, BUT YOU HAVE claimed I did. Stop with the falsehood. .

Is that why you are ok with the fact that the careers of some of them were ruined?

SInce I am not OK with that, I have no opinion, why do you ask that stupid question? More "Just Asking Questions" crap from your CT mouth.

Those officers or Gormley and Dickerson who clearly lied about the facts in official documents and in public statements?

So you claim. That isn't my department. How does that influence why a plane crashes?

Is it standard military procedure for the generals to announce the reason for a crash before the investigation has even begun? Don't they usually say "no comment" until they get more information?

What ought to be done, with the latter, and what is actually done, which is variable, do not match up 100%. I have already explained this. First reports are often sketchy, and sometimes in error, and the penchant for adding or assuming info in the course of making a press statement is a well known hazard of talking to the press. Your presumption of perfection is laughable.

Yet they paid out 14 million to the families of the victims (at least the civilian ones) with the excuse the crash was due to weather.

Your claim, and your made up excuse, not mine, as to why they paid the money, and what reason was offered. Again, in VMC conditions that crash doesn't happen. CFIT. End. Of. Sentence.

Well given that nothing in the Air Force briefing at the end of the investigation would suggest they did, I think you are the one making the exceptional claim here.

Nope.

Give us a quote from the AIB suggesting they considered foul play.

J
Wow, a page right out of the 9-11 CT line on NIST. See above. When you investigate an aircraft mishap, you approach it from an aircraft mishap point of view. That is how it is done.

See the quotes by the pathologists. Weren't you paying attention?

I note again that pathologists examine dead bodies. After the first pile of text you offered, your repeating it over and over does not change the fact that pathologists and their findings, which again raise an open question

HAVE YOU BEEN READING ANYTHING, or do you just make up stuff to pretend I wrote?

does not answer the causal factors of an aircraft mishap, in IMC, CFIT.

Like I said, I don't like being called boy

Then don't act like a stupid little CT boy, Boy.

DR

JimBenArm · Aug 25, 2007

BeAChooser said:
You only embarrass yourself since clearly I do know a lot about the Brown matter. In fact, I know a lot about any subject I post on. If you think you can prove otherwise, go ahead. Link us to the thread where you think I jumped in without knowing anything about the topic. If you don't, I guess we will know your comment was just a throw away line ... to avoid actually discussing the facts in this case.

Not really a throw-away line. Just commenting on the fact you post this with an obvious political bias. Well, obvious to everyone except yourself. I mean, really. "Toe-tag democRATs"? And you expect to be taken seriously? You're a walking, talking stereotype, and totally oblivious to the fact!

When you can drop the political nonsense, and stop acting like a Loose Change moron, maybe someone might actually listen to you. Until then, well, you're just another barking moonbat.

Toodles!

Darth Rotor · Aug 25, 2007

JimBenArm said:
Not really a throw-away line. Just commenting on the fact you post this with an obvious political bias. Well, obvious to everyone except yourself. I mean, really. "Toe-tag democRATs"? And you expect to be taken seriously? You're a walking, talking stereotype, and totally oblivious to the fact!

When you can drop the political nonsense, and stop acting like a Loose Change moron, maybe someone might actually listen to you. Until then, well, you're just another barking moonbat.

Toodles!

For BAC:

Here is a link that provides an interesting laydown of crash incidence compared to experience as a pilot. The last time I compared notes with an Air Force bubba, 2004, the mishap rate for the AF was slightly lower than the mishap rate for the Navy, per 100,000 flight hours. Not sure if that has changed since, or not.

Note that flight time experience does not prevent mishaps. Safe flying does.

http://safetycenter.navy.mil/presentations/statistics/flight.htm

DR

BeAChooser · Aug 26, 2007

Kevin_Lowe said:
"credibly accused"? Cite your source. ... snip ...

Well,

I see you will offer no source. Thought that would be the case.

Kevin_Lowe said:
Quote:
I challenge you to point out anything that Judicial Watch stated about the Ron Brown case that isn't accurate. ... snip ...

I already did

No, Kevin, you did not prove that Judicial Watch, or any of the other sources I've cited, has said anything false about the Brown case. But you are proving something else ... about yourself.

Kevin_Lowe said:
The Swift Boat affair showed that it's easy to find ex-armed forces people willing to lie to stick it to a political figure they don't like.

You know Kevin, you show way too much familiarity with American politics to just be a disinterested Australian. Are you an ex-pat American living in Australia? A democRAT one?

And by the way, what the Swift Boat affair showed is the truth about your hero, John Kerry.

Kevin_Lowe said:
The mere fact one ex-armed forces photographer is trying to spin things

ROTFLOL! Apparently Kevin is so clueless he is STILL unaware that Janoski was in the military at the time she made the statements about the Brown case and what Gormley did or did not do. He's also unaware that, at the time, Janoski was a democrat. In fact, there's a photo in Cashill's book of Janoski, in uniform, standing next to Hillary Clinton. It's a portrait of the two of them alone ... that I imagine Hillary agreed to because Janoski was a supporter.

Kevin_Lowe said:
Quote:
Tell us, Kevin, why do you simply ignore the FACT that Gormley clearly lied when he claimed there was just bone visible in the hole (i.e., no penetration into the brain) and that there was nothing unusual in the x-rays? ... snip ...

I'm ignoring it because despite that, there is still not enough evidence to make a sane person think that the gunshot theory holds water.

See what I'm up against, folks? ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser · Aug 26, 2007

Disenchanted said:
Wecht is a media shill

If he was the media's shill, why wasn't he parroting what the mainstream media was saying about the Brown case? Maybe what you mean is "media hound"? That might be the case but that still doesn't mean he wasn't a renown and very competent forensic pathologist with a very distinguished career.

Disenchanted said:
not to mention corrupt and a politician.

Let's say there are allegations to that effect, that are still unproven. And that still doesn't mean he wasn't a renown and very competent forensic pathologist. You should realize that he has perform well over 10,000 autopsies during his career, many of them involving gun shot and airplane crashes.

Disenchanted said:
So I would not put much credence in anything he comes up with for conspiracy regarding Brown.

Why not? His statements are consistent with the statements of every other named pathologist in that case except one ... Dickerson ... who I can easily prove lied about the facts in the case and the opinions of his pathologist staff.

I tell you what ... would you like to try smearing Cogswell, Hause and Parsons now? Or will you acknowledge that Gormley lied about the wound and what the x-rays showed in the AIB report?

BeAChooser · Aug 26, 2007

Darth Rotor said:
The complaints raised by pathologists do not determine the cause of the crash.

But they and so many other unanswered questions certainly cast a shadow on the cause claimed by the Air Force.

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
And why would the AIB in this case have forgotten to include the original x-rays in the report or mention the concerns expressed during the examination that Brown needed an autopsy?

Have you ever heard of error?

Dig dig dig. See the sort of *logic* I''m up against, folks?

Darth Rotor said:
As to the rest, when you convene an Accident Investigation Board, the aim is to investigate the accident. If you convene a Murder Ivestigation Board, then you investigate a murder.

Now that's a very revealing statement. So the mere act of convening an AIB and skipping the SIB, pre-supposes an accident and not foul play. You are admitting that the Air Force ASSUMED an accident from the very beginning, before they knew any of the facts? Hmmmmmm....

