Brown murder conspiracy split from Bush v Clinton Impeachment

BeAChooser · Aug 18, 2007

Darth Rotor said:
None of them said blunt trauma didn't cause death.

Dig dig dig.

First of all, none of the pathologists (except for Dickerson, who can be shown to have lied about the facts and the opinions of his staff) is now on record saying blunt force trauma is the cause of death. Gormley has retracted his claim to that effect given that he now acknowledges that the reasons he gave in that report for calling it blunt force trauma are untrue.

Colonel Cogswell said he found nothing at the site that could explain the hole in Brown's head. When the wound was described to him by Gormley, he says he told Gormley "Open him up. This man needs an autopsy. This whole thing stinks." That sure sounds like a suspicion that blunt force trauma didn't cause the death.

Cogwell (an expert on gunshot, by the way) had a presentation that he gave at conferences on "mistake in pathology". During that presentation he showed the Brown x-rays and told his audiences that inside the left side of Brown's head, in the area behind his eye socket, "there are multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density on X-ray. That's what we might describe as a `lead snowstorm' from a high-velocity gunshot wound." That sure sounds like a suspicion that blunt force trauma was not the cause.

Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory, while acknowledging he is not a pathologist, said he thought it "very difficult to see" how something like a rivet could have produced the head wound. He also said brain matter was visible. "It's round as hell. That is extremely round. I'm impressed by how very, very round that hole is. That's unusual except for a gunshot wound. It's unusual for anything else." That also sounds like suspicion blunt force trauma is not the cause.

Allegheny County Coroner Cyril Wecht said "There was more than enough evidence of a possible homicide to call in the FBI so that (the autopsy could have been conducted) and a gunshot could have been ruled out. The military had a duty to notify the (Brown) family, and if the family didn't allow an autopsy, go to another authority to have it conducted. (AFIP) had a duty to do an autopsy." Wecht did not rule out the possibility that a piece of the aircraft could have caused the hole, but agreed with Cogswell that such a "perfectly circular" hole would be difficult to achieve with parts of the plane.

Pathologist Hause told his superior that the wound was very consistent with an "exotic weapon," such as a captive-bolt gun. Hause also says he advised Spencer that Gormley should have conducted an autopsy, and that "Secretary Brown's body should be exhumed and an autopsy performed by pathologists not associated with AFIP." That doesn't sound like he was convinced it was blunt force trauma.

Care to guess why?

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
You falsely misrepresent the facts and ignore all the facts I pointed out showing your scenario is not the only one that was possible.

Nope. Your alleged plot is possible, but it is absurd on the execution end.

Dig dig dig. It's absurd only because you misrepresent what is and is not possible. Also, why do you have this need to go straight to the scenario before you even know if a murder occurred. What law enforcement usually does is confirm it was a murder first. Then they address how. I guess being a *pilot* you aren't familiar with that process?

Darth Rotor said:
Occam's Razor, and parsimony, argue for what the USAF said was the major contributor to the crash: error. Pilot error has been killing people for a long time. It will do so in the future.

Why are you so desperate, DR?

Darth Rotor said:
You still have not answered the fundamental question, about why you send a kamikaze into a plane to kill a guy who will be killed in a plane crash you set up.

Here you go misrepresenting the range of possible scenarios AGAIN and ignoring the FACT that people did survive the crash (at least until rescuers got there). Why are you so desperate, DR?

Darth Rotor said:
As to the charge of "you must be a democrat if . . ." that's a pathetic

It would explain your desperation, however. Can't see out what else would lead you to destroy your credibility on this forum over this issue in this way.

Darth Rotor said:
You then assert that I am "desperate" for it to go away.

Your behavior in this discussion certainly suggests that. Unless you use such dishonest debating tactics in all your debates.

Darth Rotor said:
Your Ron Brown CT is what it is: unsubstantiated talk.

The x-rays are substantiated. The statements of the experts in gunshot and pathology are substantiated. The fact the Air Force skipped the phase of the normal crash investigation where cause is determined is substantiated. The fact that you can't explain what caused the loss of transponder and voice contact with the plane when it was 8 miles from the crash site is substantiated. The fact that a portable beacon went missing is substantiated. The fact that the man in charge of that beacon died within a few days of the crash before he could be interviewed is substantiated. The fact that by law and autopsy should have been done and wasn't is substantiated. The fact that there was motive to kill Brown is substantiated. And I'd have to add that your desperation is also now substantiated.

Darth Rotor said:
Quote: That is completely false. As pointed out, a government document found in the files of the Warren Christopher states that TWO passengers on the plane were found alive at the crash site. The government publically stated that the stewardess, Kelly, was found alive in the wreckage.

How many people on that plane didn't die? None.

DESPERATION.

Darth Rotor said:
Where was the AWACS? Distance and azimuth. Back up your assertion.

An Air Force General in a briefing to the public near the start of the investigation said the AWACS data would show what happened to the plane. Why would he say that if the AWACS was not line of sight to the aircraft at all times? Indeed, why would an AWACS be flying below the mountains in that area anyway? Those mountains aren't very high. Claiming to be an Air Force *pilot*, one would think you'd know that AWACS fly higher than such mountains. Seems to me you are the one who must now prove it wasn't doing that. So why don't you quote from the report and prove it. Bet you don't.

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
All Major General Coolidge, who headed the investigation, had to say when asked about this is that his technical experts told him that the sudden turns were anomalies of no significance. Really? No significance? Do turns like that happen all the time, Mr *pilot*?

The general is correct.

Really? Sudden 90 degree turns than almost 90 degree turns back onto a new course are the usual way you approach a runway when you are already lined up with the runway to begin with? Because that's the way things happened. You really expect us to believe that is of no significance, *pilot*? Dig dig dig ...

Darth Rotor said:
As I said, everyone on that plane died.

No, you initially said they wouldn't survive the crash.

Darth Rotor said:
"Commerce Dept. has heard from Advance Ira Sokowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash."

But funnily enough, only one was, per your report above. How do you reconcile that?

That's the point, *genius*. The government publically stated to everyone that only one person survived the impact, when an official confidential chronology of the event says that two did. Who was that second person, DR? The government won't tell us but maybe you know, being so intimately familiar with the case.

Darth Rotor said:
And did these forensic pathologists state "that is a bullet wound" or "it looks like one?"

DESPERATION. You really want this to go away. Why is it so important that you'd sacrifice your own credibility on this forum?

Darth Rotor said:
On the 9-11 CT, you get the usual "sounded like a bomb" which fools like you use to conclude "bombs were planted in the Twin Towers.

That's a strawman. I'm not a 911 Twoofer, and you know that. And there's a big difference between the 9/11 witnesses saying something sounded like a bomb and a forensic pathologist saying a wound looks like a bullet wound. But then you are really desperate so to you they have to be equivalent.

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
Not sure what you are implying by this? Are you now going to claim that the shooter had to have shot all the people on the plane for the allegation that Brown was shot to have any merit? Surely you don't believe THAT, DR.

Once Brown was shot, there are thirty plus other people on the plane. Some of them are military crew members. They are going to do what? Blissfully ignore this event, as you blissfully ignore the laws of physics?

Besides pointing out for the umpteenth time that there is nothing in the known facts that precludes Brown from having been shot on the ground, you have no idea what happened on that plane before the crash. There was no voice communication for the last 3 to 4 minutes of the flight and, according to the Air Force, there was no voice recorder (after initially confirming that one was found, I should add). The truth is a man with a gun would be king on a flight like that. What happened to the bodyguards gun? Was it taken from him? And the rear door of the plane was found open when the rescuers arrived. IF there was an assassin on the plane, couldn't the assassin have left by that means?

Darth Rotor said:
Any number of things will go wrong, to include the flight crew (most likely) squawks the IFF code for a hijack if a gun goes off. And makes a radio call.

How can they do that when apparently the radio and transponder stopped working when the plane was still 8 miles from the crash site?

Darth Rotor said:
You also have the problem of other passengers to deal with, who are witnesses.

So you kill them with a crashed plane.

Darth Rotor said:
Oh, wait, you posit a kamikaze assassin,

A DESPERATE STRAWMAN. Is that all you've got, DR? Frankly, your being a democrat is the only reason I can see for you being this desperate? Or would you care to offer another?

Darth Rotor said:
This forum knows CT idiocy when they see it, and you are loaded with it.

I guess we will see, DR.

Darth Rotor said:
Quote: But the JCS were certainly Clinton's people.

Nope.

Yes. They were appointed by Clinton, served at his behest and directly advised him on matters of importance. If ordered to skip the first phase of the normal investigation and assume an accidental crash, they would do it. "Yes Sir!" And that same logic held all the way down the line. Until a lone pathologist and a photographer said *wait a minute, folks!"

Darth Rotor said:
Quote: And according to Gormley, the pathologist who examined Brown's body, the order NOT to autopsy came directly from the White House, the JCS and Commerce.

If the order came from the White House

If? You don't believe Gormley?

Darth Rotor said:
Department of Commerce is not in his chain of command.

I don't believe you understand how government works, *Mr Pilot*. I have little doubt that Commerce was in on the discussions given that Brown was Secretary of Commerce. Given that it's unlikely Brown was the only bad apple at Commerce (and we know for a fact that he wasn't).

Darth Rotor said:
Given that you still don't get that the investigation that was done is the kind that is permitted to disclose info to the public, and the one that wasn't is the kind that is basically privileged information that by law cannot be, I am trying to understand your problem here.

No, you are not. You are acting obtuse out of desperation. Why doesn't the Air Force just do away with the SIB in all crash investigations, DR? Why was this one different?

Darth Rotor said:
Quote: You completely misrepresented what I said about the conclusions of the Air Force, vis a vis the impact of weather on the crash.

Could it be that you are full of it? Yes.

Could it be that instead of being polite and saying you misrepresented what I said, I should have just called you a liar?

Darth Rotor said:
I don't fear it, and I don't understand why you obsess over it.

You can't fathom why I might not want to drop this matter when the evidence seems to show that a mass murder was possibly committed to keep the treasonous illegal activities of the Clinton administration from being revealed in a court of law by Ron Brown? Your act is one of desperation, DR.

Darth Rotor said:
And I, like anyone with a brain, find that line of BS to be just that, BS

But it was {DR's crude verbage} uttered by the highest officials in the Clinton administration and military, before an investigation was even started.

Darth Rotor said:
and typical civilian hyperbolic statements made by misinformed idiots.

The person who is uninformed is the poster that's unaware that military officials were also saying the crash was due to weather before the investigation even began. Now who could that poster be?

Darth Rotor said:
You really need to head over to prisonplanet, those are your kindred spirits, BAC.

STRAWMAN. But then that's all you have left. So dig dig dig ...

Darth Rotor said:
That's a thing called human error, and if you look back a few posts ago, that decision was partly attributed to (by some in the USAF) the political pressure crews who flew VIP flights in theater were subjected to, and which their chain of command didn't support them in resisting.

I already posted the official statement by the military saying that they found NO evidence that pressure was applied to Brown's pilot by a VIP on any leg of his flight. Can you offer ANY proof that Brown did that on the many other trade missions he took? No?

Darth Rotor said:
No, boy, I am telling you what I learned from my buds on te 16th Air Force staff.

Hey, *boy*, maybe your "buds" can tell you what happened on that plane when it was still 8 miles from the crash site?

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
Well if they were shooting an instrument approach in the clouds, a portable beacon could then spoof them. Correct?

It could. So, your evidence of a beacon that replicated the Dubrovnik NDB is where? Somewhere in a fantasy.

No ... the evidence is a plane performing an odd manuever when it was 3 minutes from the runway and already lined up on that runway, a missing portable beacon (that the government admits), the suspicious suicide of the person responsible for that beacon before he could be interviewed (which again the government admits) and an Aviation Week article that said a beacon like that could be used to spoof a plane into flying like this one did.

Darth Rotor said:
No, a ceiling is measured from the ground to the base of the clouds.

Fine. I used the wrong word. The ALTITUDE of the base of the clouds that day was below the crash site. Fact. If you wish to obfuscate things so that folks don't understand, go right ahead and try. I think most of our readers will see right through that, DR. So go ahead and keep digging that hole for your credibility on this forum. It's too deep to get out of now.

Darth Rotor said:
Was the freq identical to the NDB at Dubrovnik?

The missing beacon came from Dubrovnik, so why wouldn't it be?

Darth Rotor said:
From the point of view of practicality, combining the two when no one was alive to have fault found versus "safety info that had to remain privileged," and the fact that the investigation had to take place in a foreign country, may have led to the decision just to do the JAG style investigation.

But that's not the reason the government/military gave for skipping the SIB and you know it. You're only trying to obfuscate, DR. Dig dig dig. That's your credibility going down down down.

Darth Rotor said:
Quote: You know, they skipped the phase that normally determines the cause of the crash, don't you?

No, you are wrong, again. Both types of investigation look into the causes of crash

But only the safety investigation (SIB) is stated in Air Force documents as having the "goal" of "determining the cause" of the crash. The accident investigation (AIB) is only charged with expressing an "opinion" about it and government documents state that the AIB is to use the SIB as a starting point for it's investigation. So again we find you misrepresenting the facts ... no, make that lying since I believe I previously posted you the relevant statements from the government documents. Here:

http://public.scott.af.mil/hqamc/library/facts/aib.htm "The sole purpose of safety investigations is mishap prevention and to determine the cause(s) of accidents. ... snip ... Accident investigations provide a publicly releasable report of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident and include a statement of opinion as to why the accident happened."

Darth Rotor said:
I've done JAG investigations

So you now claim.

Darth Rotor said:
I also had the advantage of a few buddies on 16th Air Force staff who shared some of the Air Force's dirty laundry with me over a few beers.

They didn't share with you what happened on the plane when it was still 8 miles from the crash?

Darth Rotor said:
I don't understand your obsession with Ron Brown

I don't understand your obsession with trying to protect the Clinton Administration (by making the pilots responsible for the crash) rather than just letting the chips fall where they may based on the facts. Yes or no ... are you against an exhumation and autopsy of Brown's body at this point?

Darth Rotor said:
You have pathologists ... snip ... magic and all.

Dig dig dig. You just can't help yourself, I guess.

Darth Rotor said:
Why are you so obsessed with this fantasy?

Why are you so obsessed that you'd use dishonest debating tactics, obfuscation, misrepresentation and ignoring of facts, and outright lies to fight this allegation, DR? What's Clinton's legacy to you?

Darth Rotor said:
Not only am I a retired military pilot, Naval Aviator to be precise, I was on duty in theater the day of the crash.

So you claim.

I have moved this part of the thread to Conspiracy Theories since it has obviously started a new subject.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: LibraryLady

Darth Rotor · Aug 18, 2007

BeAChooser said:
Hause also says he advised Spencer that Gormley should have conducted an autopsy, and that "Secretary Brown's body should be exhumed and an autopsy performed by pathologists not associated with AFIP." That doesn't sound like he was convinced it was blunt force trauma.

So why hasn't the body been exhumed since Clinton left office? Older remains than his have been exhumed, you read about it in the papers now and again. Anna Nicole Smith is a fresher case, but such an exhumation was court ordered.

It's absurd only because you misrepresent what is and is not possible.

No. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You don't provide support for your claim.

The extraordinary claim is that both a murder and a cover up were "what really happened" rather than a plane crash. One has to infer a suicide due to the crash itself, for your theory to work, or Superman.

You cannot demonstrate proof of that taking place.

You do not demonstrate proof of a survivor. You don't have a list of bodies found versus list on the plane that shows a missing body. So, you make up a fantasy Superman, kamikaze shooter.

You do not demostrate proof of a murder weapon other than the plane crash.

You do not demonstrate proof of other than pilot error causing CFIT.

You do not demonstrate proof of the entirety of the dozens of officers who handled the AIB falsified their findings.

You do not demonstrate proof of any action in the cockpit that was other than pilots flying in IMC to an unfamiliar field.

You link to a lengthy discussion of pathologists who cannot explain, and are not happy with, some of the results of their forensic work.

You cannot offer a coherent theory that takes the crew and its passengers from boarding, to flight, to crash, that supports your extraordinary claims.

You also ignore the relationship between Clinton's administration the Military in the mid 1990's, which was rather mistrustful.

Aircraft mishap reports have been subpoenae'd before, and when they are not released on the grounds of privileged information -- the courts have supported the military in this generally -- there are charges of "cover up" from lawyers representing families of dead aircrew.

Look at General Fogleman's position. If he convenes a SIB, the results cannot be divulged publicly, by law and regulation. If he convenes an AIB, the results can. The crash was loaded with immense political overtones. The USAF had just screwed up, and lost the Sec of Commerce in a plane crash in what should have been a routine pax run. If he orders a report that is then not releasable, he knows he'll be charged with a cover up. In the interest of being open and diffusing a potential political time bomb, he orders a releasable investigation so that full public disclosure is attendant on all elements of this crash. He does this for the reputation of the Air Force, which as Chief of Staff makes sense.

This was some savvy tactics on Fogleman's part, IMO, since it avoided any down stream accusations from the already anti military political operatives who Clinton brought into the Executive Branch, or other sharpshooters like Pat Schroeder.

"We have nothing to hide." That was the position he took.

IMO, it worked.

Also, why do you have this need to go straight to the scenario before you even know if a murder occurred. What law enforcement usually does is confirm it was a murder first. Then they address how. I guess being a *pilot* you aren't familiar with that process?

I am going to ask you the same thing. You presume it was a murder, and then you built your theory around it. Why you presume a CT, a plot and a cover up, without a coherent theory of the case from beginning to end, one based on evidence, is a mystery.

Why are you so desperate, DR?

There's that word again. Johnny One Note, that word does not mean what you think it means.

Here you go misrepresenting the range of possible scenarios AGAIN and ignoring the FACT that people did survive the crash (at least until rescuers got there).

Let's go through this again. How many people on that flight is there evidence of surviving the crash? Zero. All dead, including Kelly. So she was a DOA instead of a miraculous survivor. Looking at the condition she was in, where do you find the premise to assume any other "survivor" would be in any better shape, as in, able to get away? You can't, so you make up a superman. Fine. Suit yourself. Superman was in the flight with Ron Brown, as was the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

The x-rays are substantiated. The statements of the experts in gunshot and pathology are substantiated.

A gun shot, however, was not substantiated, based on what you provided to me in this thread and the other. That analysis was an estimate, let's call it an educated guess, since the doctors were professinals in the field, and "like a gunshot" was the assessment.

The fact the Air Force skipped the phase of the normal crash investigation where cause is determined is substantiated.

Also irrelevant. See above for a rational reason for Fogleman to take that path.

The fact that you can't explain what caused the loss of transponder and voice contact with the plane when it was 8miles from the crash site is substantiated.

I don't have to, I am not making the extraordinary claim. There are half a dozen reasons for that happening, like a popped circuit breaker, a short, a bump to stby from 3A/C, a malfunction, any of which could have done so.

You logic is: If transponder reported lost, THEN murder. Do you see the problem with your theory?

Also, did you note the bit where the Dubrovnik airport official lost radar contact 5 minutes before ETA, not five minutes before the crash?

The fact that a portable beacon went missing is substantiated. The fact that the man in charge of that beacon died within a few days of the crash before he could be interviewed is substantiated.

But the relevance of that has not been established, nor substantiated. I see you don't have the freq. Why is that? You short on facts? You make the extraordinary claim, you provide the facts. I am not required to disprove you, you are required to prove your case.

You have not. You merely raise questions, like a good little CT.

The fact that by law and autopsy should have been done and wasn't is substantiated. The fact that there was motive to kill Brown is substantiated.

What? You presume a motive. That is yours to prove. You don't, you assert it.

And I'd have to add that your desperation is also now substantiated.

And your dishonesty is yet again shown.

An Air Force General in a briefing to the public near the start of the investigation said the AWACS data would show what happened to the plane. Why would he say that if the AWACS was not line of sight to the aircraft at all times?

I'd say because he expected the AWACS data to show that. He makes a prediction. He's not the first guy to speak before he has the facts, and he won't be the last. (Any former staff officers in the audience will cringe with me. How often were your carefully vetted bullets tossed out the window when the flag officer opened his mouth?

)

Indeed, why would an AWACS be flying below the mountains in that area anyway? Those mountains aren't very high. Claiming to be an Air Force *pilot*, one would think you'd know that AWACS fly higher than such mountains.

Now you are making up stuff I didn't say, Mr Dishonesty, and I again ask you, please, to tell me the distance and azimuth of AWACS from Dubrovnik. Surely, you, who claime to have facts, can provide that simple fact to me, eh? Also, you will be able to tell me what mode the radar was operating in. Facts. You make the extraodinary claim, you provide the facts.
By the way, boy, beachnut is the retired Air Force pilot, I'm the retired Naval Aviator.

Seems to me you are the one who must now prove it wasn't doing that.

Nope. You argue from ignorance, then ask me to disprove your ignorance. You make the extraordinary claim, you provide the evidence.

Asking Questions Isn't Evidence. Got it?

Really? Sudden 90 degree turns than almost 90 degree turns back onto a new course are the usual way you approach a runway when you are already lined up with the runway to begin with?

BAC, if this had been a normal approach, there would not have been a crash, now would there? Various things can have happened to induce faulty navigation, and an in close over correction. Pilot has needle drifting, starts to chase it. Co pilot notices it, calls for a course correction. That's one scenario. Another is the pilot thinks he's got visual on a landmark, a VDP, or lights that are the runway environment. He turns toward them. Co pilot challenges him, and after a bit of back and forth, in low vis, discussing the lights, they turn back to course after figuring out they had made an error. Vertigo possible, though unlikely IMO. Scan breakdown, and trouble getting a sweet signal for the NAVAID. Also, switching to a secondary NAVAID for a cross check, then drifting while on that NAVAID and making a big correction to counter correct when the primary NAVAID is re selected.

I've seen all of those behaviors on final approach in the years that I taught instrument flying. Any of them is a possible explanation for the course deviations made flying an approach for which the full NAVIAD configuration was not set up. See the report, again, on why the post mortem included questions on why they flew that approach with the NAVAIDS they had.

Because that's the way things happened. You really expect us to believe that is of no significance, *pilot*?

Your ignorance is no excuse, boy.

When an official confidential chronology of the event says that two did.

And that was based on what datum? Initial reports? Guess what? Per the article I linked you to, the initial reports were confused and in some cases very wrong. Warren Christopher was the Secretary of State. How is his diary, based on second hand reports, and it seems the early conflicting reports, a valid source of the time line?

Who was that second person, DR? The government won't tell us but maybe you know, being so intimately familiar with the case.

He's behind the grassy knoll, in Dallas, BAC.

I'm not a 911 Twoofer, and you know that.

You argue as one, and you fail to prove your extraordinary claim. So, you are treated as a CT.

And the rear door of the plane was found open when the rescuers arrived. If there was an assassin on the plane, couldn't the assassin have left by that means?

If such a mystery man could have survived the crash without grevious injury, perhaps. See how Kelly "survived" the crash. Broken and dying. There's your assassin, BAC, "surviving the crash" broken and dying.

Sorry, you do not convince. You are assuming Superman.

Frankly, your being a democrat

That is enough of the insults, scumbag. Disagreeing with you does not make one a Democrat.

Yes. They were appointed by Clinton, served at his behest and directly advised him on matters of importance. If ordered to skip the first phase of the normal investigation and assume an accidental crash, they would do it. "Yes Sir!"

Only if that were a lawful order. Do you have a diary record of Clinton giving that order?
You presume they play to your logic. See above, for a more intelligent estimate of Fogleman's reasons to take that unusual measure. I also smell your moronic "Clinton's Military" rubbish coming out again.

No, you are not. You are acting obtuse out of desperation. Why doesn't the Air Force just do away with the SIB in all crash investigations, DR? Why was this one different?

Politics. The Air Force, and the Navy in its procedures, don't do away with the SIB (Mishap Investigation in Navy Speak) since it provides lessons learned for future safety. (Or, they provide evidence that lessons remain unlearned.) See above for a political reason Fogleman made that move, due to the political climate, the mistrust, between the administration and the military.

Could it be that instead of being polite and saying you misrepresented what I said, I should have just called you a liar?

You are already being insulting enough, why stop, CT?

And another thing, BAC. If your motivation is to spring new evidence on the sell out to China, why are you arguing here, on the internet, with a stranger, instead of taking your case to a conservative media outlet or the FBI? We'll assume the liberal media outlets are biased enough not to want to bother, but if you have a case, one that is more than CT level nonsense, why are you wasting your time here?

Easy. You Don't Have The Evidence.

The person who is uninformed is the poster that's unaware that military officials were also saying the crash was due to weather before the investigation even began.

Try keeping it straight. The weather was a contributig factor. Once again, your attempt to use your ignorance to assert that weather was, or wasn't, a factor, when the words explicitly used from one of the statements, Foglemans IIRC the last thread, was "not a significant" factor. I will again remind you that

If They Were Not IMC, There Is No Accident.

Therefore, I state yet again, that weather was a contributing factor, but since the AF flies in bad weather a lot, human error was a more signficant factor. That is consistent with what the USAF has officially stated.

CFIT. That's the verdict.

Now, why do you think Fogleman's remarks were made the way they were? If he had claimed that weather was the over riding factor, and the Air Force is justifiably proud of its all weather pilots, he is in effect saying "We can't fly well in bad weather" to some critics' delight. He's the CoS of the Air Force, he's not going to present a position that says, roughly, that the weather was too bad for the Air Force to be flying in. It's a pride thing.

I already posted the official statement by the military saying that they found NO evidence that pressure was applied to Brown's pilot by a VIP on any leg of his flight.

That's a disingenuous statement, since anyone who could relate that is dead. Hit a mountain. CFIT.

But, that statement, which looks politically motivated to me, looks crafted to me to ensure USAF does not get in a row with the Clintonistas. (Remember, the AF failed in the mission to deliver Brown to the ground, so this is not a good time to get into a pissing contest with Clinton and his chumps) But you take that statement as some sort of rock engraving. Why? Seems due to its coinciding with your view, you cherry pick, and you can choose to ignore the motive behind it. Blinders on, BAC, and noted.

No ... the evidence is a plane performing an odd manuever when it was 3 minutes from the runway and already lined up on that runway

See above, I noted there are a number of in cockpit and flight crew issues problems that can arise and divert the crew from their course.

Also, the USAF report not did not come to the same conclusion as a writer in Aviation Week. Who had access to more facts? Who was doing more speculation? Why are you leaning on speculation so heavily?

Fine. I used the wrong word. The ALTITUDE of the base of the clouds that day was below the crash site. Fact.

Right. That means the plane was in the clouds when they hit the crash site. That means the weather had some influence on the crash, since the pilots obviously didn't see the ground before they hit it.

CFIT.

Got it?

But only the safety investigation (SIB) is stated in Air Force documents as having the "goal" of "determining the cause" of the crash.

Arguing from ignorance, again. I offer you my experience, and you ignore it. Pearls before swine.

The accident investigation (AIB) is only charged with expressing an "opinion" about it and government documents state that the AIB is to use the SIB as a starting point for it's investigation.
So again we find you misrepresenting the facts ... no, make that lying since I believe I previously posted you the relevant statements from the government documents.

No, I understand that reg, you don't. No lying involved. The Navy and the Air Force have to follow common DoD guidelines in both finding fault, where applicable, and in doing the safety focused investigations that are not fault finding, but are aimed at gaining lessons learned, in a no fault, protected environment, to improve safety. It really is that simple.

http://public.scott.af.mil/hqamc/library/facts/aib.htm "The sole purpose of safety investigations is mishap prevention and to determine the cause(s) of accidents. ... snip ... Accident investigations provide a publicly releasable report of the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident and include a statement of opinion as to why the accident happened."

Right. That is consistent with what I said. That is why the SIB is protected, and the AIB is not. You CAN'T use SIB results to pursue punative action, you can with AIB. They share the same physical evidence.

What I stated to you is how one does such investigations, and you, in a fit of pique, claim I am obfuscating? I say that because I have done them, i the Navy, when I was assigned to flight and ground mishaps.

You are, once again, arguing from ignorance.

I don't understand your obsession with trying to protect te Clinton Administration

I am not, BAC, I am dealing with you the way I deal with any other CT fool. You make an extraordinary claim, you can't back it up, so you substitute fiction where you have no facts. BAC, the US actually landed men on the moon, got it?

Yes or no ... are you against an exhumation and autopsy of Brown's body at this point?

Not against it at all. I fully support it, particularly if his family wants it done. Have you filed papers? Do you need a sig on a petition? If his family thinks he was murdered, they can get a court ordered exhumation order, like Anna Nicole Smith's family did.

Go for it, BAC. If you help them come to peace with how Ron Brown died, then you have done them a service, regardless of how it plays out. Hell, I'll buy you a case of beer, via BPSCG or Tricky as intermediary, if you can pull that off. A case of beer and dinner for you and a date if the exhumation proves that Ron Brown died from a gunshot. Save this post, or PM it to BPSCG. He dislikes Clinton, and I trust him.

BAC attempting to misquote Darth Rotor said:
You have pathologists ... snip ... magic and all.

BAC said:
You just can't help yourself, I guess.

Pure dishonesty. BAC. Why do you do this?

Darth Rotor said:
Why are you so obsessed with this fantasy?

What's Clinton's legacy to you?

Nothing. His legacy is his problem, not mine. He tried to break through careless negligence the best military in the world while I was in it, as did his wife and political cronies, which is why they have my eternal disdain.

He made his bed, he has to sleep in it.

Slick Willy shot himself in the foot by his choices.

me said:
me said:

Not only am I a retired military pilot, Naval Aviator to be precise, I was on duty in theater the day of the crash.

Click to expand...

So you claim.

What is your problem, boy? Do you lie so often that you don't believe anyone else is truthful?

ETA: While I am at it, what part of this report do you charge that the Air Force was lying about? They cannot have been telling the truth and your CT be true, so tell me, specifically, what part of this summary do you claim is false?

http://web.archive.org/web/20021002034252/http://www.af.mil/news/Jun1996/n19960610_960550.html

DR

Gravy · Aug 19, 2007

This nonsense again? Why?

Drudgewire · Aug 19, 2007

Gravy said:
This nonsense again? Why?

Sort of the reasoning that Penn and Teller give at the start of their BS episode about the War on Drugs: We've been picking on the left too much.

With all the 9/11 silliness in this forum, most of it propagated and eaten up by folks with pre-conceived distrust and/or dislike of the current administration, it's nice to be reminded that crackpots aren't limited to any one ideology or political wing.

beachnut · Aug 19, 2007

Drudgewire said:
Sort of the reasoning that Penn and Teller give at the start of their BS episode about the War on Drugs: We've been picking on the left too much.

With all the 9/11 silliness in this forum, most of it propagated and eaten up by folks with pre-conceived distrust and/or dislike of the current administration, it's nice to be reminded that crackpots aren't limited to any one ideology or political wing.

It is irony squared with this wing nut. He counters 9/11 woo, but manufactures this woo.

gnome · Aug 19, 2007

BAC--before you decide that DR is a blind Clinton apologist that will believe anything to defend him, you should try to reconcile that with his other posts here.

DR is nobody's liberal shill.

Set aside for a moment your questions and describe to us what you think really happened.

BeAChooser · Aug 22, 2007

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90750

Darth Rotor said:
So why hasn't the body been exhumed since Clinton left office?

You are kidding, aren't you? Bush told everyone before he became President that he was going to "move on" with regards to all the allegations surrounding Clinton ... and that's just what he did. He did this for any number of reasons. A belief that pursuing it would be bad for the country and government. Or perhaps it was fear that the democRATS would retaliate with the dirt they'd surely collected on him and the rest of the GOP. Or perhaps they were just holding on to that *ace*, just in case. And the only other group that might have brought about an investigation, the mainstream media, was securely in the camp of the democRATS. Hence, not even interest in the story.

Darth Rotor said:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You don't provide support for your claim.

You don't think these are extraordinary?

http://www.newsmax.com/images/ronbrown/Photo_1.jpg

http://www.newsmax.com/images/ronbrown/Photo_2.jpg

You don't think the fact that all but one of the pathologists that have made any comments about the Ron Brown case have said it looked like a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied is extraordinary evidence? That fact and all the other suspicious facts I listed are easily verifiable. The real question is why you want to just dismiss them out of hand.

Darth Rotor said:
One has to infer a suicide due to the crash itself, for your theory to work, or Superman.

No, one does NOT have to infer this based on the known facts. That is nothing but a strawman, as has been pointed out with an explanation why several times now. You simply ignore the explanation and repeat the claim, ad nauseum. Why are you so desperate to ignore this, that you would engage in a very transparent strawman?

Darth Rotor said:
You do not demonstrate proof of a survivor. You don't have a list of bodies found versus list on the plane that shows a missing body. So, you make up a fantasy Superman, kamikaze shooter.

Why are you desperate, DR? I have proven that at least one person survived the crash itself. I did it by quoting the Air Force's own briefing. And you are LYING when you state there was a "list on the plane". I pointed out to you an Air Force statement that no passenger list was found ... that they had to reconstruct who they THOUGHT were on the plane. And, again, you repeat the kamikaze strawman. Have you no shame? Is that why you are willing to demolish your credibility over this topic?

Darth Rotor said:
You do not demonstrate proof of the entirety of the dozens of officers who handled the AIB falsified their findings.

I've made no claim that dozens of officers falsified their findings. This is another strawman or yours. Have you no shame?

What I have claimed is that the White House, JCS and Commerce controlled the investigation so that the *officers* never investigated when the pathologists raised the red flag. Instead, they ASSUMED it was accident from the very beginning and ignored anything that seemed out of place ... like why they lost transponder and voice contact with the plane when it was still 8 miles from the crash site ... like what happened to that missing portable beacon ... like what are the odds the man in charge of that beacon would just happen to commit suicide (using a shotgun to the chest) a couple days after the crash over a failed romance. Even after the whistle blew, they continued to control the *officers*. They punished the whistleblowers rather than properly investigating the concern. In fact, when Reno claimed the DOJ had thoroughly investigated the matter, she forgot to mention that they didn't even interview the whistleblowers. Doesn't that strike you a little odd, DR?

Darth Rotor said:
You do not demonstrate proof of any action in the cockpit that was other than pilots flying in IMC to an unfamiliar field.

Why'd they lose transponder and voice contact with the plane when it was still 8 miles from the crash site? Hmmmmm?

Darth Rotor said:
You cannot offer a coherent theory that takes the crew and its passengers from boarding, to flight, to crash, that supports your extraordinary claims.

This is completely false. I have offered one several times. You just ignore it and repeat your suicide shooter strawman. Because you have no shame. Furthermore, you keep getting the cart before the horse. Murder investigations usually start by proving there was a murder. Then they find the how and why.

Darth Rotor said:
You also ignore the relationship between Clinton's administration the Military in the mid 1990's, which was rather mistrustful.

I did not ignore that. I addressed that point. You just ignored what I said about that.

Darth Rotor said:
Look at General Fogleman's position. If he convenes a SIB, the results cannot be divulged publicly, by law and regulation.

This is not entirely true. The factual portion of the SIB can be publically released. Why is there was no mention of a lead snowstorm in Brown's head in the official AIB report, DR? That's a fact that an SIB might have discovered and publically reported as a fact.

What was the purpose of skipping the portion of the process whose specific goal is to find the cause of the crash? You express concern that only the AIB can divulge its results but what good are those results if they fail to mention important facts like that? The AIB report was given to the families and media, yet they had no idea until the whistleblowers surfaced that the x-rays, photos and views of the pathologists completely contradict what the official report claimed about the nature of the wound and cause of the wound. The AIB is worthless if it contains lies, DR.

Darth Rotor said:
If he convenes an AIB, the results can.

This is a red herring. Have you no shame? An AIB would have been convened anyway under the normal crash investigation methodology, and it would have run mostly concurrent with an SIB. Holding an SIB would not have prevented an AIB and its public disclosures. The ONLY reason given by the military for skipping the SIB was that it would prolong release of the final report. But as I noted, Air Force documents in that time period state it normally takes 60 to 90 days for that report to be released ... and it took over 60 days in the Brown case. So skipping the SIB didn't have a marked impact on the timeline. The public and families still had to wait over 2 months. So again, the reason given for skipping it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Darth Rotor said:
If he orders a report that is then not releasable,

This is a strawman. The AIB would normally release a public document in about the same amount of time as occurred.

Darth Rotor said:
he knows he'll be charged with a cover up.

Ironic that folks are charging coverup because they skipped the portion of the process whose goal is to determine the cause.

Darth Rotor said:
In the interest of being open

If the interest was in being open, why did they not include the opinions of the pathologists and the original x-rays for Brown's head in the official report? Hmmmmmm? I think you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, Mr *pilot*.

Darth Rotor said:
and diffusing a potential political time bomb

The potential political time bomb that the White House and Commerce were most interested in diffusing were the allegations that Brown would have made if he turned state's evidence regarding Chinagate and campaign finance violations, as he threatened to do a short time before the ill fated flight.

Darth Rotor said:
"We have nothing to hide." That was the position he took.

Then why did they hide the existance of the first set of x-rays ... the ones showing a lead snowstorm and a bone plug that was displaced relative to the hole? Why did they hide the fact that pathologists at the examination said the wound looked like a bullet hole and Brown should be autopsied. And, by the way, by law that sort of comment was supposed to bring in the FBI in cases like the death of a Secretary of Commerce.

Darth Rotor said:
I am going to ask you the same thing. You presume it was a murder

You are wrong. I'm simply asking the same question that the nation's top military and civilian pathologists in the case asked. Why was there no autopsy when one was clearly called for given the facts? I'm suggesting it might have been a murder and I've provided motive and opportunity for such a crime. You just choose to ignore all that, DR. I wonder why ...

Darth Rotor said:
Let's go through this again. How many people on that flight is there evidence of surviving the crash? Zero.

You are so desperate that you continue to repeat this falsehood. The official Air Force report states that Kelly survived the crash. She died after it ... during the rescue effort. And the official chronology found in Warren Christopher's files said that two passengers survived the crash. A fact that the government has never mentioned to this day.

Darth Rotor said:
Looking at the condition she was in, where do you find the premise to assume any other "survivor" would be in any better shape, as in, able to get away?

But again, would be killers could not be guaranteed that would be the end result. People survive plane crashes all the time. As the Pathologist Wecht stated X-rays indicated Brown's bones were generally intact, with a breakage of the pelvic ring that was survivable.

Darth Rotor said:
That analysis was an estimate, let's call it an educated guess, since the doctors were professinals in the field

They were more than just "professionals in the field". These were among the most qualified forensic pathologists in the military when it comes to gunshot wounds. Cogswell was certainly expert enough to know a lead snowstorm when he saw one. He and the others were certainly qualified enough to ascertain with some certainty there was brain matter in the hole. So tell us, DR, was Gormley just "mistaken" when he wrote for the final AIB report that all he saw was bone matter in the wound and there was nothing unusual about the x-rays so he declared it a death due to blunt force trauma? Or was he lying?

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
The fact that you can't explain what caused the loss of transponder and voice contact with the plane when it was 8miles from the crash site is substantiated.

I don't have to, I am not making the extraordinary claim. There are half a dozen reasons for that happening, like a popped circuit breaker, a short, a bump to stby from 3A/C, a malfunction, any of which could have done so.

Gee, don't you think the AIB should have explored this? That would be pretty serious, wouldn't it?

Darth Rotor said:
You logic is: If transponder reported lost, THEN murder.

Strawman. That is not the theory. The problem is that the transponder and voice contact were both lost at the same time. What would cause that, Mr *pilot*?

Darth Rotor said:
Also, did you note the bit where the Dubrovnik airport official lost radar contact 5 minutes before ETA, not five minutes before the crash?

There was no confusion in the Aviation Week report about the plane being 7-8 miles from the crash site when both transponder and voice contact were lost. It doesn't matter if it was 3 minutes before the crash (as it was) or 5 minutes before the expected time of arrival. What you are trying to do is throw up smoke and avoid addressing the facts. And we can all see it, DR.

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
The fact that a portable beacon went missing is substantiated. The fact that the man in charge of that beacon died within a few days of the crash before he could be interviewed is substantiated.

But the relevance of that has not been established, nor substantiated.

When a magazine like Aviation Week states that a beacon like that could have been used to spoof the plane in flying the course it flew into the mountain, the relevance is established. Further relevance would be established by an exhumation and autopsy of Brown's body.

Darth Rotor said:
I see you don't have the freq. Why is that? You short on facts?

Really, DR ... do you think a portable beacon stolen from Dubrovnik would have a different frequency than Dubrovnik's?

Darth Rotor said:
The fact that there was motive to kill Brown is substantiated.

What? You presume a motive.

The sworn testimony of Nolanda Hill proves there was motive. If Brown had testified about Chinagate and Campaign Finance illegalities, the Clintons and dozens of people connected to them would have been in serious legal trouble. That's motive.

Darth Rotor said:
I'd say because he expected the AWACS data to show that. He makes a prediction. He's not the first guy to speak before he has the facts, and he won't be the last.

Now you are speculating.

Darth Rotor said:
I again ask you, please, to tell me the distance and azimuth of AWACS from Dubrovnik.

Tell you what ... since you're the guy claiming all the Air Force connections, why don't you quote the relevant portions of the AIB report on this. I'm sure you can provide them.

Darth Rotor said:
By the way, boy, beachnut is the retired Air Force pilot, I'm the retired Naval Aviator.

Whatever. One thing for sure, neither of you is a forensic pathologist.

Darth Rotor said:
BAC, if this had been a normal approach, there would not have been a crash, now would there?

Yet, figuring out why is wasn't a normal approach is really just guesswork. But what we do know for certain is that multiple pathologists said the wound in Brown's head had the characteristics of a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied.

Darth Rotor said:
Various things can have happened to induce faulty navigation, and an in close over correction. Pilot has needle drifting, starts to chase it. Co pilot notices it, calls for a course correction. That's one scenario. Another is the pilot thinks he's got visual on a landmark, a VDP, or lights that are the runway environment. He turns toward them. Co pilot challenges him, and after a bit of back and forth, in low vis, discussing the lights, they turn back to course after figuring out they had made an error. Vertigo possible, though unlikely IMO. Scan breakdown, and trouble getting a sweet signal for the NAVAID. Also, switching to a secondary NAVAID for a cross check, then drifting while on that NAVAID and making a big correction to counter correct when the primary NAVAID is re selected.

That kind of makes one not want to fly, doesn't it folks. Especially since these were amongst the best pilots the Air Force had on this type of plane. One was even an evaluator.

Darth Rotor said:
I've seen all of those behaviors on final approach in the years that I taught instrument flying.

Yeah, but these weren't students.

Darth Rotor said:
Any of them is a possible explanation for the course deviations made flying an approach for which the full NAVIAD configuration was not set up.

But still, isn't it strange that given AIB investigators were trying to explain the crash, they showed so little interest in what was clearly more than a minor course correction?

Darth Rotor said:
See the report, again, on why the post mortem included questions on why they flew that approach with the NAVAIDS they had.

But curiously, the report apparently doesn't talk about those multiple 90 degree corrections in the flight path. Why didn't they ask a question about that?

Darth Rotor said:
And that was based on what datum? Initial reports?

Apparently, it was based on a report from Ira Sockowitz at the site. You know, the guy from Commerce who was an associate of John Huang, the Chinese agent, who was a associate of Ron Brown.

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
I'm not a 911 Twoofer, and you know that.

You argue as one,

I'm the one arguing with the facts on this thread, DR. You're the person acting like a 911 Twoofer ... ignoring any fact you can't handle ... ignoring what the experts (the pathologists) say about those facts ... throwing out strawmen and red herrings.

Darth Rotor said:
If there was an assassin on the plane, couldn't the assassin have left by that means?

If such a mystery man could have survived the crash without grevious injury, perhaps.

Why couldn't he leave while the plane was in flight? And why do you assume he would have to be on the flight, anyway? The facts in the case don't require it.

Darth Rotor said:
Quote: Frankly, your being a democrat

That is enough of the insults, scumbag. Disagreeing with you does not make one a Democrat.

The Ron Brown case is a very good litmus test for them. Maybe you aren't one (as I said), but the majority of those I've encountered up to now who behave like you are turn out to be democRATS. But perhaps you have another reason for so desperately wanting this allegation to go away that you'd destroy your credibility as you have here.

Darth Rotor said:
If ordered to skip the first phase of the normal investigation and assume an accidental crash, they would do it. "Yes Sir!"

Only if that were a lawful order.

What would be unlawful about them skipping the first phase, if told to do so by Clinton?

Darth Rotor said:
The Air Force, and the Navy in its procedures, don't do away with the SIB (Mishap Investigation in Navy Speak) since it provides lessons learned for future safety.

So there were no lessons to be learned in the Ron Brown crash?

Darth Rotor said:
If your motivation is to spring new evidence on the sell out to China, why are you arguing here, on the internet, with a stranger, instead of taking your case to a conservative media outlet or the FBI?

That is a common red herring that those who argue against the facts in the Ron Brown crash throw out. Whether I do or don't doesn't change the fact that you don't seem to want to talk about those facts ... just talk around them.

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
The person who is uninformed is the poster that's unaware that military officials were also saying the crash was due to weather before the investigation even began.

Try keeping it straight. The weather was a contributig factor.

Actually, the military said weather was NOT A SIGNIFICANT contributing factor. A subtle but important difference. Too subtle for you? And your response simply ignores the fact that military officials were blaming the crash on the weather even before the investigation had begun. That's not something they usually do.

Darth Rotor said:
CFIT. That's the verdict.

Without mentioning one word about what the pathologists said at the examination of the body. Odd.

Darth Rotor said:
Now, why do you think Fogleman's remarks were made the way they were? ... snip ... He's the CoS of the Air Force, he's not going to present a position that says, roughly, that the weather was too bad for the Air Force to be flying in. It's a pride thing.

ROTFLOL! That just sounds like more spin, DR. Tell you what, since we aren't going to get anywhere here because all you want to do is speculate about reasons Fogleman (AND THE REPORT) said weather was not a significant factor, let's move on to something more concrete ...

Remember my pointing out that Acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters sent a letter to family members of the air crash victims attempting to debunk the bullet wound thesis when it surfaced? He wrote (to the families) that "The reports resulted from the opinion of an Air Force medical examiner who did not personally examine any of the CT-43 casualties. They are his opinions only. The consensus of Col. (Dr.) William Gormley, who personally examined Secretary Brown, and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology forensic community is that Secretary Brown, like the others tragically killed in the plane crash of an Air Force CT-43 aircraft in Croatia on April 3, 1996, died of injuries sustained during the mishap."

Now let's see how factual he was in the above. First, it was NOT the consensus of the AFIP forensic community that Brown died of injuries in the crash. In fact, the clear majority of AFIP pathologists whose names we know expressed concern about the nature of the wound and said Brown should have been autopsied. Cogswell, Lt Col David Hause and Major Parsons all said the wound was suspicious enough that Brown should have been autopsied. Dickerson and Gormley were the only two to claim it was blunt force trauma and Gormley later recanted his reasons for saying it. Second, Hause was, like Gormley, present at the examination of the body and personally looked at the wound. He was also considered one of AFIPs top experts on gunshot.

Peters letter said "Due to the initial appearance of Secretary Brown’s injuries, the medical examiners carefully considered the possibility of a gunshot wound. However, their examinations combined with X-rays ruled out that possibility." But both statements are demonstrable lies as I have previously demonstrated. He wrote "The alleged "bullet fragments" mentioned in the reports were actually caused by a defect in the reusable X-ray film cassettes. Medical examiners took multiple X-rays using multiple cassettes and confirmed this finding." This is also a clear lie. The military photographer who took the first set of pictures says that could not be true given that only the one photo of Brown's head shows the so-called "defect". And how curious that those "multiple x-rays" all went missing. Why didn't Peters mention that?

Peters' letter said "the medical examiner determined there was no gunshot wound, and therefore concluded there was no need for further examination. Had there been suspicion regarding the nature of Mr. Brown’s death — or the death of any other person on the aircraft — medical examiners would have pursued permission to perform a full internal examination." This too is a clear lie given that calls for an autopsy were voiced at the examination and the reasons given by Gormley for not performing an autopsy have been shown to be bogus. Furthermore, they shot a second set of x-rays because of what the first showed and took the matter up the chain of command before being ordered NOT to autopsy. All that is hardly consistent with the claim put forth by Peters that there was no suspicion regarding the nature of Brown's death.

Before ending with his "heartfelt apologies," the Peters statement revealed its real purpose: "We hope these actions will preclude credible media from pursuing this story." Now you've just ignored the above the previous times it's been mentioned. Any comments now, since you are in such a talkative mood?

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
I already posted the official statement by the military saying that they found NO evidence that pressure was applied to Brown's pilot by a VIP on any leg of his flight.

That's a disingenuous statement

Then if anyone's being disingenuous, it's the Air Force because they said that. And they have much to go on. They know how Brown behaved on his many previous flights. They were in voice contact with the plane until just before the crash. They know the pilot's records. I'd say if they say there is no evidence pressure was applied to Brown's pilot, they have a basis for saying that. You are the one throwing out unsubstantiated assertions about it, Mr *pilot*.

Darth Rotor said:
Also, the USAF report not did not come to the same conclusion as a writer in Aviation Week.

The Air Force report never even considered the possibility of foul play ... even with military pathologists talking about bullet wounds at the examination of his body and calling for an autopsy.

Darth Rotor said:
Why are you leaning on speculation so heavily?

I'm not speculating about what those pathologists said, DR. Just about the reason you are so desperate to ignore what they said and what the x-ray of Brown's head showed.

Darth Rotor said:
That means the plane was in the clouds when they hit the crash site. That means the weather had some influence on the crash, since the pilots obviously didn't see the ground before they hit it.

But that's not what the Air Force report concluded. It said that weather played NO SIGNIFICANT ROLE in the crash. It certainly would have played a significant role in the possible alternative scenario I've outlined.

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
But only the safety investigation (SIB) is stated in Air Force documents as having the "goal" of "determining the cause" of the crash.

Arguing from ignorance, again. I offer you my experience, and you ignore it. Pearls before swine.

Your CLAIMED experience. What I offered you were the exact words from Air Force documents describing the SIB and it's purpose.

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
The accident investigation (AIB) is only charged with expressing an "opinion" about it and government documents state that the AIB is to use the SIB as a starting point for it's investigation.
So again we find you misrepresenting the facts ... no, make that lying since I believe I previously posted you the relevant statements from the government documents.

No, I understand that reg, you don't. No lying involved.

Dig dig dig.

Darth Rotor said:
What I stated to you is how one does such investigations, and you, in a fit of pique, claim I am obfuscating? I say that because I have done them, i the Navy, when I was assigned to flight and ground mishaps. You are, once again, arguing from ignorance.

Dig dig dig. Readers need only examine the threads where we've discussed this to bury your credibility.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87011

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87840

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88234

Darth Rotor said:
I am dealing with you the way I deal with any other CT fool. You make an extraordinary claim, you can't back it up, so you substitute fiction where you have no facts. BAC, the US actually landed men on the moon, got it?

Dig dig dig. By the way, I also believe that the US landed men on the moon. Yet another strawman by you in this matter.

Darth Rotor said:
Quote:
Yes or no ... are you against an exhumation and autopsy of Brown's body at this point?

Not against it at all. I fully support it, particularly if his family wants it done.

This is good. Are you aware that Tracy Brown once said "Had my family known about the suspicious wound at the time, we would have requested an autopsy?" Do you know that after she met with the heads of AFIP and saw a photo of her dad's body, she wrote "I stopped caring how my father died. It may seem strange, but whether his death was an accident or an assassination, he's not coming back."

Darth Rotor said:
Have you filed papers? Do you need a sig on a petition?

You'd sign one, even after what you've written here? That strikes me as quite odd, DR.

Darth Rotor said:
What is your problem, boy?

Well for starters, I don't like being called boy by someone who shows so little respect for the facts, does it to defend an administration that did more than just hurt the military, and who apparently cares little that the pilots may have been unjustly blamed, and the pathologists and photographer unjustly punished.

Darth Rotor said:
While I am at it, what part of this report do you charge that the Air Force was lying about? They cannot have been telling the truth and your CT be true, so tell me, specifically, what part of this summary do you claim is false?

Well start with this claim: "The complete report of the investigation, including all testimony and exhibits, in full, was provided to the families of those lost in this tragic accident and to the public."

As Tracy Brown's statement above proves, the report was not complete. It didn't contain the testimony of the pathologists or images from the first set of x-rays. Care to explain why?

BeAChooser · Aug 22, 2007

Gravy said:
This nonsense again? Why?

And why do you think it is nonsense? You have some basis for just dismissing what the pathologists and photographer said? You have some basis for dismissing the other suspicious facts I listed?

BeAChooser · Aug 22, 2007

Drudgewire said:
it's nice to be reminded that crackpots aren't limited to any one ideology or political wing.

You are welcome to try and dispute what the pathologists said and the x-rays show. Or are you just another cheerleader?

BeAChooser · Aug 22, 2007

beachnut said:
It is irony squared with this wing nut.

The real irony is that you claim this without being able to offer ANYTHING to dispute what the pathologists said and the x-ray shows.

The real irony is that you claim to be a friend of the pilot's family, yet you are quite content to let his name and reputation be smeared, even though he might not have been responsible.

The real irony is in folks who claim to dislike Clinton yet ignore the pathologists and all the reasons Clinton might have wanted Ron Brown not to turn state's evidence as he threatened to do a short time before the crash.

BeAChooser · Aug 22, 2007

gnome said:
Set aside for a moment your questions and describe to us what you think really happened.

I believe you'll find I already did on the various threads I linked above. Why don't you check them out.

BTW, I responded to you in detail when you tried to use the Snopes article to argue Brown died by blunt force trauma. Why did you just disappear, gnome?

Gravy · Aug 22, 2007

BeAChooser said:
And why do you think it is nonsense? You have some basis for just dismissing what the pathologists and photographer said? You have some basis for dismissing the other suspicious facts I listed?

Here's one good reason:

BeAChooser said:
Colonel Cogswell said he found nothing at the site that could explain the hole in Brown's head.

Colonel Cogswell examined every small piece of the 737? No part of a 737 or its contents can make a hole in a person's head? Do you really believe that?

Here's another good reason: X-rays show hole in head. No bullet inside. No exit wound. I asked you to produce similar x-rays where the wound was produced by a bullet. Still waiting.

Nonsense? You betcha.

Kevin_Lowe · Aug 22, 2007

The least implausible version of BAC's implicit TC that I can tease out is that Evil Conspirators (1) sabotaged the plane's communications gear, (2) lured it into crashing with a false beacon, and then (3) ran up to Brown as he staggered out of the wreckage and killed him with an exotic weapon they had brought along that made suspicious-looking wounds.

The first two steps are far-fetched but not impossible, but what's with the third? Why is our hypothetical assassin rushing to the crash site to polish off survivors armed with a wacky weapon that is tailor-made to arouse suspicion?

Hans · Aug 22, 2007

But Gravy you have heard of the carbon dioxide bullet - the one that dissolves after being fired. You just just need a bit of liquid nitrogen....

Gravy · Aug 22, 2007

Hans said:
But Gravy you have heard of the carbon dioxide bullet - the one that dissolves after being fired. You just just need a bit of liquid nitrogen....

I was thinking that he was stabbed with an icicle, but that doesn't explain the flecks of silvery metal found around the wound. We all know that planes don't contain silvery metal (if they did, how could they fly?), so I guess this will always remain a stormy weather, bad beacon, unfamiliar and unauthorized airport, mountain crash murder mystery.

HyJinX · Aug 22, 2007

Gravy said:
I was thinking that he was stabbed with an icicle, but that doesn't explain the flecks of silvery metal found around the wound. We all know that planes don't contain silvery metal (if they did, how could they fly?), so I guess this will always remain a stormy weather, bad beacon, unfamiliar and unauthorized airport, mountain crash murder mystery.

Something tells me these guys might need to get involved...

azazal · Aug 22, 2007

Hmm, I'll see if I can get my brother to look at the X-rays and see what he thinks. I'm guessing being a neuro radiologist, he has some expertise in reading x-rays of the head

dudalb · Aug 22, 2007

It will be interesting what new Conspiracy crap will be propagated about the Next President.
And you know we will have a whole new set of wackjob Conspiracies,no matter who wins the White House in 2008.
I would not be surprised if a lot of people who hate the Bush Administration and are now on the political left will switch tothe political right if the Dems do take over in 2008. They will hate anybody in a position of authority.

dudalb · Aug 22, 2007

And the CT"s form a political faction of their own. You can be a left wing militiant or a right wing militent...the main thing is to believe in a massive,evil conspiracy.
The fact that the favorite Presidential candidates of the CT's are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich..two politicians who,except for Iraq,are at opposite ends fo the political spectrum...should tell you something that the CT's have a Big Tent concept. This is why when it comes to kook Conspiracy theories,neither the Left or the Right has much credibility accsuing the other guy.

Sword_Of_Truth · Aug 22, 2007

dudalb said:
It will be interesting what new Conspiracy crap will be propagated about the Next President.
And you know we will have a whole new set of wackjob Conspiracies,no matter who wins the White House in 2008.
I would not be surprised if a lot of people who hate the Bush Administration and are now on the political left will switch tothe political right if the Dems do take over in 2008. They will hate anybody in a position of authority.

If you really want some good CTs to play with, hope for a Romney win in '08.

There are a few people on the right side of the 9/11 woo who will jump into whatever hysterical silliness gets dredged up over Romney with both feet.

Brown murder conspiracy split from Bush v Clinton Impeachment

Banned

Salted Sith Cynic

Downsitting Citizen

Critical Doofus

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Downsitting Citizen

Unregistered

Philosopher

Downsitting Citizen

Graduate Poster

Attachments

Ninja Wave: Techno Ninja

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing