BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
I believe this is deserving of it's own thread. It's a good example of why I think we should be skeptical of anything seen on TV.
In 2007 National Geographics did a high profile documentary on TV about the crash where Ron Brown died. It showed a supposed re-creation of the event. Curiously, a VERY similar documentary was shown about the same time on the Discovery Channel (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0932026/ ). It had almost the same basic content as the other but used a different voice as the voiceover. Both contain a lot of imagery that are actors re-creating events ... not actual video from that day.
Here is the National Geographic special:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S227TXZsuis "Flight 21 is Missing Part 1"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1IltgCncvk&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 2"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StCQ2iWt6VU&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 3"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyg6zHEIJxs&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 4"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8wGpcrMOx8&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 5"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pn04ta9QGQ&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 6"
Here is what was shown on the Discovery Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKetUidt-kg "Mayday - Fog of War Part 1"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78k7jLnkBM0 "Mayday - Fog of War Part 2"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX5e88s1t9Y "Mayday - Fog of War Part 3"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO7Ef9wrN04 "Mayday - Fog of War Part 4"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5YPL-6wguM&feature=related "Mayday - Fog of War Part 5"
Watch both. You'll see the "official version" of what happened.
Now here's the problem and why I'm skeptical.
The National Geographics version mentions "bizarre rumors" that a decoy beacon could have been used to guide the plane into the mountain. The documentary makes the dismissive claim that a very large ground system on the mountain would have been needed to make that scenario possible. Such a "scheme" would be "nearly impossible to pull off" is their claim. It doesn't mention to the audience that a portable beacon went missing from the Dubrovnik airport and that the magazine Aviation Week concluded such a beacon could indeed have been used to spoof the plane into flying into the mountain. And there is no reference to the fact that the man who would have been responsible for that equipment at the airport just happened to commit suicide (or so it was reported in the mainstream media) just days after the crash and before investigators could interview him. One would think these are facts an honest documentary would report.
Even more damning is that is the only place in either "documentary" where you will see any specifics regarding evidence that pointed to foul play in the crash.
For example, neither documentary says one word about concerns that were voiced by military forensic pathologists and a military photographer at the examination of Ron Brown's body and afterwords. These experts said the hole in Brown's head and what's seen in the surviving x-ray images of his head suggest a possible bullet wound and that Brown should have been autopsied as a result. These were matters of public record at the time the documentaries were made. So why no mention, especially given the fact that these experts were never convinced otherwise.
There also isn't any mention of what happened to the military pathologists and photographer after they blew the whistle about what they saw and the opinions they voiced. About how they were punished and their careers ruined by a administration claiming it was seeking the truth. This too is a matter of public record. The documentaries go into great detail regarding the punishment various military officers received for their role in the crash. So why not mention the punishment handed out to these experts? Afterall, it's part of the overall story.
You won't see any mention in the documentaries of the photos of the head and x-rays that in the opinion of the military pathologists, as well as several experts in gunshot outside the Air Force, suggested a possible bullet wound. These photos are a matter of public record and cause for great controversy ... especially since all the originals managed to disappear from a locked safe at AFIP to which only a few had access.
And there are other obviously important omissions.
There is no mention that Ron Brown was under investigation by literally everyone at the end, including a special prosecutor. That there sworn testimony that just prior to the trade mission he'd gone to the Whitehouse and told President that he was going to turn states evidence in the Campaign Finance and Chinagate matters. Or that Bill Clinton cried crocodile tears at his funeral.
While the documentaries make a big deal about the size and completeness of the AIB final report , they don't mention that the Air Force skipped (for the first time in Air Force history except one clear case of friendly fire) the phase of the normal crash investigation where the cause of the crash is determined ... the SIB. Or that the AIB report failed to mention that military pathologists said the word "bullet" at the examination and even called for an autopsy. And I've never been able to confirm that the report even contained photos of the wound on Brown's head or of the x-rays of his head. That certainly would be a strange omission from a report that was over 7000 pages long and supposedly aimed at providing information to the public and the families of the victims (in case they want to sue for damages). Wouldn't you folks agree with me there?
The documentaries also ignore the fact that Ira Sockowitz (a Clinton administration official who was associated with John Huang and Chinagate) informed the Secretary of State from the crash site that TWO people survived the crash. The documentaries just talk about the one admitted survivor, Shelly Kelly, who (they say) happened to die on the way to the hospital. There is also no mention that Shelly Kelly's body was cremated soon after arriving at Dover, without the consent of her parents or family. That was a clear violation of regulations and there's no mention in the documentaries that anyone was ever punished for that violation.
Now in the documentaries, there is the claim that soon after rescuers arrived at the crash site, they discovered there were no flight data recorders on the plane and that this was standard for military aircraft. What they fail to mention is that the Croatian Ministry of Transportation announced shortly after the crash that the black boxes had been found. And that the US Air Force in Germany confirmed they were found. How could the Croatians have made such a mistake given the unique appearance of "black boxes"? How could the Air Force have "confirmed" that without actually confirming it? The documentaries don't address this.
They also don't mention that regulations at the time reportedly required that planes carrying cabinet level officials (like Brown) be equipped with black boxes. Or that this exact plane had carried the Secretary of Defense and the First Lady on previous occasions, and they too were subject to that regulation. And that no one was punished for violating it. Is failing to obey this regulation any less important than the failure to obey procedures that officers were punished for, according to the documentary?
The documentaries re-create the scene of Ambassador Galbraith waiting at the airport ... waiting for the plane to arrive in what appears to be awful weather. This terrible weather is alluded to numerous times throughout the videos. Clearly, the makers wished to leave the viewer with the feeling that weather played an important role in the crash. But the final AIB report ruled that weather played "no significant role" in the crash. Why don't the documentaries mention that? Could it be because the government shelled out millions and millions of dollars to the families of those on the aircraft while blaming weather as the cause? Did they not want to embarrass the government in this one instance?
And I noticed something else in these *documentaries*. The last communication they show between the plane and the airport is when the plane is still 12 kilometers from the airport ... almost 8 miles. That's consistent with what Christopher Ruddy reported in his series of newspaper articles on the crash. I ask you ... why did they lose communication well before the plane reached the airport? And Aviation Week stated they lost both radio and transponder contact at the same time. This loss of communication has never been explained by the Air Force. Ever. It's just been ignored. And you'll notice it's just ignored in these so-called documentaries, too. But don't you think a loss of communication would be a major factor in this crash? That it would be something that should be focused on in documentaries such as these?
And I could go on and on listing important facts they left out of these two documentaries. Isn't it amazing that the media can put this much effort into a re-creation (with actors, sets and all that) yet not even mention the facts I just noted? They can't be unaware of those facts ... yet they don't mention ANY of them.
One might conclude it is a willful coverup. But even if you disagree with that, you have to agree that the documentaries did a poor job of covering the story. So I close with the question I started with: Can we believe ANYTHING that we see on TV anymore? If we can't trust the veracity of National Geographics and Discovery Channel, what can we trust?
In 2007 National Geographics did a high profile documentary on TV about the crash where Ron Brown died. It showed a supposed re-creation of the event. Curiously, a VERY similar documentary was shown about the same time on the Discovery Channel (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0932026/ ). It had almost the same basic content as the other but used a different voice as the voiceover. Both contain a lot of imagery that are actors re-creating events ... not actual video from that day.
Here is the National Geographic special:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S227TXZsuis "Flight 21 is Missing Part 1"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1IltgCncvk&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 2"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StCQ2iWt6VU&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 3"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyg6zHEIJxs&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 4"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8wGpcrMOx8&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 5"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pn04ta9QGQ&feature=related "Flight 21 is Missing Part 6"
Here is what was shown on the Discovery Channel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKetUidt-kg "Mayday - Fog of War Part 1"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78k7jLnkBM0 "Mayday - Fog of War Part 2"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX5e88s1t9Y "Mayday - Fog of War Part 3"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO7Ef9wrN04 "Mayday - Fog of War Part 4"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5YPL-6wguM&feature=related "Mayday - Fog of War Part 5"
Watch both. You'll see the "official version" of what happened.
Now here's the problem and why I'm skeptical.
The National Geographics version mentions "bizarre rumors" that a decoy beacon could have been used to guide the plane into the mountain. The documentary makes the dismissive claim that a very large ground system on the mountain would have been needed to make that scenario possible. Such a "scheme" would be "nearly impossible to pull off" is their claim. It doesn't mention to the audience that a portable beacon went missing from the Dubrovnik airport and that the magazine Aviation Week concluded such a beacon could indeed have been used to spoof the plane into flying into the mountain. And there is no reference to the fact that the man who would have been responsible for that equipment at the airport just happened to commit suicide (or so it was reported in the mainstream media) just days after the crash and before investigators could interview him. One would think these are facts an honest documentary would report.
Even more damning is that is the only place in either "documentary" where you will see any specifics regarding evidence that pointed to foul play in the crash.
For example, neither documentary says one word about concerns that were voiced by military forensic pathologists and a military photographer at the examination of Ron Brown's body and afterwords. These experts said the hole in Brown's head and what's seen in the surviving x-ray images of his head suggest a possible bullet wound and that Brown should have been autopsied as a result. These were matters of public record at the time the documentaries were made. So why no mention, especially given the fact that these experts were never convinced otherwise.
There also isn't any mention of what happened to the military pathologists and photographer after they blew the whistle about what they saw and the opinions they voiced. About how they were punished and their careers ruined by a administration claiming it was seeking the truth. This too is a matter of public record. The documentaries go into great detail regarding the punishment various military officers received for their role in the crash. So why not mention the punishment handed out to these experts? Afterall, it's part of the overall story.
You won't see any mention in the documentaries of the photos of the head and x-rays that in the opinion of the military pathologists, as well as several experts in gunshot outside the Air Force, suggested a possible bullet wound. These photos are a matter of public record and cause for great controversy ... especially since all the originals managed to disappear from a locked safe at AFIP to which only a few had access.
And there are other obviously important omissions.
There is no mention that Ron Brown was under investigation by literally everyone at the end, including a special prosecutor. That there sworn testimony that just prior to the trade mission he'd gone to the Whitehouse and told President that he was going to turn states evidence in the Campaign Finance and Chinagate matters. Or that Bill Clinton cried crocodile tears at his funeral.
While the documentaries make a big deal about the size and completeness of the AIB final report , they don't mention that the Air Force skipped (for the first time in Air Force history except one clear case of friendly fire) the phase of the normal crash investigation where the cause of the crash is determined ... the SIB. Or that the AIB report failed to mention that military pathologists said the word "bullet" at the examination and even called for an autopsy. And I've never been able to confirm that the report even contained photos of the wound on Brown's head or of the x-rays of his head. That certainly would be a strange omission from a report that was over 7000 pages long and supposedly aimed at providing information to the public and the families of the victims (in case they want to sue for damages). Wouldn't you folks agree with me there?
The documentaries also ignore the fact that Ira Sockowitz (a Clinton administration official who was associated with John Huang and Chinagate) informed the Secretary of State from the crash site that TWO people survived the crash. The documentaries just talk about the one admitted survivor, Shelly Kelly, who (they say) happened to die on the way to the hospital. There is also no mention that Shelly Kelly's body was cremated soon after arriving at Dover, without the consent of her parents or family. That was a clear violation of regulations and there's no mention in the documentaries that anyone was ever punished for that violation.
Now in the documentaries, there is the claim that soon after rescuers arrived at the crash site, they discovered there were no flight data recorders on the plane and that this was standard for military aircraft. What they fail to mention is that the Croatian Ministry of Transportation announced shortly after the crash that the black boxes had been found. And that the US Air Force in Germany confirmed they were found. How could the Croatians have made such a mistake given the unique appearance of "black boxes"? How could the Air Force have "confirmed" that without actually confirming it? The documentaries don't address this.
They also don't mention that regulations at the time reportedly required that planes carrying cabinet level officials (like Brown) be equipped with black boxes. Or that this exact plane had carried the Secretary of Defense and the First Lady on previous occasions, and they too were subject to that regulation. And that no one was punished for violating it. Is failing to obey this regulation any less important than the failure to obey procedures that officers were punished for, according to the documentary?
The documentaries re-create the scene of Ambassador Galbraith waiting at the airport ... waiting for the plane to arrive in what appears to be awful weather. This terrible weather is alluded to numerous times throughout the videos. Clearly, the makers wished to leave the viewer with the feeling that weather played an important role in the crash. But the final AIB report ruled that weather played "no significant role" in the crash. Why don't the documentaries mention that? Could it be because the government shelled out millions and millions of dollars to the families of those on the aircraft while blaming weather as the cause? Did they not want to embarrass the government in this one instance?
And I noticed something else in these *documentaries*. The last communication they show between the plane and the airport is when the plane is still 12 kilometers from the airport ... almost 8 miles. That's consistent with what Christopher Ruddy reported in his series of newspaper articles on the crash. I ask you ... why did they lose communication well before the plane reached the airport? And Aviation Week stated they lost both radio and transponder contact at the same time. This loss of communication has never been explained by the Air Force. Ever. It's just been ignored. And you'll notice it's just ignored in these so-called documentaries, too. But don't you think a loss of communication would be a major factor in this crash? That it would be something that should be focused on in documentaries such as these?
And I could go on and on listing important facts they left out of these two documentaries. Isn't it amazing that the media can put this much effort into a re-creation (with actors, sets and all that) yet not even mention the facts I just noted? They can't be unaware of those facts ... yet they don't mention ANY of them.
One might conclude it is a willful coverup. But even if you disagree with that, you have to agree that the documentaries did a poor job of covering the story. So I close with the question I started with: Can we believe ANYTHING that we see on TV anymore? If we can't trust the veracity of National Geographics and Discovery Channel, what can we trust?