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
For the umpteenth time ... we know for a fact that the statement of Gormley in the AIB report that there was only bone visible in the hole and that there was nothing in the x-rays that was suspicious (he did put that in the report to explain why it was blunt force trauma, didn't he?) is a LIE.

Or an error. Or an oversight. Why do you presume lie?

Well let's see. You and I, with our untrained eyes, can look at the photos of the wound and x-ray and almost immediately see that the claim by Gormley, a trained and very experienced forensic pathologist, that there was no penetration (no brain matter visible in the hole, only bone) and nothing unusual about the x-rays is completely false. And he repeated this claim not only in the AIB report but years later on live TV and in multiple press releases by AFIB. I really fail to see how ANYONE, who was remotely rational or honest, could excuse that as an error or oversight.

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
I imagine hardly any of the officers who worked on that report knew the facts about the wound and x-rays, or the concerns that pathologists voiced at the examination of Brown's body.

That is likely near to the truth

Yet, you claimed I was " You are now slandering each officer who worked on that report." Do you see the inconsistency in your two statements?

Darth Rotor said:
Given that this is ten years ago, nothing I do can help them

Well you can start by not using such dishonest tactics to dismiss the allegations made by the pathologists and photographer.

Darth Rotor said:
and there are formal means of redress to unfair treatment.

Sure there is. First, exhume and autopsy Brown's body. If a bullet wound if found, then the reputation of the photographer and pathologists will be restored. And so will the reputation of pilots. That in itself is important. On top of that, I imagine the families of the victims will have a legal basis for suing everyone involved in the coverup for damages. Plus, the photographer and pathologists may also benefit monetarily for the damage done to their careers.

Darth Rotor said:
I imagine they have sought remedy through those rules.

You imagine wrong. They can't get any remedy if the authorities refuse to autopsy Brown's body. The hired lawyers because the military was trying to punish them.

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
The person who doesn't care about the *officers* is the one who is content with letting the pilots of that plane take the blame even though they might not have been responsible at all.

You are again wilfully insulting me and playing stupid.

And you have not done that to me during this debate?

Darth Rotor said:
The Air Force concluded (note again the relieved senior officers) that the procedures executed in that approach were inconsistent with rules, and that pilot error was the most significant contributory cause.

They ASSUMED from the very beginning (that's your own admission above) that it was an accident. Since they found nothing mechanically wrong with the plane, that only leaves improper procedures and pilot error. Now the procedural findings might be true, but they don't know what actually happened on that flight. It's ALL supposition based on an apriori assumption of guilt. So they very well could be falsely accusing the pilots of error if there was a bullet wound in Brown's head.

Darth Rotor said:
Given the facts that 70-80% of all military aviation mishaps include pilot error

So should we misuse statistics as you are in all cases where guilt and innocence are to be decided? Or do the pilots of that plane DESERVE better?

Darth Rotor said:
and that it was confirmed that in IMC conditions they were shooting an approach unapproved for their nav set up, and that the FAC cone and error cone intersected with the ground being above the MDA, the conclusion of pilot error is a rational conclusion.

But what if a portable beacon was spoofing them?

Darth Rotor said:
The pathologists raise an open question. That isn't the same thing as providing extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claim.

Again, how amazing that DR finds nothing extraordinary about the fact that half a dozen top pathologists say the wound looked like a bullet wound and Ron Brown most definitely should have been autopsied on that basis. How amazing that that DR finds nothing extraordinary about the fact that the only named pathologist still claiming it was blunt force trauma can be proven to have lied about the facts in the case and the opinions of his staff. How amazing that DR finds nothing extraordinary about the Air Force skipping the first phase of the normal crash investigation (the phase where they look for cause and for foul play) and then publish a report that doesn't even mention the concerns of the pathologists about a bullet wound or include the original x-rays of Brown's head that suggest a bullet wound. What's extraordinary is that DR finds nothing extraordinary in all of that. ROTFLOL!

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
The person who doesn't care about the military is the one willing to let it be corrupted and used by the Clinton administration ... as the Clinton administration did over and over.

Blatant falsehood. Given that I lived through the Clinton era reamjob in DoD, you are completely wrong. Your ad hom is contemptible.

Is it an ad hominim? I seem to be the only one who wants to set the record straight and (if there was a bullet) clean the riffraff out of the military that were responsible for the coverup.

Darth Rotor said:
as Gravy pointed out, when an aircraft crashes, all manner of hard objects become missiles.

But not missiles that make perfectly round holes in heads with those dimensions. The pathologists, who had extensive experience in plane crashes, all said that such a wound is highly unusual. In fact, they said they'd never seen one like it. And one pathologist scoured the crash site trying to find anything that would fit the hole, and came up empty. You are grasping for straws, DR. Desperate. Now the question is why you'd sacrifice your credibility on this forum in this manner?

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
And people have survived much worse crashes than that one.

Irrelevant, since no survived this one.

Not irrelevant to someone plotting to kill Brown in this manner. They'd have to take into account the possibility of survivors because they wouldn't know apriori all would die. And by the way, they might not know that rescuers would be delayed more than 4 hours. We know Kelly survived for a time. Maybe she could have told them what really happened.

Darth Rotor said:
Note the report that showed them about 80 KTS faster than they should have been on final.

Should we believe the report when the report also contained lies regarding the cause of Ron Brown's death? If this was a coverup (and a bullet found in Brown's head during an autopsy would surely prove that), perhaps other things in the report are not accurate? Maybe the pilots thought they were somewhere else or were having trouble because something had happened on the plane? In any event, none of this changes the opinion of the only real experts in this case ... the pathologists.

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
Ah ... so if it was selectable, could one of the selectable frequencies be that of the Dubrovnik airport?

I said that is how I would set it up. Once again, your evidence for the freq it was on? I am still waiting. Nice try turning the tables.

I think I succeeded, Mr *pilot*.

Darth Rotor said:
No one survived who was on that plane. They didn't get to interview any of them. There were no reports from the plane of problems.

That's not uncommon in a CFIT accident

Sure it is. Usually they at least have communication with the aircraft and the pilots have told them the problem, especially during a landing. And they also usually have flight and voice data recorders. But curiously, despite regulations that VIP like Brown were only supposed to fly on planes equipped with them, this one didn't. Despite the fact that it had also carried Hillary and the Secretary of Defense. Despite the fact that the Croatian government and Air Force initially claimed to have found the recorders.

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
And even then, they just dismissed oddities such as that sudden change in flight path I mentioned and the loss of contact with the plane.

Just dismissed? Prove that claim.

Why don't you post the official explanation, instead. Or didn't they offer one?

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
True but any reasonable person would be suspicious when these highly qualified and well regarded (before they blew the whistle) military officers made these allegations and instead of the matter being properly investigated, the response of the government was to threaten and punish the officers, and lie to the public.

They may have gotten a raw deal. That doesn't change how planes crash, nor does it create a bullet.

Spin spin spin ...

Darth Rotor said:
Quote: The plane wasn't over mountains over much of the flight.

The terminal area is the part that counts, BAC, and funnily enough, that is where the mountians are: on take off and landing.

Care to post a map of the site and prove the plane was over mountains when they lost contact with it?

Darth Rotor said:
Quote: Would you like to discuss Filegate.

No, your Time Bandit act is getting stale.

I didn't figure you would. I figured you'd "move on" where ALL of the Clinton administration crimes are concerned.

Darth Rotor said:
I found myself rather pissed that this well publicized breach of rule was not pursued by Mr Starr,

You are not very well informed, DR. Starr did investigate Filegate. Problem is, it was a really lousy investigation. Becaue it was a coverup. Like Reno, he basically ignored the whistleblowers. Like Reno, he didn't put any of those who might have committed the crimes under a really hot light. Like Reno he failed to find the real truth of the matter. That was left to Judicial Watch. Just like in the Brown case.

Darth Rotor said:
You have chosen to claim that the mishap investigators lied

SOME lied. Gormley we know lied. Dickerson lied. This is a proven fact. Most of the rest involved in the investigation just used the deductive method to explain cause for the crash ASSUMING no foul play and unaware of what happened at Dover.

So I'm not slandering anyone. Just stating facts. I can prove Gormley and Dickerson lied. But you insist the pathologists are wrong. But you can't prove that Cogswell, Hause, Parsons or Janoski are wrong. And you can't prove that the pilots actually committed pilot error. So I'm afraid you are slanderer, DR.

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
You slander the pathologists and photographer.

Lie. I have taken the position that their complaints are interesting, but do not show cause for a plane crash

But you are saying they are wrong. You are impuning their professional expertise without facts to prove it. Your *friend* Kevin is even calling them right wing shills and politically motivated liars and you compliment him in your post.

Darth Rotor said:
Quote: You slander the pilots.

Nope.

Yes, you do indeed slander the pilots because you ASSUME, as the Air Force investigators did, that they made a mistake, when if there is a bullet in Brown head as the REAL experts in this case feared based on hard evidence, the pilots made no mistake. Those pilots deserve an exhumation and autopsy of Brown's body to clear this matter up once and for all. If they don't get one, then in *my* opinion, that's *disgusting*.

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
Yet they paid out 14 million to the families of the victims (at least the civilian ones) with the excuse the crash was due to weather.

Your claim,

No, it's a fact you'd be aware of if you knew half as much about this case as you seem to think you do. And the rest of what you regurgiated in your latest post is only worthy of being ignored.

BeAChooser · Aug 26, 2007

JimBenArm said:
Just commenting on the fact you post this with an obvious political bias.

I haven't said anything about the innocence of Republicans here. If I had, THAT would demonstrate a political bias on my part. All I've done is posted facts that indicate a serious crime might have been committed followed by an improper investigation ... a coverup. The fact that it was democRATS who may have committed that crime and democRATS who may have initially covered it up, is irrelevant to the validity of the facts. As I just pointed out to a poster, Janoski was a democrat. So was Wecht.

As to the innocence of Republicans in this instance (and proof that political bias is an unfounded charge) let me repeat a post I made on the Bush vs Clinton Impeachment thread from which this thread was split (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87840&page=3). Now THAT thread was an example of unadulterated political bias. I was responding to the person who started it when she (and others) complained I was taking the thread off topic:

*********

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
Take it to the CT thread, BeAC. You are off-topic.

No, I'm not since in your opening statement you claimed to want to compare Clinton and Bush and claimed "everything Bush has done has had an enormous impact on every single person in the country". Well I'm arguing the same thing about Clinton and providing examples to prove it. If you want to bash Bush, then you best be prepared to have Clinton bashed too ... since you were the one who brought up Clinton and defended him.

Or look at it this way. I'm answering your poll by choosing number ONE "IMO Both Clinton and Bush committed impeachable offenses" and telling you why. The reason Bush committed an impeachable offense (IMO) is that he didn't uphold the law and pursue the crimes committed by the democRATS in the previous administration.

Consider that in addition to not following up on the allegations in the Brown case, Filegate, and Chinagate, Bush also didn't pursue the campaign funding illegality that came to light when James Riady stated in open court under a plea agreement (that Bush approved) where he was to tell the truth, that contrary to the public claims of Clinton and DNC officials, the millions of illegal campaign funds that he gave Clinton and the DNC were NOT returned. That Bush did not follow up on this is IMO grounds for impeachment.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl
There is not any substance to that nonsense and it belongs in the conspiracy theory thread.

Well if you believe that, I invite you over to the Pet Theories thread I linked earlier where you can prove it. But I bet you don't show up.

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

Given the above, do you still claim I am politically biased on this issue? Or will prove yourself a *twoofer* on this issue?

Disenchanted · Aug 26, 2007

BeAChooser said:
If he was the media's shill, why wasn't he parroting what the mainstream media was saying about the Brown case? Maybe what you mean is "media hound"? That might be the case but that still doesn't mean he wasn't a renown and very competent forensic pathologist with a very distinguished career.

I did not say media’s shill. I said a media shill. I would have used another term after media, but I don’t want to use a word like that right out of the gate. He takes positions that will garner him the most attention in the media and books sales. In turn it means more ratings or tabloid rack purchases for those who give him a forum. His position is more interesting than a simple accidental crash. Sexy conspiracy theories are the versions that get more attention from some people, which is something he probably learned from his JFK conspiracy claims.

He might be more known than others in his profession but that doesn’t make what he says about the Brown case or the JFK case credible.

It is through the JFK case that he largely developed his “renown”. What makes what he says about Brown more credible than his synchronized-bullet claim? Do you believe what he says in the JFK conspiracy? If not why do you believe what he says in the Brown case?

BeAChooser said:
Let's say there are allegations to that effect, that are still unproven. And that still doesn't mean he wasn't a renown and very competent forensic pathologist. You should realize that he has perform well over 10,000 autopsies during his career, many of them involving gun shot and airplane crashes.

He did lose a civil case in which he settled out of court, so it isn’t entirely unproven.

He also has shown over his career that he is an opportunist and will push claims that help his career. Other than his fame for cases like the JFK conspiracy, the Ramsey case or other high profile cases, why is he renowned? He may have preformed 10,000 autopsies, but what separates him from other forensic pathologists that have preformed that many?

BeAChooser said:
Why not? His statements are consistent with the statements of every other named pathologist in that case except one ... Dickerson ... who I can easily prove lied about the facts in the case and the opinions of his pathologist staff.

I tell you what ... would you like to try smearing Cogswell, Hause and Parsons now? Or will you acknowledge that Gormley lied about the wound and what the x-rays showed in the AIB report?

I would not because based on his history of supporting questionable conspiracy claims he lacks credibility.

I am more familiar with Wecht’s questionable character because I live in Pittsburgh, so I came at it from that angle.

Who are those pathologists?

What is your evidence that Dickerson lied?

If Gormley was wrong what evidence is there that he lied as opposed to being mistaken?

Nothing I have seen so far is at all convincing that there was a conspiracy.

BeAChooser · Aug 26, 2007

Disenchanted said:
I did not say media’s shill. I said a media shill.

Well you do know what the term "shill" means, don't you?

Disenchanted said:
He takes positions that will garner him the most attention in the media and books sales.

Did he get a lot of media attention for his comments on this case? Did it increase book sales? Did he write a book on it? No. No. No. Sounds like your argument is just a red herring.

Furthermore, the journalist, Christopher Ruddy, sought him out in this case. Wecht didn't seek Ruddy out.

And finally, nothing you've said so far proves that anything he said about the evidence he was shown by Ruddy is false. Can you name a single pathologist anywhere in the country (besides Dickerson, for the reasons I'll show you in a moment) who says what Wecht said and concluded is false? Because I can (and already have) posted comments by other named pathologists who seem to agree with Wecht.

Disenchanted said:
What makes what he says about Brown more credible than his synchronized-bullet claim?

Well ... the fact that you can look at the photos of the wound and x-rays and decide for yourself if he's misrepresented anything. The fact that EVERY pathologist who has gone on record in the case (except Dickerson) is now saying it looked like a bullet wound and Brown should have been autopsied. The fact that other named pathologists are saying the metal density objects in the x-ray look like a "lead snowstorm". In the JFK case, lots of pathologists were willing to come forward and say Wecht was wrong. Why not in this case?

Disenchanted said:
He did lose a civil case in which he settled out of court, so it isn’t entirely unproven.

After winning the criminal case in that matter against him. Just look at it as the reverse of what happened in the OJ case.

Disenchanted said:
Who are those pathologists?

What is your evidence that Dickerson lied?

If Gormley was wrong what evidence is there that he lied as opposed to being mistaken?

Why are you asking those questions if you actually took the time to read this thread? Who the pathologists are, the evidence showing Dickerson lied, and the basis for saying that Gormley lied as opposed to just being mistaken has been clearly posted. Debating you folks is a little like debating a bunch of 911 Twoofers. You seem to not know the facts when all you had to do to learn them is use your browser and read. It gets tiresome going over the same things over and over and over with each new poster. I tell you what, look at post #41 for starters.

Disenchanted said:
Nothing I have seen so far is at all convincing that there was a conspiracy.

And you'll never see anything if you don't actually read what is posted.

Kevin_Lowe · Aug 26, 2007

BeAChooser said:
I see you will offer no source. Thought that would be the case.

They're matters of public record. There would be no point in lying about them, you could prove me wrong very, very easily if I was wrong. I encourage you strongly to try.

No, Kevin, you did not prove that Judicial Watch, or any of the other sources I've cited, has said anything false about the Brown case. But you are proving something else ... about yourself.

They presented spin as evidence. It might not be technically false but it's deceitful.

You know Kevin, you show way too much familiarity with American politics to just be a disinterested Australian. Are you an ex-pat American living in Australia? A democRAT one?

It's not hard to be familiar with US politics compared to the average USian. Sorry to disappoint you but I was born right here in Australia and I've never set foot on US soil.

And by the way, what the Swift Boat affair showed is the truth about your hero, John Kerry.

There was a very good thread on the Kerry/Swift Boat issue, where the whole Swift Boat thing got demolished. Thanks for further evidence about your political stance and skeptical nous, however, it makes me feel a lot more comfortable in my opinion of you.

ROTFLOL! Apparently Kevin is so clueless he is STILL unaware that Janoski was in the military at the time she made the statements about the Brown case and what Gormley did or did not do. He's also unaware that, at the time, Janoski was a democrat. In fact, there's a photo in Cashill's book of Janoski, in uniform, standing next to Hillary Clinton. It's a portrait of the two of them alone ... that I imagine Hillary agreed to because Janoski was a supporter.

See what I'm up against, folks? ROTFLOL!

As was said earlier, you're a real live stereotype and you don't appear to realise it.

I don't think there's much more to be achieved by talking to you. We've established that nobody here but you thinks that the available evidence makes a bullet wound more than a remote possibility, and that nobody here but you thinks that the available evidence makes sabotage more than a remote possibility. I doubt you gave any more evidence in reserve that would make a rational person change their mind.

Happy trails, BAC.

BeAChooser · Aug 26, 2007

Kevin_Lowe said:
They're matters of public record.

Then you should have no problem linking us to your primary source for that allegation about Judicial Watch. Why should I be the only one required to post the sources on which I base my claims? That would be unfair ... right?

Kevin_Lowe said:
It's not hard to be familiar with US politics compared to the average USian. Sorry to disappoint you but I was born right here in Australia and I've never set foot on US soil.

So you claim ... but you sure show a lot of interest in defending Clinton and you certainly use the same debating tactics as democRATS I've encountered.

Kevin_Lowe said:
There was a very good thread on the Kerry/Swift Boat issue, where the whole Swift Boat thing got demolished.

Sure it did, Kevin. Of course, I wasn't on it.

Kevin_Lowe said:
Thanks for further evidence about your political stance

You call it "swift boating", I call it stating facts. There are many serious inconsistencies in the story told by John Kerry and his supporters about activities in Vietnam. And for the most part, questions about those inconsistencies have been ignored or deflected by throwing out that term "swift boating". Tell me, do you think Kerry got all his medals legitimately? Hmmmmmm?

First, the officer who wrote up the citations says he based them SOLELY on what the after action report said. If the after action report is a lie (and dozens of people who were there but not on Kerry's boat say it's a lie) and it was written by Kerry (which a journalist showed must be the case), then the medals given in the third incident were a deliberate scam by Kerry.

Second, Kerry clearly was medal hungry. He looked for opportunities to get them. We know his first medal was a fraud because his own journal betrays him. An entry written nine days after the incident which he used to get his first purple heart (going outside the chain of command to do it, BTW) states "hadn't been shot at yet".

Third, the other officer in the incident where Kerry got his third purple heart who got a medal is on record saying he didn't know about the medal he was given until after he was out of the military and he didn't deserve it. He says the after action report is a lie.

Fourth, the question remains whether there was gun fire. Neither of the purple hearts was awarded for being hit by gunfire. NONE of the boats was apparently hit by gunfire. Yet the after action report Kerry wrote up to describe his heroism indicates they were under heavy gunfire for what must have been an hour or more (since they had to rescue the crew, salvage the boat and run a gauntlet a couple miles long) ... all in a narrow channel. And not one bullet hole in the boats. A little less than unlikely.

Shall we continue? Of course, being an Australian, you probably have better things to do then discuss Kerry.

Kevin_Lowe said:
I don't think there's much more to be achieved by talking to you.

Probably not. Your credibility can't get much lower than it is.

beachnut · Aug 26, 2007

On April 3, 1996, the crew of the USAF CT-43A (post 1 of 52) not a CT, an accident

The year was 1996, when an Air Force CT-43A crashed into a 2,300 foot mountain. Six crew members and 29 passengers were killed in the accident. The plane was flying a nondirectional radio beacon (NDB) to Runway 12 Cilipi Airport, Dubrovnik Croatia. The crew was using an approach plate that was not safe to fly in the weather, an approach plate that was banned for use until it was reviewed by elements in the USAF. The crew was using this approach plate because the commanders had waived the review requirement despite the fact the approach plate had not been checked for safety by the air force.

The Air Force after investigating this accident will blame the people who waived the approach plate, the approach plate, and the crew, with the weather as a factor (plus the rest of the story). (one of many things to say about the accident; but do not try to distil this as even I may do to one thing or one opinion on or about the facts)

A BIG FACT;. If the crew had used a properly designed approach plate, they would not of hit the mountain; they would have lived. The AF will fire those in the chain of command and punish some. Those people who waived the approach plate will have to live with their fellow airmen's blood for their lives. I knew one of the pilots, he was better than I, it is sad to see his family loose him due to a chain of events that should not have happened.

Why were commanders able to waive the use of a procedure that could mean death to others? This is not a conspiracy but the need for commanders to cut through the red tape of the usual USAF bureaucracy and get things done. They had a need to use Jeppesen Approach Plates since the iron curtain had fallen and the approach plates for airports in those areas now free were limited to commercial products. The commanders seem to waive things without regard for safety or what you might call "common sense". Waiving this approach plate would lead to the accident of this USAF aircraft. It takes real judgment to use waiver authority properly, and these guys failed. They were suppose to support the crews!

I am Lt Col K---- $ B----- USAF(ret). I was chief of safety for two bases and an air division in the USAF, I understand SIB, safety investigation boards, and AIB, accident investigation boards. I have been board president, pilot member, investigator, and in charge of aircraft crash scenes. I have 34 years experience with flight safety as does Reheat and DarthRotor (the years maybe more or less, depending on the first time they read a safety report when they learned how to fly all those years ago). I flew 4 engines jets that weighed up to 300,000 pounds. Like all USAF pilots when I first trained, we all flew high performance jets in pilot training.

When the pilot (I knew) crashed his plane, I was upset to see idiots start the Brown conspiracy junk. It must take a special kind of dirt dumb person to make up lies about events. I can understand about why the flying stuff is hard to understand, but do not understand why people do not take the time to learn. However, it could take 10 or 15 years to understand all the factors involved in this accident. It would take 4 or 5 years of experience just to understand some of the concepts involved in flying and designing approaches. Is this why the idiots are CTers, it takes no time to make up lies but years to understand the complicated events. Just flying the approach the crew flew requires at least 5 years of flying experience. Maybe the idiots have an excuse, 5 years is why too much time to learn something, but there we have thousands of pilots who you trust when you fly who took the time to learn. Sad CTers, lazy idiots with no clue.

I will not talk about Brown any more. The conspiracy theories on Brown are bs. The accident and event leading up the accident are not a conspiracy, they are just errors in a chain leading to a fellow pilots death. We worked in the same squadron years before the accident. We refueled the SR-71. The pilot was good, the system let him down. The system, the approach plate, the weather, and the crew all contributed to the accident. If you do not understand maybe I can explain this until the accident is clear. I will not debunk CT dolt ideas. The dolts can say what they want about the facts presented. The idiot CT ideas are that.

On April 3, 1996, the crew of the USAF CT-43A (post 1 of 52) not a CT, an accident

BeAChooser · Aug 26, 2007

beachnut said:
A BIG FACT;. If the crew had used a properly designed approach plate, they would not of hit the mountain; they would have lived.

A BIG ASSUMPTION: There was no bullet in Brown's head despite the concern of expert pathologists.

beachnut said:
I knew one of the pilots, he was better than I, it is sad to see his family loose him due to a chain of events that should not have happened.

You never did tell me 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. 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?

beachnut said:
This is not a conspiracy but the need for commanders to cut through the red tape of the usual USAF bureaucracy and get things done.

That "red tape" is what every other crash investigation in Air Force history had gone through and was important enough to be codified in Air Force regulations. And despite cutting through that "red tape", it still took investigators about the normal amount of time to finish the final report and present it to the public. So much for getting "things done".

beachnut said:
I understand SIB, safety investigation boards, and AIB, accident investigation boards.

So tell us ... is Darth Rotor correct in saying that if they immediately jump to the AIB they think an accident and not foul play is the cause?

beachnut said:
I have been board president, pilot member, investigator, and in charge of aircraft crash scenes. I have 34 years experience with flight safety as does Reheat and DarthRotor (the years maybe more or less, depending on the first time they read a safety report when they learned how to fly all those years ago). I flew 4 engines jets that weighed up to 300,000 pounds. Like all USAF pilots when I first trained, we all flew high performance jets in pilot training.

Wow. I'm impressed. But do you know anything about pathology and why we have forensic pathologists?

beachnut said:
When the pilot (I knew) crashed his plane, I was upset to see idiots start the Brown conspiracy junk. It must take a special kind of dirt dumb person to make up lies about events.

That would be Colonel Cogswell, Lt Colonel Hause, Major Parsons, and CPO Janoski you are referring to ... you know, the folks that testified under oath regarding the Brown case facts?

beachnut said:
However, it could take 10 or 15 years to understand all the factors involved in this accident.

Or perhaps it would take just as long as it would take to exhume and autopsy Brown's body to find out the key factor. A month or two?

beachnut said:
Is this why the idiots are CTers, it takes no time to make up lies

Notice that beachnut hasn't offered ANY proof that the statements attributed to the pathologists or the other facts I've cited in this thread are lies. We are just supposed to believe *him* when he assures us nothing happened. Notice that his tactics are quite similar to those of 911 Twoofers ... especially the one where they ignore any fact they have no means of addressing.

beachnut said:
I will not talk about Brown any more.

Yes, you keep saying that. Why'd you change your mind *this* time?

beachnut said:
The pilot was good, the system let him down.

That's not what Darth Rotor and the Air Force say. They say he made an error.

beachnut · Aug 26, 2007

On April 3, 1996, the crew of the USAF CT-43A (post 2 of more), an accident

As the crew flew the approach they flew a course of 110 degrees instead of 119. This kind of error may have you flunk your check ride, but the NDB approach is not the best or most precise. The beacon is non directional, you have to do some thinking to fly this approach, I would be lucking to be on course. I always thought the NDB was a challenge, to fly. They maintained the 110 degrees and hit a mountain 1.9 nautical miles (NM 6067 feet) from Runway 12. The USAF Accident Investigation Board concluded in the final report that the accident was caused by failure of command, aircrew error and an improperly designed approach procedure.

I will try to explain later why being off course 1.8 miles and 10 degrees with a properly designed approach procedure would not kill the crew.

The aircraft did not have a cockpit voice recorder (CVR) or a flight data recorder (FDR). Most USAF aircraft at that time did not have CVRs or FDRs. I have never piloted an USAF aircraft with a FDR or CVR, and I flew for 28 years. FDRs and CVRs do not prevent accidents, they are used to find out what happen. The USAF uses the old fashion method - investigation. It seems after this accident, many people were upset there was not a CVR or FDR, but where was that interest when I flew planes for 22 years? I hate people who get upset because they never checked to see how their troops were doing in the first place.

The crew from 76th Airlift Squadron (76 AS), 86th Operations Group (86 OG), 86th Airlift Wing (86 AW) at Ramstein Air Base (AB) Germany, was supporting a delegation of US industry executives from Zagreb, Croatia, to other location in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia for three days. The accident occurred on the first day, fourth leg of a five leg flight.

The itinerary for this flight changed four times before the flight even began. The crew planned the mission on April 1 base on the first change, and the stop in Dubrovnik was not listed in that change. The pilot was very thought in his mission planning and briefing. But the crew would not of planned the leg to Dubrovnik, it was not in the first change. The same day in the evening, the itinerary was changed and received by the 76 AS, not confirmed if the pilot knew it was changed to add Dubrovnik. The crew may not of preplanned the stop in Dubrovnik because they asked the squadron flight planners to build the plans for that stop. The crew arrived in Zagreb at 1400 and arrived at their hotel at 1500. At 2200 the copilot called the operations center at Ramstein AF and asked for latest mission changes. He we briefed on Change 4 to the mission and fax a copy, but only received the cover sheet. Change 4, the first day's mission would be Asgreb to Tusla, Bosnia, then Tuzla to Split, Croatia, then Split to Tuzla, and then Tuzla to Dubrovnik, and then Zagreb. Split was required due to ramp space at Tuzla was not available for 7 hours and 20 minutes stay. This is where I understand this, since I was Current Operation for Airlift into the AOR during the war in Bosnia, for 100 days. The crew would have to drop off the passengers, and then return later to pick them up.

The crew bringing the plane in for the accident crew, prepared some of the mission planning for the next day's mission. The crew did not know if the accident crew knew the new changes. The pilot helping prepare the flight plan information, included the five legs and communications information the crew would need. He also removed the Dubrovnik approach procedure, published by Jeppesen Sanderson Inc. from the publication kit and planned on giving this information and stuff to the accident crew at Zagreb. The pilot dropped of stuff to the copilot early in the morning and noted the unusually high weather requirements for the approach, 4800 meters about 3 miles visibility, into Dubrovnik.

The accident crew assembled at the hotel at 0330 and planned on being at the aircraft at 0400. Ramstein ops center faxed the weather to the crew, it arrived at 0402, not sure if the crew got the weather report. The forecast for Dubrovnik was wind 140 at 10 knots, unrestricted visibility, ceiling broken at 2500 feet and broken at 8,000 feet, and temporary rain. No one knows if the crew got the weather before leaving the hotel.

The crew arrived at the aircraft and got the weather on the HF radio. They called the USAF Europe (USAFE) Meteorological Service (METRO) via high-frequency radio at 0440, and got weather for Tuzla, and Zagreb. Their call sign is IFO21, they depart Zagreb at 0624, they are 24 minutes late, due to their party arriving late.

The flight to Tuzla is 51 minutes. The crew was reported left of the final approach by the controller and the crew said they were correcting. The crew had to ask for a 360 turn on final approach to loose altitude, a couple of thousand feet. It is 0715 and the crew drops off passengers and leaves at 0752. As you see, if you sneeze on the days of the accident they will have it in the report. The Accident Investigation knows when you go to the bathroom, what you ate, who you slept with, and what you do every second if there is a witnesses or record. This is a big report. The accident reports are like 10 to 100 thesis or dozens of dissertations. There will be over 7,000 pages to this report.

The crew arrives at Split, 0832, they refuel and depart at 1156, back on schedule. The crew looses the extra time they made up taking off early when they had to fly a different route since they had planned a closed route. They land at 1247 at Tuzla, and the passengers get back on.

The accident flight departs for Dubrovnik at 1355, they climb to 16,000 feet, they fly a standard instrument departure (SID) and ask for left turn to avoid a thunderstorm.

The crew has the approach plate available that if followed in the weather, is not safe. USAF crews are use to flying the approach procedures that even if you can not fly precisely and pass a check ride you can live to fly another day. This approach procedure they have on board has no safety factor, it should not be used in the weather. But if you did use it and knew the problem you could fly it at a higher altitude, and be safe. In other words, the fight path errors they are about to make would not have caused an accident if the approach procedure was correct.

beachnut · Aug 26, 2007

Still no sign of a CT, but there is serous doubts a CTer can figure out flying

IFO21 radar service is terminate by Tuzla Departure Control, and the contact Zagreb NATO ATC and monitor MAGIC, the call-sign for NATO E-3 AEW (Airborne Early Warning) aircraft. At 1406 they are with Zagreb ATC and cleared to FL 190 and then FL 250 (25,000 feet). They also have good contact with MAGIC, who gives them flight monitoring and threat warning in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina airspace. MAGIC dose not include course correction for aircraft flying an approach to an airfield. The crew also contacts the operations center at Ramstein AB, there are no mission changes and they are cautioned about possible fog at Dubrovnik airport. The crew acknowledges the weather and continue. The crew contacts USAFE METRO and gets weather report for a landing of 1440 at Dubrovnik.

Weather passed on is wind 110 degrees at 12 knots, ceiling 500 feet broken, 2,000 feet overcast, 8000 feet overcast, altimeter 29.85 inches of mercury, pressure altitude (PA) +609 feet, temperature 52 degrees, 8,000 meters visibility (five SM) and rain. Pilot makes a pilot report back on the weather conditions he has. This is a normal flight, the crew may be kind of behind, but they seem to have a plan when they get behind. Not anything out of the ordinary on this flight.

The plane approaches Bosnia-Herzegovina border, and IFO21 is given over to Croatian Zagreb Center civilian controllers, Zagreb Center, and they are cleared direct to the Split very high frequency omnidirectional radio range (VOR) and they are cleared to descend to 21,000 feet, and be level by 25 NM before Split. IF021 crosses Split at 1434 and cleared to 14,000 feet, then 10,000 feet. At 10,000 feet and at 1439 south of Split VOR, IFO21 is transferred to Dubrovnik Approach/Tower, a nonradar approach facility. This facility provides air traffic control services based on vertical, lateral or longitudinal separation, rather than radar monitoring.

IFO21 contacted Dubrovnik Approach/Tower at 1446 and was cleared to Kolocep (KLP) NDB 9/9 miles from Cavtat (CV) NDB, 11.8 NM from runway 12. After other traffic was cleared, IFO21 is clear to 5,000 feet. From 10,000 feet to 5000 feet 16 NM from KLP. Pilot is flying about 224 to 243 knots during the descent. Gear up and idle will meet the descent needs. The engine anti-ice was on at impact, this usually requires a higher power setting than idle. The pilot can use speed brakes to make up the difference and get down to 5,000 feet in time. Data shows the gear was up, and the plane slows to get ready for landing.

At 1452 the crew tells control they are 16 NM out. They are clear to descend to 4,000 feet. Kind of normal, maybe behind in slowing down. They are still too fast to configure for landing. They are late getting the flaps down. The crew talks to another pilot on the ground at 1450, he tells the crew he landed at minimums. He means the weather is at the edge of not begin able to see the runway to land from this approach. That is only part of the problem for the accident crew; the approach they are flying is not safe at the altitude they are using from the approach, as they continue. The other pilot also told the accident crew if they had to miss the approach they should go to Split. Looks like the flight is normal, the crew is not being shot, they are busy trying fly, there is no CT, just a bad approach procedure.

Why are they using an approach procedure that is about to kill them for a small 9 degree error, and 1.8 mile error. Errors that would flunk a checkride, but with a properly designed approach procedure the accident crew would not of hit the mountain.

Correct application of both the US and ICAO standards would result in a higher MDA than published on the approach procedure paper, called an approach plate by many. The crew would not of hit the mountain at 2175 feet the crew should have been at 2592 feet minimum or 2822 feet. They would miss the mountain. What happened? Not a CT, I wonder how all the CT idiots even understand enough to figure this out?

The crew made an error flying an approach that was not safe in the weather, they can not see the mountain because they are in the clouds. They can not see the airport ahead because they are in the clouds. They are using an approach procedure that is about to kill them, and they are off course, but as I can show, they should have been at 2822 feet instead of 2170 feet, near the 2150 feet depicted on the unsafe approach procedure. I have to tell you why the commanders are at fault, and show more about the approach and how it is in error. Not one thing going wrong on the flight, pilots talk up when they are in trouble. The pilots do not know they are in trouble, they think the approach is okay.

Fact is a properly design approach in this case would not have crashed. But you have to understand flying or be rational to figure this out.

Disenchanted · Aug 26, 2007

BeAChooser said:
Well you do know what the term "shill" means, don't you?

Yes and it fits Wecht because he is a swindler.

BeAChooser said:
Did he get a lot of media attention for his comments on this case? Did it increase book sales? Did he write a book on it? No. No. No. Sounds like your argument is just a red herring.

At the very least it got his name in a high profile case, as he often likes to do. Plus he may have got his name in a case like that to help his political career.

Wecht’s credibility is not a red herring since you used what he said as evidence.

BeAChooser said:
Furthermore, the journalist, Christopher Ruddy, sought him out in this case. Wecht didn't seek Ruddy out.

And finally, nothing you've said so far proves that anything he said about the evidence he was shown by Ruddy is false. Can you name a single pathologist anywhere in the country (besides Dickerson, for the reasons I'll show you in a moment) who says what Wecht said and concluded is false? Because I can (and already have) posted comments by other named pathologists who seem to agree with Wecht.

He didn’t have to since Ruddy probably knew to go to Wecht, someone who loves getting his name in high profile cases, to get good conspiracy claims for his stories.

The Trib is hardly a credible source.

Do you have any credible sources for these pathologists or any claims regarding the conspiracy theory? Something more recent than 10 years ago might be good.

Particularly since one of those killed was a New York Times Bureau chief, you would think they would have something.

Do you believe they and other media outlets were in on it? If that is the then that means there are more people involved and the more people supposedly involved the less likely a conspiracy is plausible.

You are the one making the extraordinary claims, so the burden of proof is on you to show what he and the pathologists say are true.

From the article on the Dick Gregory site:

“Cogswell acknowledged that he did not examine Brown's body.”

“The military pathologist who examined Brown's body concluded he died from multiple blunt force injuries as a result of the crash.”

Why do you give more weight to a pathologist who did not examine Brown’s body than to a pathologist who did?

Plus the claim of someone shooting, Brown before or after the plane crash is rather extraordinary.

Was he the only one on the plane that was shot? If so why did they need to shoot him and no one else on the plane?

BeAChooser said:
After winning the criminal case in that matter against him. Just look at it as the reverse of what happened in the OJ case.

Both were won their criminal cases and lost civil cases, why is it the reverse?

BeAChooser said:
Why are you asking those questions if you actually took the time to read this thread? Who the pathologists are, the evidence showing Dickerson lied, and the basis for saying that Gormley lied as opposed to just being mistaken has been clearly posted. Debating you folks is a little like debating a bunch of 911 Twoofers. You seem to not know the facts when all you had to do to learn them is use your browser and read. It gets tiresome going over the same things over and over and over with each new poster. I tell you what, look at post #41 for starters.

I did read them and they weren’t convincing. They are old and from sources that aren’t credible. You even linked to Rense.com and What Really Happened. And you say others are debating like Twoofers?

beachnut · Aug 26, 2007

truther like common sense, commanders make bad decision; no CT, just an accident

This one of the factors of the accident:

Why did the crew fly an approach with a Jeppesen Approach Plate when it was not safe? How did the crew get caught? Pilots make the course errors that happen on this flight on approaches around the world and do not hit mountains because the approach procedures we use have big safety margins! A USAF pilot is spoiled and unless there is an error no one has caught, the approach plates we use are very safe and allow gross errors. Safety is high when following the approach procedures.

The approach safety is something air crews take for granted. Every time we fly an instrument approach we trust it with our lives, we have practiced hundreds of times and learn to fly it exactly, or as best as we can. We know we have terrain and obstacle clearance when flown.

USAF Instruction (AFI) 11-206 requires any instrument approach procedure not published in a US Department of Defense (DOD) or US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) flight information publication be reviewed by the major command terminal instrument procedures (TERPs) specialist before it can be flown by USAF crews. This is the reason the crew should not use the Jeppesen approach procedure, it was not reviewed by TERPs specialists.

There is an exception if the weather is good enough to conduct visual flight rules (VFR) for the approach and landing. The reason for this is the NDBs are not inspected for accuracy. The TERPs review could take six hours or longer. Even if the approach was reviewed by a TERPs specialist the crew still would have to have VFR flight conditions.

Why was the crew using the darn approach procedure? In other words, if the crew and commanders knew the rules, there is not way to do what is about to be told to you. This is not even a CT, just dumb stuff.

Here goes. There was a supplement to AFI 11-206 issued by USAFE that allows non –DOD approach charts to be used without a TERPs review if a the weather is better than a 1,500 foot ceiling and 3.1 SM visibility. OOPS. When the 86 OG realized the impact of these rules he emailed the USAFE director of operation and told him of the impact on the 86 AW mission if these rules are in place. The 86 OG asked for a blanket waiver to allow the 86 AW to fly Jeppesen approaches to the published weather minimums without TERPs review, against both the USAFE supplement and the AFI. A USAFE action officer called Air Force Flight Standards Agency (AFFSA) to get a waiver to AFI 11-206 and he claims it was granted to USAFE. Despite the fact waivers should be in writing and formally recorded; the USAFE action officer sent an e-mail to his supervisor indicating he had obtained a verbal waiver from AFFSA. A notice was put in the flight crew information notice and was issued to all 86 OG flight crews. This was used to allow air craws to fly Jeppesen approaches without complying with AFI 11-206 required TERPs review, or the USAFE 1,500 foot ceiling.

In January 1996 and e-mail was sent from USAF headquarters (HQ Air Force) to the USAFE director of operations that disapproved the waiver to fly Jeppesen approached to published minimums without TERPs review. Jeppesen just published the approaches and they do not guarantee the safety or accuracy of their product, which Jeppesen even tell you.

USAFE director of operations tells the 86 OG not to use the Jeppesen plates as in the regulations. The 86 OG said safety is not compromised if we continue flying operation normal until approaches have been reviewed, then he will rescind the waiver to AFI 11-206 (is that the verbal waiver, never written down one?).

The 86 OG and 86 AW commanders are about to apply truther logic/ CT logic!!! The 86 AW says lets step back and use common sense! OOPS. (Not safety, just common sense.) This sounds like CTers and truthers, short on brains and maybe removed from reality. We have used these approaches for years and years, what do we have to do to get this ok'd? He, the boss 86 AW, wants to avoid the regs and do it anyway. He sends this to all his underlings. Just a hint, when you are a boss and want real inputs, do not make your ideas on the matter hard over like this, the boss is always right is a big thing with some idiots who go along and were better at getting promoted than flying a jet and understanding the PK of ground is 1!. But I am ranting, but gee, I have fallen on my sword for safety, why are these idiots about to do stupid? This is like the truth movement and other dirt dumb CTers. Anyone know some?

Okay, back to the mistake. At the staff meeting, they all agree safety was not being compromised and they should keep flying the Jeppesen approach procedures. I guess none of these idiots went to TERPs school like I did. I wonder if I would have said something. I am dumb enough to speak up and tell them they are naked. So I would say something, I hope. I guess that is why I never made full bird. There were all the big wigs in on this 86 AW common sense fest. The chief of standardization and evaluation said safety was not compromised and Jeppesen approaches could be continued to be flown pending TERPs review (he is like the chief pilot of all, some act like gods, I was in STAN/EVAL but never at god level). Even the 86 AW safety officer was present. No one voiced any objections. (this is why people were fired later, etc.)

So now the 86 OG, the guy in charge of our accident crew continue to fly ops normal. Unrestricted use of Jeppesen. Things were so busy, they all forgot about this. But in February 1996, 17 AF (Air Force) Standardization and Evaluation learned the 86 AW was still flying Jeppesen to weather minimums in violation of AFI and other requirements. He told 86 OG chief of standardization and evaluation to stop, he did not do anything, and did not tell 17 AF he failed to take action. This happens, no one is going to tell me what is!

The waiver to AFI 11-206 was rescinded on April 4, 1996. From January to April 1996, the 86 AW used Jeppesen approaches without restrictions in violation of AFI 1-206.

This is why the AIB finds command was a factor in the accident. They call it, "a failure of command". Questions?

The commanders waived the regulation, they were told not to, they did anyway. So this is one reason the crew has the approach plate and they are flying it as if it was SAFE!

BTW, the pilot is always responsible for all this stuff anyway, even if he was ordered to fly the damn approach. We, pilots, are allowed to use judgment, even if it means breaking the rules to be safe, or complete the mission alive.

You know you have solid judgment when you do not do what your commanders tell you and you save your crew, aircraft in the process, or improve your position. These guys from the top down forgot to use good judgment based on knowledge. Reminds me of CT who are dumber than dirt, and most in the 9/11 truth movement.

7,000 pages, the AIB report was very rigorous. They even checked to make sure the plane was not shot down. 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.

We left the crew getting close to the mountain using the Jeppesen Approach Procedure, which should not be used. This is a factor why the crew had an accident. It is bad news, if the crew had flown the approach on the exact course, and gone missed approach on the spot, they would have missed the mountain, and if they had flown a properly designed approach they would miss the mountain. If you do not fly instrument approaches, all of this may be Greek to you.

beachnut · Aug 26, 2007

how can people can be dumb enough to turn an accident into a CT?
What is TERPs? If you read the prior post, you know.

Okay, USAF Instruction (AFI) 11-206 requires any instrument approach procedure not published in a US Department of Defense (DOD) or US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) flight information publication be reviewed by the major command terminal instrument procedures (TERPs) specialist before it can be flown by USAF crews. This is the reason the crew should not use the Jeppesen approach procedure, it was not reviewed by TERPs specialists. And even then they would require VFR conditions to fly the approach until the procedure made the DOD or NOAA publications with routine checks for accuracy.

If you design an instrument approach using critera of TERPs, for the approach the accident crew flew you would have more safety. The criteria takes into account errors that pilots make and common errors in the instruments and navigation equipment of the plane and the ground stations. It is a design to make the approaches safe even if the pilots makes gross errors. Yes there is a limit. If the pilot ignores an altitude and keeps flying down, he will hit the ground. If the pilot flies too far off course he can hit stuff. But if you think the accident aircrew made major mistakes, you may be surprised to know if the approach was properly designed they would have missed the mountain and finally realized they were suppose to go missed approach and off course. The NDB is not a good approach to fly, it is hard to figure out where you are, unless you fly them a lot. I takes a lot of practice and you must pay attention. These pilots were qualified to fly the NDB, but there are other issues about NDBs which you can critique these pilots on.

Here is what the procedure should have had for MDA if designed correctly.

The minimum descent altitude (MDA) was the killer on this approach. The crew descended to 2150 feet. The impact point was 2175 feet. They were on altitude for the Jeppesen approach procedure. (I call the paper this is on, the approach plate, that is the approach procedure you saw in the posts above). If you are using LKP for approach guidance the MDA should be 2822 feet according to TERPs and ICOA procedures to ensure terrain clearance. Notice the airaft would be safe at 2800 feet.

How can you blame the pilot for the accident when the approach procedure was banned!?. The pilot is the final authority. The pilot is the boss. The pilot should have know the regulations banning the Jeppesen plates for use. With knowledge of why the plates are banned the pilot could stuffy the approach and see the mountain, and adjust his own minimums to 2800 to 3000 feet, and not go lower until he sees the runway.

The AIB mainly cites the pilot for not being on course and going missed approach. Each investigation has to make a decision what caused the accident. And if you had the pilots on course, and going missed approach at CV NDB, you have no accident. Therefore you can cite the pilots for failure after you make sure there were no other factors messing up the course. I think flying the NDB is enough trouble to give you a few miles and several degrees. If I was going to object to the finding I would have to fly the approach in the same type over and over to see the common errors. But the AIB is warranted in citing the crew for the bad approach flying. (But the proper approach plate would have saved them all; just a few hundred feet made the difference)

We have an unsafe approach procedure, authorized by commanders, and flown by the accident crew. We have clouds, the crew can not see the ground or the mountain they will hit.

beachnut · Aug 26, 2007

SIB not done, they used the AIB

The AIB also had the navigation aids (NAVAIDs) inspected for accuracy. The NDBs at Dubrovnik, KLP an CV radio beacons were both found to be satisfactory. They checked these NAVAIDs to make sure there were no errors that made the crew fly to the left of course. The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) flight-checked the approach. The AIB had all the resources they wanted. The investigation also checked for electromagnetic interference environmental effects, radiation fields; lightning effects; coastal bending of the KLP 318 kHz or CV 397 kHz NDB signals. They also looked for any other interference that could mess up anything. No effects were observed. They even checked a PED found in the accident debris. Ground and flight testing found the PED emissions did not interfere with the CT-43A navigation aids. EMI was checked out too. Other test were done for other things that could interfere. Nothing was found.

This is the same stuff a SIB does, but the AIB had even more horsepower to conduct the investigation, they had all the resources the SIB had plus more. I was amazed they had the power to get the FAA check done quickly and all the people they had to do all the work. They had like both the SIB and AIB personnel plus extra. This is standard for SIBs and unusual for AIB. Usually the AIB is undermanned, but does get to use all the factual information of the SIB. More later.
The big point is this is a big investigation, no shortcuts, no bull.

beachnut · Aug 26, 2007

The crew flew the NDB approach as published, the investigation was detailed

The fact is the crew flew from Split to KLP NDB and then flew outbound on a radial. (yes an NDB does not have radials) The plane goes over KLP and flies outbound from KLP, not away from a false NDB station, and not towards a false NDB station. The crew had the KLP frequency set so there was guidance from the KLP NDB. I did not want to mention the CT crap, but no, there was no rogue NDB station on the mountain. The approach as flown was from KLP, backed up by evidence, including altitude profiles.

The AIB could not figure out what the crew was using to define CV, the missed approach point (MAP). This is the point where the crews flies away and climbs toward the right if they can not see the runway from the MDA. They suspect the pilot timed the FAF to the MAP, and the clock had been set. You reach down and punch the clock to time the distance covered. The clock had stopped at 5 minutes and 50 seconds, indicating the pilot started the clock before the FAF. And this approach procedure should not be timed.

The AIB found the approach at Dubrovnik was designed to ICAO criteria but they had applied the wrong parameters. They missed the controlling obstacle and did not compute the proper MDA.

This is just some of the detail the AIB went to. 7,000 plus pages.

Brown murder conspiracy split from Bush v Clinton Impeachment

Salted Sith Cynic

Based on a true story!

Salted Sith Cynic

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Thinker

Banned

Unregistered

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Thinker

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing