Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 11,691
BeAChooser said:
You found the facts around your own particular conspiracy theory yet?
Vince Foster and Ron Brown conspiracies
- Thread starter Undesired Walrus
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ron brown vince foster
You found the facts around your own particular conspiracy theory yet?
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
I have my facts. It's folks like you that just don't want to show up and debate them.
By the way, I got a warning yesterday:
Might one construe your post a violation of Rule 11?
maxpower1227
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,998
Dude, trust me, give this one up. I'm a moderate-conservative, but you are just an embarrassment. Anyone who honestly believes the Clinton Body Count nonsense has completely jumped the shark and serves no purpose other than to give reasonable conservatives a bad name.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
I didn't say anything about the Body Count "nonsense". I spoke of only 2 deaths ... that of Ron Brown and Vince Foster. And in those two cases, there are some very unusual and incriminating facts ... facts that most of you seem almost desperate to ignore. Now why is that, "Dude"?
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
The same reason we ignore the interesting facts of the Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Area 51, the Grassy Knoll, 9/11, USPS, IRS, Roswell, Fatima, the Philadelphia Experiment, Pearl Harbor, the Jews, Tri-Lateral commission, the Reptoids, Moon Hoax, Chemtrails, Alien Abductions, Red Neck Abductions (AKA "he's got purdy lips), Big Pharma, Little Petey, Thimeriasol, and Dolly Parton.
Though I ignore RNK's, I still won't go white water rafting in the South. That's just me though. I guess I'm a bit superstitious that way.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
You raise a lot of red herrings. But they have nothing to do with the facts in the Ron Brown or Vince Foster cases. Such as the fact that ALL the pathologists on record (except one and I can prove he lied about the facts in the case and the opinions of the other pathologists) said the wound looked like a bullet wound and Ron Brown should have been autopsied. But then, you don't want to talk about what some of the best pathologists in the country at the time had to say. You'd rather talk about UFOs and other things I've said nothing about. You afraid of something?
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
You raise a lot of red herrings. But they have nothing to do with the facts in the Ron Brown or Vince Foster cases. Such as the fact that ALL the pathologists on record (except one and I can prove he lied about the facts in the case and the opinions of the other pathologists) said the wound looked like a bullet wound and Ron Brown should have been autopsied. But then, you don't want to talk about what some of the best pathologists in the country at the time had to say. You'd rather talk about UFOs and other things I've said nothing about. You afraid of something?
I think "jumped the couch" is a better description than "jumped the shark" for BAC.
There's already a very lengthy thread on Ron Brown, where your conspiracy theories were thoroughly dismantled by people much more knowledgeable than yourself about military aviation and crash responses. You posted in it a lot. Go post there some more if you have new evidence, and if not just link people to it instead of trying to derail every other thread into a rehash of that one.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Actually, Kevin, those threads show that those you claim dismantled the allegations actually knew very little about Air Force regulations or the facts in the Brown case. In them, they basically just regurgitated (or should I say chanted) the "official" position from an Air Force report that curiously failed to even mention that pathologists in the case had noted the wound's bullet like appearance and called for an autopsy at the time (which didn't happen on orders from the Whitehouse and JCS, by the way). That report also neglected to mention a number of other significant incriminating facts which I listed and sourced in those threads. None of which your debunkers ever addressed. They just ignored them (like you are now trying to do, Kevin). Or they wanted to pretend like *they* were experts in forensic pathology or aircraft crashes. Which I demonstrated wasn't true. For those who'd like to confirm this, here are the threads that Kevin refers to ... but for some reason
)) fails to actually link you to:http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87011 The first thread I discussed this topic on the forum. Will all the behaviors I noted above.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90750 This one is especially good. In it, I even debate Kevin directly. You can watch Kevin (as I noted in this thread) "obfuscate, distort, mischaracterize, pretend ignorance, blatantly ignore facts and easy to understand logic, spin, and post illogical nonsense" and hope this allegation goes away. So do many of the other *debunkers*. It's good reading and very illuminating regarding Kevin, who claims to be a disinterested Australian but keeps jumping in to defend Clinton whenever he's mentioned. Like now.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87840&page=3 Here, the death of Brown was debated along with some other scandals ... like Filegate. And surprise, surprise, some of the same people show up to defend the Clintons against those allegations too.
I maintain, Kevin, that those who bother to read the above threads will conclude your description of their content is nothing short of dishonest. I wonder why that dishonesty was necessary?
He didn't actually bring it up in this thread.
albion
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2008
- Messages
- 323
maxpower1227
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,998
You are horribly mistaken. My previous comments to you were far too lenient.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I bought into the CT on both. It turns out they are as interesting as all the rest.
All of the CT I listed have similar facts that's why they are kept alive.Such as the fact that ALL the pathologists on record (except one and I can prove he lied about the facts in the case and the opinions of the other pathologists) said the wound looked like a bullet wound and Ron Brown should have been autopsied. But then, you don't want to talk about what some of the best pathologists in the country at the time had to say. You'd rather talk about UFOs and other things I've said nothing about. You afraid of something?
No, nothing in my list proves or disproves your CT. I'll concede that. However it's a very important point that the reason we ignore your CT is the same we ignore the rest.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
No. Aliens aren't the only with the anal probes.Are you trying to claim Deliverance wasn't a factually accurate documentary?
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
What characteristics do we associate with those other CT theories?
1) They ignore any fact that proves them wrong. But I've addressed every single point made by my opponents on this topic. It has been YOUR side that has had to ignore factual points over and over.
2) They ignore or dismiss what real experts on the subject say. But I'm the one quoting the real experts in this case ... the pathologists. And they agree with me ... not you. It has been YOUR side that has been ignoring or dismissing out of hand what the real experts say.
3) They distort or lie about the facts and the statements of their opponents. But I've been very careful not to do that. It has been YOUR side (not necessarily you) in this debate that have employed those tactics.
4) They throw out red herrings and employ countless strawmen. Again, that's not a tactic I've used. That's a tactic YOUR side in this debate has employed.
Sorry, the Ron Brown allegation is nothing like those other CTs. Which is why you don't find threads where it's successfully debunked. So instead, your side has to resort to the sort of tactics you and Kevin tried here.
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87011 The first thread I discussed this topic on the forum. Will all the behaviors I noted above.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90750 This one is especially good. In it, I even debate Kevin directly. You can watch Kevin (as I noted in this thread) "obfuscate, distort, mischaracterize, pretend ignorance, blatantly ignore facts and easy to understand logic, spin, and post illogical nonsense" and hope this allegation goes away. So do many of the other *debunkers*. It's good reading and very illuminating regarding Kevin, who claims to be a disinterested Australian but keeps jumping in to defend Clinton whenever he's mentioned. Like now.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87840&page=3 Here, the death of Brown was debated along with some other scandals ... like Filegate. And surprise, surprise, some of the same people show up to defend the Clintons against those allegations too.
I maintain, Kevin, that those who bother to read the above threads will conclude your description of their content is nothing short of dishonest. I wonder why that dishonesty was necessary?
Quoted for posterity. I strongly encourage anyone interested in the Ron Brown matter to go to those threads, particularly the middle one, read what is posted there and come to their own conclusions.
I think most people who do this will end up sharing maxpower1227's view, that I have correctly characterised those threads and that BAC's statements about those threads are deluded, dishonest or both.
maxpower1227
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,998
I'd seriously LOVE to have been a fly on the wall during the planning meetings for this particular hit 
. What is it with these conspirators choosing unnecessarily complicated means to achieve their goals? It reminds me of the people who believe that the gubmint blew up the Murrah Building in OKC by planing explosives INSIDE the building, when they wanted to create the illusion that it was an ANFO bomb in a truck outside the building. Apparently it would have been too easy to ACTUALLY detonate an ANFO bomb in a truck outside the building to create the desired illusion.
. What is it with these conspirators choosing unnecessarily complicated means to achieve their goals? It reminds me of the people who believe that the gubmint blew up the Murrah Building in OKC by planing explosives INSIDE the building, when they wanted to create the illusion that it was an ANFO bomb in a truck outside the building. Apparently it would have been too easy to ACTUALLY detonate an ANFO bomb in a truck outside the building to create the desired illusion.maxpower1227
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,998
Oh, I'm sure you can think of more. Here's one:
5) They fail to utilize any real sources, instead relying on places like Newsmax, World Nut Daily, and.. apparently... Rense and WhatReallyHappened. Bravo on that by the way.
LOL even Kenneth Starr said that Vince Foster killed himself. Oh yeah and Richard Mellon Scaife tried to proove that Bill Clinton killed Ron Brown and Vince Foster. So I guess Hillary Clinton was right after all there was somekind of a vast right wing conspiracy. Didn"t Rush Limbaugh allso claim that Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster and Ron Brown? LOL even Jerry Falwell made a movie called The Clinton Chronicles. Bill Clinton even pardoned Susan McDougal.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
No, max, #5 is
5) They mischaracterize the sources of the other side's data. If you'd actually looked, you'd see that my sources included direct quotes from the pathologists and photographer in the case (did you know you could actually listen to them in audio recordings of interviews they gave at the time verifying everything written in the various articles from Newsmax, etc?), Aviation Week (a quite respectable magazine) , the Pittsburgh Tribune Review (second largest paper in Pittsburgh), CNN, AIM, court documents (remember it is a crime for a lawyer to submit something to a court that is factually untrue), and various government documents.
I challenge you to prove that ANY of the material reported as fact by Newsmax and Christopher Ruddy in the Ron Brown case is false. I've made this challenge repeatedly to folks on your side who try your tactic of attacking the messenger and you know what? NOT ONCE has your side actually attempted to meet that challenge. A classic sign of CT, by the way.
Why are you still hiding from the statements of the pathologists, max?
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Quick question. Why did Kenneth Starr publically announce that the FBI files in the Filegate matter had been returned to the FBI when it turned out years later they were still sitting in the Whitehouse (see the statement of Special Prosecutor Ray who took over Starr's job)? Have an answer?
By the way, did you actually go and look at the what Starr did in his "investigation" of the Vince Foster matter? No? Thought not.